Posted on December 20th, 2010 by Patrick J. Buchanan
A Democratic Congress, discharged by the voters on Nov. 2, has as one of its last official acts, imposed its San Francisco values on the armed forces of the United States.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is to be repealed. Open homosexuals are to be welcomed with open arms in all branches of the armed services.
Let us hope this works out better for the Marine Corps than it did for the Catholic Church.
Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.
Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it?
No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual rights lobby. This is a political payoff, at the expense of our military, to a militant minority inside the Democratic Party that is demanding this as the price of that special interest’s financial and political support.
Among the soldiers most opposed to bringing open homosexuals into the ranks are combat veterans, who warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale.
One Marine commandant after another asked Congress to consider the issue from a single standpoint:
Will the admission of gay men into barracks at Pendleton and Parris Island enhance the fighting effectiveness of the Corps?
Common sense suggests that the opposite is the almost certain result.
Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?
The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators.
This is a victory in the culture war for the new morality of the social revolution of the 1960s and a defeat for traditional Judeo-Christian values. For only in secularist ideology is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry.
But while this new morality may be orthodoxy among our elites in the academy, media, culture and the arts, Middle America has never signed on and still regards homosexuality as an aberrant lifestyle, both socially and spiritually ruinous.
To these folks, homosexuality is associated with a high incidence of disease, HIV/AIDS, early death, cultural decadence and civilizational decline. And no sensitivity training at Camp Lejeune is going to change that.
Behind these traditionalist beliefs lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.
And 31 consecutive defeats for same-sex marriage in state referenda testifies that Middle America sees the new morality as the artificial invention of pseudo-intellectuals to put a high gloss on a low lifestyle.
Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia.
The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s — homosexuality and abortion — is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress.
Yet, just as busing for racial balance led to violence, white flight and the ruin of urban schools, this social experiment is not going to be without consequences. And it is the military that will endure those consequences.
Yet, again, if we believe our armed forces to be the best in the world, why are we doing this, against the advice of countless senior officers and NCOs? What is the motivation other than the payoff of a campaign debt?
What happens now to Evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic chaplains who preach that homosexuality is a sinful and shameful practice? Will they be severed from the service as homophobes?
That cannot be far behind when the Family Research Council, a respected organization of religious and social conservatives that has fought the homosexual agenda from same-sex marriage to gay adoptions, has now been declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a “hate group.”
The advance of what was once a radical agenda has accelerated.
In 2004, John Kerry may have lost Ohio and the presidency because same-sex marriage was on the ballot in almost a dozen states, bringing out committed social conservatives to the polls. Six years later, the gay rights agenda is imposed by Congress and Obama on the 82nd and 101st.
Let the reader decide if the direction America is headed in is toward those “sunny uplands,” or straight downhill.
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Monday, December 27, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Preamble Secures Liberty, Doesn't Provide It
Prior to Woodrow Wilson the aggregate average of Federal Government spending as a percent of GDP was less than 3% - shocking. That would have totaled about 550 billion dollars these days, the Defense Department spends that. So the question remains: How did they survive back then, we should have been invaded and steamrolled by China, Japan, France, Italy, Australia, and the list continues? We can only arrive at one conclusion after taking the Founders Red Pill™ - we don't need this Government.
We need Government to do just a few things and to do those few things well, all the rest of our Liberties should lie in the hands of our Statesmen. The Preamble clearly says 'to secure the blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, not to PROVIDE. This is the struggle of man in this Country, and for a very short time we did a fantastic job of securing our Liberties with the help of the Amendment process to address certain things when they change. Then the geniuses inspired by the french and the Germans in the early 20's got a hold of the Government and sent us downhill at a pace that requires more safety precautions than NASCAR. But folks, keep the faith in knowing that this battle is not over. We didn't get to this pathetic State of Leviathan over the weekend by listening to a couple of Commies out there, it was a slow process that is near it's precipice. A new leaf is soon to turn on December 31st, is this the year we begin to take the opposition?
We need Government to do just a few things and to do those few things well, all the rest of our Liberties should lie in the hands of our Statesmen. The Preamble clearly says 'to secure the blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, not to PROVIDE. This is the struggle of man in this Country, and for a very short time we did a fantastic job of securing our Liberties with the help of the Amendment process to address certain things when they change. Then the geniuses inspired by the french and the Germans in the early 20's got a hold of the Government and sent us downhill at a pace that requires more safety precautions than NASCAR. But folks, keep the faith in knowing that this battle is not over. We didn't get to this pathetic State of Leviathan over the weekend by listening to a couple of Commies out there, it was a slow process that is near it's precipice. A new leaf is soon to turn on December 31st, is this the year we begin to take the opposition?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
I pay my taxes and you live off me
I just received my property tax bill and the value of my property went up by 12,000????????
We did nothing, did not improve did not add, did not do anything but live here??? I work my a$$ of and you sit on yours, I pay my taxes and you live off me, I buy food for my family you put your hand out for food stamps, I pay my property taxes and you live in subsidized housing for $25.00 a month, I raised my children to earn their own way and you keep having them so the welfare system can give you a bigger check, I pay my electric bill and pay an extra tax on it so you can have free power. I get drug tested to work and you should have to for welfare. I pay health insurance and then pay what the insurance won't, you go in and use your free medical to get drugs for sale, you get kicked off welfare for fraud so you claim to hear voices to get Social Security.....where will it end...it wont as long as the government keeps giving hand outs to the dead beats and supporting the baby factory housing. Times are tough and I am sick of paying for you! It should be required that in order to get welfare you either work for pay or work doing community service...nobody rides for free!!!!!!!!!!
We did nothing, did not improve did not add, did not do anything but live here??? I work my a$$ of and you sit on yours, I pay my taxes and you live off me, I buy food for my family you put your hand out for food stamps, I pay my property taxes and you live in subsidized housing for $25.00 a month, I raised my children to earn their own way and you keep having them so the welfare system can give you a bigger check, I pay my electric bill and pay an extra tax on it so you can have free power. I get drug tested to work and you should have to for welfare. I pay health insurance and then pay what the insurance won't, you go in and use your free medical to get drugs for sale, you get kicked off welfare for fraud so you claim to hear voices to get Social Security.....where will it end...it wont as long as the government keeps giving hand outs to the dead beats and supporting the baby factory housing. Times are tough and I am sick of paying for you! It should be required that in order to get welfare you either work for pay or work doing community service...nobody rides for free!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Is Texas making it's Alamo stand against Obama and Boehner's Federale's? It sure seems like it is happening that way
Texas has the opportunity to take matters into its own hands.
Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.
The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.
And they are turning to their states.
Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit states.
But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.
On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:
The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.
The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.
While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.
“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”
Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.
“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.
That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)
Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.
Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,
“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”
And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.
“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”
Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.
The question remains, will they speak?
special thanks to:
Michael Maharrey
Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.
The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.
And they are turning to their states.
Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit states.
But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.
On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:
The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.
The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.
While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.
“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”
Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.
“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.
That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)
Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.
Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,
“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”
And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.
“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”
Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.
The question remains, will they speak?
special thanks to:
Michael Maharrey
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Bill Maher: Real Time With Real Lib
We've got digital media files from 'Real Time With Bill Maher", and although we're not exactly sure why he has his own show we do know that he is a citizen of Libtardia, and on the topic of science, a very uneducated citizen at that. Fortunately for us we have Mike Church, an educated citizen in all things Constitution and Patriotic; something Bill Maher apparently knows nil of. According to the philosophy of the Libtard, if you're a scientist that doesn't work for the government you must not be trusted for you are corrupt. We say: Bill, nobody is denying climate change, of course there is. The planet moves through space and is affected by cosmic forces we have no control over like the Sun and other planets. According to the third grade science project all of America had to take part in, we learned the solar system revolves around the Sun not the Earth, but then again we're using a combination of intelligence, evidence and common sense, something we clearly cannot expect from everyone.
Mr. Maher, we'd like to ask of you to grow a set of nads, then call for what is that you're asking people to follow you to, which is the end of days. Give up your private property, fancy cars, fancy house, retirement funds and so on then maybe we'll discuss issues more pertinent than the solar system.
Climate Change Is Simple
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So you’re not convinced out there, obviously. So Dylligan Ratigan and Ted Rall didn’t convince you. Lawrence O’Donnell, out of the closet now, socialist, and Glenn Greenwald, who’s arguing that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not radical enough, and neither is Barack Hussein Obama – mm, mm, mm. So we need some real revolutionistas, real revoluciones. Listen to Bill Maher here from his monologue on Saturday night. Wasn’t O’Reilly on with Maher on Saturday night?
Mike: I’m pretty sure O’Reilly was in there because I heard him play a digital media file last night from his appearance with Maher, and he really got Maher [chuckling], when Maher said, “Well, Bill, I don’t know why I keep inviting you back on this show,” and O’Reilly said, “Because you want to get better ratings?” [Laughing] Funny stuff. Listen to this delusion here. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I don’t know how this got started. But somehow it has become another rite of passage for the revoluciones out there that, if you’re a scientist, and you do not work for the government, then everything you say is not to be trusted, and you cannot possibly have any brain cells to rub together. You have to be in the pay of someone else. You must be crooked, then. You must be corrupt. So only government can provide science now. This is what Maher’s argument on climate change is going to be.
Let me tell you something, Mr. Maher. Why don’t you invite an actual climate scientist on that program of yours, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Why don’t you invite my friend, David Archibald from Australia. He’s quite a funny guy, and he’ll blow you out of the water. Why don’t you invite Marc Morano on your little show there, on “Real Time,” and have an actual discussion about the science behind climate change. Nobody denies, Bill, that there isn’t climate change out there. Of course there’s climate change. The planet moves through space. It is affected by cosmic forces that we have no control over whatsoever, including our sun, and including the movement of other planets, you nitwit. You’re the anti-scientist, you alchemist freak. You think all these giant celestial bodies moving about in space don’t have an impact on this planet? What are you, nuts? Oh, yeah, yeah. What are you, Copernicus now? Everything revolves around Earth?
Don’t be so arrogant and so shallow and stupid, Mr. Maher. You’re the imbecile, and you’re the one that’s not looking at science. I would think that a reasoned people, and people that use reason to think, would probably be safer in concluding that, because we don’t know what’s out there, and because we don’t know all of the effects of the bazillions of planets and stars and galaxies that we continue to discover with all our vaunted technology, we can’t possibly know what effect they have on us. We can’t possible know what their movements have on us. We can’t possibly know what the turning up or down of their thermostats have on us. The stars do fluctuate, do they not? What, do we live in a vacuum here? We’re insulated because we’re Americans and because we have a sign that says, oh, I took a temperature, man, it’s hotter than it was yesterday. So? That’s effect, that’s not cause. There are two parts of hypotheses, sir, cause and effect. You’re telling me the effect, you’re not telling me the cause. Play your digital media file because Dr. Spencer heard this. What happened was that an actual climate scientist had heard this, and has responded it to it already. Roll the digital media file.
[Clip] Bill Maher: But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that and found out there are no moderates on the other side.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh. You mean the moderates that grew the debt twice?
[Clip] Bill Maher: When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama is a socialist, and people on the left who believe 911 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 911 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama is a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh, eh heh, so funny. Ha ha ha ha, I’m laughing.
[Clip] Bill Maher: As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal, that’s the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the army’s investigation into Abu Ghraib.
Mike: Pause this. Pause this madman for just a second here. HBO is irresponsible. I should cancel my HBO subscription when I get home tonight. Number two, who accuses Obama of being like Hitler? Who? I’ll say it right now to your face, Bill. He’s not like Hitler because he doesn’t have the ‘nads that Hitler had to actually come in and use the military, thank the Lord he doesn’t have the ‘nads, to get his way. He doesn’t have the ‘nads to actually be a national socialist like Hitler was, like you want him to be, Bill, and to come in and take the remaining wealth that remains with the American public and expropriate it and use it the way you think he ought to use it. Right?
You don’t have the ‘nads to ask him to be like Hitler, Bill. That’s the big thing that’s missing. You’re the sissy, sir. Why don’t you get off your little throne there in Hollywood, and why don’t you send a letter to the President, and why don’t you tell him that you and all your little buddies out there in Tinseltown, in Hollywoodland, will absolutely support him if he calls up the 101st Airborne and starts sending them out into the hinterlands and into the neighborhoods to do exactly what Hitler did, serve notice to the people that your private property is not yours anymore because we have a national problem to fix and because we need some manufacturing jobs, so we’re just going to start confiscating all the steel that’s left in your tractors out there. Why don’t we try that? Oh, wait, Mike, that was Stalin that did that. Oh, gosh, wrong henchman. Why don’t you grow a set, Bill? You and your buddy Dylan Ratigan.
And why don’t you actually call for what it is that you’re asking people to follow you to, which is Hades, which is the end of days? Hmm? Hmm? Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, sir? How about giving your private property up first? How about giving up your big fancy car? How about giving up your big fancy house? How about giving up any retirement funds that you have? What makes you exempt from the confiscation of wealth, Mr. Maher? Hmm? I love these limousine liberals, like George Carlin called them once, who think the only problem with this country is that we don’t have enough bicycle paths. Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you get with your buddies, with your buddies on the left there, so desperately want to see all of these things go away?
Because at the end of the day it’s those pesky little individuals that get in your way, Mr. Maher. It’s those pesky individuals that refuse to be knuckled-under and steamrolled by their government and refuse to surrender what little wealth they have left and what little liberty they have left that stand in your way. Well, we’re not going to get out of your way, Mr. Maher. Let me inform you of something, sir. Bring it on. You and all your little crook friends. You’re the one that’s on the wrong side of history, and you’re the one, despite your little rhetoric and your little comedy bits and all your little sycophants out there going “Yay, Bill, yay, you’re funny, yeah.” O’Reilly may want to sit down and hang out with you and think it’s funny for ratings because, oh, he’s such a fair guy. Well, I’m fair, too. Grow a set, Bill. Grow a set, Mr. Maher.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Now, I ask you hows that for telling it like it is and not pulling any punches??
Mr. Maher, we'd like to ask of you to grow a set of nads, then call for what is that you're asking people to follow you to, which is the end of days. Give up your private property, fancy cars, fancy house, retirement funds and so on then maybe we'll discuss issues more pertinent than the solar system.
Climate Change Is Simple
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So you’re not convinced out there, obviously. So Dylligan Ratigan and Ted Rall didn’t convince you. Lawrence O’Donnell, out of the closet now, socialist, and Glenn Greenwald, who’s arguing that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not radical enough, and neither is Barack Hussein Obama – mm, mm, mm. So we need some real revolutionistas, real revoluciones. Listen to Bill Maher here from his monologue on Saturday night. Wasn’t O’Reilly on with Maher on Saturday night?
Mike: I’m pretty sure O’Reilly was in there because I heard him play a digital media file last night from his appearance with Maher, and he really got Maher [chuckling], when Maher said, “Well, Bill, I don’t know why I keep inviting you back on this show,” and O’Reilly said, “Because you want to get better ratings?” [Laughing] Funny stuff. Listen to this delusion here. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I don’t know how this got started. But somehow it has become another rite of passage for the revoluciones out there that, if you’re a scientist, and you do not work for the government, then everything you say is not to be trusted, and you cannot possibly have any brain cells to rub together. You have to be in the pay of someone else. You must be crooked, then. You must be corrupt. So only government can provide science now. This is what Maher’s argument on climate change is going to be.
Let me tell you something, Mr. Maher. Why don’t you invite an actual climate scientist on that program of yours, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Why don’t you invite my friend, David Archibald from Australia. He’s quite a funny guy, and he’ll blow you out of the water. Why don’t you invite Marc Morano on your little show there, on “Real Time,” and have an actual discussion about the science behind climate change. Nobody denies, Bill, that there isn’t climate change out there. Of course there’s climate change. The planet moves through space. It is affected by cosmic forces that we have no control over whatsoever, including our sun, and including the movement of other planets, you nitwit. You’re the anti-scientist, you alchemist freak. You think all these giant celestial bodies moving about in space don’t have an impact on this planet? What are you, nuts? Oh, yeah, yeah. What are you, Copernicus now? Everything revolves around Earth?
Don’t be so arrogant and so shallow and stupid, Mr. Maher. You’re the imbecile, and you’re the one that’s not looking at science. I would think that a reasoned people, and people that use reason to think, would probably be safer in concluding that, because we don’t know what’s out there, and because we don’t know all of the effects of the bazillions of planets and stars and galaxies that we continue to discover with all our vaunted technology, we can’t possibly know what effect they have on us. We can’t possible know what their movements have on us. We can’t possibly know what the turning up or down of their thermostats have on us. The stars do fluctuate, do they not? What, do we live in a vacuum here? We’re insulated because we’re Americans and because we have a sign that says, oh, I took a temperature, man, it’s hotter than it was yesterday. So? That’s effect, that’s not cause. There are two parts of hypotheses, sir, cause and effect. You’re telling me the effect, you’re not telling me the cause. Play your digital media file because Dr. Spencer heard this. What happened was that an actual climate scientist had heard this, and has responded it to it already. Roll the digital media file.
[Clip] Bill Maher: But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that and found out there are no moderates on the other side.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh. You mean the moderates that grew the debt twice?
[Clip] Bill Maher: When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama is a socialist, and people on the left who believe 911 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 911 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama is a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh, eh heh, so funny. Ha ha ha ha, I’m laughing.
[Clip] Bill Maher: As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal, that’s the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the army’s investigation into Abu Ghraib.
Mike: Pause this. Pause this madman for just a second here. HBO is irresponsible. I should cancel my HBO subscription when I get home tonight. Number two, who accuses Obama of being like Hitler? Who? I’ll say it right now to your face, Bill. He’s not like Hitler because he doesn’t have the ‘nads that Hitler had to actually come in and use the military, thank the Lord he doesn’t have the ‘nads, to get his way. He doesn’t have the ‘nads to actually be a national socialist like Hitler was, like you want him to be, Bill, and to come in and take the remaining wealth that remains with the American public and expropriate it and use it the way you think he ought to use it. Right?
You don’t have the ‘nads to ask him to be like Hitler, Bill. That’s the big thing that’s missing. You’re the sissy, sir. Why don’t you get off your little throne there in Hollywood, and why don’t you send a letter to the President, and why don’t you tell him that you and all your little buddies out there in Tinseltown, in Hollywoodland, will absolutely support him if he calls up the 101st Airborne and starts sending them out into the hinterlands and into the neighborhoods to do exactly what Hitler did, serve notice to the people that your private property is not yours anymore because we have a national problem to fix and because we need some manufacturing jobs, so we’re just going to start confiscating all the steel that’s left in your tractors out there. Why don’t we try that? Oh, wait, Mike, that was Stalin that did that. Oh, gosh, wrong henchman. Why don’t you grow a set, Bill? You and your buddy Dylan Ratigan.
And why don’t you actually call for what it is that you’re asking people to follow you to, which is Hades, which is the end of days? Hmm? Hmm? Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, sir? How about giving your private property up first? How about giving up your big fancy car? How about giving up your big fancy house? How about giving up any retirement funds that you have? What makes you exempt from the confiscation of wealth, Mr. Maher? Hmm? I love these limousine liberals, like George Carlin called them once, who think the only problem with this country is that we don’t have enough bicycle paths. Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you get with your buddies, with your buddies on the left there, so desperately want to see all of these things go away?
Because at the end of the day it’s those pesky little individuals that get in your way, Mr. Maher. It’s those pesky individuals that refuse to be knuckled-under and steamrolled by their government and refuse to surrender what little wealth they have left and what little liberty they have left that stand in your way. Well, we’re not going to get out of your way, Mr. Maher. Let me inform you of something, sir. Bring it on. You and all your little crook friends. You’re the one that’s on the wrong side of history, and you’re the one, despite your little rhetoric and your little comedy bits and all your little sycophants out there going “Yay, Bill, yay, you’re funny, yeah.” O’Reilly may want to sit down and hang out with you and think it’s funny for ratings because, oh, he’s such a fair guy. Well, I’m fair, too. Grow a set, Bill. Grow a set, Mr. Maher.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Now, I ask you hows that for telling it like it is and not pulling any punches??
Healthcare Plan vs. Iraq War: They're Both Unconstitutional
Let's say you happened to stumble across a 'magic coat rack', and when you hung your coat on the rack a whimsical genie appeared and told you that you'd be receiving 1.8 Million dollars a week for the foreseeable future. After your initial shock wears off and you realize the monetary Goliath that you have on your hands... we propose the question: what would you spend it on? and could you spend it all per week? If you said 'no' to the latter then consider yourself more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. If you said you'd spend the money on military, in particularly in Afghanistan, then you most likely ARE the Federal Government.
Lets dwell on this further, shall we????
I offer you an interview between Mike Chrch and a caller named Katie:
Mike's got Katie of North Carolina on the line and she can't seem to apprehend why Liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq (trillion dollars and counting) when the cost of healthcare will likely trump Iraq. Mike feels two ways about this: Firstly, Bush had no fidelity of the Constitution in declaring war in Iraq, he instead used a usurpation of the people's power claiming an "act of military authorization". Fifty United States go to war as a Union against a foreign enemy. Secondly, you can't have prosperity unless you're at peace. We're at war.
Mike: All right. To the phones we go on a Free Phone Thursday. First up here today, Katie in North Carolina. Katie, how are you? You’re on the Mike Church Show, Sirius XM Patriot channel. What’s going on?
Katie: Hey, Mike. I love your show. Thanks for having me.
Mike: You’re welcome.
Katie: What I wanted to comment on is how liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq, yet this fiscal orgy that we’ve had over the past two and a half years could cost much more than the war in Iraq. And if you look at the predictions for the cost of healthcare and the road we’re going down, it makes the war in Iraq look like peanuts.
Mike: Yeah, the amount of money that has been spent, well, the war in Iraq was not peanuts. It was almost a trillion dollars.
Katie: Yeah, so...
Mike: Well, that taxicab meter is still running. This is why some of this stuff, Katie, is delusional because you’ve got some of these people out there, you’ve got some of these fake phony fraud conservatives out there, all humoring and having President Bush on their radio shows and their TV shows and, you know, talking about all the things that Bush accomplished as President. One of those things is, why, he kept us safe. Why, he did this, and he did all that, and what have you there. Well, he also got us into that Iraq war.
He also claims fidelity to the Constitution, and that’s why he wouldn’t come in and take over Louisiana, which he shouldn’t have, after Hurricane Katrina. But he had no fidelity to the Constitution when it came to declaring wars. He allowed, he signed, he participated in a usurpation of the people’s power. And he participated in that when there was act of military authorization. That is not a declaration of war. Fifty United States go to war as a nation against an enemy that is foreign. That is not what happened. And that’s why that thing turned into the quagmire that it did. And President Bush is – he materially participated in it. Hell, he asked for it. So...
Katie: He did. But they always go back to that statement; and, you know, whether the war, you know, was right or wrong, that’s a whole different conversation. But the fact that that is one of their standing arguments I think is just silly. And then, you know, being from North Carolina...
Mike: Well, but look at it from their point of view, and look at it from, okay, so let’s look at what the spending of a trillion dollars in Iraq engendered then. Okay. You guys are going to get your little military hardware, you DeceptiCons, you neocon freaks. You’re going to get to go bomb Saddam back into the Stone Ages and show the wonders of the U.S. military might, even though we don’t need it, even though there are no weapons of mass destruction. In exchange for that, though, you’re going to expand the domestic spending by the same amount, over a trillion dollars, which is pretty much what happened here. The only difference is that there is a slim possibility that Iraq spending may stop someday. There is no possibility that the domestic spending ever will.
Katie: Yeah, and it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Which was?
Katie: The war in Iraq. I really – I’m sorry, I’m breaking up. But on a yearly cost analysis, you know, again, the war has been expensive, pretty much unnecessary. But comparatively speaking, if you look at the numbers, it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Okay. But Katie, Katie, Katie. And you say you’re breaking up, so I’m going to let you go. See, folks, this is the problem here.
This is why conservatives can’t get anything done, and this is why I say the nation is filled with fake, phony, fraud conservatives. I don’t mean to say that Katie’s a fraud, but denial is not a river in Egypt. Don’t tell me that the Iraq war cost a trillion dollars, and we can debate whether or not it should have been fought. It shouldn’t. But that really doesn’t matter. Medicare cost a trillion, too. What do you mean it doesn’t matter? What do you – are we insane? This is nuts.
We have a war going on in Afghanistan right now. Nobody knows, folks, who knows why – “Oh, Mike, we’re there to get the Taliban.” No, we’re not. We are there to continue the military industrial complex spending and, while we’re at it, to in an inhumane, immoral in my estimation, fashion sacrifice the lives of too many young Americans. We’re spending $1.8 billion a week there. The estimates vary. It is absolutely unconscionable what is going on there. Where are the citizens of Libtardia demanding that Obama pull those troops out? Where are they? Where’s Cindy Sheehan laying down in front of the White House, screaming and whooping and hollering about the injustice of war? These people are peaceniks of convenience. They’re only peaceniks when it benefits them politically.
Look, you can’t have prosperity as long as you’re at war, so you should always want peace. This idea here that, “Well, well, Mike, we’ve got this war against terror.” I’m going to go over this again just really quick. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. But let me see if you’ve bought into this hook, line, and sinker. This is not to say that there aren’t jihadis out there. There always have been jihadis out there. But maybe we should stop mucking around in their business. Maybe we should stop guaranteeing the Saudi prince a safe passage of his oil through the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe we should stop dealing in the oil business in the Middle East and free up American oil and American gas and American energy. Because we have it here.
Don’t buy this lie, this urban legend that we don’t have resources. We have more resources than any other nation on Earth. We are the Saudi Arabia of Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in Colorado than they have in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in the Bakken Oil Reserve than they have in Saudi Arabia. There’s more oil off the coast of Alaska and in Alaska, we don’t even know how much oil is there. Don’t give me that crap, we have to have foreign oil. We have to have it because we’ve been told we have to have it. It is a convenience. Again, our federal government has mandated that we have to buy foreign oil. We don’t have to. Why? Because then you have the excuse that, well, we had to remain engaged in the Middle East because they’re our friends, and they have our oil. We don’t need their oil. And we don’t need to be involved in their affairs anymore.
But none of this seems to matter. It matters to some of us. But you go through the exercise here. So you have the protection of the Saudi prince’s oil and all the other assets and what have you. You have the commitment of the United States Navy, the commitment of the Armed Forces and what have you. You have billions of dollars a week going right out the door, engaged in an effort that actually increases the cost of energy for the American public that’s funding and paying for all this. Not only are you getting it through direct taxes, you’re getting it through increased prices for energy at the gas pump, on your light bills, your energy bills, and then everything that’s manufactured here because it all takes energy. I mean, this may be a great secret to some, but it’s not a secret to us here in Louisiana and in Texas that the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas are sitting right out there in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s where they are. We don’t need a drop, don’t need a gram, don’t need a cubic foot of anyone’s energy. Drops, oils; grams, coal; cubic feet, natural gas. Don’t need it. I thought we were so technologically advanced. Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants, hmm? Because the government says they’re not safe. Because the government says, oh, we’ve got to cave in to these scientists and these environmental tree huggers.
Folks, these are problems of our own making, can all be solved. And we have one entity that stands between solution and between continuing the misery and the deceit, and that is the federal Leviathan. So again I ask the question, why don’t we petition for a divorce? Why do we continue this exercise that we can fix this? Why don’t we just divorce it? That’s why that word “secession” needs to be on everybody’s tongue. That’s why that word “independence” needs to be on everybody’s tongue.
A hugh thanks to my good friend Mike for his imput...
Lets dwell on this further, shall we????
I offer you an interview between Mike Chrch and a caller named Katie:
Mike's got Katie of North Carolina on the line and she can't seem to apprehend why Liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq (trillion dollars and counting) when the cost of healthcare will likely trump Iraq. Mike feels two ways about this: Firstly, Bush had no fidelity of the Constitution in declaring war in Iraq, he instead used a usurpation of the people's power claiming an "act of military authorization". Fifty United States go to war as a Union against a foreign enemy. Secondly, you can't have prosperity unless you're at peace. We're at war.
Mike: All right. To the phones we go on a Free Phone Thursday. First up here today, Katie in North Carolina. Katie, how are you? You’re on the Mike Church Show, Sirius XM Patriot channel. What’s going on?
Katie: Hey, Mike. I love your show. Thanks for having me.
Mike: You’re welcome.
Katie: What I wanted to comment on is how liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq, yet this fiscal orgy that we’ve had over the past two and a half years could cost much more than the war in Iraq. And if you look at the predictions for the cost of healthcare and the road we’re going down, it makes the war in Iraq look like peanuts.
Mike: Yeah, the amount of money that has been spent, well, the war in Iraq was not peanuts. It was almost a trillion dollars.
Katie: Yeah, so...
Mike: Well, that taxicab meter is still running. This is why some of this stuff, Katie, is delusional because you’ve got some of these people out there, you’ve got some of these fake phony fraud conservatives out there, all humoring and having President Bush on their radio shows and their TV shows and, you know, talking about all the things that Bush accomplished as President. One of those things is, why, he kept us safe. Why, he did this, and he did all that, and what have you there. Well, he also got us into that Iraq war.
He also claims fidelity to the Constitution, and that’s why he wouldn’t come in and take over Louisiana, which he shouldn’t have, after Hurricane Katrina. But he had no fidelity to the Constitution when it came to declaring wars. He allowed, he signed, he participated in a usurpation of the people’s power. And he participated in that when there was act of military authorization. That is not a declaration of war. Fifty United States go to war as a nation against an enemy that is foreign. That is not what happened. And that’s why that thing turned into the quagmire that it did. And President Bush is – he materially participated in it. Hell, he asked for it. So...
Katie: He did. But they always go back to that statement; and, you know, whether the war, you know, was right or wrong, that’s a whole different conversation. But the fact that that is one of their standing arguments I think is just silly. And then, you know, being from North Carolina...
Mike: Well, but look at it from their point of view, and look at it from, okay, so let’s look at what the spending of a trillion dollars in Iraq engendered then. Okay. You guys are going to get your little military hardware, you DeceptiCons, you neocon freaks. You’re going to get to go bomb Saddam back into the Stone Ages and show the wonders of the U.S. military might, even though we don’t need it, even though there are no weapons of mass destruction. In exchange for that, though, you’re going to expand the domestic spending by the same amount, over a trillion dollars, which is pretty much what happened here. The only difference is that there is a slim possibility that Iraq spending may stop someday. There is no possibility that the domestic spending ever will.
Katie: Yeah, and it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Which was?
Katie: The war in Iraq. I really – I’m sorry, I’m breaking up. But on a yearly cost analysis, you know, again, the war has been expensive, pretty much unnecessary. But comparatively speaking, if you look at the numbers, it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Okay. But Katie, Katie, Katie. And you say you’re breaking up, so I’m going to let you go. See, folks, this is the problem here.
This is why conservatives can’t get anything done, and this is why I say the nation is filled with fake, phony, fraud conservatives. I don’t mean to say that Katie’s a fraud, but denial is not a river in Egypt. Don’t tell me that the Iraq war cost a trillion dollars, and we can debate whether or not it should have been fought. It shouldn’t. But that really doesn’t matter. Medicare cost a trillion, too. What do you mean it doesn’t matter? What do you – are we insane? This is nuts.
We have a war going on in Afghanistan right now. Nobody knows, folks, who knows why – “Oh, Mike, we’re there to get the Taliban.” No, we’re not. We are there to continue the military industrial complex spending and, while we’re at it, to in an inhumane, immoral in my estimation, fashion sacrifice the lives of too many young Americans. We’re spending $1.8 billion a week there. The estimates vary. It is absolutely unconscionable what is going on there. Where are the citizens of Libtardia demanding that Obama pull those troops out? Where are they? Where’s Cindy Sheehan laying down in front of the White House, screaming and whooping and hollering about the injustice of war? These people are peaceniks of convenience. They’re only peaceniks when it benefits them politically.
Look, you can’t have prosperity as long as you’re at war, so you should always want peace. This idea here that, “Well, well, Mike, we’ve got this war against terror.” I’m going to go over this again just really quick. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. But let me see if you’ve bought into this hook, line, and sinker. This is not to say that there aren’t jihadis out there. There always have been jihadis out there. But maybe we should stop mucking around in their business. Maybe we should stop guaranteeing the Saudi prince a safe passage of his oil through the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe we should stop dealing in the oil business in the Middle East and free up American oil and American gas and American energy. Because we have it here.
Don’t buy this lie, this urban legend that we don’t have resources. We have more resources than any other nation on Earth. We are the Saudi Arabia of Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in Colorado than they have in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in the Bakken Oil Reserve than they have in Saudi Arabia. There’s more oil off the coast of Alaska and in Alaska, we don’t even know how much oil is there. Don’t give me that crap, we have to have foreign oil. We have to have it because we’ve been told we have to have it. It is a convenience. Again, our federal government has mandated that we have to buy foreign oil. We don’t have to. Why? Because then you have the excuse that, well, we had to remain engaged in the Middle East because they’re our friends, and they have our oil. We don’t need their oil. And we don’t need to be involved in their affairs anymore.
But none of this seems to matter. It matters to some of us. But you go through the exercise here. So you have the protection of the Saudi prince’s oil and all the other assets and what have you. You have the commitment of the United States Navy, the commitment of the Armed Forces and what have you. You have billions of dollars a week going right out the door, engaged in an effort that actually increases the cost of energy for the American public that’s funding and paying for all this. Not only are you getting it through direct taxes, you’re getting it through increased prices for energy at the gas pump, on your light bills, your energy bills, and then everything that’s manufactured here because it all takes energy. I mean, this may be a great secret to some, but it’s not a secret to us here in Louisiana and in Texas that the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas are sitting right out there in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s where they are. We don’t need a drop, don’t need a gram, don’t need a cubic foot of anyone’s energy. Drops, oils; grams, coal; cubic feet, natural gas. Don’t need it. I thought we were so technologically advanced. Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants, hmm? Because the government says they’re not safe. Because the government says, oh, we’ve got to cave in to these scientists and these environmental tree huggers.
Folks, these are problems of our own making, can all be solved. And we have one entity that stands between solution and between continuing the misery and the deceit, and that is the federal Leviathan. So again I ask the question, why don’t we petition for a divorce? Why do we continue this exercise that we can fix this? Why don’t we just divorce it? That’s why that word “secession” needs to be on everybody’s tongue. That’s why that word “independence” needs to be on everybody’s tongue.
A hugh thanks to my good friend Mike for his imput...
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Michelle Obama Diden't Want To Live In Fear: She Should Talk To Chrysler's Hedge Fund Managers
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we are being gamed. We’re being lied to. We’re being played here. This massive takeover of the financial system, this massive effort here by the brown-shirted Obama jack-booted White House thugs to run around and to demonize and to personally endanger the lives of American citizens .
And I’m not talking about the ones that are fighting in Afghanistan, a war that’s not supposed to be going on, but is. I’m talking about the executives at AIG. I’m talking about the executives at the hedge funds that were called to the mat by name by the President of the United States for personal retribution. You ought to see some of the headlines here today, ladies and gentlemen. “Chris, that could never happen in America.” Oh, really. Really? Not only could it, it is.
The Business Insider reports, last night this was posted, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Well, that’s one way to make sure that the economy is vibrant. “Hey Chris, that’s one of the ways that you fix an economy is you beat the people up that have the money, and then they give it to us.” Have you see the commercials for DirecTV where the cable board of directors is sitting around, the one specifically where they’re sitting around, and the guy gets the bright idea that’s running the cable company, hey, people have this thing called disposable income. I know what we’ll do, we’ll raise prices. Yeah. And we’ll get them to dispose it to us. We’ll get them to dispose of the income to us.
I tell you, that’s got to sound a lot like an Obama economic advisor meeting to me. You have the most amazingly amazing economic team in the history of amazingly amazing economic teams. We are going to fix the economy. Now, I seem to recall, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to recall that this President was elected on the promise that he was going to fix the economy. I am not a leftie, he proclaimed. I believe in big business. I believe in free markets. I believe in this and I believe in that. We’re going to give a tax credit to 800 bazillion people across the world. Everybody’s going to get a tax cut. Why, you wait and see. When I get done with the markets, everything’s going to be right as rain. He’s going to fix this; he’s going to fix that.
And what has he done? He has systematically worked tirelessly night and day to try and eradicate the exchange of private capital and to try to bring it under the direction, guidance, and control of the White House. This is unprecedented in the history of the republic. It’s almost unprecedented in the history of the world. Matter of fact, if the Castro brothers hadn’t done it, if Hugo Chavez hadn’t done it, if Mussolini hadn’t done it, if Hitler hadn’t done it, if Mao hadn’t done it, if Brezhnev and Stalin and Lenin hadn’t done it, why, no one else in the world would ever have tried this. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to turn out. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to work. This is shocking.
Heres that commercial I was thinking about, see if this rings a bell...
[Clip] “TV is doing very well in customer satisfaction. What do we do?”
“I learned this in business school. We can’t improve our service. But we can improve the price. We can make it higher.”
“You know what? That’s not a bad idea.”
“We’ll get the people with disposable income, and they can dispose of it to us.”
“And they don’t watch TV. They're workaholics.”
“They wouldn’t know HD if it sat in their lap and called them ‘Mama.’”
All right, that’s [laughing] what it sounds like inside the White House. That’s what Larry Summers and Joe, not only is he the Vice President, but he’s also a member of the Hair Plugs for Men Biden. And you got Tiny Tim Geithner. And they’re all sitting around the table, [mimicking Obama] “All right, how are we going to screw the economy up?” And you hear that. We’ll get the guys with disposable income. We’ll get them to dispose of it to us.
This is no joking matter, though, here, folks. Entire generations are being threatened with this. This train is off the tracks, and I seem to not be able to make people understand this. I’m speaking of the people that you have barbecues and crawfish boils and cocktail parties and weddings and stuff, and you go bowling and hang out and play darts with and what have you. They're just goofing around here. I think what it is, it is what is – it’s what’s known as living in denial. Happens all the time. People don’t want to admit that there’s bad, there’s bad things about, that there’s problems. It’s much easier while you can to just ignore them. And unfortunately that’s what’s going on out there, a lot of people ignoring them. They want to believe in this young, handsome President, that he could fix these things. Well, let me tell you, the jury should be in by now. Not whether he – but this is the worst part of it, the worst part of the deception. Not only is he not going to fix it, he’s not trying to fix it. He is trying by definition of his actions to break it, to exacerbate it and make it worse.
So back to Mr. Asness. “I run an approximately $20 billion money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments. Of course these are my own views, and not those of my company,” he writes. “Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this.” Now, can you imagine this? Man is sitting there in his office, a capitalist. And he’s scared to death that if he puts pen to paper, that the brain-dead, Obamabot zombie, Acorn-sponsored, jack-booted, brown-shirted with the little “o” insignia on their sleeve thugs are going to come after him? Show up at his house? Show up at his place of business? Demonize his investments? Single him out for retribution? This is how freedom works??
Anyways, back to Mr. Asness. “It’s really a bad idea to speak out,” he concludes. “Angering the President is a mistake, and my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally ‘sacrifice’ their money without their permission.” Now, I told you two days ago that this was the crux of the argument here. These hedge fund guys weren’t holding out for a bailout or whatever the hell Obama said they were. They were holding out to protect their private investors, you and I, should our money be in their mutual funds or their hedge funds. They were trying to protect private property. Now, the Chrysler UAW guys don’t have any private property. They have taxpayer-subsidized property. And the President says, famously, “I stand with them.” Oh, really. So it sounds to me like Mr. Asness is living in fear. Now, let’s hear what Dear Leader First Lady Obama said way back in the campaign about living in fear.
[Clip] Michelle Obama: I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear.
I will personally take a fund up and chip in for the one-way airfare for Michelle Obama and the girls to go live in a country where there is no fear, where there’s nothing but national healthcare and Utopia. It’s called Cuba. What? I didn’t say anything radical. She said she didn’t want to live in fear. I’m trying to help her out here. Now, back to Mr. Asness, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Because we can’t have fear, remember? This was the reason for electing Dear Leader, the Obamabot brain-dead zombies said. The hopie-dopie-changie crowd said, “Chris, he is post-partisan. He is post-racial. This guy is not going to bring fear. He’s going to bring sunshine.”
Oh, I feel better already, dont you all??
And I’m not talking about the ones that are fighting in Afghanistan, a war that’s not supposed to be going on, but is. I’m talking about the executives at AIG. I’m talking about the executives at the hedge funds that were called to the mat by name by the President of the United States for personal retribution. You ought to see some of the headlines here today, ladies and gentlemen. “Chris, that could never happen in America.” Oh, really. Really? Not only could it, it is.
The Business Insider reports, last night this was posted, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Well, that’s one way to make sure that the economy is vibrant. “Hey Chris, that’s one of the ways that you fix an economy is you beat the people up that have the money, and then they give it to us.” Have you see the commercials for DirecTV where the cable board of directors is sitting around, the one specifically where they’re sitting around, and the guy gets the bright idea that’s running the cable company, hey, people have this thing called disposable income. I know what we’ll do, we’ll raise prices. Yeah. And we’ll get them to dispose it to us. We’ll get them to dispose of the income to us.
I tell you, that’s got to sound a lot like an Obama economic advisor meeting to me. You have the most amazingly amazing economic team in the history of amazingly amazing economic teams. We are going to fix the economy. Now, I seem to recall, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to recall that this President was elected on the promise that he was going to fix the economy. I am not a leftie, he proclaimed. I believe in big business. I believe in free markets. I believe in this and I believe in that. We’re going to give a tax credit to 800 bazillion people across the world. Everybody’s going to get a tax cut. Why, you wait and see. When I get done with the markets, everything’s going to be right as rain. He’s going to fix this; he’s going to fix that.
And what has he done? He has systematically worked tirelessly night and day to try and eradicate the exchange of private capital and to try to bring it under the direction, guidance, and control of the White House. This is unprecedented in the history of the republic. It’s almost unprecedented in the history of the world. Matter of fact, if the Castro brothers hadn’t done it, if Hugo Chavez hadn’t done it, if Mussolini hadn’t done it, if Hitler hadn’t done it, if Mao hadn’t done it, if Brezhnev and Stalin and Lenin hadn’t done it, why, no one else in the world would ever have tried this. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to turn out. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to work. This is shocking.
Heres that commercial I was thinking about, see if this rings a bell...
[Clip] “TV is doing very well in customer satisfaction. What do we do?”
“I learned this in business school. We can’t improve our service. But we can improve the price. We can make it higher.”
“You know what? That’s not a bad idea.”
“We’ll get the people with disposable income, and they can dispose of it to us.”
“And they don’t watch TV. They're workaholics.”
“They wouldn’t know HD if it sat in their lap and called them ‘Mama.’”
All right, that’s [laughing] what it sounds like inside the White House. That’s what Larry Summers and Joe, not only is he the Vice President, but he’s also a member of the Hair Plugs for Men Biden. And you got Tiny Tim Geithner. And they’re all sitting around the table, [mimicking Obama] “All right, how are we going to screw the economy up?” And you hear that. We’ll get the guys with disposable income. We’ll get them to dispose of it to us.
This is no joking matter, though, here, folks. Entire generations are being threatened with this. This train is off the tracks, and I seem to not be able to make people understand this. I’m speaking of the people that you have barbecues and crawfish boils and cocktail parties and weddings and stuff, and you go bowling and hang out and play darts with and what have you. They're just goofing around here. I think what it is, it is what is – it’s what’s known as living in denial. Happens all the time. People don’t want to admit that there’s bad, there’s bad things about, that there’s problems. It’s much easier while you can to just ignore them. And unfortunately that’s what’s going on out there, a lot of people ignoring them. They want to believe in this young, handsome President, that he could fix these things. Well, let me tell you, the jury should be in by now. Not whether he – but this is the worst part of it, the worst part of the deception. Not only is he not going to fix it, he’s not trying to fix it. He is trying by definition of his actions to break it, to exacerbate it and make it worse.
So back to Mr. Asness. “I run an approximately $20 billion money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments. Of course these are my own views, and not those of my company,” he writes. “Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this.” Now, can you imagine this? Man is sitting there in his office, a capitalist. And he’s scared to death that if he puts pen to paper, that the brain-dead, Obamabot zombie, Acorn-sponsored, jack-booted, brown-shirted with the little “o” insignia on their sleeve thugs are going to come after him? Show up at his house? Show up at his place of business? Demonize his investments? Single him out for retribution? This is how freedom works??
Anyways, back to Mr. Asness. “It’s really a bad idea to speak out,” he concludes. “Angering the President is a mistake, and my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally ‘sacrifice’ their money without their permission.” Now, I told you two days ago that this was the crux of the argument here. These hedge fund guys weren’t holding out for a bailout or whatever the hell Obama said they were. They were holding out to protect their private investors, you and I, should our money be in their mutual funds or their hedge funds. They were trying to protect private property. Now, the Chrysler UAW guys don’t have any private property. They have taxpayer-subsidized property. And the President says, famously, “I stand with them.” Oh, really. So it sounds to me like Mr. Asness is living in fear. Now, let’s hear what Dear Leader First Lady Obama said way back in the campaign about living in fear.
[Clip] Michelle Obama: I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear.
I will personally take a fund up and chip in for the one-way airfare for Michelle Obama and the girls to go live in a country where there is no fear, where there’s nothing but national healthcare and Utopia. It’s called Cuba. What? I didn’t say anything radical. She said she didn’t want to live in fear. I’m trying to help her out here. Now, back to Mr. Asness, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Because we can’t have fear, remember? This was the reason for electing Dear Leader, the Obamabot brain-dead zombies said. The hopie-dopie-changie crowd said, “Chris, he is post-partisan. He is post-racial. This guy is not going to bring fear. He’s going to bring sunshine.”
Oh, I feel better already, dont you all??
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The conservative path back to the Constitution
Much has been made about the “Tea Party” movement and other American’s calls to “return to the Constitution” and get “our government back” from the politicians and special interests that have stolen it. There are many thoughtful plans being promoted that should the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives, they should pursue. These plans offer various degrees of remodeling the federal system but do nothing to alter its inexorable course toward either an Oligarchy or acting national democratic legislature.
I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”
With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.
Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.
1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.
I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”
With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.
Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.
1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Can we really shrink the size of government?
One of the core beliefs of the Tea Party movement is that the government is too big, too powerful, and costs too much money. Of course, this is also a core conservative belief that over the years has not necessarily been championed by the Republican Party. But now, with Republicans poised to make massive gains in Tuesday's elections and Tea Party activists motivated to exert their influence past Election Day, could this be the time when we can actually shrink the size of government?
Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."
The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.
The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!
There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.
In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.
With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.
(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)
If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.
Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!
Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."
The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.
The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!
There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.
In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.
With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.
(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)
If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.
Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Our Constitution Means What It Says, and is not open to interpretation!
Written Constitutions mean exactly what the writers and ratifiers say they mean and nothing else in the form of this essay from MI Supreme Court Judge Thomas McIntyre Cooley.
Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.
A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.
A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.
Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.
What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."
I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....
Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?
Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?
Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?
Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.
Mike: Okay.
Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.
Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?
Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...
Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?
Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.
Mike: Okay, all right.
Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.
Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?
Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.
Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.
Kevin: Right.
Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?
Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...
Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”
We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.
Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?
Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...
Mike: Right.
Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.
Mike: Which is...
Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?
Mike: Well, how...
Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.
Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?
Kevin: Right.
Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.
Kevin: 1688.
Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?
Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.
Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.
Kevin: Yeah, yeah.
Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.
Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.
Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.
A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.
A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.
Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.
What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."
I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....
Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?
Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?
Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?
Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.
Mike: Okay.
Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.
Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?
Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...
Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?
Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.
Mike: Okay, all right.
Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.
Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?
Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.
Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.
Kevin: Right.
Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?
Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...
Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”
We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.
Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?
Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...
Mike: Right.
Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.
Mike: Which is...
Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?
Mike: Well, how...
Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.
Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?
Kevin: Right.
Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.
Kevin: 1688.
Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?
Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.
Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.
Kevin: Yeah, yeah.
Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.
Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
So Obama IS a Socialist after all.....
The big story of the day is that things that were barely touched upon, barely covered, barely reported, barely discussed back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for the presidency, have now been proved to be unequivocally and factually correct. Correct . That includes his relationship with Bill Ayers, his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his palling around with radical nut jobs like Rashid Khalidi and other sorts of America-hating whack jobs. It always has been Obama’s goal, his mission, hell, his purpose in life was to call into mind and to question the actual existence of these United States. I mean, folks, it all makes sense now that all the facts are being exposed....
Now, look. This is not news to I. I was well apprised of this a long time ago because I’ve been a fan of and I’ve been reading what Dr. Stanley Kurtz has been writing about Obama. So I was not surprised by this one iota. Now, apparently many of you people are not surprised by it, either. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But here’s what remains the challenge: What are we going to do about it?
And what I’m talking about is Dr. Stanley Kurtz’s book, it comes out next week, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.” The most shocking part of this, as I told you when I was reading this, was that it was the goal of those who were promoting Obama or someone like Obama that they would use groups like ACORN and Project Vote to swell the ranks of Democrats with poor and minority voters. And that their socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots. This is a takeover of the American government. This is a takeover from within of our social systems and our institutions.
Now, they’re not finished with their takeover yet because it was quite a massive undertaking to try and consume all of it. This is the radical change that Obama has always been talking about. As a matter of fact, this is what change and hope meant. Change and hope meant throw out liberty, or what little liberty remained after the socialists began their conquests back in 1913, throw out the remaining remnants of liberty, throw out the remaining constraints against what limited the power and the reach of government, throw that out and replace it with something that felt good. It was all sticky and sugary sweet. Why, we’ve got to get rid of these banks. We have to get rid of these people, these shysters, these crooks, these criminals that are out there loaning money to your kids in student loans and what have you, and that own these car companies and these other corporations. We must get rid of them and replace them with the kind of people we want to put in there. And then we will loan them government money, and we will invest in this and that and the other.
I will make Obama’s radical past today’s story, because you people that have been called wackos and nut jobs and racists and hicks and hayseeds and what have you because you oppose Obama so vehemently, and that Obama’s rise to power and the way he has used his power has set alarm bells ringing off in your head, this justifies your alarm bells. This gives credibility to your fears. You feared this guy for the right reasons. He is a Marxist lunatic.
Now, let me take you back to August of 2008, as I have been suffering under this for over two years now. “Oh, you’re just jealous. You know what you are, Chris, you’re just a racist. Why don’t you just come out of the closet, admit it? Get the sheet and hoods out of the closet.” And as I’ve been telling you, and I have been talking about this for over two and a half years when I heard Obama give this particular speech:
"that he’s running for the presidency because he wants to bring philosophy to an end, or a particular philosophy. Well, that philosophy is the philosophy of what you people call the free market. We haven’t had one since the 1800s. But it has been called a free market. And the other philosophy is the philosophy of embracing liberty in the individual over collectivism in the state."
I heard him give the same speech on consecutive days, when I heard him give this speech I was shocked and mortified. i remember thinking,"I’m the only one that thinks that there’s anything wrong with this????" Was anyone else listening to this radical marxist racist???? I guess not, I mean hes the president right?
You see, socialists, in order to operate, they must confiscate the wealth of the people. And then they put all-knowing, all-caring, social engineers in the place of people that were running businesses before. And they run them for the social good. They don’t run them for profit. It doesn’t work anywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s not going to work here. As a matter of fact, it’s not working here. Look at the state of economic affairs around you. But it was shocking to me that Obama was out there saying he wanted to bring philosophies to an end, and people were cheering.
You don’t bring philosophies to an end....
Dictators bring philosophies to an end....
Violent revolutions bring philosophies to an end....
But there was Obama, out there throwing this stuff up, like a mama bird spitting up chewed up worms down her chicks throats on the campaign trail and being cheered for it. So let me take you back and remind you what this madman has said:
Obama: ...have a stake in each other, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.
Question: Yes or no, eliminate the electoral college, yes or no. Obama: Yes.
Obama: We need to stop sending $3 billion a year to banks that provide student loans the government could provide directly to students for less.(hows this one worked out for you lazy, shiftless, mooching off your parents, college pukes???)
Obama: We can’t afford to wait any longer. We need this fund to help New Hampshire and states across the country pay for healthcare and education, police and firefighters.(because you dumb pions in your individual towns can`t seem to handle it)
Obama: I think, when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.(you mean good for the losers that won`t go out and take care of themselves or their families)
Obama: That does involve us spreading around opportunity.
Obama: And this economic catastrophe is the final verdict on this failed philosophy, a philosophy that we cannot afford to continue. And one of the reasons I am running for the presidency of the United States is to bring this philosophy to an end.(only because of these oh so many liberal policies and dem interventions into our so called free market)
Now, he said it. I didn’t say it. He said it, “is to bring this philosophy to an end.” Now, when you read Kurtz’s piece here, it all makes sense. And again, if you missed it last hour, I’ll read you the summary:
“The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the President’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration. As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical and only ... partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the President’s ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.”
That is why everyone must know the facts about this true racial divider, and i suggest you all start with this small but factual article written by Dr. Stanley Kurtz......
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249390/obama%E2%80%99s-radical-past-stanley-kurtz
and then read his book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism"
So it shouldn’t come as a shock, really, if you have been watching what’s been going on, have been watching what this guy has been doing, have been watching who he has appointed to positions of power and the way he’s operated.
What ought to be a shock, though, is the dismissal by so many in the Parrot Press Corps, fringe media, academia, political circles and what have you, when you admit that, wait a minute, there’s just something not right about this guy. And you say that, why, the first reaction is “racist, bigot, hick, hayseed,” you know, you hear it all the time, radical Tea Party extremists, they’re just responding to Obama’s race. No. You people, or many of you people, have been correct all along. Your instincts were good. You smelled out the socialist. You sniffed it out. You knew as soon as he started it didn’t seem right. You knew as soon as this stuff started, and the explanations that were given for it, that it just didn’t seem right. There is something intrinsically and inherently wrong with being president of a country that once upon a time prized individual achievement and individualism and has thrown that overboard.
So, for how long has the left claimed that all this comes from conservative conspiracy theorist nut jobs. It’s not a conspiracy anymore. It’s only a conspiracy if you don’t know about it. I mean, this isn’t Mulder and Scully tooling around in the Antarctic, looking for Obama’s buried ancestors in the Antarctic ice that came from some faraway planet, are we? This has actually happened in real-time, right in front of your face; hasn’t it?
Now, look. This is not news to I. I was well apprised of this a long time ago because I’ve been a fan of and I’ve been reading what Dr. Stanley Kurtz has been writing about Obama. So I was not surprised by this one iota. Now, apparently many of you people are not surprised by it, either. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But here’s what remains the challenge: What are we going to do about it?
And what I’m talking about is Dr. Stanley Kurtz’s book, it comes out next week, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.” The most shocking part of this, as I told you when I was reading this, was that it was the goal of those who were promoting Obama or someone like Obama that they would use groups like ACORN and Project Vote to swell the ranks of Democrats with poor and minority voters. And that their socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots. This is a takeover of the American government. This is a takeover from within of our social systems and our institutions.
Now, they’re not finished with their takeover yet because it was quite a massive undertaking to try and consume all of it. This is the radical change that Obama has always been talking about. As a matter of fact, this is what change and hope meant. Change and hope meant throw out liberty, or what little liberty remained after the socialists began their conquests back in 1913, throw out the remaining remnants of liberty, throw out the remaining constraints against what limited the power and the reach of government, throw that out and replace it with something that felt good. It was all sticky and sugary sweet. Why, we’ve got to get rid of these banks. We have to get rid of these people, these shysters, these crooks, these criminals that are out there loaning money to your kids in student loans and what have you, and that own these car companies and these other corporations. We must get rid of them and replace them with the kind of people we want to put in there. And then we will loan them government money, and we will invest in this and that and the other.
I will make Obama’s radical past today’s story, because you people that have been called wackos and nut jobs and racists and hicks and hayseeds and what have you because you oppose Obama so vehemently, and that Obama’s rise to power and the way he has used his power has set alarm bells ringing off in your head, this justifies your alarm bells. This gives credibility to your fears. You feared this guy for the right reasons. He is a Marxist lunatic.
Now, let me take you back to August of 2008, as I have been suffering under this for over two years now. “Oh, you’re just jealous. You know what you are, Chris, you’re just a racist. Why don’t you just come out of the closet, admit it? Get the sheet and hoods out of the closet.” And as I’ve been telling you, and I have been talking about this for over two and a half years when I heard Obama give this particular speech:
"that he’s running for the presidency because he wants to bring philosophy to an end, or a particular philosophy. Well, that philosophy is the philosophy of what you people call the free market. We haven’t had one since the 1800s. But it has been called a free market. And the other philosophy is the philosophy of embracing liberty in the individual over collectivism in the state."
I heard him give the same speech on consecutive days, when I heard him give this speech I was shocked and mortified. i remember thinking,"I’m the only one that thinks that there’s anything wrong with this????" Was anyone else listening to this radical marxist racist???? I guess not, I mean hes the president right?
You see, socialists, in order to operate, they must confiscate the wealth of the people. And then they put all-knowing, all-caring, social engineers in the place of people that were running businesses before. And they run them for the social good. They don’t run them for profit. It doesn’t work anywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s not going to work here. As a matter of fact, it’s not working here. Look at the state of economic affairs around you. But it was shocking to me that Obama was out there saying he wanted to bring philosophies to an end, and people were cheering.
You don’t bring philosophies to an end....
Dictators bring philosophies to an end....
Violent revolutions bring philosophies to an end....
But there was Obama, out there throwing this stuff up, like a mama bird spitting up chewed up worms down her chicks throats on the campaign trail and being cheered for it. So let me take you back and remind you what this madman has said:
Obama: ...have a stake in each other, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.
Question: Yes or no, eliminate the electoral college, yes or no. Obama: Yes.
Obama: We need to stop sending $3 billion a year to banks that provide student loans the government could provide directly to students for less.(hows this one worked out for you lazy, shiftless, mooching off your parents, college pukes???)
Obama: We can’t afford to wait any longer. We need this fund to help New Hampshire and states across the country pay for healthcare and education, police and firefighters.(because you dumb pions in your individual towns can`t seem to handle it)
Obama: I think, when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.(you mean good for the losers that won`t go out and take care of themselves or their families)
Obama: That does involve us spreading around opportunity.
Obama: And this economic catastrophe is the final verdict on this failed philosophy, a philosophy that we cannot afford to continue. And one of the reasons I am running for the presidency of the United States is to bring this philosophy to an end.(only because of these oh so many liberal policies and dem interventions into our so called free market)
Now, he said it. I didn’t say it. He said it, “is to bring this philosophy to an end.” Now, when you read Kurtz’s piece here, it all makes sense. And again, if you missed it last hour, I’ll read you the summary:
“The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the President’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration. As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical and only ... partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the President’s ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.”
That is why everyone must know the facts about this true racial divider, and i suggest you all start with this small but factual article written by Dr. Stanley Kurtz......
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249390/obama%E2%80%99s-radical-past-stanley-kurtz
and then read his book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism"
So it shouldn’t come as a shock, really, if you have been watching what’s been going on, have been watching what this guy has been doing, have been watching who he has appointed to positions of power and the way he’s operated.
What ought to be a shock, though, is the dismissal by so many in the Parrot Press Corps, fringe media, academia, political circles and what have you, when you admit that, wait a minute, there’s just something not right about this guy. And you say that, why, the first reaction is “racist, bigot, hick, hayseed,” you know, you hear it all the time, radical Tea Party extremists, they’re just responding to Obama’s race. No. You people, or many of you people, have been correct all along. Your instincts were good. You smelled out the socialist. You sniffed it out. You knew as soon as he started it didn’t seem right. You knew as soon as this stuff started, and the explanations that were given for it, that it just didn’t seem right. There is something intrinsically and inherently wrong with being president of a country that once upon a time prized individual achievement and individualism and has thrown that overboard.
So, for how long has the left claimed that all this comes from conservative conspiracy theorist nut jobs. It’s not a conspiracy anymore. It’s only a conspiracy if you don’t know about it. I mean, this isn’t Mulder and Scully tooling around in the Antarctic, looking for Obama’s buried ancestors in the Antarctic ice that came from some faraway planet, are we? This has actually happened in real-time, right in front of your face; hasn’t it?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
The Supreme Answer To Westboro Baptist
I think we can all agree that protesting at the funeral of a dead soldier is a distasteful, classless, heartless, despicable act. I am of course referring to the offensive protests of the Phelps family of Westboro Baptist Church. What we might, but should not disagree on is whether or not this is a first amendment case. Most of you say it is because you have been taught Supreme Court precedent and not the Constitution. I respectfully dissent.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were written and ratified to erect bulkheads against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passing laws and acts or judicial rulings in the area of religion, the press and free speech, these matters were left to the sole discretion of the states. Anyone that is “for a return to the Constitution” must therefore then be for a return to the Bill of Rights as it was ratified but alas, most conservatives and Tea Party members do not want this return.
These protests are a matter for the towns where they are organized to occur in, to vigorously oppose with dedicated anti-Phelps crowds wielding pitchforks and torches and if that doesn’t work, try bare knuckles.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were written and ratified to erect bulkheads against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passing laws and acts or judicial rulings in the area of religion, the press and free speech, these matters were left to the sole discretion of the states. Anyone that is “for a return to the Constitution” must therefore then be for a return to the Bill of Rights as it was ratified but alas, most conservatives and Tea Party members do not want this return.
These protests are a matter for the towns where they are organized to occur in, to vigorously oppose with dedicated anti-Phelps crowds wielding pitchforks and torches and if that doesn’t work, try bare knuckles.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The much anticipated “Pledge to America” represents a glimpse into how Republicans plan to govern, and simply put, it’s a pledge to nowhere!
Americans disillusioned by the massive expansion of government under President Obama’s administration, and those with short-term memory loss who are pinning their hopes and dreams on a landslide of Republicans taking back Congress after this fall’s elections take note, its still just more CHANGE you cannot believe in.
Indeed, establishment Republicans have released their to-do list and unless you relish suffering from cognitive dissonance while chanting “end big government” at tea party rallies you will be mightily disappointed. Further buttressing claims that there is little philosophical difference between the two parties save for the route in which they take to achieve their statist machinations, Republicans are seeking to repeal "ObamaCare", only so they might offer their version of massive government intervention into the health care sector, or for those with an affinity for sound bite kitsch, “BoehnerCare”.
Boehner and Co. have released a document that tips their hand and tells you where they’re headed and should instruct you that there is no party, none, zero, no political party that stands for limited government, individual liberty and freedom, and the Constitution. They talk a good game, but they’re fakes. They’re liars. They’re hacks. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you will stop what you’re doing right now, let us have a moment of silence for the Republican Party, RIP.
And there’s your moment of silence. That’s it. The party, literally, is over. How did this happen? You have to read this. It’s not enough that the preamble to this thing is an insult to all of your founding father intelligence. If you’re going to quote Thomas Jefferson, then quote him. You don’t expropriate Jefferson for your own singular political purposes. I mean, this is embarrassing. But I can’t wait to hear the hackery out there, “Oh, this is a bold plan. Oh, they’re going to trim a hundred billion dollars out of spending next year. You just wait and see, Chris, a hundred dollars makes a big difference. You wait and see. We’re on the right course. What are we supposed to do?” The empire, as they call it, is striking back [“Star Wars” theme music]. I’d like to see John Boehner in a Darth Vader costume. I’d like to see Eric Cantor in one of those Death Star General get-ups.
I asked Marsha Blackburn, repeal and replace, or repeal and repeal? And I wondered, why couldn’t she just say repeal, repeal the damn ObamaCare? Because what we got was a, I don’t know, a twisted answer. Now, Senator Jim DeMint said Repeal and Repeal, because I asked him about it. Here was Congresswoman Blackburn’s answer:
We are for repealing the healthcare bill, and we are for giving power back to individuals to make those healthcare decisions. And smart women are the drivers on healthcare decisions in their families. What they want is less government interference, less hassle from insurance companies, more accountability with insurance companies. They want to see tort reform take place. And they want to be able to make decisions for their families about their healthcare with the family physician, not with a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. And that is what I am for.
Okay. Did you get that? I’m not going to answer the question because we’ve got this Pledge for America coming out, and we’re for Repeal and Replace. So now you’re going to have ObamaCare replaced, with a couple of internal engine or internal combustion parts, with BoehnerCare or BlackburnCare or CantorCare or WhoeverCare. This is just disgraceful here. Now, either you’re for the repeal of the damn thing, and you’re for the repeal on principle, which should say that the reason that much of the malady and inefficiency that exist in the delivery of medical services today and the expense of it is because, number one, people don’t pay for it. Why don’t they pay for it? Number two, because the federal government subsidizes it; number three, because every man, woman, and child that works in that industry is regulated by the federal government, and that is the root of all medical evil.
So what do we get instead, ladies and gentlemen? Here, I’ll read it to you. Because apparently you people are just not believing this. I didn’t want to believe it, either. Oh, and by the way, we will also get into the massive, massive $100 billion entitlement cut, I mean, $100 billion in discretionary spending they’re going to cut. That will trim Obama’s budget deficit for next year from $1.5 trillion down to 1.4. It’s a sunny day. It is morning in America again; is it not? Here it is, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” This is from the document, “A Pledge to America.”
Can we now all end, can we now end the pretensions that human nature is not easily readable, and that you don’t have to be a fortune teller, and you don’t have to be a soothsayer, and you don’t have to have some kind of lofty premonition or lofty ESP to figure out what human nature says that crooked, criminal, political hack politicians are going to do in any given circumstance. That’s how I am able to predict these things to you. I wish I would have been wrong on this one. I was hoping I was going to be wrong. So right here from “A Pledge to America,” here’s what it says, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” There it is, big, giant, bold print, 18 points across the top of the page, unmistakable.
Maybe if the self-dubbed “Young Guns” were focused on leading by virtue of the power given them in the Constitution rather than self promotion, they would realize that words are not enough.....
The Pledge to America outlines how with Republicans in charge by golly, the federal government will get down to the business of creating jobs, in a more “conservative” albeit still inefficient manner.
Pressed by reporters exactly which programs Republicans would cut in order to achieve the much touted spending reductions, Minority Leader Boehner quickly pointed his finger to the sky and began citing well-established catchy Republican talking-points ad nauseam so as to avoid the question while still sounding tough on spending.
As the press continued in vain to pry greater detail regarding how cutting 100 billion dollars annually over the next decade provided any hope whatsoever of avoiding an economic catastrophe for a federal deficit now past 13 trillion, Minority Leader Boehner opted instead to put the onus back onto the American people. He answered their inquiry by stating that the people must be willing to have a grown-up conversation with politicians in Washington if the nation is to avoid a financial disaster. Minority Leader Boehner made no mention whether or not indoor voices will be required should such a meeting ever actually come to fruition.
This is exactly what’s going to happen with what Obama has done, that once the size of the federal leviathan has grown, the nitwits, the DeceptiCons, the fake, phony frauds that call themselves conservatives, that reside in what used to be known as the Republican Party – it’s just a party full of hacks now, with the exception of a few notable exceptions there – that they will claim that, why, we can’t roll all this back. We have responsibilities.
I read you now from the agenda, “A Pledge to America,” the Republican “Pledge to America.” I want you to listen to this. Now, today is either Liberation Day or Mourning Day. Either you’re mourning the death of the Republican Party and have now come fully to grips with what I’ve been telling you for three years now, that there is no hope to save Mordor on the Potomac, it’s over. Let’s bring Bill Paxton in here. You want to hear Bill Paxton??
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal.
[Laughing] So it’s over. There is no opposition party to ObamaCare. They’ve thrown the towel in on that. But I want to read this to you. Now, keep the ratchet effect in mind. Now, your Republican Party is supposed to be the party of limited smaller government. Remember this. Now, I predicted to you, and again, I’m going to say this again for you people that hate my guts or can’t stand the fact that I’m correct on this, that I do not enjoy this. This is not an enjoyable thing for me to say that I was right. I wish, wish wish wish that I was wrong. I’m not, this is not – I’m not happy about this. I would much rather be wrong and live in a limited government constitutional federal republic than I would be proven correct time and time again. I feel it’s beyond my duty as your blog host to play citizen from time to time, and to tell you exactly what I think and where we stand.
We’re screwed. The federal game is over. Your opposition party has mailed it in. We will now be stuck with, just as Higgs predicts and just as I have been informing you, with the size of the government that Nazi Pelosi gave us. These clowns, these Republicans act as if we don’t know that they presided over the largest increase in the size and scope of the federal government in the history of Earth, from 2000 to 2006. And then when Nazi Pelosi took over she just went [mimicking Speaker Pelosi], “Oh, look what they did. We could do more.” And then she took over, and she grew the federal government, and she grew its size and its scope and its powers. And now, just as Higgs has predicted and I have informed you of, the ratchet effect is in effect. You have Republicans now putting in writing that the Pelosi era, the Pelosi-size government will be your government for the rest of your natural-born life. Get used to it.
I don’t believe I’m reading this, seriously. Here’s the headline. I’m reading from their document. “Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels.” Who was running the show during the bailout? It was Pelosi. This was after two years of Pelosi. “With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops” – oh, yes, keep the military industrial complex fully funded and expanding, the empire must grow, after all, don’t you know – “we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least” – wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen, wait for it, wait for it – “saving us at least” – at least how much? [“Austin Powers” fanfare] “$100 billion.” Gee, Dr. Evil, thanks. A hundred billion [laughing hysterically]. That’s a joke; right? That’s a big joke. You’re a funny guy. That’s a joke; right? Well, it’ll save us a hundred billion “...in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.” These people are traitors. Paring it down a hundred billion dollars, after it grew by a trillion? Don’t insult my intelligence. So you’re toast. I’m toast. Our kids are toast. Game over. Just as Bill Paxton said. Game freaking over.
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
So now it’s not just Democrats to play the game to eat out our sustenance. As Patrick Henry said, to send battalions of bureaucrats hither and yon like a swarm over the countryside to eat out our sustenance. They’re all in on it now. I’d love to get Robert Higgs take on this. The book is “Crisis and Leviathan,” and Higgs has been proven correct time and time again. Now, let’s get reaction here. Here is DeceptiCon fake, phony fraud hacks on Fox News this morning, whoa, this plan, the people are finally back in charge, you’re going to hear one hack Republican say. So in order, here’s who we have. We have Michele Bachmann, Shelley Moore, and then Spence Bacchus touting this new agenda, this new Pledge to America.
[Clip] Rep. Bachmann: The GOP has done a good job in listening to the heartbeat of the people right now, which is stop, turn the corner, and focus on job creation. [Mike: Oh, my God, oh, help us.]
[Clip] Rep. Capito: From what I’ve seen, I haven’t seen the whole product yet, but I think it encompasses a broad-based feeling of the loss of jobs, the economy. And we’ve stuck to the issues, I believe, that are most important to people in America trying to put food on their tables.
[Clip] Rep. Bacchus: America became the greatest economy on the face of the Earth, three times bigger than the next largest economy, not by government control, not by the government making decisions, but by the power of the people. This is putting the people back in charge of Washington.
Now[Laughing hysterically] That guy’s funny. So Pelosi and Co. spent 3.7 trillion this year, and we’re putting the people back in charge, and we’re only going to spend 3.6 trillion next year, if we get the House back. Oh, that’s putting the people in charge. My, my. Gee. How many hours did you guys stay up, burning midnight oil, to think of that one? Wait a minute, Michele Bachmann is the woman that created the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. The first cut you had, oh, the Republicans have done a good job out there, they’ve got their ear out there listening to the American people out there. So this is what the Tea Party Caucus has always wanted. Just as Gov. Palin said the other day, yes, yes, yes, we don’t want to really – we really don’t want to cut the size and the scope of the federal government. No, no, no. We just want Republicans spending the money and appropriating it.
These people are frauds, ladies and gentlemen. They should be sued and prosecuted for being frauds. How many of your neighbors are going to buy this crap hook, line, and sinker? This is absolutely inexcusable. It is wrong. And I tell you this, now, and you heard Senator DeMint on Sunday say, “Well, I really fear, if we get back in the majority, and we don’t do what we say we’re going to do, that that’s going to be the end of the Republican Party.” The Republican Party is over. It’s dead. Stick a fork in it. It’s dead. Now, they may have the apparatus to help some people like Rand Paul or like Joe Miller and a couple other select individuals win federal office. But fixing this thing from the inside out, let’s just be honest, the Constitution is dead. It was a nice run while we had it. It’s over.
At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly.
1. The Pledge fails to address the single greatest threat to our nation’s long term fiscal health - the fact that we have precisely $0 set aside for the more than $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities staring us in the face for social security, medicare and medicaid. Instead, we get more of the same political rhetoric about seniors standing to lose Medicare because of Obamacare. MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT. SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPT. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, MAN UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
2. The Pledge blatantly fails to even mention earmarks, much less calling for a ban on them. The issue here isn’t about how much money we will save. The issue is about Congressional arrogance - and their naked addiction to using your tax dollars to try to buy off your votes back home.
3. The Pledge offers no significant, concrete plan to reduce spending such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or a Spending Limit Amendment, relying instead on gimmicks like weekly votes on spending cuts and hiring freezes, as well as nebulous promises to cap spending.
4. And perhaps most troubling of all, the Pledge adopts the nonsensical “repeal and replace” mantra for Obamacare - offering as replacement yet more federal government mandates regarding pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on benefits, which begs the question: which mandates are unconstitutional and which ones are not, GOP? And, STOP WITH THE MANDATES. STOP IT. MANDATING THAT INSURERS COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ON ITS FACE - BUT WORSE, YOU IDIOTS, IT WILL LEAD TO AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COVER THE ALREADY SICK WITHOUT MANDATING THAT THE HEALTHY PARTICIPATE. JUST STOP IT!
The overall reocurring theme since the release of the GOP pledge is that Statism is only bad when Democrats are in charge, which of course is a fundamentally flawed philosophy and is a belief system that is the complete and total antithesis of their evolution.
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
Indeed, establishment Republicans have released their to-do list and unless you relish suffering from cognitive dissonance while chanting “end big government” at tea party rallies you will be mightily disappointed. Further buttressing claims that there is little philosophical difference between the two parties save for the route in which they take to achieve their statist machinations, Republicans are seeking to repeal "ObamaCare", only so they might offer their version of massive government intervention into the health care sector, or for those with an affinity for sound bite kitsch, “BoehnerCare”.
Boehner and Co. have released a document that tips their hand and tells you where they’re headed and should instruct you that there is no party, none, zero, no political party that stands for limited government, individual liberty and freedom, and the Constitution. They talk a good game, but they’re fakes. They’re liars. They’re hacks. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you will stop what you’re doing right now, let us have a moment of silence for the Republican Party, RIP.
And there’s your moment of silence. That’s it. The party, literally, is over. How did this happen? You have to read this. It’s not enough that the preamble to this thing is an insult to all of your founding father intelligence. If you’re going to quote Thomas Jefferson, then quote him. You don’t expropriate Jefferson for your own singular political purposes. I mean, this is embarrassing. But I can’t wait to hear the hackery out there, “Oh, this is a bold plan. Oh, they’re going to trim a hundred billion dollars out of spending next year. You just wait and see, Chris, a hundred dollars makes a big difference. You wait and see. We’re on the right course. What are we supposed to do?” The empire, as they call it, is striking back [“Star Wars” theme music]. I’d like to see John Boehner in a Darth Vader costume. I’d like to see Eric Cantor in one of those Death Star General get-ups.
I asked Marsha Blackburn, repeal and replace, or repeal and repeal? And I wondered, why couldn’t she just say repeal, repeal the damn ObamaCare? Because what we got was a, I don’t know, a twisted answer. Now, Senator Jim DeMint said Repeal and Repeal, because I asked him about it. Here was Congresswoman Blackburn’s answer:
We are for repealing the healthcare bill, and we are for giving power back to individuals to make those healthcare decisions. And smart women are the drivers on healthcare decisions in their families. What they want is less government interference, less hassle from insurance companies, more accountability with insurance companies. They want to see tort reform take place. And they want to be able to make decisions for their families about their healthcare with the family physician, not with a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. And that is what I am for.
Okay. Did you get that? I’m not going to answer the question because we’ve got this Pledge for America coming out, and we’re for Repeal and Replace. So now you’re going to have ObamaCare replaced, with a couple of internal engine or internal combustion parts, with BoehnerCare or BlackburnCare or CantorCare or WhoeverCare. This is just disgraceful here. Now, either you’re for the repeal of the damn thing, and you’re for the repeal on principle, which should say that the reason that much of the malady and inefficiency that exist in the delivery of medical services today and the expense of it is because, number one, people don’t pay for it. Why don’t they pay for it? Number two, because the federal government subsidizes it; number three, because every man, woman, and child that works in that industry is regulated by the federal government, and that is the root of all medical evil.
So what do we get instead, ladies and gentlemen? Here, I’ll read it to you. Because apparently you people are just not believing this. I didn’t want to believe it, either. Oh, and by the way, we will also get into the massive, massive $100 billion entitlement cut, I mean, $100 billion in discretionary spending they’re going to cut. That will trim Obama’s budget deficit for next year from $1.5 trillion down to 1.4. It’s a sunny day. It is morning in America again; is it not? Here it is, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” This is from the document, “A Pledge to America.”
Can we now all end, can we now end the pretensions that human nature is not easily readable, and that you don’t have to be a fortune teller, and you don’t have to be a soothsayer, and you don’t have to have some kind of lofty premonition or lofty ESP to figure out what human nature says that crooked, criminal, political hack politicians are going to do in any given circumstance. That’s how I am able to predict these things to you. I wish I would have been wrong on this one. I was hoping I was going to be wrong. So right here from “A Pledge to America,” here’s what it says, “A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care.” There it is, big, giant, bold print, 18 points across the top of the page, unmistakable.
Maybe if the self-dubbed “Young Guns” were focused on leading by virtue of the power given them in the Constitution rather than self promotion, they would realize that words are not enough.....
The Pledge to America outlines how with Republicans in charge by golly, the federal government will get down to the business of creating jobs, in a more “conservative” albeit still inefficient manner.
Pressed by reporters exactly which programs Republicans would cut in order to achieve the much touted spending reductions, Minority Leader Boehner quickly pointed his finger to the sky and began citing well-established catchy Republican talking-points ad nauseam so as to avoid the question while still sounding tough on spending.
As the press continued in vain to pry greater detail regarding how cutting 100 billion dollars annually over the next decade provided any hope whatsoever of avoiding an economic catastrophe for a federal deficit now past 13 trillion, Minority Leader Boehner opted instead to put the onus back onto the American people. He answered their inquiry by stating that the people must be willing to have a grown-up conversation with politicians in Washington if the nation is to avoid a financial disaster. Minority Leader Boehner made no mention whether or not indoor voices will be required should such a meeting ever actually come to fruition.
This is exactly what’s going to happen with what Obama has done, that once the size of the federal leviathan has grown, the nitwits, the DeceptiCons, the fake, phony frauds that call themselves conservatives, that reside in what used to be known as the Republican Party – it’s just a party full of hacks now, with the exception of a few notable exceptions there – that they will claim that, why, we can’t roll all this back. We have responsibilities.
I read you now from the agenda, “A Pledge to America,” the Republican “Pledge to America.” I want you to listen to this. Now, today is either Liberation Day or Mourning Day. Either you’re mourning the death of the Republican Party and have now come fully to grips with what I’ve been telling you for three years now, that there is no hope to save Mordor on the Potomac, it’s over. Let’s bring Bill Paxton in here. You want to hear Bill Paxton??
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal.
[Laughing] So it’s over. There is no opposition party to ObamaCare. They’ve thrown the towel in on that. But I want to read this to you. Now, keep the ratchet effect in mind. Now, your Republican Party is supposed to be the party of limited smaller government. Remember this. Now, I predicted to you, and again, I’m going to say this again for you people that hate my guts or can’t stand the fact that I’m correct on this, that I do not enjoy this. This is not an enjoyable thing for me to say that I was right. I wish, wish wish wish that I was wrong. I’m not, this is not – I’m not happy about this. I would much rather be wrong and live in a limited government constitutional federal republic than I would be proven correct time and time again. I feel it’s beyond my duty as your blog host to play citizen from time to time, and to tell you exactly what I think and where we stand.
We’re screwed. The federal game is over. Your opposition party has mailed it in. We will now be stuck with, just as Higgs predicts and just as I have been informing you, with the size of the government that Nazi Pelosi gave us. These clowns, these Republicans act as if we don’t know that they presided over the largest increase in the size and scope of the federal government in the history of Earth, from 2000 to 2006. And then when Nazi Pelosi took over she just went [mimicking Speaker Pelosi], “Oh, look what they did. We could do more.” And then she took over, and she grew the federal government, and she grew its size and its scope and its powers. And now, just as Higgs has predicted and I have informed you of, the ratchet effect is in effect. You have Republicans now putting in writing that the Pelosi era, the Pelosi-size government will be your government for the rest of your natural-born life. Get used to it.
I don’t believe I’m reading this, seriously. Here’s the headline. I’m reading from their document. “Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels.” Who was running the show during the bailout? It was Pelosi. This was after two years of Pelosi. “With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops” – oh, yes, keep the military industrial complex fully funded and expanding, the empire must grow, after all, don’t you know – “we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least” – wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen, wait for it, wait for it – “saving us at least” – at least how much? [“Austin Powers” fanfare] “$100 billion.” Gee, Dr. Evil, thanks. A hundred billion [laughing hysterically]. That’s a joke; right? That’s a big joke. You’re a funny guy. That’s a joke; right? Well, it’ll save us a hundred billion “...in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.” These people are traitors. Paring it down a hundred billion dollars, after it grew by a trillion? Don’t insult my intelligence. So you’re toast. I’m toast. Our kids are toast. Game over. Just as Bill Paxton said. Game freaking over.
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
So now it’s not just Democrats to play the game to eat out our sustenance. As Patrick Henry said, to send battalions of bureaucrats hither and yon like a swarm over the countryside to eat out our sustenance. They’re all in on it now. I’d love to get Robert Higgs take on this. The book is “Crisis and Leviathan,” and Higgs has been proven correct time and time again. Now, let’s get reaction here. Here is DeceptiCon fake, phony fraud hacks on Fox News this morning, whoa, this plan, the people are finally back in charge, you’re going to hear one hack Republican say. So in order, here’s who we have. We have Michele Bachmann, Shelley Moore, and then Spence Bacchus touting this new agenda, this new Pledge to America.
[Clip] Rep. Bachmann: The GOP has done a good job in listening to the heartbeat of the people right now, which is stop, turn the corner, and focus on job creation. [Mike: Oh, my God, oh, help us.]
[Clip] Rep. Capito: From what I’ve seen, I haven’t seen the whole product yet, but I think it encompasses a broad-based feeling of the loss of jobs, the economy. And we’ve stuck to the issues, I believe, that are most important to people in America trying to put food on their tables.
[Clip] Rep. Bacchus: America became the greatest economy on the face of the Earth, three times bigger than the next largest economy, not by government control, not by the government making decisions, but by the power of the people. This is putting the people back in charge of Washington.
Now[Laughing hysterically] That guy’s funny. So Pelosi and Co. spent 3.7 trillion this year, and we’re putting the people back in charge, and we’re only going to spend 3.6 trillion next year, if we get the House back. Oh, that’s putting the people in charge. My, my. Gee. How many hours did you guys stay up, burning midnight oil, to think of that one? Wait a minute, Michele Bachmann is the woman that created the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. The first cut you had, oh, the Republicans have done a good job out there, they’ve got their ear out there listening to the American people out there. So this is what the Tea Party Caucus has always wanted. Just as Gov. Palin said the other day, yes, yes, yes, we don’t want to really – we really don’t want to cut the size and the scope of the federal government. No, no, no. We just want Republicans spending the money and appropriating it.
These people are frauds, ladies and gentlemen. They should be sued and prosecuted for being frauds. How many of your neighbors are going to buy this crap hook, line, and sinker? This is absolutely inexcusable. It is wrong. And I tell you this, now, and you heard Senator DeMint on Sunday say, “Well, I really fear, if we get back in the majority, and we don’t do what we say we’re going to do, that that’s going to be the end of the Republican Party.” The Republican Party is over. It’s dead. Stick a fork in it. It’s dead. Now, they may have the apparatus to help some people like Rand Paul or like Joe Miller and a couple other select individuals win federal office. But fixing this thing from the inside out, let’s just be honest, the Constitution is dead. It was a nice run while we had it. It’s over.
At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity - we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly.
1. The Pledge fails to address the single greatest threat to our nation’s long term fiscal health - the fact that we have precisely $0 set aside for the more than $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities staring us in the face for social security, medicare and medicaid. Instead, we get more of the same political rhetoric about seniors standing to lose Medicare because of Obamacare. MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT. SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPT. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, MAN UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
2. The Pledge blatantly fails to even mention earmarks, much less calling for a ban on them. The issue here isn’t about how much money we will save. The issue is about Congressional arrogance - and their naked addiction to using your tax dollars to try to buy off your votes back home.
3. The Pledge offers no significant, concrete plan to reduce spending such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or a Spending Limit Amendment, relying instead on gimmicks like weekly votes on spending cuts and hiring freezes, as well as nebulous promises to cap spending.
4. And perhaps most troubling of all, the Pledge adopts the nonsensical “repeal and replace” mantra for Obamacare - offering as replacement yet more federal government mandates regarding pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on benefits, which begs the question: which mandates are unconstitutional and which ones are not, GOP? And, STOP WITH THE MANDATES. STOP IT. MANDATING THAT INSURERS COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ON ITS FACE - BUT WORSE, YOU IDIOTS, IT WILL LEAD TO AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COVER THE ALREADY SICK WITHOUT MANDATING THAT THE HEALTHY PARTICIPATE. JUST STOP IT!
The overall reocurring theme since the release of the GOP pledge is that Statism is only bad when Democrats are in charge, which of course is a fundamentally flawed philosophy and is a belief system that is the complete and total antithesis of their evolution.
[“Aliens” clip] Bill Paxton [as Private Hudson]: That’s it, man. Game over, man. Game over. What are we gonna to do now? What are we gonna do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)