Posted on 07/31/2009 4:38:17 PM PDT by Pyro7480
CNN correspondent Carol Costello aired a fair report on Friday’s American Morning about the several states which passed resolutions that asserted their rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and asked for viewer responses on the issue, but later stated that her “favorite [viewer] comment so far...‘asking for states’ rights is asking, you know, the children to be the parents’” [audio clips from the report are available here].
Costello began her report, which aired just before the bottom of the 6 am Eastern hour, with the question, “should states’ rights trump the fed?” She also highlighted the premise that “the concept of states’ rights is as old as America.”
The CNN correspondent used three sound bites from Texas Governor Rick Perry’s speech to a tea party in April 2009, which was widely circulated around the Internet. She also featured clips from an Republican state legislator from Oklahoma and a constitutional law professor....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
See video clips from Costello's report: CNN Runs Fair Report on States' Rights, But Costello Hints She Disagrees
Well, women look to the federal government to replace husbands and fathers.
It was the STATES that created the Federal Government. CNN gets it backwards as usual.
The states have been dumped on for decades. They’re not even represented in our Federal Government. That was changed in the 17th Amendment to our Constitution. I guess since the Civil War, it was proven that the States don’t need any say in what the Federal Government does. Maybe that’s why we haven’t had many applications for statehood lately. If they were represented, maybe Mexico would like to become a State?
I’m self reliant. But true, some do look for help to the fed’s ...but only because they’ve not been taught how to fend for themselves in any situation ...
Exactly. Is it too much to ask that a talking head has a rudimentary grasp of American history and the constitution? I guess it is.
Yet another “learned” individual unfamiliar with Texas v. White.
The inability to understand even the most basic aspects of our form of Federalism never ceases to amaze.
If you got married, had 10-kids with your beloved husband who made you promises, your husband ran off with the babysitter:
Would you want the feds to track your husband across state lines for child support?
Getting worse than I thought. Must be that “living Constitution” thing.
The sad fact of some families is that when the parents become completely disfunctional, the children have to assume the parents’ responsibilities. Could the states “parents” become any more disfunctional?
She pontificates about that which she doesn't understand. The Federal gov't is the child of the States as Jeb says. I'm all in favor of the States reminding the Fed of that thru Nullification but the trick is finding a way to make it stick in the face of inevitable financial coercion by the Fed. The 16th and 17th Amendments have to go; 17 to restore the States' representation and 16 to get the Fed's hands off the money.
Yep. Too many female voters see the government as breadwinner and “baby daddy.”
All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”
—Ronald Reagan
Perhaps, but at the same time who do you want paying for your retirement, the fed/China or yourself through retirement savings.
Yup, those political science and law degree holders are so very much more demanding of intellectual talent.
NOT.
Right now, the only intellect in DC is in the Pentagon.
And... the Obamaloons had better be very worried about that.
Absolutely ... what I was referring to however is being self sufficient. Not all women have ten kids who’s husband ran off.
Someone needs to hook up a Fluke meter to the graves of our Founders! The spinning they’re doing would EASILY beat Solar Power for generation!
These MSM idiots have turned to the Propagandist bent, and I believe it is time to rid our Republic of their ilk.
Any Henry Bowman’s among us? Icepicks, anyone?
Bass Ackward.
The children/parent analogy is a bad one anyway. What were the parents before they were adults?
One child in particular (Texas) ought to be given full parental rights is how I see it. We don’t need Washington telling us how to live.
talking head, bobbling head, empty head, no brain...
That’s a dangerously stupid woman right there. I’m glad I don’t have cable.
She should have said older.
That being said, I would venture to say a sizeable portion do it as a matter of choice. Far too many, from what I have seen.
Earth to Costello: The federal government is the “child” of the states. The states are only the children of the people.
/johnny
That's not in the FedGov job description. It is in the job description for the able-bodied men in the family.
/johnny
‘zactly ....
The 1960s Marxist-Alinsky hippie street rabble and their ideological issue (children)-cum-Rat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party) wish to make it known this 31st day of July 2009:
Asking for states’ rights is asking the children to be the parents.
It seems to me that only the individual exists by nature and then by consent and contract, either real or implied, the other groups are formed from marriage, family, town, city, county, state, federal. We are soverigns of our souls. At least that is how I see it.
This is not, I repeat NOT, the United Federation of America. It is the Untied STATES of America.
Whoops...Friday night typo...but right now maybe we are the untied states.
What do you expect from a bunch of intellectual CHILDREN?
I've read a lot of ridiculous comparisons, but this takes the cake - even more so because it's obviously being tested to see if it sticks for women as a meme. But the very concept that the most profound development in the history of the world for freedom, a masterpiece of social philosophy for which generations of Americans have fought and died to protect, and which has become a beacon of possibility for the whole world (and an example for women's social freedom, BTW), should even be remotely considered as being tossed because some woman wants to chase some man because she's pissed off at him (reason doesn't matter, it's the comparison that's the point), has got to be a new low.
This type of insanity puts the selfishness of a woman's needs above all, and the country and the world be damned. No responsibility whatever for the woman - not in selecting the rat husband, not in dealing with the rat relationship with him, not in pursuing ten kids in the first place (or three, or even one) - no. Just: woman is pissed, so woman is victimized, so burn down the country and destroy the world so she can get whatever she thinks she wants (and then when it doesn't work, she's still victimized).
Women should be absolutely outraged that they are portrayed as mindlessly destructive and idiotically selfish as you have portayed them. Instead, by the millions, they think this craven and vicious attitude actually represents freedom, as they destroy education and job opportunities and family life for men, and then continue in their still-unfulfilled collectivist rage to try to burn down the country around them, without ever once realizing that their limitless selfishness is precisely the thing that prevents them from ever being fulfilled by anything or anyone, ever.
Guy knows nothing about history.
Sovereign states existed BEFORE federal govt.
They were MUCH more powerful than the infant federal govt.
The powers of the fed govt were very limited.
The fed govt was to be the agent of the states, not the master of the states. Only had the few powers the states had given it.
The more these morons talk the more they confirm they are morons and do not know real history at all. And they don’t care, they are happy idiots and have high self-esteem.
Since when is the government supposed to be your personal detective?
I have long wondered whether a Henry Bowman (re: Unintended Consequences by John Ross) would come along at some point and start taking out legislators. Not that I advocate that, mind you, but conditions are about right for one to emerge.
I believe it was a mistake to allow women to vote. I also believe it is a mistake for people who don’t own property (non-taxpayers) to vote.
Too many people who don’t have any skin in the game voting in people who will give them other people’s money.
The real children are the liberals who not only are NOT familiar with history but have been usurped and blinded by a spoiled liberal press who has refused to vet and report on the other side of stories.
I wonder if we will not all be planning to move to Texas or Alaska or any other state that we know will stand strong against a federal takeover. This will be a war over refusing to become slaves, not like the war that freed the slaves.
Absolutely, except in those areas that the fed is specifically tasked to handle.
She also highlighted the premise that “the concept of states’ rights is as old as America.”
Bingo...and so is that moldy piece of paper called the constitution. Apparently she hasn't made time to read it, however.
Tell that to Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin . . . dim wit.
As we all know, the Founding Fathers created a political system with a limited federal government with most of the power located in state governments. Our Founding Fathers understood from history and personal experience that centralized political power was by its very nature tyrannical. We even see this wisdom in the Old Testament when God warned the tribes of Israel what would happen if they insisted upon choosing a king to rule over them. They would live to regret it. People never seem to learn. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that all empires make. We have sown the seeds of America’s destruction.
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
-Ronald Reagan
apparently this view is ignorant..
In our society, we have a sizeable portion that rely upon the largesse of government to provide them with the things they feel are their 'right'(s). All us other blokes are left with the task of actually doing things that make headway for the rest and have the vision to see what a contribution we can make beyond merely draining the community pool.
I have noticed recently, as a matter of point, that more of the people I once considered mere layabouts are actually getting out there and looking for jobs, so I guess the current economy is not all bad. But the ones who will just not see beyond the government handout just bloody well drives a bloke to drink most times. I mean, sometimes I just want to shout "Just get out there and DO something, for Cr***akes!" I mean, bloody 'ell, even if you're just flippin burgers, at least you have an honestly earned paycheck to look forward to.
Interesting .....
bk
Carol Costello Vs The Camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzYsPVeJo5c
What do you expect from the Michael Jackson cable channel?!
I used the child support example to illustrate that women want big federal government. The feds already hunt down delinquent fathers because that’s what women want.
There are no “self sufficient” women. They all need good men to protect them from bad men.
That’s why women look to the federal government to replace husbands and fathers. Women can’t survive on their own.
Americans must choose between big federal government or traditional values. We can’t have both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.