Letters to the editor, Feb. 26
TBO.comThe line of official conduct
Published: February 27, 2012
Published: February 27, 2012
The newspaper headline read: "Obama alters health law's birth control mandate." Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the right to mandate that private insurance companies provide free birth contraceptives to its citizens? One can only wonder why the government and the president want to control the affairs of individuals.
A dangerous precedence is being set with this healthcare law and the infringement of individual freedoms. Government control over birth control can open the door to more cynical goals like controlling the population and possible selective breeding like Hitler attempted to do with the German people. Once the government takes away one of your freedoms, its opens the door to take another.
The issue of the government mandating to the American people who must dispense free birth control contraceptives to women represents another intrusion of the government on individual freedoms. What the government is doing here is having more control over the people that leaves no room for individuals to make their own choices. This is going beyond the role of the federal government in a nation that is supposed to be free people and not slave people.
With the government involved in these types of human affairs, the people become the slaves to the government. The government may decide at what age the free conceptive will be made available and force the schools to provide the free conceptive to children without parenteral consent. Will the government take control of the youth just like Adolf Hitler did with the German youth; he turned the youth against their own parents.
What recourse do the American people have when the president ignores the U.S. Constitution and the Congress does nothing to keep him in check? Did Congress pass the ObamaCare Law with provisions that would allow the president to make changes to the law as he pleases? If that is the case the Congress set a bad precedence and they should be held in contempt for not protecting the citizens against tyrannical like rules.
"ObamaCare", the law that became law before it was read, has been an abomination since its inception. President Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress shoved this law down the throat of the American people, and the more we know about it, the harder it is to swallow.
The next thing you are going to hear from this president is that no individual can own a gun. Guess what? That is exactly what the United Nations is pushing to disarm the people from protecting themselves from their own governments. Our Founding Fathers knew that man in power can be corrupted, and corruption leads to tyranny. The Second Amendment was given to its citizens to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies.
The president took an oath as required by the Constitution to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land. Has President Obama crossed the line of his official conduct?
The President is tasked by the Constitution with the duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Section 3). This language is often referred to as the "Take Care Clause." Congress passes laws and the President enforces them. So what happens when the president himself ignores our laws, especially the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution?
The pillars of our nation are beginning to crumble and it starts with an irresponsible president who wants to transform our free nation and a Congress that has not been effective in keeping an unbridled president from transforming our nation into a nation of servitudes and big government. Servitude is a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life.
"The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made under it, must mark the line of my official conduct." George Washington Become informed, let your voice be heard, and vote Nov. 6 to take back our country.
Red light cameras
This is a reply to a recent article by Neil Johnson concerning his answer to the red light traffic cameras.
He believes that a longer yellow traffic light will solve the problem of cars running the red light and that red light cameras are not necessary to stop accidents at intersections.
His idea is in theory only and not factual. The same people who now run red lights will be doing the same thing even though there is a longer yellow light.
Human nature does not change for these are people in a hurry and will always be in a hurry. The only thing that may change them will be a serious accident.
The only way that we can get the attention of these drivers in a hurry is to hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts.
Let's be real. Red light cameras will save you from injuries and death from these drivers in a hurry.
So, do not be fooled by these people who support bad drivers but support red light cameras to save lives and injuries.