Weatherford Democrat

September 9, 2011

Eighty eight feet per second

Richard Feuilly
Weatherford Democrat

WEATHERFORD — It never ceases to amaze me that folks seldom think for themselves. It reminds me of a safety meeting that I attended many years ago when I worked for the highway department. The DPS officer told the story of presenting the program to some older people. He asked the question, would you ride with me traveling at the rate of 88 feet per second, and all said they would not be comfortable traveling at that speed. He then asked, would you ride at 60 miles per hour, and all agreed that was fine.

Eighty eight feet per second is 60 miles per hour. Sixty was fine, because that was what they were accustomed to doing. Seems to me that is equivalent to asking a person if they would vote for a communist, and they would say absolutely not, we are patriotic Americans. You ask do you vote for Democrats, and they would say, of course we would, our parents voted for Democrats and we always have.

In my opinion, most are absolutely patriotic, but they have not examined the difference between 88 feet per second and 60 miles per hour. In my opinion, the Democrat Party and communist party fits in the same category as 88 feet per second and 60 miles per hour, there is no difference, just different terminology.

President Obama said in his speech that he was not signing a bill that extends the debt ceiling for just six months, he wanted it to extend past the next presidential election. Wonder why! He said President Reagan raised the debt limit 17 times. Is that not interesting, Reagan was in office for eight years, that is 96 months according to the math that I was taught, so if you divide 17 into 96 it equals 5.6 months on average. Does the man know what he is saying, or hoping that most Americans are trying to figure out the difference between 88 feet per second and 60 miles per hour?

I read an article that said what the supreme court says is law, and anything else is just opinion. That is true, but it never ceases to amaze me how the wording of the constitution is twisted. Article one section eight says congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. In the Wickard V. Filburn case, Mr. Filburn learned that he could not grow 12 acres of wheat on his property to use on his own property to feed his farm animals. If the wheat never left his property, how could it be construed as interstate commerce? Don’t be surprised if the commerce clause is twisted to force the purchase of health insurance.

In many cases, the outcome is based on one justice’s opinion, so when all is said and done, it’s just an opinion. In the Roe V. Wade abortion case, I am inclined to agree with Justice Byron White who wrote, I find nothing in the language or history of the constitution to support the court’s judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action.

One more opinion. It took about 163 years to learn that congress can regulate intrastate commerce as well as interstate commerce. It took nearly 200 years to twist the constitution into a license to murder unborn children.

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot promote the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” — Abraham Lincoln.

Richard Feuilly is a guest columnist. He is a retired ditch digger and a resident of Weatherford.