To the editor:
I am writing in response to Natasha Ufema's rebuttal to John Brittain's Aug. 19 letter to the editor.
She brings up the obvious points that lead to the conclusion that both the Democrats and the Republicans have not fulfilled their duty to the citizens of this country.
The Democrats and Republicans voted for the wars and programs that put the United States in the financial, military and societal position it finds itself. The voting public elected the leaders we have. They are ultimately responsible for the condition they find themselves in.
There is no doubt that President Obama is a socialist. Income redistribution is his priority. His entire strategy is to promise his audience that he will give them something they did not earn by taking it from those who did. One could argue that he has Marxist leanings as well. His statements are eerily echoing the same thoughts and strategy espoused by Karl Marx, Lenin and Friedrich Engels.
Communism is the next step in the evolution of the socialist/marxist political systems. Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim II-sung, are the kind of leaders you get when you go down that road. Their leadership resulted in the death of literally millions of people they found to be a potential obstacle to their plans. As they say, be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.
If you want the government to control every aspect of your life from cradle to grave then you agree with Marx. If you want "fairness" and "equal treatment" at the expense of others, then you agree with Marx. If you want no "property rights" and the property of others at their expense then you agree with Marx. If you want everyone to have essentially the same resources and income then you agree with Marx.
Of course, there will be an elite group of people that have the wealth and resources to live a life of luxury. You will not be one of them. They will tell you where to live, where to work, what school to attend, what to eat, what to wear, what health care you will receive, etc.
Conservatives understand this and refuse to stand idly by while President Obama and the Democrats attempt to restructure the country to suit their idea of "fairness."
The Tea Party's call for less obtrusive government, balanced budgets, accountability of the government are not "shenanigans." The Tea Party exists because the "government" has not been responsive to the needs of the country. Both parties sent our manufacturing jobs overseas and allowed unfettered imports to drive existing businesses out of business for the false benefit of uplifting other countries economies. Loose regulation enforcement of our financial institutions destroyed the financial stability of millions of individuals and various entities.
Ms. Ufema's comments, "Sure, we need to eventually work toward less government in our lives, but is this the best time to play the obstructionist card? We need creative, non-partisan, progressive leaders who have specific plans for making America great again and sadly, I don't think anyone we've elected to take on this formidable task is cutting the mustard."
Ms. Ufema's ending statement provided a litmus test for "cutting the mustard." The Tea party is "non-partisan." They stand for limited federal government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, free markets and returning political power to the states and the people. They have specific plans. The answer appears to be clearly reflected in the "Tea Party." They should "obstruct" any attempt to create a socialist/marxist state.
Clyde Bailey
Lewistown
