The usurpers are winning

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
The usurpers are winning by David Limbaugh

America's founders believed that federal power was a necessary evil that would swallow the liberties their ancestors left Europe to obtain unless it was severely limited. But today we seem to have forgotten that freedom cannot survive the unrestrained governmental encroachments that are raining down daily from our nation's capital.

You need not have written a doctoral thesis on the political theories espoused in the Federalist Papers to understand that socialism impoverishes nations despite the professed good intentions of its benefactors. You needn't have a master's in history to realize that America is the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world because its prescient framers devised a constitution that would maximize liberty by imposing restraints on government. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to grasp that unless we put the brakes on our out-of-control federal government soon, we will go the way of all other great nations before us.

While there has long existed a tension between liberty's usurpers and watchdogs, rarely have the usurpers been in such ascendance. They are in firm control of the executive and legislative branches and are using the full force of the federal government to stack the deck in their favor in perpetuity. Just look at the taxpayer-funded payoffs of defaulting mortgagors, unions, governors, big-city mayors, liberal "public interest" groups and ever-expanding dependency constituencies, including illegal immigrants.

But why can't they be honest about what they're doing? Have they even tried to dispute the charge that an untold amount of this so-called stimulus money will not be spent in the near future and that much of it, even when spent, will not stimulate? No, because they cannot explain away their subterfuge in such shenanigans as allocating billions of taxpayer dollars to community organizing groups, such as ACORN, whose real function is to secure elections for like-minded "progressives."

It's as if President Barack Obama and Congress were trying to turn us all into conspiracy theorists. Indeed, only the grossly naive believe the usurpers are not calculating their systematic power grabs.

Those with nothing to hide don't mask their intentions in deceitful language, such as establishing deliberately and hopelessly vague yardsticks – e.g., using "we're going to save or create 3.5 million jobs" to measure the success of the "stimulus" bill – and calling a mostly pork bill a "stimulus bill that has absolutely no pork," a bill eliminating secret ballots in union voting "the Employee Free Choice Act," Marxist programs "measures to strengthen capitalism," taxpayer-funded health care "free medical coverage," across-the-board cuts in defense spending "shoring up our national defenses," greater-percentage tax cuts for middle- and lower-income groups "tax cuts only for the rich," government-coerced transfer payments "economic justice," the government's bailout of delinquent debtors "an act promoting financial accountability," aggressive, exclusive partisanship "a spirit of bipartisanship," a plan to triple the national budget right before "trimming it back" to levels grossly above where you started "fiscal conservatism," government suppression of political expression "the Fairness Doctrine," appointing one tax cheat after another and lobbyist after lobbyist "a new era for ethical government," already-broken promises to allow five days for public comment before signing legislation "transparency," and a government that singles out and attacks its influential critics "a government of the people."

The usurpers probably want you to believe the "stimulus" bill was passed so quickly our legislators didn't realize what was in it. That's less damning than their willful passage of the indefensible mischief the bill contains. Have you seen just how specific it is in its allocations of money and who is benefiting? Please follow the money.

As our federal government marches ever closer to socialism and Marxism, we might remind ourselves that nearly every dictator in the world is an ardent proponent of those systems. Socialism and Marxism, by definition, cannot come about without major consolidations of power in the central government.

These consolidations, which are invariably sold as democratic and compassionate governments for the benefit and security of the people, result in tyranny and wholesale subjugation of the people. In the name of compassion, or economic stimulus, the federal government gets its tentacles into our local business and begins to micromanage our lives from Washington, whether in education, commerce or even executive salaries for private corporations.

Who knows, the usurpers might even have the audacity to try to micromanage decisions of local governments once they dole out money they steal from taxpayers and their offspring to fund this stimulus ruse.

Oh, I almost forgot: President Obama already told the nation's mayors that if they waste the money he is philanthropically bestowing upon them, he "will call them out on it and use the full power of (his) office and … administration to stop it."

I suppose one man's super watchdog is another's super-duper tyrant.
 
Who knows, the usurpers might even have the audacity to try to micromanage decisions of local governments once they dole out money they steal from taxpayers and their offspring to fund this stimulus ruse.

Oh, I almost forgot: President Obama already told the nation's mayors that if they waste the money he is philanthropically bestowing upon them, he "will call them out on it and use the full power of (his) office and … administration to stop it."

What's wrong with that? There are some seriously corrupt city & municipal governments out there, and handing them money is a bit like giving $20 to a homeless guy addicted to crack. Supposed to be used for food, but will go to drugs instead. He just wants to see it used wisely, because the Administration is already nervous about misappropriations of this money (and rightfully so). We all know that this sentiment won't stop the cities from using the money unwisely, but it won't hurt for the administration to try.

I know, I know, you're going to say that giving them money with strings is just another example of the Federal government forcing its will on the lower tiers of government, but there is a simple solution. If somebody offers me money with strings I don't like, I simply say no.
 
What's wrong with that? There are some seriously corrupt city & municipal governments out there, and handing them money is a bit like giving $20 to a homeless guy addicted to crack. Supposed to be used for food, but will go to drugs instead. He just wants to see it used wisely, because the Administration is already nervous about misappropriations of this money (and rightfully so). We all know that this sentiment won't stop the cities from using the money unwisely, but it won't hurt for the administration to try.

I know, I know, you're going to say that giving them money with strings is just another example of the Federal government forcing its will on the lower tiers of government, but there is a simple solution. If somebody offers me money with strings I don't like, I simply say no.

There is that point you raised, but also the point of the scale and scope of corruption.

Local and state governments as a whole are, if anything, less corrupt then the federal government because they are less removed from the society they govern. But even assuming that they are just as corrupt as a whole, the scale of corruption enacted by those governments is minor in comparsion to the federal government.

To take run with your analogy, a corrupt state government given more money is like giving $20 to a homeless guy. A corrupt federal government is like giving that same homeless guy the keys to the bank vault.

It is a rough analogy, but the best I could do on short notice.

I guess you could say, it is possible "trickle down corruption".
 
Heh, well said. The bank vault reference made me smile.

Come on up to the Northeast and you can see some of the seriously corrupt city & municipal governments we have here - or the Chicago cesspool from which our current leader hails. I guarantee we have some small town mayors that make most of the Federal government look like angels in comparison.
 
It will be interesting to see if the Republican governors that said they are considering turning down the stimulus funds will reap any rewards from their voters.

It looks good for their 'virtue' but, bad for their state's bottom line. Plus, it is sort of like polishing your own buttons, those governors know their state legislatures will take the money anyway.

Those Republican governors get to claim that they didn't agree with the package and heck, were willing to not even take any of that 'tainted money' based on their exceedingly high principals, but, in reality, are in no danger of their states not receiving the money.

I find it very interesting that LA's governor, Jindal, is on board with this. His state is still reeling from storm damage, and is dirt poor, but, he is considered a 'man to watch' in regards to the 2012 presidential election.
 
I forgot to point out the fact that instead of one corrupt bureaucracy running things in certian areas (state and local) you would then have two corrupt bureaucracies running things. They tend to magnify each other in many negative ways.

Prime example; no child left behind. Instead of just the huge bureaucracies in the school districts making things worse, you now have the federal government getting more active and making things worse as well.
 
Luxury, fox, you're both wrong.

The governors CANNOT SAY NO.

The language in the bill forces the governor to capitulate to his/her own state legislature. In other words, the individual state legislatures can override the governor's decision and opt to take the money.

In Louisiana's case, this is temporary money which will go away, but Jindal will be FORCED to maintain the welfare programs set up by the money REGARDLESS of whether or not LA has the money. That means he'll have to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. So the Fed government is, de facto, RUNNING THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

And this is MANDATED by the 'stimulus' bill.

This is STALINIST in nature.
 
The language in the bill forces the governor to capitulate to his/her own state legislature. In other words, the individual state legislatures can override the governor's decision and opt to take the money..

Duh, that's what I said... 2nd paragraph...

It looks good for their 'virtue' but, bad for their state's bottom line. Plus, it is sort of like polishing your own buttons, those governors know their state legislatures will take the money anyway.
 
Duh, that's what I said... 2nd paragraph...

It looks good for their 'virtue' but, bad for their state's bottom line. Plus, it is sort of like polishing your own buttons, those governors know their state legislatures will take the money anyway.
Oops, that was the only paragraph I skimmed...lol
 
Luxury, fox, you're both wrong.

The governors CANNOT SAY NO.

The language in the bill forces the governor to capitulate to his/her own state legislature. In other words, the individual state legislatures can override the governor's decision and opt to take the money.

You're right. But I never said it is the governors who should be saying no :)

In Louisiana's case, this is temporary money which will go away, but Jindal will be FORCED to maintain the welfare programs set up by the money REGARDLESS of whether or not LA has the money. That means he'll have to either raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. So the Fed government is, de facto, RUNNING THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

There's a difference between "running the state" and forcing them to modify their welfare & public aid programs.
There's also money to be put into "general funds" to help bridge budget shortfalls (like the $2B shortfall in my state). Not to mention money for education (and the Feds stuck their fingers in that long before Obama, as Shag has so kindly pointed out), Medicaid (again, pre-Obama), and law enforcement.

The Feds are certainly increasing their leverage on the States, this is true. But thinking they are going through and taking away the States' autonomy is really taking it a step too far.
 
Over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents.
 
The usurpers are winning by David Limbaugh

America's founders believed that federal power was a necessary evil that would swallow the liberties their ancestors left Europe to obtain unless it was severely limited.

onecheekyhobbit-kevinsaysno.gif


The founding fathers gave Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.
 
You're right. But I never said it is the governors who should be saying no :)



There's a difference between "running the state" and forcing them to modify their welfare & public aid programs.
There's also money to be put into "general funds" to help bridge budget shortfalls (like the $2B shortfall in my state). Not to mention money for education (and the Feds stuck their fingers in that long before Obama, as Shag has so kindly pointed out), Medicaid (again, pre-Obama), and law enforcement.

The Feds are certainly increasing their leverage on the States, this is true. But thinking they are going through and taking away the States' autonomy is really taking it a step too far.
You really don't know what incrementalism means, do you.
 
I do. I also know what slippery slope means. You are being paranoid.
No, I'm not. And clearly you're not a student of history. Incrementalism has gotten us to the brink of economic disaster. There are 20,000 gun laws. You think they were all enacted on the same day?

Give the government an inch, and it will take a mile.
 
Or, for that matter, any government agency that DOESN'T seek to expand and grow?
 
No, I'm not.

Paranoid people rarely do realize that they are being paranoid.

I'm going to take a page out of Shag's handbook here... read up a bit on slippery slope, please.

A hundred years ago, people would have said the same thing about the Fed encroaching on the states' sovereignty. Fear of a large central government has been a foundation of the American society. And yet, here we are, after a hundred years and hundreds of thousands of federal laws later, the states are not yet run by the Fed, and we the American people have a higher standard of living than ever before.

See, for every little bit the Fed takes from the states, the states will then simply expand a bit into something else that isn't regulated (Foss, there is your "seek to expand and grow" and you are correct, all agencies will do that). The states will continue to be about as autonomous as they are now.

Cal, to answer your question, the repeal of Prohibition and the repeal of the 55mph national speed limit are two examples that come to mind. I also happen to live near Three Mile Island, where there were Federal security officers back around 2001-03ish, and it is now handled by the state & private security firms. More recently, there was a ruling regarding power lines in Frederick county MD (half hour south of me) favoring the state. Short version, a power highline that was to be piped through Frederick county was rejected by the state's regulatory body and, when the company tried to appeal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Courts ruled the State had the final say. Essentially, the courts prevented the Fed from overruling the State's judgment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet, here we are, after a hundred years and hundreds of thousands of federal laws later, the states are not yet run by the Fed, and we the American people have a higher standard of living than ever before.
Comfort and standard of living are not to be equated with freedom. You cannot credibly argue that the states have any sort of independence from the Fed.

Dense, ignorant people rarely ever realize they are dense and ignorant.

Cal, to answer your question, the repeal of Prohibition and the repeal of the 55mph national speed limit are two examples that come to mind.
Repeal of Prohibition led to overregulation of guns. See, you suddenly had all these Treasury agents with nothing to do, so they were put in charge of regulating the NFA. 75 years later, the ATF puts people in prison for 10 years for owning a rubber washer or for having a shotgun with a barrel that's an inch too short. So much for the 2nd Amendment.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top