Crossing the Rubicon?

In 49 B.C., Julius Caesar was leading his army and came upon the Rubicon River. The Provence  on the opposite side of the river had a law that said that no general could lead armies in that province. All armies had to be disbanded and the generals could not be in front. The penalty for disobeying this law was death to the general and death to the soldiers.

Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River leading his army and said, “The die is cast.” – He fought and defeated the local forces and that law was then abolished. Since that time, the phrase” crossing the Rubicon” survived and represents any situation in which there is no turning back. Whatever consequences arise from this decision are accepted.

We citizens of these United States  have “crossed the Rubicon.” We are confronted daily with a federal government that is overreaching and intrusive. Their voracious appetite for power and control has encroached on our very liberty and freedom.

With a heavy hand and an abuse of power, the federal government has sought to run roughshod over the sovereignty of our states, and has insisted on making laws, rules and regulations severely curtailing the freedom, liberty and rights enjoyed by this citizenry.

Details

Detained Because of the Constitution?

There is a lie being spread that treating disrespectful behavior with open disdain is to disrespect authority — In truth, rebelling against the rule of unjust law in order to oppose tyranny and immorality is by action to show utmost respect for law, order and justice. It is, and always has been, the epitome of human courage.

Question and challenge government all the time — Otherwise they will trample you every time. The idea that we must be patriotic of the State itself, rather than the freedom we hold dear, is a lie.
- Gavin Seim

Seim works as an artist and photographer. Earlier this year, he was traveling with his family along HWY-70E in New Mexico when he drove up on an Department of Homeland Security inland checkpoint near Alamogordo, some 80 miles from the Mexican border.

Gavin stopped his car, video recorder rolling, and when the Border Patrol agent approached, he asked if he was being detained.

“Yes.”

“On what grounds am I being detained?”

“The Constitution.”

Wow.

#fail

Details

Should Murderers and Rapists Get Food Stamps?

Last week, the Senate accepted by unanimous consent an amendment to the pending farm bill that would ban convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (a.k.a. food stamps). Introduced by Louisiana Republican David Vitter, the amendment has received condemnation from the left and at least one round of applause on the right.

My initial reaction was “A few undesirables will lose a taxpayer-financed handout—so what?” But the more I thought about the amendment, the less I cared for it. For starters, the amendment appears to be politically motivated. Vote against it and a Senator can expect to see a negative campaign add from his or her next opponent. That’s probably why the amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent instead of being formally voted on in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

More importantly, what does it accomplish? In terms of budgetary savings, it probably won’t save taxpayers much money. In addition to doing little to curb the size of government, it does nothing to rein in the federal government’s scope. I believe that it is not a proper role of the federal government to fund and/or administer anti-poverty programs. At most, such concerns should be the domain of state and local governments. Ideally, poverty relief would be completely handled by charities and other private organizations. The Vitter amendment, however, is just another example of the Beltway’s one-size-fits-all mentality. 

Details