Getting the Picture Yet?



The Politics of Power: Are You a Citizen or a Subject?

Oct. 30, 2008 | by Rich Hailey

The federal government has bought an interest in the FM twins, which means they hold a piece of the note on your house. The federal government has bought an interest in banks, which means they own a piece of your savings. The federal government has bought an interest in insurance firms, meaning they own a piece of your insurance.


The Democrat majority in Congress did this, aided by a sitting Republican President.


Our next President plans to nationalize health care, which means that the federal government will own a piece of your doctor, your hospital, and your insurance provider.


In just a few short years, the federal government will have a controlling interest in nearly every facet of your life. And you, you lazy sheep, will be grateful for it, because at last, your government will be taking care of you, and the only people who will pay the cost will be those damnable rich people who have too much money and are too greedy.


Life will be wonderful.


Until the federal government starts to use the power you gave them to control your life.


If a man owns your house, your bank account, your job, and your health care, he owns you. Period. Just ask a coal miner from West Virginia about the company store.


"You load 16 tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
St. Peter don't call me cause I can't go.
I owe my soul to the company store."


What people tend to forget is that governments naturally accumulate power. It's not some evil drive for global domination in most cases, just a sincere belief that what they are doing is the right thing. Government exists to protect people from the actions of other people, and as long as it limits itself to that role, the people are citizens. But every government exceeds that role, usually at the request of some of the citizens, who feel that some other group needs to be protected from itself. We begin to pass laws to protect people from themselves, like mandatory helmets for motorcyclists, and seat belt laws for motorists. We pass helmet laws for bicyclists, because "It's for their own good." But as soon as a government starts to act to protect us from our own actions, acting in a paternalistic fashion, we stop being citizens and start becoming subjects. We grant the government the authority to force us to change our behavior.


You don't think the federal government would use its power to force you to change the way you live? Are you really that stupid?

  • The government wanted to encourage home ownership, so they added in a tax deduction for interest on a mortgage.
  • The government wants to encourage people to buy expensive cars that look environmentally friendly, so they give a tax credit for people to buy them.


  • The government wants to encourage people to go to college, so they allow a deduction for tuition expenses.
  • The government wants you to get involved in your community, so they want to establish a tax credit for community service.

"But these are all good things. We want them. So it's OK for the government to use the tax code to encourage them."


What happens when the things the government wants to encourage aren't so popular?


In 1974, Richard Nixon enforced a federal speed limit of 55mph in reaction to the oil embargo of 1973, enacted by OAPEC in retaliation for US support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. What makes this relevant is that the federal government didn't have the constitutional power to set a nationwide speed limit, so in order to get around that pesky piece of paper, the law that was passed simply said that any state which failed to comply with the federal guideline would lose its federal highway funds.


Over the protests of virtually everyone on the roads, double nickles became the law of the land.


In 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was introduced in the Senate by Frank Lautenburg. At first it was opposed by President Reagan as an infringement on state's rights, but constant lobbying by MADD made him change his mind. Again, the federal government didn't have the authority under the Constitution to force the states to raise their drinking ages, so again, it resorted to blackmail, threatening to reduce federal highway funds to states that did not comply.


Once again, the states fell in line and we are now in a situation where a man can fight and die for his country, but not buy a beer.


The point is clear. The federal government has used the power of the purse to force the states to comply with its dictates. Now, because of the hasty actions of our current Congress, the federal government has the power to force our individual compliance.


The question is not whether the government will use this power, but when and how.


When the government owns health care, how will they apportion their resources? There's an epidemic of obesity in the US right now, leading to a dramatic rise in adult onset diabetes. Wouldn't it be in the public interest to charge overweight people more for their treatment, in order to encourage them to lose weight and be in better health? 90% of lung cancer is directly related to smoking. Should the federal government force smokers to pay more for their health care? Should your government have the ability to penalize you for your lifestyle choices? If you are sexually active, you are at greater risk for a wide variety of diseases, not all of them STD's. Should your health care payments be linked to the number of sexual partners you've had? What if they aren't choices? Homosexuality carries a long list of health risks that results in increased health care costs. Should a gay man have to pay more for his health care?


When the government owns your house, will they control what you can do in it? We've already seen OSHA take a stab at creating regulations for home offices. Can you imagine the federal government establishing regulations on what kind of furniture you can have in each room? Establishing minimum viewing distances for televisions, minimum lighting standards, etc? I lived in Navy Housing for several years. The list of what I couldn't do was a lot longer than the list of what I could do. I hope you like cinder block walls painted institutional green.


It gets worse. The government has their hands on your bank now. Just yesterday, the federal government "urged" banks to start loaning out money. That's how we got into this mess in the first place! The federal government wanted to make cheap loans available to poor people so they could buy houses. The loans went bad and banks went belly up, so the government bought them. And now they're are repeating the cycle. What happens when the government owns the banks outright? I'll give you a hint. Have you ever seen the federal government not spend every dime it could get it's hands on? Remember the Social Security Trust? You know, the one that would be bankrupt except they're still running a Ponzi scheme with it?


Jake Butcher bounced a few banks here in Tennessee. The federal government is about to bounce all of them.


I know what some of you are thinking. "Real Americans will never stand for this! It would be intolerable for them to give up the rights, their freedoms, and their privacy! They'd fight back first!"


Have you looked at the polls lately? Real Americans, those that believe in individual responsibility, and in the Constitution, and in a limited government are in very short supply these days. Today's Americans want their government to take care of them, to meet their needs so they can be safe. I met a young woman at the Sarah Palin rally who was making $30,000 a year in her job and was complaining that she needed help from the government to get by. She was supporting Obama because he was promising cheap health care. She made $30k yearly and said she could not take care of herself on that amount of money.


She represents the New America, the one that is going to sweep Obama into office with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. They demand to be taken care of. They look at the things I've written above, and they see no problem with it. They believe that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of them if they can't do it themselves for any reason. They believe it because that's what they've been taught to believe. Those of us who remember that freedom is the basis for all of our other rights are in a quickly vanishing minority.


We're also about to become outlaws.


Our next President has said that he wants to establish a domestic security force as capable, strong, and well funded as the military. In other words, he wants to establish a federal police force. Just who do you think will be the target of that police force?


Our next President has already shown how he handles those who question him too sharply. He has circumvented the law as needed to investigate and destroy the reputation of anyone who makes him look bad. He has used the threat of lawsuits and criminal prosecution to silence news outlets with the temerity to air ads that oppose him. He has announced that he will boycott media outlets if they don't treat him or his cohorts deferentially. And we know our media will go along with him to maintain access. Eason Jordan and CNN did it to stay close to Saddam Hussein. If they could suck up to a monster like that, how much easier will it be for them to kiss the butt of an American President?


Our next President wants to take further control of the media by enforcing rules on which medium can broadcast what topics. Misnamed the "Fairness Doctrine," he is aiming squarely at any media which is favorable to conservatives. That's talk radio, and that's the internet. We're going to lose the voice that exposed "RatherGate" among other journalistic misdeeds. Here's fairness in action. If you make up a campaign sign showing Sarah Palin being rear-ended by John McCain, it's free speech. If you hang Sarah Palin in effigy, it's free speech. If you hang Barack Obama in effigy, it's a federal investigation.


Our next President will make private gun ownership a thing of the past. He says he believes in the Second Amendment. That's nice. I'd much rather hear him say he respects it, but I know he doesn't. He's on record as wanting to ban the ownership of all semiautomatic weapons. A frontal assault will fail, but he'll move incrementally, restricting gun shop locations, and taxing ammo and gun sales until the average citizen will be unable to afford to exercise their rights.


First he'll take our voice, then he'll take our rights, and if we persist, well, there's always that federal police force. The sad thing is that the federal police force probably won't even be needed. Too many of our "fellow Americans" believe that all of the above is of the good. By the time any of them begin to wake up to what we are saying, it will be too late, and the trap will be shut.


I'm sure there are some of you who don't believe that any of this will happen, that I'm just a paranoid lunatic mad over losing an election. If that helps you sleep at night, go ahead and believe that. I couldn't care less. But for you, I'm going to make a prediction. If this prediction comes true, then maybe, just maybe, you might want to pay a bit closer attention to all the other things I've said.


I've looked through Obama's education plan, you know, the one where he wants to get kids into government schools as early as possible? He calls it voluntary universal pre-school, which sounds eerily similar to his universal voluntary community service program that will require all high school students to perform community service.


This word "voluntary" seems to have acquired a new definition under Obama. Orwell would be proud.


One thing not mentioned anywhere in Obama's education plan is home schooling. My prediction is simple:


Under an Obama administration, look for a coordinated attack on home schooling, similar to the one mounted in California last year. Obama wants all children in government schools, where the federal government can control exactly what they are taught, and even more importantly, how they are taught. Home schoolers are a threat to that, and we know how Obama deals with threats.


The question finally comes down to this. Are you willing to bear the risks entailed with being a free citizen, or would you rather have the false security that comes from being a subject? I know where I stand, and I know it's on the losing side.


But I'll never be convinced it's the wrong one.


// Copyright (c) 1996-1997 Athenia Associates. // // License is granted if and only if this entire // copyright notice is included. By Tomer Shiran.

Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
10 Responses Feb 8, 2009

UN corroboration - Text of Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's report -<x>ames/read/1402<br />
<br />
Other corroboration - <br />
<br />
Senator Rockefeller's investigation into President Bush's alleged lies about pre-war intelligence on Iraq should be read. Despite the Democrat senator's intentions and proclamations, his committee report appears to be a thorough and compelling defense of the President. (See and the actual report from US Congress archives Select Committee on Intelligence)<br />
<br />
The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, (in a new book "Saddam's Secrets") no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force, says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some people hate the former president so much they will not look at anything but that. Sorry, if i offend anyone.<br />
<br />
Being involved in this so long this nearsightedness and refusal to see facts does irate me.<br />
<br />
i not saying the former president was perfect. i disagreed with him on many things. But this solely listening to the Dem Party and their controlled media has helped rip this country apart.<br />
<br />
And now we blindly believe everything is still his fault.

So what has the UN corroborated?

nudeinva, you've assumed a lot here. i never said: he UN has corroborated the WMD that put the world and the security of the US in peril has it? i just said they corroborated it with their investigations and reports. Period.<br><br />
<br><br />
mewold, i guess you mean that i am now a fear mongerer.<br><br />
<br><br />
i just try to bring the facts that are out there to everyone. Period. You can make your own decisions. If you want to disbelieve them because the substantiate something or someone you like or hate ... so be it.<br />
<br />
Fear mongering comes in all stripes. Republicans do it, Democrats do it and the Press does it. Citizens hopefully can weed through the chaff and the bias of the people making the statements. They can only do that with facts. Facts like these do not help their agenda so they are not reported or stated by anyone and quietly come onto the scene ... so they can die a quick death.<br />
<br />
Fear mongering is saying things like this crisis will destroy this country. No! People will destroy this country doing what they do best. LIE!

You mean the fear mongers like **** Cheney (last week) Donal Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter (and please do not get me started on this lying hypocritical bag of scum). Is that the fear mongering you refer to that the world is going to attack us again and eat us alive unless we violate everyone's rights and in the meantime failing to realize that the attack that occurred on US soil was while Bush was sleep at the switch (let's see, he was in Crawford with critical intelligence in front of him a month before the attack and he chose to a cowboy instead).<br />
And yes, government involvement is so bad in business. It certainly is good that the SEC stayed away from Bernie Madoff and did not interfere with free enterprise. And yes, Enron was the way companies should be built and run, the American way! And let us not forget dear Sma Walton and his clan of Walmart that insist that their suppliers ship their production to China. And byy the way, in order to maximize profits, let us hire people part time so that they do not have to pay health insurance for these employees and let the local or state government foot the bill. Good corporate strategy and excellent use of tax payer funds.<br />
I just love hoe all the constitutionalists come out hf the woodwork when a Democratic administration takes power and in the process bring us prosperity (let me see, I remember a guy named Clinton and Truman and Roosevelt and Johnson as opposed to the national price freeze by Richard Nixon, the WIN button by Gerald Ford - which stood for Whip Inflation Now and then the recession of the early 80's in Reagan and his huge tax cuts which was accompanied by the greatest expansion of the size of federal government to that point in history - only to be outdone by George Bush).<br />
Let us fear the Democratic prosperity that will result from the actions of this administration after work and effort. It will not happen in a day or a week or maybe even a term, but it will happen. I mean how do you take a budget surplus and turn it into a trillion dollar deficit? I do not know but it took a lot of creativity or nincompoops, I wonder which we had?<br />
And the Patriot Act was not that bad! This coming from a constitutionalists! Pick one or the other, you are either a constitutionalists and loathe the Patriot Act or you are an arch-conservative control freak afraid that others may be right and so you love the patriot Act. There is no middle ground on this beautiful!.<br />
I see, the UN has corroborated the WMD that put the world and the security of the US in peril has it? I have not seen that news, it seems that the Bush administration did not want to release the information that corroborated their intelligentsia. I personally believe that this part of the conversation belongs in Jokes and Riddles, not here!

I'm not sure that I'm not hearing it right now.

i hope no one ever again blamed a President as much as former President Bush is blamed for everything that happened during his 8 years. i imagine that the current President will never be blamed for anything, ever. <br />
<br />
It a sad state of affairs, people calling for unity and still pointing the finger of blame.<br />
<br />
nudeinva and mewold, i do not disagree with you that Bush had his faults. Although i happen to agree with the WOT as i have invested 30 years of my life in it. The intelligence was there but no one wants to see it. The UN has corroborated much since then.<br />
<br />
But those who want to disbelieve may, it is their right to do so. i don't believe the Patriot Act was as bad as you say, fear caused the problem ... and not fear of a terrorist attack on our soil.<br />
<br />
As FDR said, "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" and the fear-mongers work overtime in the USA.

Watch government closely. Which is what we failed to do during the Bush Administration.

Not disagreeing with you bout being vigilant, but this is the Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling cry if I ever heard one.<br />
<br />
None of these idiots screamed when Bush invaded our privacy (along with Congress) by passing the Patriot Act (BTW what books have you checked out of your library?). Nobody screamed loudly enough when it was discovered we went to Iraq as a results of lies by the administration. Nobody screamed very loud when the administration told the telephone operators to give over call records and they just said sure. And then they asked Congress to immunize these companies although they completely invaded your privacy!<br />
<br />
So all this **** about we need to follow the constitution now is just absolute rubbish screamed out by nuts. Where were these jerks during the previous violations, doing nothing.<br />
<br />
Nobody is taking away anybody's gun (unless you count a automatic AK-47 or a 50 caliber machine gun necessary guns for hunting and self defense). And the plan that is being put in place in the ownership stake of these banks is that this will be reversed int future. Do not forget the Savings and loan debacle, it was taken over by the federal government and now it is back in private hands. Imagine that! So all the idiots like Rush and this guy you quote, all I can say is shove it and scream inside your empty rectum cavity for there is no soul in those bodies. whatsoever.<br />
<br />
So tell these guys to cool it and let us hope we can get a stimulus package going soon to infuse the economy to move forward and stop sinking so rapidly.

No kublakhan, i can't quote every word.<br />
<br />
But i know where to go to get the answers.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, many people to day don't seem to care about the Constitution or anything else.<br />
<br />
Except maybe what they can get for free.<br />
<br />
The question was asked ... cause may today, i don't believe know what they are. And don't care possibly.<br />
<br />
Until it's too late.<br />
<br />
All i'm saying is we citizens must be vigilant.

I suppose you can quote every word?