My good friend Cato has sent me something that he encountered on his walks about the Forum. I post his guest article here....
_______
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5374095/British-banks-revolt-against-Obama-tax-plan.html
"..... British banks revolt against Obama tax plan. British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient."
What idiotic incompetence! Now Obama wants foreign banks to get entangled in enforcing our tax laws, just like he wanted foreign governments to take on Guantanamo prisoners. This guy takes no responsibility for anything and is arrogant enough to think that the whole world is going to bow down to the Anointed One.
There is a common pattern here. Just as Germany asked Obama, “Well if terrorists aren’t dangerous, why don’t you keep them?”, so England’s banks are rightly saying. “Ain’t our problem, Obama.” But this is all part of Obama’s welfare mentality: why take responsibility for your problems if you can get someone else to take care of them?
~ Cato
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Gun Control
In Texas, a woman was called in front of a grand jury for possible manslaughter charges after she shot a mugger in the back six times as he was running away with her purse. He had grabbed her purse and ran. She had her hand on her gun in side the purse and when he ran with the purse she was left holding just the gun. When asked by the grand jury why she shot him six times, in the back as he was running, under oath she replied “ Because when I pulled the trigger the 7th time, it only went click.” She was acquitted of all charges. That’s the way it is in Texas.
~sent in by Ann
~sent in by Ann
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama- It''s All About ME
"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary ....."
~ Obama, addressing the 2009 graduating class at the US Naval Academy
Any other person, out of decorum for the office of the Presidency, would have said, "You will not be sent ..", but not this guy. With this guy, it is all about him! Look over his speeches and his press conferences and here is want you will find:
" I this" ... "I that" ... "I"... "I" ... "I"
He is worse than Alciabades. Indeed, he imagines himself a Caesar.
~ Obama, addressing the 2009 graduating class at the US Naval Academy
Any other person, out of decorum for the office of the Presidency, would have said, "You will not be sent ..", but not this guy. With this guy, it is all about him! Look over his speeches and his press conferences and here is want you will find:
" I this" ... "I that" ... "I"... "I" ... "I"
He is worse than Alciabades. Indeed, he imagines himself a Caesar.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
California Dreaming (for Gvt Bailout)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzI3OGZlMjlkMGMwY2I5Yzg4YjdkYTNlNTFiZmIxNmU#more
Great – now we are not only subsidizing irresponsible people who cannot pay their mortgages, but talking about subsidizing entire states that spend recklessly!
Oh well, all long as I can still get "mine" at your expense, then everything is OK by me. THAT is the mood of the day.
Great – now we are not only subsidizing irresponsible people who cannot pay their mortgages, but talking about subsidizing entire states that spend recklessly!
Oh well, all long as I can still get "mine" at your expense, then everything is OK by me. THAT is the mood of the day.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On Charitable Contributions
OK, I admit it, sometimes I am slow on the uptake, and I confess that it took me a while to understand the implications of the Obama proposal to eliminate the tax deduction on charitable contributions.
Here is the reason Obama wants to do this - Obama is a collectivist and he wants NOTHING to come but through the government. The entire thrust of his Administration is to complete the attachment of the people to the government so that the citizens are reduced to a people of the government, rather than a government of the people. For this reason, he must sever all connection of the people to any entity other than the government.
Here is the reason Obama wants to do this - Obama is a collectivist and he wants NOTHING to come but through the government. The entire thrust of his Administration is to complete the attachment of the people to the government so that the citizens are reduced to a people of the government, rather than a government of the people. For this reason, he must sever all connection of the people to any entity other than the government.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
How Did It Get Like This? Part 2
Just got off the phone with Rush and he asked me when I thought it was going to get better.
I told him that it will get better when the people who go into Starbuck's begin to understand that selling water to "help starving children in Africa or wherever" (the Starbucks "Ethos" water), is all about things OTHER than helping starving children in Africa.
I also told him that that it will get better when people finally get it that the "green movement" is really the "Green $$ movement".
~Seneca
I told him that it will get better when the people who go into Starbuck's begin to understand that selling water to "help starving children in Africa or wherever" (the Starbucks "Ethos" water), is all about things OTHER than helping starving children in Africa.
I also told him that that it will get better when people finally get it that the "green movement" is really the "Green $$ movement".
~Seneca
Friday, May 15, 2009
How Did It Get Like This?
5/15/09
Rush Limbaugh just finished asking the radio audience something along the lines of "How can it be that it has gotten to this point. " (The government involvement in health care and everything else.)
The short answer: Rush, it has gotten this way because the vast bulk of the people want it this way.
And when I say "the people", I do not mean commie-pinko-Russian flag-waving nut jobs. I mean the bulk of the American people. This includes Democrats and Republicans of almost all stripes.
You heard it here first folks: Obama will have a 2d term. So, then, go ahead and sip your sissy-man triple super latte as you watch the next 25 years of destruction of the country. And go ahead and vote for that "other guy' because you think he is different that those evil "other guys".
Folks, Statism is Statism - whether it comes from a Democrat, or whether it comes from somebody calling themselves a Republican, for both are for big government, just big government for different purposes.
To prove the point, try this test. Tell a Republican that we need to do away with the income tax, they will say "But what about...."; Ask a Republican how they would feel if the Chinese Navy decided to run naval war games in the Gulf of Mexico and point out the parallel to US ships in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Arabia and they will say "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that the American citizen should not be taxed to send money to Africa or elsewhere and they will say "But what about...."; Tell a Republican that people should pay for their own health care and not expect the governement to chip in one dime, and they will protest "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that when their parents get old and they have to put them in a nursing home at $40k/year, that they should themselves be responsible for the cost, and they will say "But what about...." and proceed to tell you that it is just "too expensive" for them to pay, and that THE STATE should "help them out".
Go ahead. Just try it and you will find out exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.
Rush Limbaugh just finished asking the radio audience something along the lines of "How can it be that it has gotten to this point. " (The government involvement in health care and everything else.)
The short answer: Rush, it has gotten this way because the vast bulk of the people want it this way.
And when I say "the people", I do not mean commie-pinko-Russian flag-waving nut jobs. I mean the bulk of the American people. This includes Democrats and Republicans of almost all stripes.
You heard it here first folks: Obama will have a 2d term. So, then, go ahead and sip your sissy-man triple super latte as you watch the next 25 years of destruction of the country. And go ahead and vote for that "other guy' because you think he is different that those evil "other guys".
Folks, Statism is Statism - whether it comes from a Democrat, or whether it comes from somebody calling themselves a Republican, for both are for big government, just big government for different purposes.
To prove the point, try this test. Tell a Republican that we need to do away with the income tax, they will say "But what about...."; Ask a Republican how they would feel if the Chinese Navy decided to run naval war games in the Gulf of Mexico and point out the parallel to US ships in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Arabia and they will say "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that the American citizen should not be taxed to send money to Africa or elsewhere and they will say "But what about...."; Tell a Republican that people should pay for their own health care and not expect the governement to chip in one dime, and they will protest "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that when their parents get old and they have to put them in a nursing home at $40k/year, that they should themselves be responsible for the cost, and they will say "But what about...." and proceed to tell you that it is just "too expensive" for them to pay, and that THE STATE should "help them out".
Go ahead. Just try it and you will find out exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.
America - Land of the Free?
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Thus it is then that we now have in these United States the following:
car czar
energy czar
health czar
education czar
welfare czar
drug czar
food czar
security czar
finance czar
etc, ad nauseaum...
Plus all the assorted "Wars on This or That"
Am I the only one that is appalled at the fact that in these United States we have the existence of these departments, and, am I the only one that is appalled, and indeed frightened, that the term "czar" is so universally used in conjunction with discussions of them?
To me, the very fact,
a) that these positions exist,
b) that they are called "czars",
c) that "the people" are not appalled by the existence of these entities, and,
d) that the people, doubly, are not appalled at the use of the term "czar" in connection with them,
is proof of the tyranny that has spread, like a cancer, through these States. States, I might add, that united so as to overcome what was billed then as the tyranny of King George and the intrusion of his government into every aspect to the lives of the colonists.
Furthermore, I pause to point out the most Orwellian of terms "Homeland Security", the indifference of the people to both the existence of such an apparatus, and an indifference to the use of such appellation, indicating to me that the only thing necessary to complete the conversion to the collectivist despotism is the speaking of Russian.
Next thing you know we will have Bill O'Riley talking about how the government needs to "... do something about the economy". But wait ... that has already happened!
~Seneca
________________
PS - No, my dear reader - "the economy" is not the function of the Federal Government, and those of you that buy into such pap may as well enroll in Russian language class, for it is exactly that kind of uncritical thinking that leads to a government system that controls everything you do.
Thus it is then that we now have in these United States the following:
car czar
energy czar
health czar
education czar
welfare czar
drug czar
food czar
security czar
finance czar
etc, ad nauseaum...
Plus all the assorted "Wars on This or That"
Am I the only one that is appalled at the fact that in these United States we have the existence of these departments, and, am I the only one that is appalled, and indeed frightened, that the term "czar" is so universally used in conjunction with discussions of them?
To me, the very fact,
a) that these positions exist,
b) that they are called "czars",
c) that "the people" are not appalled by the existence of these entities, and,
d) that the people, doubly, are not appalled at the use of the term "czar" in connection with them,
is proof of the tyranny that has spread, like a cancer, through these States. States, I might add, that united so as to overcome what was billed then as the tyranny of King George and the intrusion of his government into every aspect to the lives of the colonists.
Furthermore, I pause to point out the most Orwellian of terms "Homeland Security", the indifference of the people to both the existence of such an apparatus, and an indifference to the use of such appellation, indicating to me that the only thing necessary to complete the conversion to the collectivist despotism is the speaking of Russian.
Next thing you know we will have Bill O'Riley talking about how the government needs to "... do something about the economy". But wait ... that has already happened!
~Seneca
________________
PS - No, my dear reader - "the economy" is not the function of the Federal Government, and those of you that buy into such pap may as well enroll in Russian language class, for it is exactly that kind of uncritical thinking that leads to a government system that controls everything you do.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obamunism 102
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html
"For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is."
"We are toast", as they used to say around the Roman campfire.
~ CatoDuplicity and the CIA
From time to time we receive letters from other concerned citizens and we print them here. Here is one that was received from Cato.
The Set-Up
May 13, 2009 – Recently, the CIA testified to Congress on the interrogation techniques the CIA uses - waterboarding, keeping cell temperatures at 72 degrees instead of 73, you know - things like that. In the briefing, and under the questioning that was clearly meant to excoriate the CIA for their practices, the CIA pointed out that various members of Congress attended briefings on these procedures prior to their being implemented , and,in a surprise move, the CIA has had the gall to do a McCain - i.e., name names.
Now, the Democrats, seen with their hands in the cookie jar of being active and knowing participants in the very thing that they previously were excoriating the earlier administration about, have their panties in a wad, and Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself. Read more blah, blah at : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html#ixzz0FRd4lLVn&B
The Commentary
Oh, boo hoo, you noble collectivists (aka liberals)! If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You all danced in the streets when, during the Bush Administration, you succeeded in making the CIA release details of secret prisons, communications intercept programs, etc., even though it started riots, cost American lives and shredded our credibility with our foreign partners.
Such a party you had, because, after all, such disclosure furthered the agenda you had against the then current administration. But, now though,when the CIA releases information that exposes YOU and your duplicity and involvement – with the effect to correct the distorting lies you tell – you again get your panties all in a wad!
What is is with you people? Are your diapers always full? What do you mean, “ deflect attention and blame”? You were in on the matter and the CIA cannot be “shifting responsibility” as you later state in the above mentioned article.
If anything is wrong, it is your Democratic congressmen and women's feigned ignorance of what was going on, and your lying about being present at those briefings, and the CIA’s action does nothing more than place responsibility where it should be, and expose the truth that Nancy Pelosi, and others, that are now trying to skewer the CIA for "torture", were knowledgeable that those very procedures would be used!
~ Cato
(Rear Reader, do NOT take this to mean that Seneca is a Bush lover. Bush or Obama - SSDD)
The Set-Up
May 13, 2009 – Recently, the CIA testified to Congress on the interrogation techniques the CIA uses - waterboarding, keeping cell temperatures at 72 degrees instead of 73, you know - things like that. In the briefing, and under the questioning that was clearly meant to excoriate the CIA for their practices, the CIA pointed out that various members of Congress attended briefings on these procedures prior to their being implemented , and,in a surprise move, the CIA has had the gall to do a McCain - i.e., name names.
Now, the Democrats, seen with their hands in the cookie jar of being active and knowing participants in the very thing that they previously were excoriating the earlier administration about, have their panties in a wad, and Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself. Read more blah, blah at : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html#ixzz0FRd4lLVn&B
The Commentary
Oh, boo hoo, you noble collectivists (aka liberals)! If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You all danced in the streets when, during the Bush Administration, you succeeded in making the CIA release details of secret prisons, communications intercept programs, etc., even though it started riots, cost American lives and shredded our credibility with our foreign partners.
Such a party you had, because, after all, such disclosure furthered the agenda you had against the then current administration. But, now though,when the CIA releases information that exposes YOU and your duplicity and involvement – with the effect to correct the distorting lies you tell – you again get your panties all in a wad!
What is is with you people? Are your diapers always full? What do you mean, “ deflect attention and blame”? You were in on the matter and the CIA cannot be “shifting responsibility” as you later state in the above mentioned article.
If anything is wrong, it is your Democratic congressmen and women's feigned ignorance of what was going on, and your lying about being present at those briefings, and the CIA’s action does nothing more than place responsibility where it should be, and expose the truth that Nancy Pelosi, and others, that are now trying to skewer the CIA for "torture", were knowledgeable that those very procedures would be used!
~ Cato
(Rear Reader, do NOT take this to mean that Seneca is a Bush lover. Bush or Obama - SSDD)
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A Letter to a Senator II
I got this from a friend of mine. It is an email that he sent to Senator Cornyn (R-Tx), one of the two Republican Senators from Texas that sold us out on the TARP bailout. My friend is a laid back guy that does not generally bestir himself to become entangled in the messy politics of the day because, like many of us that are not drinking the Kool-Aid, he is too busy working as an Architect.
The very fact that he has taken the time to pen this invective to his elected Senator is one of the reasons that I post his letter, for I believe there are millions like him (a.k.a. - Ayn Rand's "Creators") and that it is they that will make the difference in the next election cycle.
Indeed, if the Republicans do not wake up and smell the coffee, then they may wake up and find that the Democrats have taken even more seats because of the Republicans that figure that if they have a choice of 2 Democrats running, then it would be best to choose the Real Democrat as opposed to the other Democrat - i.e., that is running on the Republican ticket.
(Editors Note: I have taken the liberty to edit for context.)
_____________________
Senator Cornyn ,
The following is the opening paragraph of your May 1, 2009 Update newsletter.
"This week marked President Obama’s 100th day in office, and his agenda has been nothing so far if not ambitious. However, I have serious concerns about the long term impact it will have on our nation. Since being sworn in, President Obama and the Democrat majority have spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. They have managed to spend more in 100 days than we have spent on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief-- combined. And they’ve stuck generations of Americans with the tab."
Oh, Yeah Right. Last October, I sent you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Representative Lamar Smith an email asking . . . NO - demanding - that you vote NO on the first TARP Bill. And yet, each of you voted FOR.
After my letter, I heard nothing from your office. (Hutchinson's office sent an acknowledgement email, and Smith's office sent some nonsense regarding "turning the stampede".)
So, based on your showing of your colors as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when November came around, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in each race. I don't vote for people that refuse to listen to their constituency. I am not so naive to think that my opinion would sway any one vote, but, since the last election I have talked to many others who felt the same sentiment that the TARP was something that needed to be deep-sixed and were appalled at the Republican sell-out and accordingly stayed home .. or voted against you and the others. One friend of mine, Republican for all his life, actually voted for your Democratic challenger.
Now back to your disgusting and self -serving "update email newsletter". Since the water is now under the bridge, you now have a different take on the situation and you are nothing but the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, and more important, you have saddled my grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the enormous burden of paying back your excesses not only in money but in having to suffer under the tightening yoke of government control and intrusion over/ into our lives.
All of us are now in chains because of the liberal, phony propaganda machine, and "conservative" Senators like you, and Representatives like Lamar Smith, being unable and unwilling to take a stand for the beliefs of their constituency and unwilling to take a stand for private property (a.k.a. my money that is confiscated via taxation to pay for the statism that is infecting the country.)
Those of us in the private sector know what it takes to balance budgets. We don't have the luxury of printing money - which, by the way, is no answer either. My hope was that our elected officials would understand how business works, but apparently they don't.
Please know that I will work to oust any politicians that cannot or will not reflect my conservative thinking.
We were promised change . . . we got it . . and you, and the Republican Party helped bring it about!
Sincerely,
Name withheld by request
The very fact that he has taken the time to pen this invective to his elected Senator is one of the reasons that I post his letter, for I believe there are millions like him (a.k.a. - Ayn Rand's "Creators") and that it is they that will make the difference in the next election cycle.
Indeed, if the Republicans do not wake up and smell the coffee, then they may wake up and find that the Democrats have taken even more seats because of the Republicans that figure that if they have a choice of 2 Democrats running, then it would be best to choose the Real Democrat as opposed to the other Democrat - i.e., that is running on the Republican ticket.
(Editors Note: I have taken the liberty to edit for context.)
_____________________
Senator Cornyn ,
The following is the opening paragraph of your May 1, 2009 Update newsletter.
"This week marked President Obama’s 100th day in office, and his agenda has been nothing so far if not ambitious. However, I have serious concerns about the long term impact it will have on our nation. Since being sworn in, President Obama and the Democrat majority have spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. They have managed to spend more in 100 days than we have spent on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief-- combined. And they’ve stuck generations of Americans with the tab."
Oh, Yeah Right. Last October, I sent you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Representative Lamar Smith an email asking . . . NO - demanding - that you vote NO on the first TARP Bill. And yet, each of you voted FOR.
After my letter, I heard nothing from your office. (Hutchinson's office sent an acknowledgement email, and Smith's office sent some nonsense regarding "turning the stampede".)
So, based on your showing of your colors as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when November came around, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in each race. I don't vote for people that refuse to listen to their constituency. I am not so naive to think that my opinion would sway any one vote, but, since the last election I have talked to many others who felt the same sentiment that the TARP was something that needed to be deep-sixed and were appalled at the Republican sell-out and accordingly stayed home .. or voted against you and the others. One friend of mine, Republican for all his life, actually voted for your Democratic challenger.
Now back to your disgusting and self -serving "update email newsletter". Since the water is now under the bridge, you now have a different take on the situation and you are nothing but the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, and more important, you have saddled my grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the enormous burden of paying back your excesses not only in money but in having to suffer under the tightening yoke of government control and intrusion over/ into our lives.
All of us are now in chains because of the liberal, phony propaganda machine, and "conservative" Senators like you, and Representatives like Lamar Smith, being unable and unwilling to take a stand for the beliefs of their constituency and unwilling to take a stand for private property (a.k.a. my money that is confiscated via taxation to pay for the statism that is infecting the country.)
Those of us in the private sector know what it takes to balance budgets. We don't have the luxury of printing money - which, by the way, is no answer either. My hope was that our elected officials would understand how business works, but apparently they don't.
Please know that I will work to oust any politicians that cannot or will not reflect my conservative thinking.
We were promised change . . . we got it . . and you, and the Republican Party helped bring it about!
Sincerely,
Name withheld by request
Childcare, Congress & Camels
Let not thy camel's nose be seen under the edge of your tent, for soon thy beast will be inside, yea shall have no place to sleep, thy stores [food] shall be gone, and yea shall starve.
~ Jazeeb's admonition to his sons concerning the harm that befalls when one allows incursion of another onto one's property
I was watching the news the other day and saw a story about the Congresswomen that are getting pregnant and having kids while serving. After a bit of story setup from the talking head, a few snippets were played from one of the Representatives who was shown taking her kids to day care before going into session. The Rep. said that since she is a working mother and a legislator she can connect with the problems that working women face trying to juggle kids and work, and that she can use that knowledge when working in Congress on laws dealing with things like child care.
Madam, it is not in your purview to legislate child care, and indeed it is one of the problems nowadays that the Federal Government insists on insinuating itself into every facet of citizen's lives. Does the "Federal" not understand that the Constitution is an enumerated powers document and that all other powers are left elsewhere - in the hands of people other than them (Congress). Where in the Constitution does it talk about Child Care?
So, here it is then, that we have a Federal government that not only has the given power to declare war, but also a Government that has taken unto itself the power to declare how child care is to be managed in the American workplace, or declare the maximum number of gallons that a toilet can use per flush!
Am I the only one that sees such things as Federal intrusion in this seemingly benign area of child care as but one nose of the camel that is constantly being thrust under the edge of the tent of the people?
Here are the nose's of some of the other Federal Camel's brothers:
Health Care
Education
Welfare
Social Security
Retirement
Environment
Air Quality
Global Warming
Water Quality
Minimum Wage
Economic Stimulus/Planning
There are many others, but these are some of the first to come to mind. And note well that there are those that are reading this post that will take issue with one or more of these, but then again, there are those that have been brought up on the steady pap of a government that seeks always to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other entities of society that by the very Constitution retained the usurped powers.
Not to put too fine a point on things, it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to be the law giver with respect to, for example, "the environment". But "nay", you will say, (and mostly so because you think the environment needs to be saved), "then who is it that shall do this", as if the desirability of having a Federal Agency implement your desires, trumps the words of the Constitution that do not enumerate such an agency or enumerate such power, but which does set froth mechanisms for the other partners in the whole ( the people or the States) to do such things as saving that which you desire to be "saved'.
Yes, my friend, this is exactly what I am saying - that with respect to non-enumerated powers, it is the STATE (or the people) that has the power and not the Federal Government, and no amount of desire can change what the Federal is allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.
Now, those tending toward the argumentative, would have you swallow the bait that as a practical matter, such things (as saving "the environment") should be done in a consolidated and coordinated fashion, and thus the desirability or practicality of such a consolidation arrangement means that the Federal Government should do it, and that this "should' means that the Federal government "can" take on this role.
Make no mistake, however, because that a thing may be more desirable does not act to create an authority for doing that thing itself considered desirable, for if the touchstone was desire, then the bank robber should be able to freely enter the bank and take the property of another, since that act of robbery would be deemed by him to be desirable and thus allowed.
Ah, but you say, "... the bank robber is prohibited by society's law (backed up by society's police power) from robbing the bank." This then brings me to the exact point, that:
a) the Founders, acting as agents for the States that sent them to the Convention,
b) the States themselves as they ratified the document, and,
c) "the people" themselves
all recognized the temptation and tendency of a too-powerful Federal government ( or those in control of it) to try and rob the people and erect a tyranny, and they therefore put in place - in the very instrument that constituted the framework for the Federal authority - the enumerated powers shackles to prohibit such acts of robbery. In other words, society's way of protecting itself from an ever expanding government that intruded itself into every aspect of the lives of the people and ate out their sustenance, was to was to constitute a Federal government that was shackled and could only do those things that were enumerated in the Constitution.
Returning now to babies and Congresswomen, that shackling means that the Federal has no authority to legislate Child Care matters, and their meddling in these areas represents the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent belonging to the people.
~ Jazeeb's admonition to his sons concerning the harm that befalls when one allows incursion of another onto one's property
I was watching the news the other day and saw a story about the Congresswomen that are getting pregnant and having kids while serving. After a bit of story setup from the talking head, a few snippets were played from one of the Representatives who was shown taking her kids to day care before going into session. The Rep. said that since she is a working mother and a legislator she can connect with the problems that working women face trying to juggle kids and work, and that she can use that knowledge when working in Congress on laws dealing with things like child care.
Madam, it is not in your purview to legislate child care, and indeed it is one of the problems nowadays that the Federal Government insists on insinuating itself into every facet of citizen's lives. Does the "Federal" not understand that the Constitution is an enumerated powers document and that all other powers are left elsewhere - in the hands of people other than them (Congress). Where in the Constitution does it talk about Child Care?
So, here it is then, that we have a Federal government that not only has the given power to declare war, but also a Government that has taken unto itself the power to declare how child care is to be managed in the American workplace, or declare the maximum number of gallons that a toilet can use per flush!
Am I the only one that sees such things as Federal intrusion in this seemingly benign area of child care as but one nose of the camel that is constantly being thrust under the edge of the tent of the people?
Here are the nose's of some of the other Federal Camel's brothers:
Health Care
Education
Welfare
Social Security
Retirement
Environment
Air Quality
Global Warming
Water Quality
Minimum Wage
Economic Stimulus/Planning
There are many others, but these are some of the first to come to mind. And note well that there are those that are reading this post that will take issue with one or more of these, but then again, there are those that have been brought up on the steady pap of a government that seeks always to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other entities of society that by the very Constitution retained the usurped powers.
Not to put too fine a point on things, it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to be the law giver with respect to, for example, "the environment". But "nay", you will say, (and mostly so because you think the environment needs to be saved), "then who is it that shall do this", as if the desirability of having a Federal Agency implement your desires, trumps the words of the Constitution that do not enumerate such an agency or enumerate such power, but which does set froth mechanisms for the other partners in the whole ( the people or the States) to do such things as saving that which you desire to be "saved'.
Yes, my friend, this is exactly what I am saying - that with respect to non-enumerated powers, it is the STATE (or the people) that has the power and not the Federal Government, and no amount of desire can change what the Federal is allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.
Now, those tending toward the argumentative, would have you swallow the bait that as a practical matter, such things (as saving "the environment") should be done in a consolidated and coordinated fashion, and thus the desirability or practicality of such a consolidation arrangement means that the Federal Government should do it, and that this "should' means that the Federal government "can" take on this role.
Make no mistake, however, because that a thing may be more desirable does not act to create an authority for doing that thing itself considered desirable, for if the touchstone was desire, then the bank robber should be able to freely enter the bank and take the property of another, since that act of robbery would be deemed by him to be desirable and thus allowed.
Ah, but you say, "... the bank robber is prohibited by society's law (backed up by society's police power) from robbing the bank." This then brings me to the exact point, that:
a) the Founders, acting as agents for the States that sent them to the Convention,
b) the States themselves as they ratified the document, and,
c) "the people" themselves
all recognized the temptation and tendency of a too-powerful Federal government ( or those in control of it) to try and rob the people and erect a tyranny, and they therefore put in place - in the very instrument that constituted the framework for the Federal authority - the enumerated powers shackles to prohibit such acts of robbery. In other words, society's way of protecting itself from an ever expanding government that intruded itself into every aspect of the lives of the people and ate out their sustenance, was to was to constitute a Federal government that was shackled and could only do those things that were enumerated in the Constitution.
Returning now to babies and Congresswomen, that shackling means that the Federal has no authority to legislate Child Care matters, and their meddling in these areas represents the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent belonging to the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)