Posted on 06/20/2002 5:52:02 AM PDT by Pern
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!
My thoughts exactly.
OK, so how do we start doing that?
Unfortunately, the evidence is that most Americans want to be 'safe', and supervised so they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Respectfully,
David
I also asked that they do not vote for the incumbent in the next election. (that didn't go over too well!)
David, please reread my original comment. If I'm in MY house smoking a joint, and not infringing on anyone's rights whatsoever (I have no young children), why should I be jailed for it?
I am in a professional position, with a great paying job. It seems counter productive for me to be jailed, becoming a ward of the state, when I could be out in the world, making money and having the government squeeze every dime they can out of me in taxes.
I'm not out to start an arguement, too early in the morning. Going get a fresh cup o' joe.
Your one tiny little problem is that 98 plus percent of Amercians like their government. They want it to do more not less.
But you are right in one respect. Most people would be glad to just say no to governemnt if it didn't mean endng Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Interstate highways system, the Post Office, the military, the pure food and drug law, the FCC, the FAA, the FTC, the FBI and CIA just to name a few. Did I mention the agriculture department? Can't leave out farm subsidies... now can we.
Most people would be glad to Just Say NO to government as long as it taxed the rich to pay for the things they want. Certainly they would NOT like goverment to say no to education or protecting the rights of minorites. The people will supprt government as long as is is "for the children". Hillary could tell you how that works.
Most people would scream NO to governemt as long as the government didn't stop enforcing clean air and clean water, and continued to jail terrorists. Most people would say no to govenment is they could be assured that it would infiltrate terrorist organization and put the members of such organizations away for life. Most people just hate government and would gladly say no as long as the government still privided Police and Fire Protection, Water, Garbage pickup and Street cleaning. Did I mention filling Pot Holes? As long as government provided courts and judges so they can sue people they think have harmed them, nearly everyone would just say no.
And that just ain't gonna happen, is it? Too many people are on the government gravy train.
I agree with you. Drug users have no respect for themselves, how can we expect them to have any respect at all for those around them. Although, I don't think we should give them all the dope they want once we get them out of society. I don't think WE should be giving them anything.
If the War on Drugs demands that all are guilty until proven innocent, then it becomes unconstitutional and needs to be ammended or terminated. There is no evidence what so ever that it is working in the smallest way other than to seperate innocent people from their goods and cash.
Then if government has an obligation to protect use from being a victim of drug abuse, why do they not have the same obligation to protect us from becoming a victim of alcohol abuse.
You would agree, in your capacity as sheriff, that alcohol abuse exists in our society, wouldn't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.