9/19/12, No. 53
Before I begin, let me ask you this: Have you ever noticed that we TEA Partiers dont use an apostrophe in Dont, as in “Dont tread on me”? It is not because we dont know grammar. It is because apostrophes indicate contraction. And contractions only occur in socialist economies.
Now, to the main business at hand: Clay Yarborough (Jacksonville City Councilman) and I think alike. He does not believe that anyone should have to pay for other people’s children. He expressed this sentiment to me in an email about a year ago concerning a pending city council vote. I had emailed him about this vote to reduce the funding of the Jacksonville’s Children’s Commission. One of the programs the Commission distributes financial resources to is the DLC Nurse & Learn in Murray Hill.
The DLC is the only daycare center in all of Jacksonville willing to accept kids with severe impairments and/or medical needs. What are working parents / guardians to do when no daycare will take their disabled children? If DLC’s funding were cut, it was going to have to shut its doors.
In response Yarborough wrote back to me that he did not believe the Children’s Commission should receive any city funding whatsoever. He said he did not support the idea of anyone having to pay for organizations that help other people’s children, whether it be the DLC or any other worthy group. He wrote that he would pray for the disabled children. That, he said, was the most he could do.
I was SOOO relieved. I thought that he might cave and vote for the funds, that he might give in to the demands of the libtards that a program for disabled children be funded! But Yarborough put my mind at ease, making clear that disabled children are of no concern to him, that they are not his problem. Nor are they mine. I do not believe in paying for other people’s children either, be they healthy or disabled. I do not believe in paying for any children. At all! I do not even believe in paying for my own. That is why I do not have any . . . that I know of.
Being a TEA Partier is a matter of being willing to make the hard choices. That is what we TEA Partiers are about, making the hard choices. AND BOY, ARE WE WILLING TO MAKE THEM! In fact, we are more than willing to make them . . . we are eager! WE CANNOT WAIT! WE LOVE MAKING THEM. MAKING THEM MAKES OUR DAY! Making them shows we are willing to ‘man up.’ And making them gives us a little thrill. Oh, okay, I will admit it: making them gives us a BIG thrill.
Clay and I have both read The Sociopath’s Manifesto. We are both “Dont tread on me” types. Great minds think alike.
Who is treading on me, you ask? The pillow angels—other people’s sick and disabled kids. Children with serious birth defects. They are trampling all over my rights. It is time people ‘manned up’ and did something about all of these so-called ‘pillow angels.’ Time someone made the hard choices. People like Clay and I. So, I have a proposal. Like all of mine, it is modest.
The problem: There are these children some people call ‘pillow angels.’ They are so impaired they can barely move. Parental nurturing of them becomes morbid. What could be more pointless! How do you “raise” a child who is never going to amount to anything more than a vegetable. These children are wretched; they might as well just get it over with and die. What’s worse, their fathers refuse to ‘man up’ and make the hard choices. These fathers will not do what any liberty-loving man would do. As a consequence, our taxes go up.
Three examples of the 47%
Looks are deceiving.
Dont be fooled!
Born to mooch: three examples of the 47%..
People become mawkish when they see these children. They cannot face the facts. The facts? There are about half a million pillow children in the U.S., and they account for a part of the 47%. Their parents feel entitled to government services. They cannot help it. It is just the way they are. They become perversely solicitous on behalf of their sorry, pathetic offspring. They claim they will become destitute trying to take care of them on their own. But, you see—THAT is the problem! They continue to take care of them.
I think you begin to see where I am going with this. The TEA Party principle is to defend freedom—the freedom, that is, of not being tread upon by anyone. Even by those who cannot walk.
By the way, if you have ever wondered how to ‘man up’ to an ailing or disabled person, here are two TEA Partiers demonstrating just what to do:
Go to minute .52
One man in a black vest and black cap and another wearing a tie & white shirt demonstrate how we TEA Partiers behave toward moochers with Parkinson’s disease.
The Final Solution:
The rattlesnake is the symbol of American independence. What better way to solve this pillow-angel problem than to make direct use of it. To keep ourselves a free people, I recommend we place a rattlesnake in the bedroom or hospital room of each and every pillow angel. With about half a million or so pillow angels in the United States, it will take a while to round up enough rattlesnakes, but we can do it. Fortunately, right now there is a rattlesnake population boom in west Texas.
The rattlesnake will be placed directly onto the body of the pillow angel. The only hitch is, rattlesnakes dont attack unless provoked. Therefore, the caregiver will have to pick up the child’s floppy arms and wave them frantically until the coiled rattlesnake strikes. At the child, hopefully, not the caregiver. It may take up to a minute.
One way or another, the fangs will sink into and rip the child’s flesh, and the venom quickly will stream to the heart. With enough of these snake attacks, it will be only a matter of time before we start seeing a reduction in that 47% figure. And, as the percentage dwindles, our national budget will come back into balance, and higher taxes will be avoided.
That is the TEA Party Final Solution: snakebite the angels. It is a matter of making the hard choices.
In case the rattlesnake thing does not work, we can use pillows. Back in the day—when the Constitution was being written—the father of the household was expected to not look to government for help. There was just him and his family on a farm and a few neighbors.
He could not leave the problem of a defective baby to his wife to take care of. Assuming she survived the childbirth, she was probably too overwhelmed with grief and hindered by maternal concern to take control of the situation herself.
So, soon after the birth, the father would have to do what any liberty-loving man must do. He would have to make the hard choices. He would have to take matters into his own hands.
If he did not, the whole family might starve. Especially on a farm, the time and resources required to care for a defective child would make the family destitute. So, without telling his wife what he was going to do, he would distract her with some task and go to the crib and take a pillow and place it over the infant’s face and hold it there until the job was done. That is what a liberty-loving man ought to do. Later, when the mother finds the baby dead, she would assume it must have died of natural causes. And, voilà! the problem of birth defects is solved. So, you see, it is a matter of making the hard choices. It is SO simple!
It is called ‘taking personal responsibility.’ It is like with the runt of any litter. You must kill the weak ones so there is more food left for the healthier ones. It is survival of the fittest. It was expected back then, in the days of the founding fathers and when most everyone lived on a farm, to kill the runt, . . . I mean, the pillow angel, the disabled child, the child with special needs, monstrous birth, the changeling, whatever term you want to use . . . and we should expect nothing less today.
If we cut the government services, one of the two parents—most likely the father, because fathers usually are more up to making the hard choices than mothers—is going to face the facts and do what needs to be done, to keep the family from becoming destitute. But today the father often is not in the picture, so there is no one around to make the hard choices, and that is why we have so many disabled children soaking up welfare dollars.
Keeping pillow angels alive at public expense is ridiculously wasteful and morbid and should be stopped. If a family wants to keep one of its members alive using its own funds, that is fine. That’s their business. After all, it’s their money. But why should I have to pay for other people’s children, especially the disabled and sick ones!
The same goes for the millions of disabled people surviving today on account of ‘medical miracles’ but who wind up being significantly physically damaged for the rest of their lives. People like quadriplegics. They were saved by medical heroics, but now they are seriously impaired and cannot work, so they are on the public dole. And then there are the chronically sick and the frail. What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? Hitler called such types “useless eaters.”
Back in the day, when the Constitution was being written, as I have already mentioned, someone who became paralyzed quickly died of a urinary tract infection. Or, if someone became severely crippled, a family member took them out of their misery by smothering them in their sleep. Mercy killing. Pillows contained real feathers back then! And if there was not anyone around to help them die, they just starved to death. As the good Lord intended. But today, my tax dollars are used to keep such people alive. This is redistribution of wealth! This is socialism!
Clay Yarborough appears to agree. He and I think alike. Great minds, you know. He too is ready to ‘man up,’ to make the hard choices, especially when they affect other people’s children. However, he and I and TEA Partiers like us will not need rattlesnakes or pillows, just budget cuts. But the outcome will be the same. Dead pillow angels! And dead quadriplegics, and all the rest of the sick, frail, and disabled moochers, all the useless eaters, DEAD! We will be knee deep in bodies! But at last we will be free. That is, free—free—free at last, because we dared to make the hard choices.
Before I go, did you notice, Mr. Times-Union editor, that in this epistle to you, for that’s what this is, an epistle just like the ones Paul wrote, I have not used any apostrophes in the contraction “don’t”? I made a point of never using one in “don’t.” But I’ve made two exceptions. Can you find them?