Perhaps everyone should stop for a moment and think just what price do we as a nation pay for our Freedom? This one question brings forth so many answers that they could never all be addressed in just one article. However, let us do this: Let us just take a look at the price our nation has paid to be free. Think about this the next time you walk into a mall or go to a biddy league baseball game, where in both instances you do not worry about some nut job willing to blow themselves up to see a bunch of virgins because they killed and injured innocent people. Before you finish thinking about that, think of those men who died during the fight way back in the 1700s, giving their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish the independence of the United States from tyranny.
Let us see the definition of "Freedom." Freedom is defined:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: INDEPENDENCE.
Remind yourself of what our nation has lost due to some of the recent actions of our government from back in 2006 when the Democrats took over both branches of Congress. We must remember that it was the Democrats that have come close to destroying this nation, and may well have done so with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. How could we possibly state this while discussing freedom? It actually is not hard to make a comparison with these two in a way which may well allow people to see that in obtaining "free" health care, they have to give up their freedom. In the brief definition we displayed above, we see that freedom entails, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action." Now, here we get to the meat of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare!
Think of what Obamacare will do. It will force you to buy insurance you may not want at a price you do not wish to pay. This is not, "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action"; it is much more like the opposite effect upon the base of our freedom. With Obamacare, we have no choice of action. We either get insurance or we are forced to pay a tax for not complying. This is an elimination of our freedom, and yet the very people who are yelling that the Republicans are the cause of shutting down the federal government are doing just what they wish to do: Cause a problem where none existed.
Take a look at another item labeled "The Curley Effect," an idea used by the Democrats to stay in power at the cost of the freedom of the very people they claim to wish to help. Look that the details of the Curley Effect for the Democrats. It is a way to keep their voters poor and in dire need of keeping the very people in power that really do not care about them.
"In a famous 2002 article in the Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, Harvard scholars Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer named the so-called "Curley Effect" after its prototype, James Michael Curley, who served four (non-consecutive) terms as mayor of Boston between 1914 and 1950. This phenomenon, the authors explain, is the strategy of "increasing the relative size of one's political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies." Forbes magazine puts it this way: "A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment."
This gets deep in the way the Democrats have used this very idea to keep themselves in power! It shows just what the Democrats do when they go to the people in the low income neighborhoods and promise them everything. Then when they win, they do next to nothing, with the exception of making it appear as if they did something, when all they really did was ensure that the voters who voted for them remain in low incomes. If those voters get to higher incomes, the Democrats will not be able to continue to use this Curley Effect to keep their elected positions. How many times have the Democrats been elected and go to Congress and vote to actually help the low income people by giving relief to businesses in that area they obtained their main votes from, so as to make it possible for those businesses to grow and offer employment? Is it not a fact that the people in the low-income areas seem to never be able to get out the hole? The Democrats always say they will bring in new jobs and after the votes are cast and they win, they come back and offer nothing. It is part of the Curley Effect as can be seen further below.
"This typically occurs when Democratic political leaders adopt policies that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the poor, causing the latter to become economically dependent upon their political patrons, and thus to become a permanently pro-Democrat voting bloc. At the same time, these redistributive policies cause the people harmed by them (i.e., those from whom wealth is extracted) to emigrate to other cities, states, and even countries, thereby further solidifying the political power of Curleyist practitioners."
Does this sound like what the Democrats under Barack Obama have been doing? Is it similar to what is now going on in our nation today? This is just what Obama and the Democrats are doing today, and few will even notice it because it never fails that have some sort of huge problem seemingly pop up before they can fulfill their promises. In Obama's case, it began with "Fast and Furious," then went to Benghazi, then to the IRS, then to the NSA, then to Syria. Now it is the government shutdown fiasco! Each time any one of these scandals or issues begins to gain ground into just who, what, and where it began, another scandal or problem rears its ugly head. To show just how close Obama follows this ideology, one only has to read another part of the definition of the Curley Effect.
"Curleyists commonly try to gain popular support for their agendas by engaging in incendiary class-warfare rhetoric that demonizes wealthy people as exploiters of the poor. This serves to distract voters from the fact that redistributive left-wing policies may actually be responsible for the declining economic and social conditions around them, while portraying the wealthy as scapegoats upon whom all the grievances of the "underprivileged" may be heaped.
Consequently, the beneficiaries of Curleyist redistributionism invariably become unable to perceive the connection between left-wing policies and their negative consequences. Instead, they view Democrats as the noble, last line of defense that stands between them and total destitution. As a result, their loyalty to Democrats persists, undiminished, regardless of how badly conditions may get -- chiefly because they interpret the failures of leftist policies as evidence that those policies simply did not go far enough, probably as a result of conservative obstructionism. Thus do residents of Democrat-controlled cesspools of poverty and crime continue, in perpetuity, to elect Democrats to political office."
Now just how many times has the Democratic Party yelled out that the rich just make way too much and they should redistribute the wealth? This seems to be Obama's, all the while he goes out and plays golf and basketball. Obama has come up on a number of occasions and made statements that have been seen as class warfare. Both Obama and most of the Democrats have used the Curley Effect to the maximum and few, if any, of the very people they say they are out to help can even see this. A glaring example is also shown below.
"For example, it is well documented that virtually all of America's poorest cities have been led politically by Democrats for many years, even decades. In 2010, the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of 250,000 or more were: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. All of these cities had poverty rates between 24% and 32%, and none had elected a Republican mayor since the 1980s. In fact, 8 of the 10 cities had been led by Democrats for more than half a century.
Similarly, as of 2011 the ten most dangerous cities in America (in terms of violent crime) were Flint, Detroit, Saint Louis, New Haven, Memphis, Oakland, Little Rock, Baltimore, Rockford, and Stockton. All ten have been strongholds of Democratic mayors for many years.
Glaeser and Shleifer summarize their "Curley Effect" thesis as follows:
"It is generally thought in economics [that] [g]ood policies bring in resources and voters; bad ones keep them out. With the Curley effect, this result is reversed. When politicians seeking to stay in power use distortionary policies to force out their political opponents, [it] renders bad policies more, rather than less, attractive. The Curley effect, and more generally the economics of shaping the electorate, might thus shed light on a broad range of government policies that appear too bad to be true from alternative perspectives."
This is not what "Freedom" is supposed to be like!
We must question why the Democratic Party has done this to the very people it has stated it wishes to help? It seems like our freedom is lost each time we elect a Democrat or one that has strong ties to one of the groups dead set upon the destruction of the United States; that being, the socialists, the Communists, and the Marxists. The latter group, of which Obama studied, under a huge picture of Karl Marx!Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.