January 15, 2010

YOU DON'T "ALLOW" ME SQUAT

I think people are fed up with politics.  I think we're tired of politicians who think they're better than us or that they're entitled to their jobs and a ritzy lifestyle.  This frustration seemed to be captured perfectly when Scott Brown said that he wasn't running for Ted Kennedy's seat.  "It's the people's seat."  It doesn't belong to Ted Kennedy, and, as Jonah Goldberg said,

[Coakley] hasn’t been running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” she’s been strolling to it like someone who knows it’s been reserved for her and all she needs to do is swing by the will-call window to pick it up.
[...]
When asked if her campaign style is too aloof, she snapped back: “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park [the way Scott Brown does]? In the cold? Shaking hands?”

Heaven forfend the royal heir apparent descend from her carriage and actually touch the proles.

And then we hear that Coakley said the following:

The radio host, Ken Pittman, pointed out that complex legal principle that "In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom."

Coakley agrees that "The law says that people are allowed to have that." But, making clear her view — the attorney general who wants to be the next senator from Massachusetts — she declared that "You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room."

"The law says that people are allowed to have that."  Let that sink in.  Martha Coakley says that it's the laws that politicians write that allow you to have freedom of religion.

Our Bill of Rights is an enumeration of our inalienable rights.  The government does not grant us those rights; we are endowed by our Creator with them and the government cannot infringe upon them.  We are born with them and have them as an inherent part of being human.

I can't even explain how mad it makes me to hear a politician say that the government allows us to have freedom of religion.

I'm just so sick of all of these people.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:57 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Some people would say that the difference between being "allowed" to do something and  not being hindered from doing something is mere semantics.

I share your anger, because it is NOT semantics.  If someone is "allowed" to do something, it is a privilege that can be taken away.  And once a person becomes conditioned to hearing that they are "allowed" something, they become less likely to assert themselves for that right if it is taken away or infringed upon.

We are not allowed rights, they are something we already have.  The government is allowed to infringe upon certain rights for the common good.  For lack of a better analogy - WE are the parents in this situation.  WE allow the government to do things. 

WE can take the government's right to do certain things away.  This relationship is not and should never be the other way around.  And what scares me is that the situation sure seems to be moving in that direction.

Posted by: airforcewife at January 15, 2010 10:53 AM (uE3SA)

2

Old Cold War joke: In America, when the people don't approve of the government, they change out the government. In the Soviet Union, when the government doesn't like the people, they change out the people.

It's pretty clear that Obama's strongest support base includes many individuals who don't like the American people very much at all.

Posted by: david foster at January 15, 2010 12:06 PM (uWlpq)

3 Amen to the most essential point of all!!!

Posted by: Krista at January 15, 2010 05:33 PM (sUTgZ)

4 AMEN.

Posted by: MaryIndiana at January 16, 2010 12:30 AM (VXNTm)

5 You wouldn't believe the pushback I got when I posted about not letting the walmart door receipt-checkers search my bags as I left.  Its a blatant violation of my right to be secure in my person from unreasonable search, and yet people took it as "the cost of doing business" and "the store's RIGHT to protect itself from theft."

Too many people don't understand their rights, the powers of the state, or the powers of the federal government.  If they did, there would be no TSA.

Posted by: Chuck Z at January 16, 2010 10:47 AM (bMH2g)

6 May I just say that my husband and I AND our eldest daughter will be at the polls with bells on come Tuesday and we are NOT voting for her highness!

Posted by: Lemon Stand at January 17, 2010 10:35 PM (Ib10R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
46kb generated in CPU 0.02, elapsed 0.1479 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1264 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.