Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Are you watching Iowa?
I think we can pretty much say that Bachmann is toast. So will her supporters then turn to Santorum?
Huntsman will probably be gone also, not sure where his supporters would go.
What do you think?
What I find amazing is how the so-called conservative candidates, the media and many posters throughout the internet are pointing fingers at the liberal support coming out for Ron Paul. So the libs can appreciate the constitutionality of a candidate more than conservatives?
That strikes me as the ultimate case of hypocrisy.
Huntsman will probably be gone also, not sure where his supporters would go.
What do you think?
What I find amazing is how the so-called conservative candidates, the media and many posters throughout the internet are pointing fingers at the liberal support coming out for Ron Paul. So the libs can appreciate the constitutionality of a candidate more than conservatives?
That strikes me as the ultimate case of hypocrisy.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Update on Oath Keeper Dad
The baby Cheyenne has been returned to her parents and no further actions have been filed - by child protective services anyway!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=215537
My original post here.
In a statement from Oath Keepers:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=215537
My original post here.
In a statement from Oath Keepers:
"This poorly conducted investigation used unsubstantiated and unsupported information regarding our organization. A journey to our website, and a reading of our bylaws, could have easily confirmed what we are and are not," said the Oath Keepers letter, delivered today to state officials.
"We are an association of currently serving and retired police, military, and emergency personnel. We are not a militia. Our goal is simply to educate all current service personnel on their obligations under the law and in particular our Constitution."Friday, March 12, 2010
Un-Constitutionality of Health Care Take Over by the Federal Government
We have sweetheart deals, arm twisting and possible job offers from the White House for a yes vote, the President delaying his Australian visit to help Rahm this through.
We also have every poll showing Americans are against this legislation.
Regardless of where you are on this issue, is it constitutional to begin with? First argument out of the box is the oft abused commerce clause, general welfare or taxing & spending, but this is an excellent write up by CNS News:
The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, “because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance,” The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity.
“Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce,” the conservative group said.
Nor is the bill’s individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause., which applies only to congressional spending. “It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause.”
And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories.
Don't even go to the stupid auto insurance argument. If you don't have a car you are NOT forced to buy insurance.
I also usually hear some crap about "well then I guess social security is un-constitutional too". Actually, YES it is! The only way that was passed, FDR increased the number of court justices so he could pad it with buddies who would vote his way. He got a lot of legislation and entitlement programs through by CHEATING!
The biggest danger of this legislation is not just the establishment of yet another budget killing entitlement program as we all keep concentrating on. That by itself would be reason enough to be concerned.
No this is far more important and insidious. It is a direct assault on the 10th amendment. Nullification of states rights. Our republic was set up to have power begin with the people, THEN the states, THEN the Federal government. We have allowed ourselves to become complacent and have GIVEN AWAY our power.
Virginia today passed the American Legislative Exchange Council's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, a state constitutional amendment that protects individuals, employers, and health care providers from being forced to participate in any health care system and preserves individuals' right to pay directly for care.
There are 37 other states with similar pending legislation. This is a big NO to the Federal mandate.
People, this should have been the rallying cry from the very beginning!!!!!!!! Why were we wasting time talking about money for abortions, single payer, exchanges, costs, etc., when the ENTIRE premise is flawed!!!! NOW, senators are starting to wake up. Hmmmm, just in time to get re-elected?
Tea Party lawyers are getting prepared to take this to court. We will be watching this.
Don't give me any crap about falling prey to the multi-billion dollar special interests of the insurance companies. They have nothing to do with this.
If we continue to let Washington run over the states rights, we'll either loose all our rights and there will be no difference living in Texas versus New York. OR, we will have another Civil war.
We were originally These United States of America. That is important. Without these distinctions to separate one from another, preserving their rights, then we will only exist as one entity, until that entity is absorbed into the next entity. There is already talk of a North American Union similar to the EU.
At what point is it ok to lose our identity. The hell with health care. This is a fight for our existance.
We also have every poll showing Americans are against this legislation.
Regardless of where you are on this issue, is it constitutional to begin with? First argument out of the box is the oft abused commerce clause, general welfare or taxing & spending, but this is an excellent write up by CNS News:
The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, “because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance,” The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity.
“Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce,” the conservative group said.
Nor is the bill’s individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause., which applies only to congressional spending. “It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause.”
And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories.
Don't even go to the stupid auto insurance argument. If you don't have a car you are NOT forced to buy insurance.
I also usually hear some crap about "well then I guess social security is un-constitutional too". Actually, YES it is! The only way that was passed, FDR increased the number of court justices so he could pad it with buddies who would vote his way. He got a lot of legislation and entitlement programs through by CHEATING!
The biggest danger of this legislation is not just the establishment of yet another budget killing entitlement program as we all keep concentrating on. That by itself would be reason enough to be concerned.
No this is far more important and insidious. It is a direct assault on the 10th amendment. Nullification of states rights. Our republic was set up to have power begin with the people, THEN the states, THEN the Federal government. We have allowed ourselves to become complacent and have GIVEN AWAY our power.
Virginia today passed the American Legislative Exchange Council's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, a state constitutional amendment that protects individuals, employers, and health care providers from being forced to participate in any health care system and preserves individuals' right to pay directly for care.
There are 37 other states with similar pending legislation. This is a big NO to the Federal mandate.
People, this should have been the rallying cry from the very beginning!!!!!!!! Why were we wasting time talking about money for abortions, single payer, exchanges, costs, etc., when the ENTIRE premise is flawed!!!! NOW, senators are starting to wake up. Hmmmm, just in time to get re-elected?
Tea Party lawyers are getting prepared to take this to court. We will be watching this.
Don't give me any crap about falling prey to the multi-billion dollar special interests of the insurance companies. They have nothing to do with this.
If we continue to let Washington run over the states rights, we'll either loose all our rights and there will be no difference living in Texas versus New York. OR, we will have another Civil war.
We were originally These United States of America. That is important. Without these distinctions to separate one from another, preserving their rights, then we will only exist as one entity, until that entity is absorbed into the next entity. There is already talk of a North American Union similar to the EU.
At what point is it ok to lose our identity. The hell with health care. This is a fight for our existance.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Constitution 101
via Judge Napolitano
Part One
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five and especially important in regards to states rights.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Obama may put Americans under power of International Criminal Court
World Net reported on November 19, 2009 that President Obama was sending a delegation to the Hague and as Secretary of State Clinton remarked that the US will end its “hostility” towards the Court.
As Senator Obama was quoted Yes[.] The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.
So we really shouldn't be surprised he would think the international court could supersede our own constitution. That was the main reason President Bush rejected the ICC saying "it no longer considered itself bound to the jurisdiction of the ICC."
Here's a What If for you: we've been using drones in surgical strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, there have been some civilian casualties. With the new powers recently granted Interpol by Obama (see previous post), they could come here, arrest the person operating the drone and haul him/her in front of the International Court.
Scary enough for ya?
As Senator Obama was quoted Yes[.] The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.
So we really shouldn't be surprised he would think the international court could supersede our own constitution. That was the main reason President Bush rejected the ICC saying "it no longer considered itself bound to the jurisdiction of the ICC."
Here's a What If for you: we've been using drones in surgical strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, there have been some civilian casualties. With the new powers recently granted Interpol by Obama (see previous post), they could come here, arrest the person operating the drone and haul him/her in front of the International Court.
Scary enough for ya?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
UPDATED 01/08/10***Interpol given authority to operate freely on US soil -thanks to Obama
Update: Glenn Beck said last night (01/07/10) that this is one of the most emailed stories he's had in awhile. His show tried to contact the White House. His concern is WHY this was considered necessary and WHO requested it. No response from the White House as of yet.
Update: Newt Gingrich brought this up on The Factor today, he seems to be as concerned as we are. Story also a "Nuze" item on Boortz. The word is getting around.
UPDATE: David Horowitz has given his analysis of this EO and has another angle that is just as disturbing if not more so:
Given the EPA’s recent license to regulate CO2 it is especially noteworthy that INTERPOL is tasked to seek and arrest EPA fugitives, defendants charged with environmental crimes who have fled the court’s jurisdiction. We will have to wait to see how the EPA criminalizes CO2 violations to determine the true risk of their ruling to American citizens.
(right click)
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/30/could-obama-use-interpol-to-evade-constitutional-law/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you thought it was safe to prepare for the holidays, another WH Bomb.
There are many sources reporting this story, Obama has issued an executive order rescinding Reagan's order
And it is indeed on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 as follows:
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlpBB4o8xq8 video from Alex Jones
=========================================================
What does all this mean? Breaking it down section by section.
Barack: Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c)
What was Section 2(c) in the Reagan Executive order? Actually, both of these Executive Orders are revering to International Organizations Immunities Act from 1945.
Property and assets of international organizations wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
That's the way the original Act read in 1945. That was not good. Reagan in Executive Order 12425 amended the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA for future reference) to exclude that privilege. Rational right?
Barack's Executive Order effectively reinstates their immunity.
=============================================================
Section 3
IOIA original language: Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
Sure, just let them bring anything in!
Reagan amended it to delete the sections relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes. Obama again, gives them that tax & duty free status.
============================================================
Section 4 and 5
He just says "Section 4"? Section 4 has subparts a thru i, so pardon me if I don't post the entire section here and just paraphrase, please feel free to click on the link above and verify my interpretation.
Section 4 and 5 are about the Internal Revenue tax code as it applies to international organizations. If I am reading it right, in the original IOIA, they were exempt from taxes on income in the form of wages, stocks, property, etc. That's not good! Reagan again, eliminated this privilege.
And Obama put it back? Is he crazy? Someone else please read this and tell me if I have it right.
===============================================================
Section 6 is basically the same language applied to property taxes, excluding them. Reagan takes away this language (they have to pay) and Obama puts it back.
===============================================================
The biggest thing about all this is how now Interpol has all the rights and privileges previously held for visiting dignataries of foreign governments, ambassadors and their staff, etc. Their records cannot be searched by ANY American authority. That is indeed a scary thing.
And the foreign dignataries, etc., no longer have to pay tax on anything earned while in the US????
Yet again, The White House moves while we are looking elsewhere, preoccupied with our daily lives.
Merry Christmas, I look forward to your comments.
Update: Newt Gingrich brought this up on The Factor today, he seems to be as concerned as we are. Story also a "Nuze" item on Boortz. The word is getting around.
UPDATE: David Horowitz has given his analysis of this EO and has another angle that is just as disturbing if not more so:
Given the EPA’s recent license to regulate CO2 it is especially noteworthy that INTERPOL is tasked to seek and arrest EPA fugitives, defendants charged with environmental crimes who have fled the court’s jurisdiction. We will have to wait to see how the EPA criminalizes CO2 violations to determine the true risk of their ruling to American citizens.
(right click)
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/30/could-obama-use-interpol-to-evade-constitutional-law/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you thought it was safe to prepare for the holidays, another WH Bomb.
There are many sources reporting this story, Obama has issued an executive order rescinding Reagan's order
And it is indeed on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 as follows:
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
=========================================================http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/
http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlpBB4o8xq8 video from Alex Jones
=========================================================
What does all this mean? Breaking it down section by section.
Barack: Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c)
What was Section 2(c) in the Reagan Executive order? Actually, both of these Executive Orders are revering to International Organizations Immunities Act from 1945.
Property and assets of international organizations wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
That's the way the original Act read in 1945. That was not good. Reagan in Executive Order 12425 amended the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA for future reference) to exclude that privilege. Rational right?
Barack's Executive Order effectively reinstates their immunity.
=============================================================
Section 3
IOIA original language: Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
Sure, just let them bring anything in!
Reagan amended it to delete the sections relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes. Obama again, gives them that tax & duty free status.
============================================================
Section 4 and 5
He just says "Section 4"? Section 4 has subparts a thru i, so pardon me if I don't post the entire section here and just paraphrase, please feel free to click on the link above and verify my interpretation.
Section 4 and 5 are about the Internal Revenue tax code as it applies to international organizations. If I am reading it right, in the original IOIA, they were exempt from taxes on income in the form of wages, stocks, property, etc. That's not good! Reagan again, eliminated this privilege.
And Obama put it back? Is he crazy? Someone else please read this and tell me if I have it right.
===============================================================
Section 6 is basically the same language applied to property taxes, excluding them. Reagan takes away this language (they have to pay) and Obama puts it back.
===============================================================
The biggest thing about all this is how now Interpol has all the rights and privileges previously held for visiting dignataries of foreign governments, ambassadors and their staff, etc. Their records cannot be searched by ANY American authority. That is indeed a scary thing.
And the foreign dignataries, etc., no longer have to pay tax on anything earned while in the US????
Yet again, The White House moves while we are looking elsewhere, preoccupied with our daily lives.
Merry Christmas, I look forward to your comments.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Reid bill trying to prevent future action
Senator Jim Demint on the floor last night raised this objection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
"and I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. "
Rule changes require a 2/3 vote. This bill is bypassing that requirement.
At the same time Senator Lindsay Graham is challenging the constitutionality of the "bribes" given for votes especially that for Nebraska. If the rest of us are going to have to subsidize them, seems that is against the Bill of Attainder and also the Regulate Commerce clause which is to "make regular" business between states. This gives Nebraska an unfair advantage.
Good for South Carolina. And now a word from our Georgia Senators.... cricket....cricket...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
"and I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
This is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. "
Rule changes require a 2/3 vote. This bill is bypassing that requirement.
At the same time Senator Lindsay Graham is challenging the constitutionality of the "bribes" given for votes especially that for Nebraska. If the rest of us are going to have to subsidize them, seems that is against the Bill of Attainder and also the Regulate Commerce clause which is to "make regular" business between states. This gives Nebraska an unfair advantage.
Good for South Carolina. And now a word from our Georgia Senators.... cricket....cricket...
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Think outside the box
Did you know that the states, without any input from either part of Congress, has the constitutional right to enact Amendments to the Constitution? There are two methods to amend the Constitution.
From the Constitution:
From the Constitution:
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The second method, application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, has never been used.
The President has no veto power over this method. Infact no politicians currently in Washington need be involved at all!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you imagine, just try, if the states as a group were to decide to nullify all non-constitutional acts taken by Congress in the last 100 years!!!!!!!!!! Eliminate income tax. Eliminate Social Security tax and return the care of the elderly and infirm to the state control. Eliminate the Department of Education, return the education of our children to the state and local level with direct involvement of parents.
Return the selection of Senators to the state legislature where it was designed by the founding fathers.
Our states were designed to operate as their own soverign entities. As Reagan said "you can always vote with your feet" but with the federal government making all our decisions and governing, hell RULING every aspect of business, education, where and how we live, there is no longer any difference between states. This separation of states was the entire reason for the Declaration of Independence leading to the Revolutionary War and also why we fought a second war, the Civil War.
We like the diversity of our states, Texas is different than New York. North Carolina is different than Oregon. We would like to keep it that way.
So I ask again, can you imagine.....
Think about it, you will be hearing more about this as many states are indeed, considering this action.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
They've lost their mind - control of ALL waters?
Congress Moves To Seize Control of All US Waters
This is one (of many) part that worries me:
The proposed definition states: "The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tides, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes [a flat dried up area, esp. a desert basin...] natural ponds and all impoundment of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."
The "impoundment"???? I don't think so Scooter!!!!!!!!!!! What they hell are we doing? We have a well, does that mean they know control our water? Tell us to convert to county system and pay for what we previously owned?
Has anyone heard of this before? Of course not! Congress just draws up this crap and tries to pass it before anyone sees it. Luckily SOMEONE is checking the voting schedules of Congress or we'd never know what was going on. WHY? Because what is supposed to be the people's Watch Dog, the media, no longer does their job.
This could have a profound impact on farmers, orchards, cattle ranches, just think of any place or business that uses water. I bet this is a back door way for them to push through parts of their Cap & Tax bill, because they know it will not pass in it's original form. No means No!!!!!!!! They don't get that.
Once again it is up to us. Call, write, email your Representatives and Senators that this is wrong.
This is one (of many) part that worries me:
The proposed definition states: "The term 'waters of the United States' means all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tides, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes [a flat dried up area, esp. a desert basin...] natural ponds and all impoundment of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."
The "impoundment"???? I don't think so Scooter!!!!!!!!!!! What they hell are we doing? We have a well, does that mean they know control our water? Tell us to convert to county system and pay for what we previously owned?
Has anyone heard of this before? Of course not! Congress just draws up this crap and tries to pass it before anyone sees it. Luckily SOMEONE is checking the voting schedules of Congress or we'd never know what was going on. WHY? Because what is supposed to be the people's Watch Dog, the media, no longer does their job.
This could have a profound impact on farmers, orchards, cattle ranches, just think of any place or business that uses water. I bet this is a back door way for them to push through parts of their Cap & Tax bill, because they know it will not pass in it's original form. No means No!!!!!!!! They don't get that.
Once again it is up to us. Call, write, email your Representatives and Senators that this is wrong.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Lesson for Americans
Had to post this from another forum:
Unfortunately, Americans never seem to learn
What you should really take from this story is the true way our founding fathers envisioned this country working. That is, the vast majority of the power over our everyday lives residing in our state and local governments with our Federal government only being responsible for a very narrow list of items.
And why, you might ask, is this so important. Because when a state or local government gets horribly bad, YOU CAN MOVE. This was the ultimate check and balance on governmental power. How can a government be oppressive when it has no one left to govern?
And it works no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on. You think gay marriage is a great idea but your state doesn’t recognize it, move to a state that does. You believe the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to carry a concealed weapon, move to a state that allows that. You think government healthcare is the solution, move to a state that provides it. You think low taxes and minimal government regulation is the kind of place you want to start a business, move to a state that provides those.
See, our founding fathers understood that there is no perfect governmental system. They didn’t write the constitution to be conservative or liberal. What they did was create a system that would allow the different governmental ideas to compete within a framework of liberty. As long as a State government doesn’t violate the constitution, it is free to be as socialist or capitalist as it wants, with one important restriction, you can’t lock your citizens in or keep other citizens out.
You see, if a State government screws up so bad that they ruin the prosperity of the citizenry, the citizens can leave and stay in America. But when the Federal government screws up, then we are all stuck with the consequences. So please, to my fellow citizens on the left and right, stop supporting laws that empower the Federal government, because while the power you give them today may be used to do what you think is right, they power could very well be in the hands of the other side tomorrow.
By paganposts @ 09/29/09 09:48:29 AMreport abuse
Unfortunately, Americans never seem to learn
What you should really take from this story is the true way our founding fathers envisioned this country working. That is, the vast majority of the power over our everyday lives residing in our state and local governments with our Federal government only being responsible for a very narrow list of items.
And why, you might ask, is this so important. Because when a state or local government gets horribly bad, YOU CAN MOVE. This was the ultimate check and balance on governmental power. How can a government be oppressive when it has no one left to govern?
And it works no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on. You think gay marriage is a great idea but your state doesn’t recognize it, move to a state that does. You believe the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to carry a concealed weapon, move to a state that allows that. You think government healthcare is the solution, move to a state that provides it. You think low taxes and minimal government regulation is the kind of place you want to start a business, move to a state that provides those.
See, our founding fathers understood that there is no perfect governmental system. They didn’t write the constitution to be conservative or liberal. What they did was create a system that would allow the different governmental ideas to compete within a framework of liberty. As long as a State government doesn’t violate the constitution, it is free to be as socialist or capitalist as it wants, with one important restriction, you can’t lock your citizens in or keep other citizens out.
You see, if a State government screws up so bad that they ruin the prosperity of the citizenry, the citizens can leave and stay in America. But when the Federal government screws up, then we are all stuck with the consequences. So please, to my fellow citizens on the left and right, stop supporting laws that empower the Federal government, because while the power you give them today may be used to do what you think is right, they power could very well be in the hands of the other side tomorrow.
By paganposts @ 09/29/09 09:48:29 AMreport abuse
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Should we fear the government or should they fear us?
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry
Saturday, August 22, 2009
John Adams
We are in the process of watching the series originally shown on HBO. I highly recommend it to any one.
Oh what a time that was at the birth of a nation!! To have been there, to have been able to participate or even just to observe the pain, the struggles, the sacrifices. From the lowliest field worker who suddenly found a musket thrust into his hand, the wives sending their sons off to fight for our nations future, even the wives of the great men of the time not being able to participate directly but helping the leaders that were their husbands craft their thoughts into history changing words leading to history changing deeds. Yes, I would have loved to be there.
A new nation. Not a beautiful thing, ugly actually. Still dealing with the moral pains of slavery to be a future cause of yet another great strife. No, not a beauty. But full of great promise with unheard of ideas that would shape the world. They had NO idea of the power in their hands, in their hearts, in their words. To be on that threshold, oh I cry for them even now.
Even now, we watch our nation changing before our very eyes. And it is these words in the Declaration of Independence that strikes the loudest chord with me at this time:
"accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Are we becoming too accustomed to the evils around us? How long have we been suffering, how long has our constitution been trampled on? Is it time?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"
Our right. Our DUTY!
Oh what a time that was at the birth of a nation!! To have been there, to have been able to participate or even just to observe the pain, the struggles, the sacrifices. From the lowliest field worker who suddenly found a musket thrust into his hand, the wives sending their sons off to fight for our nations future, even the wives of the great men of the time not being able to participate directly but helping the leaders that were their husbands craft their thoughts into history changing words leading to history changing deeds. Yes, I would have loved to be there.
A new nation. Not a beautiful thing, ugly actually. Still dealing with the moral pains of slavery to be a future cause of yet another great strife. No, not a beauty. But full of great promise with unheard of ideas that would shape the world. They had NO idea of the power in their hands, in their hearts, in their words. To be on that threshold, oh I cry for them even now.
Even now, we watch our nation changing before our very eyes. And it is these words in the Declaration of Independence that strikes the loudest chord with me at this time:
"accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Are we becoming too accustomed to the evils around us? How long have we been suffering, how long has our constitution been trampled on? Is it time?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"
Our right. Our DUTY!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The 10th Amendment
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note*
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.
*Note from site: Note well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment.
Now, nowhere in the Constitution is healthcare delegated to the United States nor is it prohibited to the states. Wouldn't that mean, that healthcare (or anything else not covered by same) would be relegated specifically to the states or the people?
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.
*Note from site: Note well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment.
Now, nowhere in the Constitution is healthcare delegated to the United States nor is it prohibited to the states. Wouldn't that mean, that healthcare (or anything else not covered by same) would be relegated specifically to the states or the people?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
HR1207
165 signatures!!!
Here's another thought for you: If the federal government bails out California, and then starts bailing out other states, what is to stop them from doing away with states all together?
The Constitution? They've tromped all over that already.
This is why it is so important for the states to all declare their sovereignty and get the Fed out of our business.
Here's another thought for you: If the federal government bails out California, and then starts bailing out other states, what is to stop them from doing away with states all together?
The Constitution? They've tromped all over that already.
This is why it is so important for the states to all declare their sovereignty and get the Fed out of our business.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Chrysler New Management-Government Socialization of Corporations
Pulled this from Boortz:
THOSE DISGUSTING ANTI-AMERICAN SECURED CREDITORS
By
Neal Boortz @ May 4, 2009 8:29 AM
You've read, no doubt, about the Chrysler bankruptcy. Have you read, though, of how Obama used his power as president to demonize and browbeat some of the people to whom Chrysler owed money? I've been saying for years that despotic politicians depend on the ignorance of the American people to work their schemes and protect their positions of privilege and power. The behind the scenes goings-on are a brilliant case in point.
Now I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but permit me to couch this bit in terms that the victims (though they aren't aware of their victimhood) of our government education system can grasp. Getting down to basics is necessary for as many people as possible to understand how our anti-capitalist president has possibly turned business lending on its ear. If you think I'm stating the case wrongly here you're welcome to chime in with a comment. (You do see the "comments" link, don't you?) (note from Joyce: go to www.boortz.com to comment, I took it out here)
There are two kinds of people in the world: People who divide the people in this world into two types, and those who don't. There are also two types of loans. You have secured loans, and unsecured loans. The terms under which you borrow or lend the money will depend on large part whether the loan is secured or unsecured. The difference: With a secured loan the borrower has put up something of value that he owns as security to ensure his payment. If he doesn't pay, the lender can perfect his security interest on that item of value. The most common examples would be real estate loans and car loans. You put up either the car or your house as security for the loan, and if you don't pay the lender sends out some huge tattooed menace to repossess your car or a pot bellied Sheriff with aviator sunglasses to foreclose on your home.
If you put up nothing but your good reputation and credit history as security for the loan, well that would make your loan unsecured. Good reputations and credit histories tend to be worthless when economic times get rough.
When you're lending other people's money and you owe those people a duty to do everything you can to make sure the loan is paid back, with interest. In many cases the lender is actually a corporation and the corporate officers loaning the corporate money have a responsibility to corporate shareholders to keep their investments safe.
Loans, like talk show hosts, have a pecking order. (I'm one of the smaller peckers out there). When a borrower goes Tango Uniform the lenders line up to get their money out of the carcass ... usually through a bankruptcy procedure. The secured lenders go first. The unsecured creditors go last. This is as it should be. What good is getting security for your loan if you know that when you get to a liquidation of your borrower through bankruptcy you're going to have to wait until some unsecured lenders get made whole. Let's expand this a bit. Let's say a corporation or business comes to you for a loan. It doesn't matter for what: Maybe they want to expand, add jobs, develop a new product. Doesn't matter. They want money; you have money ... and you're trying to make a deal. You, the lender, have a responsibility to your shareholders, so you're going to insist on security for the loan. No security - no loan. You're also going to want to know that in the event of a meltdown you loan is going to be given priority over all of the unsecured loans your borrow may have. Without that assurance you're not likely to make the loan.
OK .. why all of these basics? That would be because they all come into play in this Chrysler bankruptcy. The two warring parties here were bondholders and unions. Chrysler owes money to bondholders. Those loans are secured. Chrysler also owns money to union pension funds. Those obligations are not secured. Enter, politics. Unions are a lot more important to a Democrat president than are bondholders. After all, bondholders are mere investors ... and they are more likely to be wealthy than the retired union members. That, of course, makes them evil.
So ... this appears to be how the Chrysler bankruptcy is going to shake out. The union pension funds are going to get priority over the bondholders. In other words, unsecured creditors will get preference over secured lenders. Cats and dogs sleeping together. Not only will the unsecured union pension plans get priority, Obama and his minions did no small amount of demonizing the secured lenders in the process.
Some of the secured lenders - those not under the thumb of the Obama administration because they took TARP funds - balked at Obama's plan. They were secured Chrysler lenders, and secured lenders they wished to remain. Obama demagogued these secured lenders by saying "I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities" and not "those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices." So there you go. If you want to enforce your security interest - if you want your money back -- you're against Chrysler's employees and families. Everyone else is making sacrifices and you don't want to. Hey ... wait a minute here. Are we forgetting that these people have obligations to their shareholders?
OppenheimerFunds is one of those secured creditors. They issued a statement saying "Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established U.S. Bankruptcy law, and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws." How do you go to your shareholders and tell them that you've just flushed a bunch of their money down the crapper because you wanted to stand by Chrysler's families and communities? Other liberals also have a name for the secured creditors. They call them "vultures." You'll also hear the word "greedy" Obama called them "speculators," a word that doesn't carry a positive image with the dumb masses. That's Obama for you. Investors are evil. They're "speculators!" They're greedy because they want their loans repaid. Only in the anti-capitalist mind of a liberal moonbat would you hear such asinine language.
Yesterday afternoon we got news that the Obama White House threatened to destroy the reputation of a particular investment bank if they didn't cave in and go along with Obama's bankruptcy plan for Chrysler. How? By calling them traitors and vultures? That's been done already.
OK ... so what's going to happen now? Two things:
First: Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are going to object to the Obama-negotiated bankruptcy plan. They will fulfill their obligation to their shareholders, as they should, and try to get the favored treatment from the bankruptcy court usually reserved for secured creditors; and for standing by the rule-of-law they will be called every but Children of God. The anti-capitalist crowd will use these creditor hold-outs to demonize the financial sector in general and to promote the cause of even more government control.
Second: Lenders are going to be very careful in their lending decisions. What lender, for instance, will want to buy any bonds in any company that might end up a protectorate of the federal government? Who would want to loan that company any money? You want security for your loan, and you don't want political hacks demagoguing you if you actually try to foreclose on your security interest. Under this standard businesses - especially businesses in a wee bit of trouble - are going to have a rougher time getting needed financing.
Here's a scenario from you. A manufacturing concern is in trouble. If they don't get some financial help to make it through a rough spot they're going to tank, and about 2000 workers are going to lose their jobs. The manufacturing company goes to an investment bank and seeks a loan. As security for the loan the manufacturing company offers a lien on its buildings, corporate aircraft and manufacturing equipment. The lender, though, says no. The company is in trouble and there is a possibility that the loan might not be repaid. Under the new Obama scenario the government might step in and prevent the lender from foreclosing on its security interest in land, buildings and equipment. The government might decide that all of the company's assets should be sold in bankruptcy and the funds dedicated to the unsecured pension obligations to the 2000 workers. Result? Since the normal rules about secured and unsecured credit don't really apply any more, the lender declines the loan. We'll be in a situation where the best way for a company to get a loan is to prove to the lender that they don't need the money. This will all work out well for Obama, of course, because if the ailing company can't get the private sector financing ... where is there to go? Why, to the government, of course!
OK ... a bit wordy. But you need to know just how having a dedicated anti-capitalist in office works. Good for those who love government. For those who don't ... not so good.
_________________________________________________________
Back to Joyce: So this is our President, yet again breaking the law. He does not have the power to change bankruptcy law.
THOSE DISGUSTING ANTI-AMERICAN SECURED CREDITORS
By
Neal Boortz @ May 4, 2009 8:29 AM
You've read, no doubt, about the Chrysler bankruptcy. Have you read, though, of how Obama used his power as president to demonize and browbeat some of the people to whom Chrysler owed money? I've been saying for years that despotic politicians depend on the ignorance of the American people to work their schemes and protect their positions of privilege and power. The behind the scenes goings-on are a brilliant case in point.
Now I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but permit me to couch this bit in terms that the victims (though they aren't aware of their victimhood) of our government education system can grasp. Getting down to basics is necessary for as many people as possible to understand how our anti-capitalist president has possibly turned business lending on its ear. If you think I'm stating the case wrongly here you're welcome to chime in with a comment. (You do see the "comments" link, don't you?) (note from Joyce: go to www.boortz.com to comment, I took it out here)
There are two kinds of people in the world: People who divide the people in this world into two types, and those who don't. There are also two types of loans. You have secured loans, and unsecured loans. The terms under which you borrow or lend the money will depend on large part whether the loan is secured or unsecured. The difference: With a secured loan the borrower has put up something of value that he owns as security to ensure his payment. If he doesn't pay, the lender can perfect his security interest on that item of value. The most common examples would be real estate loans and car loans. You put up either the car or your house as security for the loan, and if you don't pay the lender sends out some huge tattooed menace to repossess your car or a pot bellied Sheriff with aviator sunglasses to foreclose on your home.
If you put up nothing but your good reputation and credit history as security for the loan, well that would make your loan unsecured. Good reputations and credit histories tend to be worthless when economic times get rough.
When you're lending other people's money and you owe those people a duty to do everything you can to make sure the loan is paid back, with interest. In many cases the lender is actually a corporation and the corporate officers loaning the corporate money have a responsibility to corporate shareholders to keep their investments safe.
Loans, like talk show hosts, have a pecking order. (I'm one of the smaller peckers out there). When a borrower goes Tango Uniform the lenders line up to get their money out of the carcass ... usually through a bankruptcy procedure. The secured lenders go first. The unsecured creditors go last. This is as it should be. What good is getting security for your loan if you know that when you get to a liquidation of your borrower through bankruptcy you're going to have to wait until some unsecured lenders get made whole. Let's expand this a bit. Let's say a corporation or business comes to you for a loan. It doesn't matter for what: Maybe they want to expand, add jobs, develop a new product. Doesn't matter. They want money; you have money ... and you're trying to make a deal. You, the lender, have a responsibility to your shareholders, so you're going to insist on security for the loan. No security - no loan. You're also going to want to know that in the event of a meltdown you loan is going to be given priority over all of the unsecured loans your borrow may have. Without that assurance you're not likely to make the loan.
OK .. why all of these basics? That would be because they all come into play in this Chrysler bankruptcy. The two warring parties here were bondholders and unions. Chrysler owes money to bondholders. Those loans are secured. Chrysler also owns money to union pension funds. Those obligations are not secured. Enter, politics. Unions are a lot more important to a Democrat president than are bondholders. After all, bondholders are mere investors ... and they are more likely to be wealthy than the retired union members. That, of course, makes them evil.
So ... this appears to be how the Chrysler bankruptcy is going to shake out. The union pension funds are going to get priority over the bondholders. In other words, unsecured creditors will get preference over secured lenders. Cats and dogs sleeping together. Not only will the unsecured union pension plans get priority, Obama and his minions did no small amount of demonizing the secured lenders in the process.
Some of the secured lenders - those not under the thumb of the Obama administration because they took TARP funds - balked at Obama's plan. They were secured Chrysler lenders, and secured lenders they wished to remain. Obama demagogued these secured lenders by saying "I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities" and not "those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices." So there you go. If you want to enforce your security interest - if you want your money back -- you're against Chrysler's employees and families. Everyone else is making sacrifices and you don't want to. Hey ... wait a minute here. Are we forgetting that these people have obligations to their shareholders?
OppenheimerFunds is one of those secured creditors. They issued a statement saying "Our holdings in secured Chrysler debt are entitled to priority in long-established U.S. Bankruptcy law, and we are obligated to our fund shareholders to support agreements that respect these laws." How do you go to your shareholders and tell them that you've just flushed a bunch of their money down the crapper because you wanted to stand by Chrysler's families and communities? Other liberals also have a name for the secured creditors. They call them "vultures." You'll also hear the word "greedy" Obama called them "speculators," a word that doesn't carry a positive image with the dumb masses. That's Obama for you. Investors are evil. They're "speculators!" They're greedy because they want their loans repaid. Only in the anti-capitalist mind of a liberal moonbat would you hear such asinine language.
Yesterday afternoon we got news that the Obama White House threatened to destroy the reputation of a particular investment bank if they didn't cave in and go along with Obama's bankruptcy plan for Chrysler. How? By calling them traitors and vultures? That's been done already.
OK ... so what's going to happen now? Two things:
First: Some of Chrysler's secured creditors are going to object to the Obama-negotiated bankruptcy plan. They will fulfill their obligation to their shareholders, as they should, and try to get the favored treatment from the bankruptcy court usually reserved for secured creditors; and for standing by the rule-of-law they will be called every but Children of God. The anti-capitalist crowd will use these creditor hold-outs to demonize the financial sector in general and to promote the cause of even more government control.
Second: Lenders are going to be very careful in their lending decisions. What lender, for instance, will want to buy any bonds in any company that might end up a protectorate of the federal government? Who would want to loan that company any money? You want security for your loan, and you don't want political hacks demagoguing you if you actually try to foreclose on your security interest. Under this standard businesses - especially businesses in a wee bit of trouble - are going to have a rougher time getting needed financing.
Here's a scenario from you. A manufacturing concern is in trouble. If they don't get some financial help to make it through a rough spot they're going to tank, and about 2000 workers are going to lose their jobs. The manufacturing company goes to an investment bank and seeks a loan. As security for the loan the manufacturing company offers a lien on its buildings, corporate aircraft and manufacturing equipment. The lender, though, says no. The company is in trouble and there is a possibility that the loan might not be repaid. Under the new Obama scenario the government might step in and prevent the lender from foreclosing on its security interest in land, buildings and equipment. The government might decide that all of the company's assets should be sold in bankruptcy and the funds dedicated to the unsecured pension obligations to the 2000 workers. Result? Since the normal rules about secured and unsecured credit don't really apply any more, the lender declines the loan. We'll be in a situation where the best way for a company to get a loan is to prove to the lender that they don't need the money. This will all work out well for Obama, of course, because if the ailing company can't get the private sector financing ... where is there to go? Why, to the government, of course!
OK ... a bit wordy. But you need to know just how having a dedicated anti-capitalist in office works. Good for those who love government. For those who don't ... not so good.
_________________________________________________________
Back to Joyce: So this is our President, yet again breaking the law. He does not have the power to change bankruptcy law.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Someone tell me how this is legal!!
Banks want to return their TARP money with interest and Obama thinks he can say no???? How is that legal? Is he just wanting to trash the constitution all together? This man is the epitome of arrogance!!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
