| State's Rights |
Much is being said about state’s rights in light of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I am in favor of taking back our
rights as a state and the central government in Washington D.C. diminishing its powers it has obtained by dictating to the states
by block grants, coercive funding and interpretations of the amendment. But, there is a problem.
States have exchanged their legal sovereignty for funding of different programs. Therefore, for a Governor to say he/she is for
state’s rights, they should be saying it first to their budgets and legislators, as they can regain much of their state’s rights by
becoming economically sound within their particular state’s borders. Seven percent of Texas’ last budget needed Federal
Stimulus money to meet budget.
I have a concern with the grandstanding of a Governor,
and other candidates, that employ globalist policies and
are unwilling to fix a state’s hemorrhaging expenses and
desire to preach state’s rights.
Why would a Governor who is ultimately responsible for the
open border of his state, while apparently ignoring it, be
talking about the rights of a state as it relates to the Federal
Government?
The Governor waits for the Federal Government to fix
a state’s border problem and then complains that the
same Federal Government has too much control.
How about the rights of the citizens to be secure in their
rights within the state’s borders?
For instance, the right of a citizen is to be secure in their inalienable rights, namely Life, Liberty, and Property. Our Life is
exchanged for money that becomes our property which is being confiscated disproportionately by the state government because
the governor apparently will not secure our rights in the state and keep transferring money to a resident population that does not
contribute to the tax base. That is an attack on our property rights. Why talk about state’s rights when a governor is perpetuating
dependence on the Federal Government in the first place.
How can an individual demand state’s rights and govern as a globalist?
How can an individual demand state’s rights and want the Trans/Texas Corridor?
How can an individual demand state’s rights when he wants to sell our road systems to foreign corporations?
How can other candidates propose State’s Rights when Texas cannot economically exercise its sovereignty? Economic
sovereignty precedes political sovereignty. It displays a candidate’s rush to an oversimplified answer to excite people for the
moment.
If Texas were economically self-sufficient it would be in a better position to demand state’s rights. Global, or Federal, dependence
is not the way to any level of sovereignty.
While we may demand state’s rights on certain issues that the Federal government wants the states to implement, we are
vulnerable to coercive action by the Federal Government to implement their actions because we are not self-sufficient and need
the funding.
We need Texas Economic Self-Sufficiency now.
rights as a state and the central government in Washington D.C. diminishing its powers it has obtained by dictating to the states
by block grants, coercive funding and interpretations of the amendment. But, there is a problem.
States have exchanged their legal sovereignty for funding of different programs. Therefore, for a Governor to say he/she is for
state’s rights, they should be saying it first to their budgets and legislators, as they can regain much of their state’s rights by
becoming economically sound within their particular state’s borders. Seven percent of Texas’ last budget needed Federal
Stimulus money to meet budget.
I have a concern with the grandstanding of a Governor,
and other candidates, that employ globalist policies and
are unwilling to fix a state’s hemorrhaging expenses and
desire to preach state’s rights.
Why would a Governor who is ultimately responsible for the
open border of his state, while apparently ignoring it, be
talking about the rights of a state as it relates to the Federal
Government?
The Governor waits for the Federal Government to fix
a state’s border problem and then complains that the
same Federal Government has too much control.
How about the rights of the citizens to be secure in their
rights within the state’s borders?
For instance, the right of a citizen is to be secure in their inalienable rights, namely Life, Liberty, and Property. Our Life is
exchanged for money that becomes our property which is being confiscated disproportionately by the state government because
the governor apparently will not secure our rights in the state and keep transferring money to a resident population that does not
contribute to the tax base. That is an attack on our property rights. Why talk about state’s rights when a governor is perpetuating
dependence on the Federal Government in the first place.
How can an individual demand state’s rights and govern as a globalist?
How can an individual demand state’s rights and want the Trans/Texas Corridor?
How can an individual demand state’s rights when he wants to sell our road systems to foreign corporations?
How can other candidates propose State’s Rights when Texas cannot economically exercise its sovereignty? Economic
sovereignty precedes political sovereignty. It displays a candidate’s rush to an oversimplified answer to excite people for the
moment.
If Texas were economically self-sufficient it would be in a better position to demand state’s rights. Global, or Federal, dependence
is not the way to any level of sovereignty.
While we may demand state’s rights on certain issues that the Federal government wants the states to implement, we are
vulnerable to coercive action by the Federal Government to implement their actions because we are not self-sufficient and need
the funding.
We need Texas Economic Self-Sufficiency now.
| Pol. Ad Paid for by the Campaign to Elect Fran Cavanaugh Governor Brent Williams, Treasurer P.O. Box 1231, Allen, TX 75013 (C) Copyright 2010 Cavanaugh Campaign ~ All Rights Reserved Worldwide |
