Extremism. What is extremism?
Citizens siding, with liberty, with the Constitution, protesting government overreach or G.K. Butterfield's last two years that have defined him as a practitioner of Governance through the tyranny of the majority?
G.K. Butterfield voted in support of:
- --Cap & Trade --- ignoring conservative input and attempting to force poverty on the nation through higher energy prices. Immoral.
- --ObamaCare --- ignoring the input of the citizenry and conservatives and breaking the bond between consumer and health care producer. Immoral.
- --$13 trillion financial bailout --- ignoring the input of the citizenry and conservatives and passing the costs of bailing out current failure to unborn generations. Immoral.
- --Failed Stimulus --- ignoring the input of the citizenry and conservatives and wasting tax dollars by running them through a soulless government. Immoral.
- But voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment. Immoral.
G.K. Butterfield has proven himself to be an uncompromising statist who ignores not only the opposite side of the isle but the citizenry and state he pretends to represent. One can not put 1/6 of one's home state's economy under the direct influence of the federal government and claim to represent their state.
How is it, then, that G.K. Butterfield can feel comfortable with tacitly charging Ashley Woolard, a man who sides with the Constitution, liberty and the value of American Heritage, of extremism? The answer is that he has been swimming so long with Pelosi, Reid and Obama that has lost sight of the Constitution, the state of North Carolina, and the people he represents.
It is truly sad where the immoral governance of G.K. Butterfield has taken our nation.
I don't always agree with the position taken by our politicians but to call one "Immoral" is beyond reason. People need to stop and consider for a moment that when a politician takes a position as the representative of a group of people, he will almost always anger many others. Those angered are called the opposition and should a politician take the position of the opposition then he will anger the opposite side so all people should realize that you will not please all the people all of the time. If you are not pleased with the position taken by your representative then you should vote him or her out of office but you should not consider a person to be Immoral simply because they did not do the things you wanted done. If you want things done your way you should do them yourself but bare in mind that you will anger someone always with your actions and then you will be subject to the lable of "Immoral" and I'm sure you will not think that shoe fits..
ReplyDeleteI didn't call Butterfield immoral, but rather his governance immoral.
ReplyDeleteAll the pertinent bills of the past 2 years that Butterfield has voted for has been immoral and by immoral I mean they each infringe on either market or individual choice.
Lastly each of the votes mentioned in this post have been explored on this blog and have been found logically immoral, but each argument boils down to:
Infringing on liberty = immoral.