Joe Meglen

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 5 days ago on Hope Cook: Health care's future very complicated

Hi Lock,

It is not my perception that the federal government is too powerful. This is an undeniable fact.

Yes, we need to resurrect the State’s Rights which were unconstitutionally, and therefore illegally, crushed when the North invaded and conquered the South. The amendments to the Constitution that occurred during the Union (federal government) occupation of the South were done so at the point of a bayonet which in itself makes these amendments unconstitutional.

The government established by the Constitution was a bottom up arrangement in which the ultimate power rested with the people, which granted limited powers to their respective sovereign states, which granted even lesser powers to the federal government, which was to be nothing more than the agent or employee of the States.

The people are to be more powerful than the sovereign states, and the states are to be more powerful than the federal government. The only function of the federal government is to protect individual rights and provide for the common defense of the states.

From a libertarian perspective, and most of the Founders were libertarian, a return to a much smaller constitutional government is preferred. In terms of what is best for the individual and freedom, the form of government that preceded the Constitution, i.e., the Articles of Confederation is best.

For those that have grown up and feel comfortable with an administrative police state that regulates and controls every aspect of their lives, the status quo is prefered.

0

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 5 days ago on Hope Cook: Health care's future very complicated

Hi Lock,

Good questions.

The Founders intent was for people to be free and have the right to keep what they earn. This is the reason the Founders were strongly against, and would never entertain an income tax. A free person owns themselves. If a free person voluntarily gives up part of their life to earn an income, a free person has the right to keep the fruits of their labor. Once the government grants itself the authority to tax a person’s income you are no longer free. You become a subject of the State. The State owns you. With the 16th Amendment, the ratification of which is suspect, the Constitution was overturned.

The Constitution did allow for the federal government to collect taxes in the form of Tarriffs and as a tax on the earnings of a business. I would like the taxes to stop there which preserves individual freedom and limits the growth of government.

I would be happier with a smaller constitutional government which does not expand beyond the original and strictly limited powers enumerated in the Constitution. The function of our constitutional government is to, 1) preserve the individual natural rights memorialized in the Constitution, and 2) provide for the common defense of the States United. When the scope of government expands beyond the enumerated powers granted, by definition it is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.

0

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 5 days ago on Hope Cook: Health care's future very complicated

Chris, You have far too much faith in the State. If government functioned according to the fables taught in our civics classes you would be correct. As it has degenerated in the U.S. the last 200 + years, the real purpose of government is to allow those that control it to plunder those that don’t. The Supreme Court is corrupt or compromised, and almost certainly both. The Supreme Court rewrote the ACA legislation and called it a tax. Writing law is beyond the authority of the Court. All legislation is written by Congress which makes the Court’s rewriting of the bill unconstitutional. Enforcing the ACA is therefore done under color of law. The Founder’s grievous mistake was in establishing a federal government, that was to be strictly limited, but then gave the government the authority to police itself. When the federal government is making decisions, it invariably finds that the government has more power and the people have less. 229 years later we now have a limitless federal government which looks upon the sovereign states as vassals and the people that created it as its subjects.

0

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 5 days ago on Hope Cook: Health care's future very complicated

Chris, Your interpretation of the "general welfare clause" would negate the entire Constitution. If the government can do whatever it thinks best, then the Framers wasted their time when determining which powers would be granted to the federal government. James Madison, The Father of the Constitution, and one of the four primary authors, said the following about the terms “general welfare clause”: “I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Coauthor Thomas Jefferson explained:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” It is 100 years of Progressive (both political parties) control of the government that makes it essential that a strict constructionist be appointed to the Supreme Court. The Constitution was written to protect the people from the government by preserving individual liberty. Your interpretation of the “general welfare clause” transfers power, and therefore your freedom, to the discretion of government. You willingly enslave yourself.

0

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 5 days ago on Joe Roberts: Brust letter prompts questions

Joe,

The government and its special interests completely control the major media.

You can find the answer to your questions about “fake news” by researching the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird: https://www.scribd.com/document/41631313/Operation-Mockingbird-An-Overview-and-History

Operation Mockingbird is now a matter of public record but Carl Berstein first pulled back the curtain in his 1977 article published in ROLLING STONE Magazine. You can read Berstein’s article at the following link: http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

After being bombarded by government propaganda, along with the indoctrination received at compulsory State factory schools, it is no wonder the “students” rioting at some universities lack the ability to think independently.

Joseph Goebbles would be envious.

0

Joe Meglen 2 weeks, 6 days ago on Hope Cook: Health care's future very complicated

For the government to provide all of the benefits mentioned in this letter it must first confiscate the funds, which is done by threat of force, to pay for it, which it does while retaining a substantial handling fee for itself. Where in the Constitution (that quaint old document that enumerates the limited powers granted) is government authorized to control 16% of the economy by taking over the health care system of the United States?

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 3 weeks ago on Craig Schifter: Do Hamilton's words resonate?

Eric,

We agree. Hamilton favored a large centralized government which is the antithesis of individual liberty. Consequently his words are always suspect.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months ago on Skylar Leeson: My voice was heard

Skylar,

This is a well written article. Thank you for sharing your experience. You might consider doing a follow up article on the history of Planned Parenthood and the mission of its founder Margaret Sanger.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months ago on Katelyn Ibarra: Why I love 4-H

It is comforting to understand that the essential values of work, individual responsibility, leadership and community involvement are being instilled in the young people of Routt County that have the good fortune to be involved with 4-H.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months, 1 week ago on Erin Biggs: Sessions' appointment disturbing

Erin,

You are correct on two points: 1) In an attempt to follow Alabama state law (that’s what state Attorneys General do) AG Sessions did try to stop the Southern Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual College Conference from meeting at the University of Alabama, 2) Senator Sessions did vote against the 2005 McCain amendment banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of terrorism suspects. Senator Sessions supported his vote by explaining that the legislation is unnecessary. “We do not have a system of systematic abuse of prisoners going on by our United States military.”

The subject of grabbing a woman’s genitals was brought up in a question posed to Senator Sessions in response to the president elect’s decade old stoop to juvenile vulgarisms while talking in private with a member of the Bush family. Senator Sessions states clearly that when doing so against a woman’s will is sexual assault:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEkDPlPTPV4

With two exceptions, the balance of the points in your letter are false.

Although imperfect, based on Jeff Sessions long and well documented history, he is far more likely to honor his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic than the past three AGs.

0