----------------
What happened to “we need less government?” Why is the Republican Montana House putting forth bills to have government dictate “their” morals? Why are they wanting government to mandate parental permission? Why are they inconsistent with their beliefs about keeping government hands off? They definitely want government hands off their money, guns and religion and then turn around and want government hands on teen education, on women’s bodies and on dictating school policies. (It's curious that Ms. Dayhuff complains about government control when leftists have their own list of perfectly acceptable government controls. But more to the point, choosing the other side of a government control she doesn't like is simply a different version of government control. For example, the education issue. I think she is referring to the proposal that would require parental permission for a child to participate in a sex-ed class, whereas the present situation is that the parents must sign an opt-out. You will note that the public school is a government entity, which is controlling what the student will learn. So since the government controls the situation either way, there is no change in the invasiveness of government.
What happened to “we need less government?” Why is the Republican Montana House putting forth bills to have government dictate “their” morals? Why are they wanting government to mandate parental permission? Why are they inconsistent with their beliefs about keeping government hands off? They definitely want government hands off their money, guns and religion and then turn around and want government hands on teen education, on women’s bodies and on dictating school policies. (It's curious that Ms. Dayhuff complains about government control when leftists have their own list of perfectly acceptable government controls. But more to the point, choosing the other side of a government control she doesn't like is simply a different version of government control. For example, the education issue. I think she is referring to the proposal that would require parental permission for a child to participate in a sex-ed class, whereas the present situation is that the parents must sign an opt-out. You will note that the public school is a government entity, which is controlling what the student will learn. So since the government controls the situation either way, there is no change in the invasiveness of government.
Note the question she asks: "Why are they wanting government to mandate parental permission?" Stop and think for a minute. Ms. Dayhuff deems this to be increased government, but the action gives parents more control over their childrens' education. Oh, but it does increase government control over the educational system, doesn't it? It's strange to me that the government controlling their own institutions is interpreted as bigger government.)
I guess Daniel Webster was right when he said “Every man’s (sic) life, liberty and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session.” Well it is not only “man’s” life, liberty and property but everyone’s. Women and children now, who since 1852 have gained a certain measure of equal rights, are still at the most risk of being controlled by government laws. (Her selective outrage is noteworthy. Considering the tens of thousands of laws in this country, each of which limits human behavior in some fashion, Ms. Dayhuff only seems to care about one or two. and none of them really increase government at all.)
We still do not see the lawmakers propose that each and every man needs permission from his parents or the law to provide his “seed” and if he does not get legal permission, he will be subject to severe legal consequences. (??? I have read this sentence three times and still do not know what she's talking about.) Although who knows, maybe even this type of bill will be proposed by our current Montana Legislature. I suggest we all stay keenly alert. The Montana Legislature is now in session. (Good advice. I shall include the US congress.)
Mimi Hood Dayhuff Bozeman
I guess Daniel Webster was right when he said “Every man’s (sic) life, liberty and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session.” Well it is not only “man’s” life, liberty and property but everyone’s. Women and children now, who since 1852 have gained a certain measure of equal rights, are still at the most risk of being controlled by government laws. (Her selective outrage is noteworthy. Considering the tens of thousands of laws in this country, each of which limits human behavior in some fashion, Ms. Dayhuff only seems to care about one or two. and none of them really increase government at all.)
We still do not see the lawmakers propose that each and every man needs permission from his parents or the law to provide his “seed” and if he does not get legal permission, he will be subject to severe legal consequences. (??? I have read this sentence three times and still do not know what she's talking about.) Although who knows, maybe even this type of bill will be proposed by our current Montana Legislature. I suggest we all stay keenly alert. The Montana Legislature is now in session. (Good advice. I shall include the US congress.)
Mimi Hood Dayhuff Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment