February will mark the eight year anniversary of my weekly ramblings; a time over which readers have responded via letters to the editor, e-mails, snail mails, personal contacts and phone calls. This feedback has covered the spectrum from praise to death threats and to maintain my focus, I give similar attention to both. This is harder than it appears. If I target my column towards supporters, my beliefs become tainted by the desire for atta-boys; the vortex which has sucked in the establishment wing of the GOP. Main Street, responsible, moderate Republicans, or whatever trendy moniker they prefer, so yearn for a pat on the head, they help advance the Democrat’s leftist agenda and call it cooperation or compromise. No longer political warriors, they have become meaningless eunuchs in our battle to restore American liberty. Conversely, if I modify my columns to appease those wishing me physical harm, I have surrendered to the Saul Alinsky tactics masterfully wielded by the Democrat attack machine.

Therefore, in my desire to advance the principles of limited government, I charge straight ahead every week never re-addressing an issue raised by a reader…until now. I received a very brief e-mail from Jim, and he takes an erroneous position typifying people making political decisions via feelings rather than thought. Because this flaw is dangerously ubiquitous, I am responding to Jim in this public arena.

Jim writes, “As a Christian, unlike you I believe in a compassionate government, and the benefits of all of us getting together to insure ourselves.” If I were a Saul Alinsky trained tactician, I would scream Jim said I was not a Christian putting him on defense and thereby changing the focus of the entire debate. He did not say such. Read the sentence again. He believes it is Christian to support a compassionate government; a misdirection more consistent with the wealth redistribution principles of Marx than charity as defined in scripture. In order for the transfer of wealth to be considered charity it must come willingly and personally. Using the full force and power of government to remove money from your neighbor’s wallet is not compassion it is theft and Uncle Sam is robbing us blind under the guise it is for our own good. Remember, government has no job. For it to give away even a single penny, it must first steal it from someone who has earned it. When the ruling class buys votes by offering new and improved freebies to the masses, such as Obamacare, some poor chump pouring concrete in Cleveland has to work overtime to pay for their ruler’s generosity. When the master keeps 100 percent of the bounty produced by the sweat of another person it is called slavery. What is it called when the master only keeps 50 percent? Is it not still slavery? Think about it. We have descended back into tyranny, but it is disguised as compassion or charity and those of us who saw it coming could not convince others it was a scam. Jim, do you understand why you are wrong?