- The Washington Times - Friday, February 24, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

I’ve scoured the U.S. Constitution - still the nominal framework of our governance - trying to find support for the position that some Americans, as a birthright, are entitled to the confiscated property of other Americans. Alas, to no avail.

Even this is now passe as we are presently arguing over nonnative border crashers enjoying a right to their share, too. Perhaps this is why a Democratic appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, told Egypt’s Al-Hayat TV, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” This is a person who, one would think, would hold as sacrosanct the bedrock document that is the basis of her authority. But, of course, she doesn’t hold it as such; it would be much easier to stuff a new document full of leftist claptrap from the outset rather than have to interpret it continually from then on.

Even if the Democrats remain successful in subverting the actual intent of the aforementioned document and manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate with this “99 percent” obfuscation, eventually the 50.1 percent who presently pay federal income taxes - and quickly are becoming little more than sharecroppers in a superstate - will, at some point, chafe under the populist yoke of the insatiable proletariat.

Those who live off the largesse of others, otherwise known as “takers,” are no longer satisfied with basic sustenance and a safety net. They now expect and demand parity with the “makers.” Politicians, primarily those with a D after their names, are only too eager to provide an ever-expanding definition of “fair share” in exchange for votes to make this so.

Once the takers assume majority status, change by political means will become unattainable. Thereafter, these disparate forces will be set on a collision course and the volatility of the eventual impact will be unforeseeable.

DWAYNE KEITH

Valrico, Fla.