http://www.ktvlair.com

If your ability to feed your family becomes dependent on one omnipotent authority, are we as good as slaves to that authority?

Is this why our founding fathers built a system government that was definitively limited by the constraints outlined in the Constitution?

Is this why our founding fathers wrote a Constitution that explicitly prohibited the federal government from enacting laws that tells people what they must eat (for example) or whether not they are allowed to pool resources for the purposes of conveying an election-affecting political message?

Do any socialist programs enacted on a federal level definitively force regular citizens to surrender much of their individual authority to a big powerful authority that might someday use it against us?

Does giving the federal government the power to provide healthcare mean they also now have the power to deny care?

Does giving the federal government the power to prevent corporations from transaction deemed not in the national interest mean that someday they can sanction any corporation for any other reason?

Does giving government the power to usurp the homes of middle class families like in the "Kelo vs. New london" case mean that property rights are non-existant?

[please STAR this question]

Tags: citizens, constitution, constraints, corporations, federal government, founding fathers, Government Homes, kelo vs new london, Limited, middle class families, national interest, omnipotent, People, political message, pool resources, quot, Reason, slaves