So Republican Rand Paul was talking about not voting for $40 billion aide to the Ukraine.
And I got to thinking.
The average American works hard. Some are disabled in the process. And then Republicans want to end Social Security that protects them. So Republicans play straight into the hands of the wealthy globalists? How? Why? What am I talking about?
They got the average American who has been disabled by working hard fearing for loss of Social Security. And that helps the giving theme of the Democrats? I mean who are you to say who shouldn't receive help when you expect to because you had your feet cut out from under you? Or perhaps you had your soul and skills ripped clean from you and some odd horses head voice wakes you up in torment at 2am every night. Just about giving you a stroke of some sort?
Do you question the giving to others?
And what about the people's money? The purpose is to collect and pay?
Yeah, all well and good. But collect from whom to pay whom? Collect from the billionaires? Collect from the miniature monarchy legal structures? Apparently not.
And perhaps I don't agree with giving Ukraine 40 billion either. Borrow from China to do it? I mean in a pinch of War we can always declare Chinas currency worthless per our Constitution. Money can work very funny like that. So the impetus is to do the right thing with it, because it can act ephemeral like that?
Get the American public questioning their own individual viability so that they don't dare question globalist payments?
Is it really just an accounting entry back to our DOD contractors? Is it for food? Did you ever notice that it never seems to trickle down to the lowest level? I mean if it doesn't trickle down to the lowest level within the borders of our democracy, the homeless, then is it really going to trickle down in the Ukraine.
Oops, that is one of those top secret folders sitting in an elected officials garage that he isn't supposed to have that tells the allocation of that $4o billion?
You won't understand this next part but I will say it anyway. It has to do with the argument Rand Paul made. So Davey Crocket voted for aid to families that lost houses in a fire. But then when confronted by someone gruff and obstinate he changed his mind on future decisions of gov charity? So is that fickle or is that learning or is that listening or again is it fickle wishy washy. So we are supposed to learn a moral lessen from someone who is wishy washy? What did someone who is fickle bring to the table? When they change their mind whatever they brought to the table, why they were elected, no longer is valid? I think most of us vote for someone on their track record to date and expect them to be consistent to that? I mean ask yourself who is the most easily influenced people? They are called suckers aren't they.
China, Wing Zing, Zing Pin or Wang Chew or whatever your name is over there. You threaten us and we have the Constitutional mandate to declare your currency worthless. I mean I can read the Constitution. I know what it means. I know what it is supposed to mean. I know why it was written. I know its intent.
© 2022 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment