Nothing to Fear …

I think Mr. Roosevelt had it wrong. Sometimes, there is more to fear than fear itself. Sometimes, there is a gangster at the door; a criminal in the midst of good people. Sometimes there is more than one.

I am afraid. I am afraid for the future of my kids and for the continued prosperity of this nation that we call home. I see alarming, continuing trends of higher taxes, more government infringement on personal liberties, and rapidly escalating levels of our citizenry enamored with and beholden to Federal handouts.

Let’s start with this story: Another Sad Story. While I am saddened by Mr. Lacasse’s situation and can sympathize, having experienced this myself years ago, and more recently with my wife when she was laid off after six years as a graphic designer at a small, local newspaper, I cannot muster more than sympathy and a heartfelt wish for him to find quick success in his search to find means to continue to provide for his family.

I cannot jump to the conclusion that this is anything greater than an unfortunate happenstance. Life is full of them broken up by the occasional bout of good fortune. I cannot immediately adopt a tone of outrage and proclaim that “someone should do something” for Mr. Lacasse and the millions of the other individuals that find themselves in similar unfortunate situations.

I can, however, muster a great deal of anger directed at some of the other individuals that are quoted in that MSNBC article.

The same Congress that spent all this political capital trying to get people health insurance is going to take a crucial benefit away from unemployed people. — Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project

There are numerous items in this quote by Mr. Stettner that are just flat out wrong, in my humble opinion. First, is his use of the term “crucial benefit”. Funny, I don’t ever remember reading that health insurance is counted among the “certain inalienable rights” granted to American citizens by the US Constitution—not that anything the Constitution says appears to be adhered to anymore, but that’s a discussion for another topic. Mr. Stettner’s comment would seem to imply that he believes this is a necessary ingredient for life, or [personal] liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, or possibly all three.

Mr. Stettner slams Congress for “taking away” a benefit. The funding that had provided this benefit had reached the term limit of its availability. Mr. Lacasse was laid off after the term had expired. I’m sorry, but that is just another one of life’s little inconveniences that we (should have by now) learn to live with. If we extend this logic through to its natural course, it would seem that we as Americans should be expected to “step up to the plate”, put our humanitarian shoes on, and jump to the immediate rescue of anyone who finds themselves in the crosshairs of Mr. Murphy and his nefarious sidekick Bad Luck. Does that strike anyone else as ludicrous? Yet, this appears to be the expectation of the current party in control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch of our Federal Government.

But, most of my anger has little to do with Mr. Stettner’s opinion and much more to do with the sentiment that he expresses in his statement. If—and in my opinion, that’s a big if—it was the right thing to do in March, ramming a government takeover of healthcare down our throats, then it should be the right thing to do now in extending those benefits a mere few months after the fact. And the next time. And the next. The Democratic controlled House of Grift-resentatives and the current President forced the American public to accede to a socialistic incursion and bureaucratic morass in the healthcare takeover, and make no mistake about it, it is a takeover.

That same “conviction of rightness” blatantly on display then, should be the norm now but is not. It appears, paraphrasing the MSNBC reporter, that a good number of those Grift-resentatives that voted for the socialization of American healthcare are now reluctant to approve any more government confiscated tax dollar funding at the moment because they are in fear for their own jobs (but not their healthcare benefits) come this November. Can you say “hypocrisy”? I knew you could.

Before I move on, I would like to say, “Mr. Lacasse, I hope you find a job that you like and that will support your family as good as or better than before this unfortunate, bad luck situation appeared. I hope this next opportunity is the best of your life so far, and that it pales in comparison to the next one.”

The rest of my diatribe against this 111th Congress will also wait for another article, but, if you will indulge me for a moment to take a parting shot on this topic:

Now is not the time to pull up the ladder on people who are hanging on, in some cases to the last rung. — Senator Bob Casey (D) from Pennsylvania

Pardon me, Mr. Casey, but when is the time? Anytime we decide to stop throwing good money after bad, or bad money after insane is not going to be the right time; somebody is going to get left out of the largesse. Mr. Casey, just a side note… that, too, is a part of life.

Moving on, for now, this story left me with my mouth agape and my head spinning. Despite the fact that some folks I know would tell you that’s a normal pose for me, even they would be shocked at the extent of that pose on this one. The story is here. I cannot even comprehend how this could fall into any category but blatant election tampering. And for it to proceed with the Department of Justice’s blessing is incomprehensible to me. This measure is so far removed from the intent of right to vote in this country that I am left speechless. Well, almost.

The opportunities for fraud in this scheme seem obvious. What happens if someone, intentionally or unintentionally miscounts the number of times a single person votes numerous times? Oops. Sorry. But, more importantly, how would that be rectified? Would all of the votes from that individual be vacated? Would they be allowed to vote again, making 12 times instead of 6? Would they be told you have to live with it? This is inanity dressed in its finest and reminiscent of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

But the real underlying problem with this is the insinuation that the community is racist. An Hispanic has never been elected to public office in the community. So? A white candidate has always won. So? Most voters were white. So?

If half of the Port Chester community is Hispanic, as stated in the article, then one would expect that if the members of the Hispanic community were registered to vote, and if they were exercising their Constitutionally granted right to do so, then sooner or later, an Hispanic would be elected to one of the trustee seats. But, the article insists, because —most of the voters were white” this has not happened. Again, I must ask. So? There is no problem here that needed to be fixed by vote tampering interference from the Justice Department. All that needed to happen was more members of the Hispanic community registering to vote and then voting for whichever candidate they felt best represented their interests. Good ol’ fashioned American representative democracy in action. The way it is supposed to be in this country.

Speaking of the Hispanic population, Arizona is currently being overrun by illegal immigrants from Mexico and other places as yet unknown. The Federal Government, whose responsibility it is, as set forth in the US Constitution, to protect the borders has castigated the Governor of Arizona and has asked the same Justice Department as mentioned above to investigate the legality of the Arizona law. Here’s my suggestion to the legal team from the Justice Department: Start your research with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Read it, and then read the Arizona law.

You should soon realize, that the Arizona law, Senate Bill 1070, is simply a statement by the legislature of the State of Arizona of the intent to enforce Federal Law. Which brings a question to my mind. Should the State of Arizona have passed a law indicating that they would no longer be interested in enforcing Federal Law? Wonder what kind of a furor that would have caused.

I am concerned. In some cases, I’m down right afraid, and I think Mr. Roosevelt was wrong.