North Carolina's legislature hasn't come for me...yet
Published December 12, 2013
by Margo Williams, former Davidson town Commissioner, published in Charlotte Observer, December 12, 2013.
During the state legislature’s frenzied shredding of the safety net for those most in need in North Carolina, I kept thinking of the Niemoller quote. You know the one.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew...”
To be clear, I am beyond my childbearing years, so the steady attack on the rights of women to be in control of their own health, especially in regard to pregnancy, doesn’t have a direct effect on me. My husband and I have medical insurance, so the callous disregard exhibited in the budget for those who are uninsured or underinsured doesn’t leave me without coverage. We own our home, so the complete defunding of the N.C. Initiative and the accompanying loss of support of community development corporations doesn’t put me on the street without shelter or food or clothing.
My family members are all employed, so the total cessation of federal unemployment benefits for many and the cuts suffered by many more won’t cause us to lose our houses or our cars or our dignity. Our children are grown, so the fact that spending on public education in North Carolina ranks us 46th out of 50 states doesn’t mean a child of mine will be warehoused in a system that is utterly inadequate to meet his needs. Those disabled children whose services are being all but eliminated are not my children.
I do not sit on death row, now without the Racial Justice Act of 2009 that might have offered me some opportunity to prove that I was the victim of racial discrimination. And I am white. I have a driver’s license. Those voter ID requirements are not a stumbling block for me; I can find a time to vote without the extra days of early voting and I won’t lose my job because I had to miss some work due to long lines at the polling places.
Justice for all
So what’s all the fuss about? I guess the answer to that depends on your view of government. We the people inherited the mandate to establish justice, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty for all, not just for those who need tax relief when they buy their luxuries. I believe we are responsible to each other, to help those who are most in need, as a country. That burden cannot be absorbed entirely by churches or charities. If the rights of others all around us are diminished, while the rights of a few are augmented, and we do nothing, then we are no longer a democracy. Our Constitution did not contemplate a ruling class. It contemplated that America would be a place where every person would get a fair shake, not a place where actual laws on the books make fairness a distant dream.
In the end, if we don’t look out for each other, then what will be left in the rubble? Or as Niemoller said,
“Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
December 12, 2013 at 10:10 am
Norm Kelly says:
I am white. I can not, therefore, relate to what it's like to be black. Obviously.
But what I can do is think. Logically. I think, often, what if my skin were black? How would I feel knowing that every bleeding-heart liberal out there believes that I do NOT have the capacity to get through life without their help? How would I react to bleeding-heart liberals when I encountered them knowing that they believe I am inferior to them? Would I want to trust this superior being? Would I expect actual help from this person who's first thought is that they are superior to me? Or would I expect condescension and pity from this 'do-gooder'?
I believe the difference between my attitude toward black people and bleeding-heart, socialist, superiority-complex liberals is that I expect ANY person I encounter, black or white or hispanic or anything else, is as capable of living life for themselves as I am. My first thought is that I have encountered an intelligent human being with the ability to think for themselves. It seems that bleeding-heart liberals first thought when they encounter a black person is 'how can i help this inferior, incapable, under-educated black person get through the next moment?'. Why else do liberals believe that black people are incapable of getting a picture ID? When the state is willing to pay for anyone's ID that can't afford it, what exactly is the roadblock to black people getting an ID? If many states have only 1 voting day and their residents are able to vote, why is it that socialists in our state believe that our extended early voting days restrict blacks ability to get to the polls? What is it about blacks in North Carolina that makes the so deficient?
Steady attack on reproductive rights of women? How is this being done exactly? Let's state some facts for the liberal author of this post. First, the NCGA passed a law that says abortion clinics MUST adhere to the same rules and regulations as any other facility that does surgical procedures. This put IN PLACE safeguards to actually PROTECT women. The complaint about this law comes from people who thought there would be only 1 clinic in the state that continued to qualify under the new law. But they were proven wrong. That clinic failed to meet the previously much more lax rules for abortion clinics that were in place. Even under the old, less than rigid laws, crafted no doubt by bleeding-heart Demoncrats, were too strict to protect the health of women seeking abortion. So, was it a good thing that the Republicans in the NCGA tightened up the rules that govern facilities that perform surgical procedures? Does it improve women's health when they get an actual doctor performing surgery? To bleeding-heart liberals, the answer appears to be NO. To socialists in our state, and around the country, abortion is supposed to be wholly unregulated, non-inspected, free of any regulation that COULD be construed (by the socialists) as mean white guys trying to prevent women from reaching medical help.
And what about forcing me to pay for some woman's abortion. When I am not involved in the creation of that living being (the fetus!), why should I be forced to be financially responsible for the death of that helpless being? When my tax dollars are spent to perform abortions, it's the same as when your tax dollars are used as vouchers at the school of parental choice. Do you want to allow me to choose my child's school? Nope, you don't. You want to be in control of that because you are AFRAID that my child might also learn about God at the school of my choice. But you insist that YOUR choice of forcing me to pay for abortions is RIGHT!
Then, also, what about the women that use abortion as their method of birth control? This may be a limited number of women, but they are out there. Perhaps they use this choice instead of any other because it's so widely accepted, and because it's so inexpensive for them cuz they know some sucker tax payer is taking care of them.
'promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty for all'. What exactly does this mean? To a conservative it means that I should be allowed to pursue my dreams without government intervention and prevention. It means that if I succeed at what I do, the government should not be stealing my rewards from me just to make themselves feel better. Spreading opportunity is much more successful than stealing money from one person to give it to some other person. What are the blessings of liberty? The ability to achieve without fear of repercussion. The ability to take risks and then reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. Promoting the general welfare doesn't mean that unmotivated people need to be taken care of for their very livelyhood. Where does it say that I must pay for my cell phone, plus some, in order to provide a free cell phone to someone else? Where does it say that I must pay more for my homeowners insurance policy so someone who lives in an area that is more hazardous will be able to pay a lower premium for their insurance? Both of these are socialist ideas implemented by DemocRATs, not supporters of free enterprise. Not supporters of the idea that people are capable of taking care of themselves. Not supporters of the idea that everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, but by people that believe some are more capable of others and it's not fair.
Socialism has it's own death built into it. Ours is a country built on personal freedom. Socialism is built on the idea of collective ownership. Socialism is built on the idea that everyone's OUTCOME should be equal. Socialism is NOT built on the idea that those who work hard should be allowed to achieve more.
Life calls. Gotta go. Can't spend any more time proving this editorial post wrong. Too many socialists out there to battle them all, to prove them all wrong. But I continue to try as time permits.
