The founders “liked government”, too, I guess -
“to secure these rights, governments are established among men”
What a BS article.
Fixed it.
That is not a problem. Military defense is within the scope of the Constituion.
Liberals are proof of devolution.
Defense of the Nation was and is, the first and only priority.
What a pant load of convoluted nonsense.
I thought this piece was written by a 5th grader.
I guess that proves that Sarah Palin is not an anarchist.
1) Government, like George Washington said, is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master;
2) Government cannot spend without first taking somehow some way;
3) It was not really necessary, but we have given government the monopoly power to print money and even allowed it to create “liquidity” out of thin air;
4) We have allowed government to grow to such a point it has become a self-serving parasite that needs to keep us financially captive for the sake of the taxes it can extract from us over our lifetimes. We even have allowed government to tax the assets we leave at our passing;
I am sure that FReepers can add a few more essential points I have missed.
Once we agree on these points, we can then go on to discuss what level of government is best.
However, anyone who reads the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution should notice that those who wrote and ratified it considered that a certain minimal level of government was necessary to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Unlike any other government of men on earth (excluding the one God gave to Israel at Sinai), this government was founded to maximize LIBERTY, not to maximize government.
We have allowed power-hungry people to invert the relationship between the citizen and the government that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Mason and others built. Our government seeks to destroy our ability to control it. It seeks to become our master instead of remaining properly as the guarantor of our liberties.
I likes government too but not:
1) when it is taking money from my paycheck—fair tax please
2) when it is snooping in my home
3) when government refuses to defend the borders
4) when telling me that the certain ‘extra ingredient’ I put in my brownies is illegal
5) when it denies people the right to defend their homes with firearms-—that’s you Chicago and DC
6) When it takes controlling interest in a car company that should have failed years ago
7) when it tells banks who and why to lend money to in the name of ‘fairness’
I guess Julian has difficulty separating national security from welfare, 0bamaCare, and other forms of largesse. Of course, libs can never see the value of a strong military.
Funny how government gets bigger and bigger while everything that makes the US great gets smaller and smaller. It’s the liberal way. Their thinking is that once the US is diminished to nothing, we won’t need a military to protect it.
IMHO Sara sees both sides of the issue and she has decided that the benefits, epically now, out weigh the potential risks.
A strongly funded and manned military will:
1. Develop new, dual use, technologies that will make our futures better.
Proof of statement?
The Internet, compact computers, and life saving medical technologies just coming off the battlefield are but a few of these.
2. Return to a draft of some type.
Proof of statement?
Our society depends on a highly trained workforce and the military is the only organization that can produce thousands of trained and experience technical workers annually. Our life style has been, and is currently, funded by the military.
Proof of statement?
a. The training provided during and after WW2 gave us the greatest generation and the wealth that came with it.
b. How is a high school graduate going to afford, dollars and time, technical training in computers, mechanical arts, and medical arts in today's and tomorrow's world? If we can not afford an upward path for our high school graduates, including GEDs, we WILL become a North American Greece.
Final proof - what have all of our nontechnical PhD’s done to add to our GDP? Printing books on arcane subjects and teaching clones don't count on the floor of Wall Street - otherwise colleges would be listed on the big board, wouldn't they.
Lefties like to portray us as not wanting any government at all. That’s their best attempt at making us look like loons. Of course we want government - as laid out in the Constitution - as envisioned by our founding fathers. What we don’t want is socialism/communism/facism.
There is obviously no contradiction between supporting spending on constitutionally appropriate endeavors and disapproving of spending on areas in which the federal government should have no role.
This is the exact kind of analysis that makes CNN readers/viewers so boneheadedly stupid.
Rick Sanchez is their Moe.
CNN = Crap and Noxious Noises neither of which are the least bit edifying.
As part of that debate, I would like to know whether she favors Kristol or Coulter on the issue of Obama’s War in Afghanistan.
MY guess is that Ms. Zelwinger, or whatever her name is, has never even HEARD of the Federalist Papers, let alone READ them.
These liberals prove they are morons every single freakin' day.
Do they not understand that the national defense is a right given to the federal government by the founders, while nearly all social programs funded by today’s fed are not?
Sigh. There is there any hope for a return to constitutionality when we have an ignorant populace fed misinformation by a dubious, but equally ignorant, press?