The Money Snare

April 24, 2010

 

Where in Article 1 of our beloved Constitution (Legislative branch) is Congress given even the remotest authority to regulate education?  How about public transportation?  Find any provision giving the Federal Government the authority to take your money and give it to someone else in the name of some twisted charity.

Um…it doesn’t.  Congress is GRANTED (by the people through contract by the Constitution) only 18 specific powers in Article 1, Section 8.  It is prohibited from 8 specifc actions (barring the shortsighted passage of the 16th amendment).  Aside from three prohibitions, ALL OTHER POWERS ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES or THE PEOPLE AS SPECIFIED IN AMENDMENT 10!!!

The Founders understood that a large, centralized government would be intrusive, wasteful, and incompetent at handling matters of the individual States.  Education is definitiely one of those matters and has fallen victim to decades of brainwashing that the Federal government is best equipped to standardize and regulate education.

HOWEVER, as is the case with so many situations, once someone is dependant on another for cash, who makes the rules?  Would you think it fair that if a state receives, say, 10% of its funding from the Federal Government that the government can dictate how the state conducts its business?  Probably not, but money is a power that the Founders did not anticipate we would yield to the Federal Government. 

(I’m going to pick on education because it is the easiest to dissect, but the principle is the same for anything funded by the Federal government)

As you can see by the linked charts, the States are in fact dependent on the Federal government- an average of around 10% for education alone.  Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the States from yielding their sovereign authority to the Federal government in exchange for whoring themselves for Federal dollars- the very dollars that originally CAME FROM THE STATES!!!  Would you ever put yourself in a position where you had to give more money to someone than you could afford, then be expected to have to obey certain rules by that person if you asked for some of that money back?  You probably wouldn’t even get to the the point where you HAD to give any money in the first place much less beg for it back and the Founders likely did not anticipate such stupidity by the States at large.  Yet, here we are.

And for all this what has it gotten us?  Less than nothing.  For all the hundreds of billions spent on education, influence by the Federal Government has crippled the nation’s educational efforts and the sovereignty of the States is in jeopardy.  Funny thing is, the Federal Government admits that their rules only apply to those States who dare to ask for their money back (item #8).  Simply put, if the States don’t ask for and receive money from the Federal government, then the States are free to do whatever they feel is in their best interest.  We are ALLOWING ourselves to be held hostage with our own money AND we are becoming sympathetic to our captors (see Stockholm Syndrome)!  What more do you need to understand that government is simply NOT TO BE TRUSTED?  Not with healthcare, not with bailouts, not with ANYTHING designed outside the Constitution!

We are selling our rights and our souls at the whim of a deceptive, power-hungry monster.  Strangely, we hold the reigns to control the beast, yet they sit limp in our hands as the slack is used to snare us.  Ultimately, our children pay for our laziness if we do not exercise the power we are given- the power to reduce the beast to its smallest Constitutional intent!

Advertisements

Abortion and Relativity

December 9, 2009

 

I was raised in what turned out to be a very liberal environment.  My parents dabbled with all sorts of religions before ending up in the world of the “metaphysical” and New Age philosophy.  For those of you unfamiliar with this concept, it is largely the practice of selective Eastern religious concepts from such religions as Buddhism and Hinduism along with various elements of nature worship which are used as an overlay to determine which Christian principles will be incorporated.  Being as Christianity is considered generally inferior to Eastern spirituality, what is borrowed from Christianity is usually liberally interpreted.  Typically, whatever is used from Christianity is referred to simply as Christ’s teachings so as to separate Christ from Christianity.  What is ultimately created in the hodgepodge of New Age practice is the core belief in the relativity of truth.

A significant majority of liberals and progressives I know practice relativity in truth in ways that I find astounding.  That’s not to say that conservatives don’t do it.  I acknowledge that such a practice is human nature that is typically associated with adolescence.  However, I find the hypocrisy and danger in liberal arguments so pervasive in an effort to apply this relativity that it can be described only as irrational among adults.

Take the matter of “pro-choice” with respect to abortion being as it is entirely a liberal position (I don’t care if you think you’re “conservative”, but are pro-choice.  Pick a side).  Liberals (let’s just throw progressives in with liberals for brevity) would have us believe that they are the compassionate ones.  They are the ones who respect life no matter how insignificant it may be- from the endangered Callipe Silverspot Butterfly to Mother Earth at large and every conceivable form of life she nurtures.  They would have us believe that they are the rational and wise ones who understand how to apply the teachings of all the Great Masters in a manner that will provide equal protection and opportunity to all.  They alone are the ones who have bothered to pay attention to the whisper in the wind and have received the message in such a way as to have heard the very voice of The Creator.  With their elevated connection to the harmonic balance of the silvery threads of light that bind us all and orchestrate the very tides of time, liberals have mapped the destiny of the human race so that we may all transcend the evils of our barbaric ways and walk the path to utopia…that is except those who aren’t born yet.  Grab a probe, they don’t count.

Somehow, all life is sacred yet the unborn child is not.  Somehow liberalism is compassionate yet cannot extend that compassion to the most fragile among us.  Somehow liberals know the way forward but will deny even the first breath upon the path.  Somehow, liberals know the way of God, but refuse to acknowledge the miracle of life.

Liberals call pro-life arrogant and imposing on women’s rights.  That those qualities make being pro-life uncompassionate.  Let’s compare the motives:

Pro-choice:  A woman’s right to life or to simply party trump the child (selfishness).  There is no evidence that an unborn child is actually an individual person (arrogance).  A man should have no say in what a woman does with her body (uncompassionate).

Pro-Life:  An unborn child’s rights are at least equal to the woman (compassionate).  Pregnancy is almost always a choice (expecting personal responsibility is frequently confused with imposing among liberals).  We can’t profess to know the workings of life and what makes a soul, so at the very least we should err on the side of caution lest we commit murder (humility).

Relative truth suggests that because the circumstances surrounding every pregnancy are unique the rationale for aborting the pregnancy can be as uniquely justified.  It’s this same relativism that would have a pro-choice advocate support double  murder charges for killing a pregnant woman.  The tragic failure in this concept as it relates to abortion is that it ignores the only truth that is absolute: no matter how a person defines life- scientifically or spiritually- life is ended through abortion.  If it weren’t, then what exactly is being aborted?