web analytics
Browse > Home / Abortion, Cry FREEDOM!, ramblings / Why are we doing this again???

| Subcribe via RSS

Why are we doing this again???

September 21st, 2009 Posted in Abortion, Cry FREEDOM!, ramblings

My brain likes to take things and mash them together and come out with observations. For example, Take the ACORN tapes, My friend Michael’s shooting post, Strangers post on the 91 year old man who stopped an intruder, The NEA whoring for Obama, and the whole government insurance thing and swirl it around in my head for a bit and this is what happens.

Why does the government give money in the form of grants to any organization at all? We have ACORN that received cash, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, and a ton of others. I mean, look at this list! There’s federal domestic assistance, federal campaign participation, food distribution, faith based and community initiatives, and the list goes on and on and on.

I’m not against any of these organizations with the exception of ACORN and Planned Parenthood (which I will get to shortly) but this idea that the federal government should be collecting taxes from us and then handing it out on programs that they have decided are worthy of them is disturbing. What kind of Constitutional authority exists for this?? Yes, I’m going back to that old saw that all of us right wing extremists use any time we don’t want the government doing something – I’m referencing the LAW.

Now, I don’t want to hear an answer like “Well, Congress voted on it…” Because that is saying that Congress voted to expand their Constitutional authority when the Constitution clearly says that to amend the Constitution, which is what they are doing by voting themselves new powers, has to go through the gyrations laid out in Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

So, to give themselves more power they have to pass an amendment to the Constitution and I haven’t seen one that says “Congress shall collect, in the form of taxes, money to give to none government entities to perform services that are outside of the scope of Federal authority.”

Now this is not to say that these institutions that are receiving grants don’t do good works, I’m sure many of them do, but when you consider that the amounts of money thrown around are pretty large you are bound to have quite a bit of graft and corruption come into play. Let’s face it, you have a non-profit that you want to get some money for so you go to your senator and say “Gee, Mr. Senator would you help me get some money?” What do you think the most likely response from your Senator will be?

A – Sure, if you help me get re-elected

B – Sure, if you give a donation to my campaign fund

C – Sure, because I am just a wonderful guy that way

D – A and B but the press release will say C

Why do we have this? All it can do is help propagate a culture of corruption (apologies to Michelle Malkin) that will thrive on even more kickback and power grabbing. Shouldn’t these organizations that want my money give ME a good reason for my cash instead of just getting Congress to just pull it, unwillingly, from my pocket and handing it out for favors?

What if I am not in favor of the particular cause that the grant receiver is supporting? I personally don’t believe that abortion is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. I think it cheapens life, allows promiscuity without consequence and promotes the idea that children, and life, is as disposable as a used condom. I’ve had friends say “Well they hand out condoms too so people won’t get pregnant.” Once again, NOT MY PROBLEM! See, being able to rut like an animal and jump from one bed to another is not a RIGHT and not something that we, as a society, should be supporting.

How many unwed mothers are out there today because they got pregnant and the father bailed on them? Now, you’re probably saying “See, if she had an abortion she wouldn’t be in that position.” and I say that if she and the father had kept their pants on she wouldn’t be in that position either. Is it a hard line? Yes, it is. Because for too long all I have heard from the left on this subject is “Well, it’s a woman’s choice…” Great, just don’t use MY money to support that choice. If someone else wants to give their money to Planned Parenthood, fine but leave me the fuck out of it.

Oh, but wait… I can’t be left out of it because the government is giving my money to them so they can perform about 800,000 abortions each year and I can have no say over that. I’m not calling for a ban on abortion, it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle anyway, but I am saying that I should not be forced by my government to give money to a group that I am diametrically opposed to.

So let’s turn this around for a moment and look at it through a different lens, if you will.

I, being wealthy and connected to a bunch of other wealth philanthropists, decided that I am going to create a new non-profit organization that we will call “Arms Across America”. The stated mission of A3 is to provide “Affordable and practical home protection as well as counseling and training on how to protect your family for law abiding citizens of the United States.”

Sounds OK so far, right? So part of that would be to help families get affordable security alarms, door locks and also to teach them about community watch programs, train them on how to be alert for potential assailants and how to avoid those situations. Kind of like how Planned Parenthood provides education in reproduction and gives out condoms – we’re doing preventative stuff with alarms and education. Now, we are also going to offer, for law abiding citizens, training in concealed carry, financial assistance for the needy in getting a firearm and legal assistance for their right to self defense. Kind of like how Planned Parenthood offers “solutions” for “unintended pregnancies” we would offer solutions for unwanted home invasions that were not stopped by the alarm systems (the condom of home protection).

Do you think the liberals would want their tax dollars to go to something like this? Would they be for an organization that is dedicated to training, arming and protecting the citizens of this country? Or would they hit the roof over the fact that their tax dollars were being handed out, in the form of government grants, to an organization that represents one of the things they hate most, and demand that no federal money be given to an organization that would promote gun ownership and actually help people acquire and train in the use of a firearm?

I’m thinking they would hit the roof.

So, if they would be so opposed to their money going to something that I would actually support, why then should MY money go to something that I don’t support but they do? The best thing would be to shut the whole damn thing down. We the people are smart enough to give our money to organizations that we want to support and we can do that on our own. In fact we could do a lot more of it if the government would stop ripping us off and saying that they are doing it to help us.

If they really want to help, the first thing they would do is quit giving our money away.


Yet another reason to stop giving my money out to special interest groups.  AARP getting kickbacks

7 Responses to “Why are we doing this again???”

  1. Jennifer Says:

    We have a winner.

  2. ailuromaniac Says:

    I guess you will have to blame those silly framers of the Constitution. Bunch of dirty old men who thought people were reasonable ans so stuck that vague “promote the general welfare” clause in the preamble. You’d’ve thunk after the silliness of dealing with parlement they’d’ve known better.

  3. Instinct Says:

    Actually, AM, the general welfare clause is laid out very specifically with the enumerated powers laid out right after that phrase. The enumerated powers explains, directly, what they meant by “general welfare” and guess what! There’s nothing in there about giving our money away!

    I know, shocking, isn’t it. But then again, over the years the meaning has been so twisted around that people actually think the Constitution says “Separation of church and state” which, of course, it doesn’t.

    I also think that the founding fathers knew exactly how corrupt and debased people could be and decided that the best way to control that was by making sure Congress wasn’t able to take our money for just any reason they decided on, thus the enumerated powers. Too bad Congress just walked around that and pretended it didn’t exist

  4. Instinct Says:

    Besides, why would you be against directly deciding where your money goes? Are you afraid that people won’t make the “right choice” and support your cause?

  5. ailuromaniac Says:

    True but that section has the “necessary and proper” clause embedded. Necessary and proper by whose standards? OOPS! big loophole. E.G. Is it proper to be concerned with the health of the populace? What is necessary to promulgate solutions for this proper concern? Will the general welfare be promoted by expanding this power?

    You see, it gets ugly fast.

    They should have required more at large referendums to pass laws that were considered “necessary and proper”. I know bad roads and poor transportation and communication would bog down the process. But wasn’t slowing the process part of the idea?

    Let us look at the cost of prescription drugs. Did you know that the only other nation to allow advertisement of prescription medication is New Zealand? Who pays for the cost of those slick TV and other media adds? Want to reduce healthcare costs? How about the good old days when you could only advertise OTC drugs. Better still stop all medication advertisement. Where did this gem of stupidity start. The enumerated powers of Congress to promote commerce and some greedy politicians.

  6. Instinct Says:

    The necessary and proper clause reads like this

    “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

    So, it’s only referring to the other enumerated powers and other powers listed in the Constitution. So it saying that Congress has the power to pass laws that allow them to carry out the job that is specifically laid out. Not such a big loophole after all.

    Were you aware that Mississippi passed a tort reform law and medical insurance costs dropped by 46%?? So why isn’t that anywhere in Congress’ craptastic bill? They want insurance costs to be lower then I bet reforming the tort laws nationally would do it.

  7. ailuromaniac Says:

    Looks to me like someone has driven a very large vehicle through it… several times.

    Do you really think they want to control costs? Good for Ole Miss! No I didn’t know of it.

    I get TX reports from my daughter along with pressure to get a Flu shot. I am not really anti-vaccine it is just the worst cases of the Flu I ever had were when they last lined us up like cattle and “gave them away for free”. Sore arm one day, bad Flu 21 days later. “But Mom, they don’t use live virus any more!” So, I don’t get the Flu, why should I waste the money?

    Yeah, I know the answer is educate yourself and vote. I would add and keep your vote confidential. I really hate nosy people asking “who did you vote for?” We have a secret ballot for a reason.

    Personally at this point, I’d just as soon turn over the lot of them to anyone who has never held office. The Spartans were right. Try’em as “guilty must prove innocence” at the end of their term.

Leave a Reply