Marijuana.com

Plainsman1963

Just Say NO! to the Federal Government
01-29-2005 | Oliver Del Signore | Backwoods Home Magazine

Back in the 80s, Nancy Reagan championed a “War on Drugs” campaign that featured as its slogan “Just Say NO!” From what I could determine, the only people who took the slogan seriously, who imagined it would do anything to stem the use of drugs, were The Drug Warriors themselves. Everyone else pretty much laughed at or ignored it. But Nancy was right. She was just right about the wrong thing.

The real target of her “Just Say NO!’ campaign should have been the Federal government itself.

There are two ways a government can control its citizens—by using guns or by using money. Money, of course, is the preferred method here in the USA. Congress passes some useless legislation designed to make themselves look good, or to address a manufactured or imagined problem, then threatens the states with loss of some type of federal funding if they do not comply. State legislatures and local officials, sheep that they are, scurry to comply lest their neighbor get more money to waste than they will.

And the people are slightly more oppressed.

If it only happened occasionally, we could almost live with it. But such laws are not occasional things. They make up the bulk of legislation passed by the self-serving professional busybodies we keep electing to “govern” us. It doesn’t matter that most of the laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I’ve searched and searched through my copy of the Constitution, over and over again, looking for the clauses that give Congress any authority over education, drug use, health care, housing, disaster relief, firearms, or any of the myriad areas into which they seem to relish sticking their collective noses. But I can’t find a single word enabling them to do what they do.

What was that? The Supreme Court said they could? So what? I’ve also searched for the clause that gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not. I can’t seem to find that one either. Does anyone really believe the Founding Fathers of this country wanted the government to pass judgement on itself? In fact, what they wanted, and what they designed, was a system whereby the people, through local government and through jury trials, were the ones who decided whether or not laws were constitutional.

Which is why it is time we American citizens got together, individually and on the local and state level, and Just Say NO!

We’ve got to start saying NO! to the threats of withholding funds. Indeed, we’ve got to start saying NO! to any funds not specifically intended for one of the very few powers the Constitution actually grants to the Federal Government.

We’ve got to say NO! to the education reform that has dumbed down our children to the point where high school graduates need electronic cash registers with pictures on the keys to help them place the order and make change for a dollar, that hands diplomas to people who can’t find France on a world map, and who, in many cases, can’t read or write well enough to fill out a job application.

We’ve got to say NO! to the insane War on Drugs that allows our Government to imprison a higher percentage of our citizens than does any other country in the world, that does nothing to discourage drug abuse, and that actually creates the atmosphere of profitability that makes the drug trade attractive and dangerous.

We’ve got to say NO! to laws that seek to disarm Americans, that prevent us from defending ourselves against four-legged, two-legged, and bureaucratic predators.

We’ve got to say NO! to the debilitating and divisive welfare and quota systems that have served only to create an underclass of dependents, that has tainted the accomplishments of minorities who have struggled so long and so hard for true equality, that has divided a once proud people into warring camps, each desperately seeking the ear and approval of their masters that they might be granted an ounce or two of the king’s gold.

We’ve got to say NO! to the controllers, NO! to the bureaucrats, NO! to everyone who wants to help us for our own good.

When we sit on juries, we’ve got to say NO! to the prosecutors and judges who seek to fine and imprison us for actions that harmed no one, except, possibly, ourselves. And when they try to legislate juryless trials, we’ve got to storm the seats of government and say NO! we will not accept the loss of our right to decide who is guilty and who should go free.

We’ve got to say NO!, NO!, NO! over and over again, until they finally get the message that Americans want to be free, that we want to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit, as long as we do not harm others.

We’ve got to start now, today, this very minute to take back the rights and the freedoms we have been letting slip away. For if we do not, if we continue to allow elected and unelected officials to castrate us, to neuter our rights, to dissolve our freedoms, it is our children and our grandchildren who will, in the end, pay the ultimate price. It is they who will live as slaves to the state. It is they who will look back, with tears in their eyes, and ask why we let it happen.

Just Say NO!

Reprinted with permission of Oliver Del Signore and Backwoods Home Magazine. 1-800-835-2418

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

Buzzby

Should I continue to live on my Social Security disability check or defiantly starve to death?

I'm mostly into Libertarian ideas, but I draw the line at saying the government has no stake in helping people out of poverty or helping them to get a decent education so they can do more than flip burgers. The first is basic human compassion and a source of peace of mind. The second is an investment in the future. If we consider compassion, generosity, and forward-planning to be positive personal traits why not incorporate them into our governments?

I definitely agree with the Libertarian position on marijuana and other off-topic drugs. As long as I don't hurt anyone else or fail to take care of my responsibilities, what business is it of the government (or anyone else) what I choose to put in my body?

__________________

^_^truth

Is it just me or is someone quoting from a conservative magazine ?

My biggest grief with this idea of just saying NO to the federal government entirely, is that it destroys the few benfits that only a federal government would have the capacity to deal with. The federal government should only be passing laws to maintain controls on business, move toward a univerisal health care system, uphold the inherent rights of citizens, and fund scientific research that will better humanity.

All of these regulations passed by the federal government to control individuals i'll admit are insane, such as the drug laws.

What states should be doing is rejecting to take the money from some of these programs by rejecting to fufill the requirements. Federal money for roads, not needed, lets states deal with it. Federal Money for education: Oh yes!

If the people of the U.S. decided to discontinue supporting programs that are out of date and support complex's such as the millitary-industrial complex or the prision-industrial complex then the federal government's abuses would cease to exist.

The key is to know what to cut, what to increase, and what to leave in the states hands, and as of late the government, which ironicly is run by conservatives, is increasing it's power of states by quite a bit.

But I digress, I would disagree with the author of this article on many of the issues it put forward on what the federal government should and should not be doing; however, on the issue of the Drug war and any inherent right disrupting issue, I do agree the federal government has no right to deal with the issue.

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

str8way

Our lovely government has regulated us into being average. The folks that get on welfare are usually kept there by their social worker so their job is secure. Is that really attending to the welfare of the people? Shouldn't family and neighbors take care of their own as they used to before this socialized, government ran, unfair, demoralizing system was put in place?

Yeah, I really think the feds need to regulate our education system, not! The education system is used to repay favors and work deals just as many other govnmt programs are used. If it were to be equal throughout the union, then all schools would have olympic size swimming pools or not have them. Why do certain schools have these luxuries and cost per student so out of proportion accross the states? Because of govnmt regulation of something they shouldn't. They are inherently wasteful and prone to taking care of business according to some other influence not by equallity and fairness. I think communities or neighborhoods should take care of their kids, not uncle perv, I mean uncle sam.

If you think the government should see to your every need and be your conscience, you are feeding the fires of a fascist regime that is slowly simmering. They are taking our individuality and ability to achieve and regulating it into oblivion. You know the old saying, what is good for Rome is good for Romans. We have to be kept in line and marching to the same drum so our corporate masters have a productive work force that is efficient and satisfied enough to keep working and marching in step.

If my taxes weren't so high, I might be able to help my neighbors in need. As it is, I pay nearly 60% of every dollar of profit into the huge sucking hole that is semi-socialism. Probably 90% of that is wasted and does no real good.

I firmly believe that our govnmt is too big for its breeches and needs to be taken down several knotches. We can help ourselves and they know it, but they don't want us to know it.

Plainsman1963

The federal government has done such a great job with education, haven't they?

Lord knows, we sure don't want to mess that up.

I am noticing more and more that if someone says "I don't think the federal government should be in charge of education", the response will be "you're against education!".

"I don't think the government should be involved in health care"..."You're against sick people!".

I think that everybody should get an education. I don't think the federal government has any right to be in charge of that.
I think that anybody that needs to go to the doctor/hospital should be able to go.
I don't think the federal government (us) should pay for it.

Why should I pay for somebody across the country getting food stamps? Why should somebody pay for me to get them, if they don't agree with it?

That is what charities and churches are for. The government should get out of it and let the private citizens who wish to help, help.

As long as some people get "bennies" from Uncle Sam, I guess they don't care about the corresponding loss of freedom that seems to go with a lot of these "programs", as well as the emptier pockets that seem to go hand and hand for a lot of people as a result.

 

Buzzby

Federal welfare laws limit the amount of time a family can spend on welfare and requires the parent(s) to find work if they are to continue receiving benefits.


If people in trouble had to depend on family and "community" we'd have even more homeless people on the streets. That kind of community doesn't exist anymore, except in a few places. Many people don't have families or their families are too poor to help. Government support for people in trouble provides a safety net that we all can depend on, not just those lucky enough to have a community, church, or family support.


Can you support that position? That's a new one on me.


Cute, but meaningless. Government support for education is designed to make sure that all children get a decent start so that later in life they can be productive citizens and not a burden on their community. You're saying that rich communities can provide as much luxury as they want while children in poor communities will just have to suffer along with what little their tax base can provide. The government sets minimum standards and provides support where those standards can't be met by local funding. To continue that funding the schools have to educate up to those standards. I'm not fond of the current system that wastes so much student and teacher time on paperwork and testing, but it's still better than allowing the cycle of grinding poverty to condemn children to a life with no hope of economic improvement

vladimir

suggesting that a more socialist govt agenda includes the loss of freedoms is not right. many european nations have the federal govt involved in education, welfare, and healthcare, but it in no way comes with a loss of freedoms. in fact, i think europe is a much more free place to live than the us, when it comes to personal freedoms at least. the problem in the us is that the politicians abuse their powers, and nobody is willing to really do much about it. that has nothing to do with what social services a govt could (and, IMO, should) provide to its citizens.
also, if you read up on keynes economic theories, you see how, if done right, these govt programs can actually end up putting more money in everybody's pockets by getting the economy to run more smoothly.

cb007sax

I really have no problem with the government acting as a safety net. If you believe government spending produces equal results in all parts of the US, then you are just plain wrong. There's no support for it what forever, and is blatantly evident in towns where Bonds are passed like crazy, and have everything you could want in a school. Then you go to a more urban area (usually), and find that others schools deal with a minimum funding from the state, and even LESS from the government.

Education btw is much more of a reserved State Right than a federal government priority. States differ numerously in material covered, monetary spending, teacher certification, etc.

I also want to address the issue of private concern for fellow man. It's great to think that you would help out your neighbors if your taxes were so high, but this country, and in particular 'our society', is very motivated on SELF independence, hence people are much less generous in what they help with. We don't have massive community support in some areas, and we could benefit from some government funding there, even if it required some extra tax. I realize that most taxes are bogus, and government spending has proven to be extremely uneffective in solving problems, but I think state tax with a local community tax would better narrow down the flow of money to where it REALLY belongs. The higher up you put your money in the government chain, the less results you personally will see.


What we are really looking at here, is an article based on an extremely fascist right wing opinion. No government, we need liberties, yada yada yada. We can't all agree, but a continual swing in the pendulum of law is not a bad idea. We see this oscillation of right to left in politics alot, and it is VERY helpful, we don't want to see it go too far in any direction, so I highly doubt you should support exclusively right-wing opinions.

Politicians are seemingly more corrupt than anything, but corruption is very low compared to early america, and especially the beginning of the 20th century. As long as you continue to vote for who you believe will do the better job, rather than what side the person is on, you would be alot more impressed with what you get. Caring and passion are traits universally agreed on.

A little government mixed in with alot of rights is great. We trample eachother on BOTH sides, but I wouldn't like to live without government, and I wouldn't like to live without my god given rights to live, prospur, and be happy (I'm sure there's a few more I'm forgetting )

Plainsman1963

Do you even know what the definition of the word "fascism" is, or is it just a buzzword you have picked up?

No government and more liberties, and fascism do not go together.

str8way

Quote:
Originally Posted by str8way
The folks that get on welfare are usually kept there by their social worker so their job is secure.

buzzby answered:
Federal welfare laws limit the amount of time a family can spend on welfare and requires the parent(s) to find work if they are to continue receiving benefits.

What's the limit? Got a man and wife with two kids been on it for five years. He is perfectly healthy and so is she. They had one child and liked the checks so much they decided to have another to double the money. The govnmnt seems to not mind it so much. I know another man and family, he became disabled, they refused him flat out. I know these people personally and I sure am glad the govmnt takes care of our neighbors so well.

Quote:
The education system is used to repay favors and work deals just as many other govnmt programs are used.

buzzby:
Can you support that position? That's a new one on me.

My state recently called off the inter-racial bussing issue. That put about $1billion back into the budget from the savings. We all paid for that issue, rich and poor alike. We didn't get tax relief nor did the money go to all of the schools, they said it would go to the two large cities in our state. Yeah, that's fair. They already have the pools and stadiums for sports and all of those other neccessities.

I own a business and have to hire from the pool of graduates from these fine govmnt schools. 4 out of 5 applicants can sign their names and maybe do a little addition and subtraction, forget division and multiplication. They made it through 12 years of state run school and boy was it worth it.

I stand by my views of the govmnt. I don't like to be forced to wear seat belts, give to people that don't need it but do know how to work the system, pay over half my income in taxes that will see at least a 70% waste, forced to be paranoid in my own home for smoking pot and the list goes on and on.

Do you know the kind of service you get with socialism? If you get the same bowl of soup and piece of bread everyone else gets at the end of the day, I aint gonna go outta my way to work any harder or faster. You my sit in the waiting room for quite a spell to see that doc or maybe you wanna get herded through the doc's office like a sheep.

Anti big govnmt and lovin' it.