Vail Daily letter: Answering critic |

Vail Daily letter: Answering critic

Fredric Butler
Vail, CO, Colorado

When I pen an article for this paper about my sentiments and observations of the workings of government, I simply cannot escape from being labeled a “fear monger,””hypocrite” or a “hateful person” (e.g., Moffet et al). For that matter, I am relegated to the “far right” (whatever that means, other than “I’m right on”).

The “Face of Tyranny” does not elicit hate or fear from me – only sadness and resignation. I gather from the gist of Mr. Moffet’s retort that I was remiss in not bashing Bush enough. Rest assured that I would be on his page regarding that man and his regime, but that is another story from another day. I am now only concerned about the present culprits, czars and rogues in control of our destiny.

Mr. Moffet faults me on my recollection of “facts” regarding the process of legislating such bills as TARP, health care and the executive order amending it to expunge the abortion provision.

Allow me to expound: It is a fact that TARP was the product of a small cadre of staff members associated with the House and Senate leadership. Ergo, it certainly was not the spawn of those that did not read the bill, which was a majority of those in both houses of Congress. (I believe Mr. Moffet would label these folks as “elected officials.”)

The point I endeavored to make was that the TARP “product” was crafted and drafted by non-elected officials and then foisted upon a naive and trusting Congress by the leadership.

Likewise, the much-touted health care bill was crafted and drafted by un-named staff members (all 2,400-plus pages). To think otherwise would be a display of naivete, ignorance and flag-waving trust in elected officials.

My eyesight is 20-20, and when I expect transparency, I expect to be privy to the closed-door negotiations that bought the votes of Nebraska and Louisiana for the health care bill. I expected to witness the negotiations that brought about the unconstitutional executive order that amended this bill. In other words, I wanted more than what the American people and Mr. Moffet were allowed to see on CNN, Fox News or other organs of propaganda.

I am faulted for my observations of the legion of “czars” that have recently been appointed to take control and care take for us — all without the vetting of Congress or prior investigation by the IRS. This certainly could have saved Mr. Obama a bit of chagrin or embarrassment — sweetheart paybacks and closed door promises to keep apparently trumped competency, qualifications and tax honesty. This I would call cronyism, Chicago style.

Merely because Mr. Bush may have been complicit in the same activity does not sanction or justify it in the present regime.

Finally, Mr. Moffet favors a rule of law based upon “current realities, laden with the law of unintended consequences …” over strict constitutional law (“constitutional purity” as he put it). I really don’t know what he means, since there is no published legislation on the “law of unintended consequences.” I do know what the Constitution says, since it has been published, enacted and construed for over 200 years.

Not to be too constitutionally pure, but for a law to be valid and enforceable, prior notice of its proscriptions or provisions must be published. Otherwise, ignorance of its strictures would be a defense against enforcement.

I enjoy Mr. Moffet’s retorts, and I do benefit from his slant on the issues, since it reinforces the purity of my Constitution, both physically and under the law.

Venting one’s frustrations about a “far right” or a “far left” is also good for Mr. Moffet’s health. And in all of this, dissent is good.

Tea, anyone?

Fredric Butler

Support Local Journalism