Posted on 08/02/2010 6:01:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
Power: The federal government, according to Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, can do anything it wants. If there are indeed no checks on the state's power, as the congressman claims, then the state is a tyrant.
Stark, who represents San Francisco's East Bay area, let the left's secret slip when he told constituents at a July 24 town-hall meeting in Hayward that he believes "there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life."
His response came in reply to a constituent's thoughtful question about the federal health care overhaul. She merely wanted to know how Washington gave itself the authority to declare health care a right if implementing that right "necessarily infringes the unalienable rights of other people."
"How can this law be constitutional?" she asked. "But more importantly than that, if they can do this, what can't they?"
Stark, as arrogant, dismissive and evasive as always to the people he's "served" for 37 years, said that "the federal government can do most anything in this country."
His opinion on government power is shocking enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Carrying out his logic.. His arse belongs to WE the People.. Time to kick it over the rainbow.
He’ll be re-elected and it won’t even be close.
So what he said was essentially correct: the government CAN do anything it wants, because enough dunces out there will let it.
Don’t tread on me!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Remember in November!!
His attitude is shared by folks on BOTH sides of the aisle, sadly.
Oright'y then, my response would have been,,,,you fine me,,, come get it,,, it will cost lives!!!!!!!
“If there are indeed no checks on the state’s power, as the congressman claims, then the state is a tyrant.”
Agreed. While Stark’s observation is offensive to many, and his smugness is obscene, is he inaccurate?
There are laws, but they are administered or flouted by the lawless.
“When the deal goes down, all this talk about rules . . . we make ‘em up as we go along” - Alcee Hastings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk
We do not have representative government. We have an occupation.
The editorial is correct. Stark, the Dems and the Proressives do represent the past. The past of Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan. The ideas of Leviathan are exactly what the Founders rebelled against, It was in fear of Leviathan that checks and balances and federalism were written into the body of the Constitution and why The Bill of Rights was added.
I estimate this to be 40 some-odd percent of the electorate and growing. This is the big-government totalitarian constituency: those who have, directly or indirectly, become dependent on Big Brother for their existence. They have the mindset and mental make-up of children who have never learned to be self-reliant. They are made up of those who live in fear of freedom and how untidy it can be at times, and who not only don't want any for themselves, but also have no problem with imposing totalitarianism on the rest of us.
There is a good chance this group will reach over 50% soon, unless we are able to elect someone who can convince enough of them that freedom is really in their best interest. As indoctrinated as most of them are, I fear it is to be an uphill fight, even if it starts in November.
|
Send him packing, throw him out
Absolutely perfectly.
From earlier post today:
An Open Letter from Alexis de Tocqueville to President Barack Obama and the American People
Acton Institute ^ | 8/2/2010 | Jonathan Witt
Posted on Monday, August 02, 2010 1:00:44 PM by markomalley
I think that the oppression threatening democracies will not be like anything there has been in the world before….
I see an innumerable crowd of men, all alike and equal, turned in upon themselves in a restless search for those petty, vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls….
Above these men stands an immense and protective power which alone is responsible for looking after their enjoyments and watching over their destiny. It is absolute, meticulous, ordered, provident, and kindly disposed. It would be like a fatherly authority, if, fatherlike, its aim were to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks only to keep them in perpetual childhood; it prefers its citizens to enjoy themselves provided they have only enjoyment in mind. It works readily for their happiness but it wishes to be the only provider and judge of it. It provides their security, anticipates and guarantees their needs, supplies their pleasures, directs their principal concerns, manages their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances….
Thus, it reduces daily the value and frequency of the exercise of free choice; it restricts the activity of free will within a narrower range and gradually removes autonomy itself from each citizen. Equality has prepared men for all this, inclining them to tolerate all these things and often even to see them as a blessing.
Thus, the ruling power, having taken each citizen one by one into its powerful grasp and having molded him to its own liking, spreads its arms over the whole of society, covering the surface of social life with a network of petty, complicated, detailed, and uniform rules through which even the most original minds and the most energetic of spirits cannot reach the light in order to rise above the crowd. It does not break men’s wills but it does soften, bend, and control them; rarely does it force men to act but it constantly opposes what actions they perform; it does not destroy the start of anything but it stands in its way; it does not tyrannize but it inhibits, represses, drains, snuffs out, dulls so much effort that finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherd.
I have always believed that this type of organized, gentle, and peaceful enslavement just described could link up more easily than imagined with some of the external forms of freedom and that it would not be impossible for it to take hold in the very shadow of the sovereignty of this people.
Alexis De Tocqueville, 1840.
Democracy in America, pp. 805-6.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2563350/posts
I was surprised
(first!) that the question was even raised in his far-left district area of Calif.
(second!) that he even aknowledged such a question was asked
(third!) that he bothered answering it
(fourth) that he gave an “honest” answer (that to the liberals there is now NO limit to their powers)
(fifth!) that the crowd (judging from their responses and angery outbursts after he said it) DISAGREED with him.
I have no comment.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Even a lunatic can speak the truth now and then.
He’s absolutely right, you know. Somehow this government has gotten to the point where they think they can do whatever they please, and answer to no authority other than themselves. He’s merely describing the situation as it sadly stands right now.
Heaven help us!
Disagreed? Why was’t he tarred and feathered? The only way to stop these people is not to let them speak.
Every two years, they come begging for votes and money. All the while ignoring we, the people. Then they go to Versailles on the Potomac - or state capital - and totally ignore we, the people. Then, the cycle repeats, ad absurdum.
Town hall meetings should be events where we, the people tell them to shut up and listen.
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.