« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Words matter – Says Former President

Of course words matter, such as, “I never had sex with that woman”. So when former President Bill Clinton decides to lecture tea party patriots on the slippery slope of anti-government rhetoric I am amused. (H/T Drudge Report)

How about the words “”I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  A lot of people think President Obama is more concerned with re-interpreting the constitution than defending it.

Here are some valuable words we can all live by, and have for centuries.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. >Transcript Amendment X US Constitution
</blockquote>

Let’s compare them to President Barrack Obama’s ideas.

I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – Barrack Obama to Joe the plumber. October 12, 2008

Those words have had consequences. And it is precisely those words and the recognition that words do matter that has lead to the rhetoric that former President Bill thinks we should tone down.  After all people realize that while President Obama is big on spreading the wealth around the people receiving that wealth fall into a vary narrow category. State, Federal and Municipal union workers, teacher’s unions, Government Motors Corporation unions, and bankers. The last one, bankers,  seems to be out of place until you realize that Barrack Obama was raised by his wealthy grandmother who was well to do bank VP.

Former President Clinton wanted to compare the tea party people to the original Boston tea party protesters.

He (Former President Bill Clinton) also alluded to the anti-government tea party movement, which held protests in several states Thursday. At the Washington rally, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota railed against “gangster government.”
Clinton argued that the Boston Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. The current protesters, he said, are challenging taxation by elected officials, and the demonstrators have the power to vote them out of office.

Words matter, and misleading words matter even more. How many of the tea party people at the rally actual can vote for or against Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reed? The distance between London and Boston or Boston and San Francisco is not that much different. The fact is, the citizens of Massachusetts had a legislature, they had taxes and provided for their own welfare. To a great extent they didn’t need parliament. It was a rejection of Parliament’s right to impose taxes on the colonies not taxation itself that was the issue. Today we face the same issue. The problem is the state’s right to impose taxes for the common welfare, it is that a politician from California, who lived most of her life inside the beltway, doesn’t have the right to define “common welfare” for people she doesn’t represent.

Printing money to save banks “for the common welfare” might have been defensible. Spending close to a trillion as a stimulus fund which was nothing more than an orgy of special interest spending, much of it going to bail out uber-liberal states with irresponsible, immature or down right deceitful leadership cannot be defended in the common interest.

While the tea party people haven’t come out and said it yet the real issue is that the federal government has too much power over domestic issues. Power the framers of the Constitution rightfully feared. Because a powerful federal government can only be trusted as much as the President. The last two democrat presidents were lawyers, who can parse words well and debate whether they actually lied, or were misunderstood. We know exactly what that is, and by any way you define it untrustworthy the result. Of course, there are many people that still believe the last two Republican Presidents lied, leading us to a simple conclusion. Taxes for the common benefit should be laid down like blocks on a pyramid. Broader and heavier closer to the base, smaller and lighter as it gets farther away from the base. If Nancy Pelosi was not an ideologue willing to the use the power of her position to advance an agenda at odds with the majority of the country we might be able to come up with a consensus on matters of common benefit regarding health care decisions that are very personal in nature. But she isn’t and there is no way to guarantee that the next speaker will be any less an ideologue. So a consensus has emerged. The end of the period of confidence in a big federal activist government has been reached. The threats this big federal government posses to individual liberty far out weigh the benefits over more direct participatory government. The kind you get from a scalable local activist paradigm.

Want to understand the tea partiers, in ways even they haven’t found someone to express. America has come a long way since the days of John Kennedy. The greatest threat to personal freedom isn’t in the state house, but in the federal congress. It isn’t the Jim Crow era states that are taking away peoples rights, it is the out of control tyranny of federal ideologues. What we want is more taxation close to home, offset by less taxation going to Washington. Sure, high taxes are a burden, but if I don’t like my councilman’s use of the money, it doesn’t take much to make a change.

Now that is change I can embrace. And it gives me hope for a smaller, less intrusive, less taxing and far more humble federal government who administers those few things that only they can do.

WmCraig
Solvo Reor

Cross posted at Freedoms-Light.org

Whether we like it or not, the American wage earner and the American housewife are a lot better economists than most economists care to admit. They know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
If we want to restore confidence in ourselves as working politicians, the first thing we all have to do is to learn to say no.  President Gerald Ford, Address to a Joint Session of the Congress. -August 12, 1974

Get Alerts