Here are Obama's recent words on healthcare:
"We said from the start that it was going to be important to us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your – if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And, I think that some provisions that got stuck in might have violated that pledge."
Did you read and comprehend all of the words? He said that they [Progressives] have to be careful in "saying to people" that you can keep your doctor. They REALLY don't mean it. You can't keep your doctor under ObamaCare. He openly admitted it in that statement. It's GONE. There is NO assurances to keep your doctor. Quite the opposite. Obama clearly stated that "…some provisions that got stuck in that might have violated that pledge."
How can we trust Obama? His credibility is worthless.
Congress is no better. In spite of all polls that show Americans don't want government healthcare, Nancy Pelosi recently had this to say about ObamaCare:
"We'll go through the gate, if the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But, we're going to get healthcare passed for the American people."
She said that knowing full-well that Americans don't want it. Obama said if necessary, he would use signing statements to get his agenda covered! Oh really? What happened to power to the people and limited government? When did OUR government think that they can take over our lives?
Action To Take
This weekend there is a national Tea Party convention in Nasheville, TN. They are preparing attendees to go back to their respective states to begin training and organizing the Tea Party movement in America. Join them! Become politically active.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
This Guy Gets It - Do YOU?
A caller on the Glenn Beck radio show had these remarks to make about the current President, Congress, and administration. His name was "Steve" from Mesa, AZ:
"Well you inspired me to start learning my history and I started with the Constitution and I'm reading the book "Pollitically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." And the one thing that jumped out at me when I read this is that there was a debate by our Founders on whether to have a national government which is top down, you know, based on the British model, or a bottom up version of government called a Federal government where the states gave the right, you know, bottom up to the Federal government. We have and they agreed to have a Federal government where the states retained the rights and gave the Federal government very limited rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights was first rejected by the Founders because they said the Federal government has NO power anyway. You know, we wrote out a couple of detailed powers that the Federal government has. So you don't need a Bill of Rights. It's limited in the first place. But thankfully, they said "No, No," that's not good enough. The cleanest form of government is the government that is closest to the people. That's what the Founders wanted. So the local government, the state government was where all the power was because the people could control it. At the Federal level, you no longer control power because its not close to the people. Hence, we have morphed into a national government where I say Glenn, you are NOT radical enough BECAUSE we're not finding the next President that will give the power out of Washington back to the states. Everybody we're talking about still wants to take control of the Federal government, or the national government. I should say now and say what to do. How secure is the freedom and liberties of my children?"
Action To Take
If you understand and believe what this man says, then YOU MUST TAKE ACTION!! As an American you need to help take-back what's yours. American values AND liberties are being stolen and destroyed before your very eyes. The Constitution is being trashed. This is NOT a revolution. This is the Re-Birth of America. That's the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! The Tea Party movement represents America's re-birth!
Become a Partiot. Join a Tea Party or a 912 Project in your local area. Learn what you can do to help fight to get America back on the right track. Donate your time and effort. Help the Re-Birth of America!
"Well you inspired me to start learning my history and I started with the Constitution and I'm reading the book "Pollitically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." And the one thing that jumped out at me when I read this is that there was a debate by our Founders on whether to have a national government which is top down, you know, based on the British model, or a bottom up version of government called a Federal government where the states gave the right, you know, bottom up to the Federal government. We have and they agreed to have a Federal government where the states retained the rights and gave the Federal government very limited rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights was first rejected by the Founders because they said the Federal government has NO power anyway. You know, we wrote out a couple of detailed powers that the Federal government has. So you don't need a Bill of Rights. It's limited in the first place. But thankfully, they said "No, No," that's not good enough. The cleanest form of government is the government that is closest to the people. That's what the Founders wanted. So the local government, the state government was where all the power was because the people could control it. At the Federal level, you no longer control power because its not close to the people. Hence, we have morphed into a national government where I say Glenn, you are NOT radical enough BECAUSE we're not finding the next President that will give the power out of Washington back to the states. Everybody we're talking about still wants to take control of the Federal government, or the national government. I should say now and say what to do. How secure is the freedom and liberties of my children?"
Action To Take
If you understand and believe what this man says, then YOU MUST TAKE ACTION!! As an American you need to help take-back what's yours. American values AND liberties are being stolen and destroyed before your very eyes. The Constitution is being trashed. This is NOT a revolution. This is the Re-Birth of America. That's the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! The Tea Party movement represents America's re-birth!
Become a Partiot. Join a Tea Party or a 912 Project in your local area. Learn what you can do to help fight to get America back on the right track. Donate your time and effort. Help the Re-Birth of America!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Weekly Polls
The Rasmussen Reports is an independent electronic publishing firm that specializes in public opinion polling. Here are some current results on some main issues:
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
Time to Drop Healthcare
Should Congress drop healthcare reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy?
Presidential Tracking Poll
This tracks how the President is doing by those surveyed.
- Strongly Approve... 29%
- Strongly Disapprove... 37%
- Approval Index = ... -8
This chart is from RasmussenReports.com:
Job Approval Rating Since Election
Time to Drop Healthcare
Should Congress drop healthcare reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy?
- Yes we should drop it... 61%
- No we should not drop it...31%
- Not sure ... 8%
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
What are the Deficit Facts?
Dick Morris serves as a political analyst for FOX News Channel and often contributes to FOX News Sunday. He is also a columnist for The Hill, a weekly newspaper devoted to congressional issues.
Here is his article on the deficit:
"THESE ARE THE TRUE DEFICITS: BUSH $800B, OBAMA $1.4T
Written By Dick Morris
President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, “You lie,” but we’ll settle for “You distort.”
(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies and statistics.”)
Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.
Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.
The interest rate we are now paying for the debt — about 3.5 percent — is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage-backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other.
Obama’s program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. He freezes very selected budget items while he shovels out new spending in his stimulus packages. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:
1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending; and
2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.
Those are the real numbers. Or, as Al Gore would have it, “the inconvenient truth.”"
Here is his article on the deficit:
"THESE ARE THE TRUE DEFICITS: BUSH $800B, OBAMA $1.4T
Written By Dick Morris
President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, “You lie,” but we’ll settle for “You distort.”
(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies and statistics.”)
Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.
Soon, when the Fed stops printing money and we have to borrow real funds from real lenders, the high deficit will send interest rates soaring, further retarding growth and creating a cost-push inflation.
The interest rate we are now paying for the debt — about 3.5 percent — is totally artificial and based on the massive injection of money supply created by the purchase of mortgage-backed securities by an obliging Federal Reserve. Once these injections of currency stop, the rate will more than double, sending our debt service spending into the stratosphere. Once we had to choose between guns and butter. Now we will have to choose between guns and butter on the one hand and paying our debt service on the other.
Obama’s program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. He freezes very selected budget items while he shovels out new spending in his stimulus packages. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:
1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending; and
2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.
Those are the real numbers. Or, as Al Gore would have it, “the inconvenient truth.”"
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
More impact is what's next for the Tea Party movement
Written By: Glenn Reynolds
Glenn H. Reynolds hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com, and blogs at Instapundit.com. He is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. Here's how he sees the Tea Party movement and the direction it is taking:
"A year ago, the Tea Party movement didn't exist. Today, it is arguably the most popular political entity in America. The movement is already more popular than the Republican or Democratic parties, according to a recent NBC / WSJ poll .
Even in blue-state California, three in 10 voters identify with the Tea Party movement.
And, of course, Scott Brown's come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.
This is heady stuff -- and, for people in the political establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, it's worrying stuff. If political movements can bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?
It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.
But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.
Last week, Joe Scarborough wrote that the Tea Party movement might "tear itself apart." His evidence of this: Some squabbling over a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn. Well, squabbling is normal in movement politics, particularly when people think they're being shortchanged on money and credit. But what's really striking about the Tea Party movement isn't that there's squabbling -- it's how little squabbling, overall, there has been.
Scarborough's column, remember, was occasioned by the Brown victory in Massachusetts. A few Tea Party purists didn't want to support Brown, seeing him as insufficiently pure. But the vast majority made the entirely pragmatic determination that Brown, whatever his flaws, was vastly better than his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, and just the guy to stop Obamacare in its tracks if elected.
They poured in donations and volunteers (millions of dollars and thousands of people), and helped Brown win, and were immediately proven right as Brown's victory did, in fact, derail Obamacare and produce a general Democratic flight from the whole hope and change agenda.
The Republican and Democratic hacks who were supposed to be worrying about this sort of thing, meanwhile, were asleep at the switch. Republican Party support to Brown was late in coming, appearing only after the Tea Party support raised his profile.
Democrats were even slower to recognize the threat and react, and their reaction -- a last-minute visit by President Obama -- probably hurt more than it helped, demonstrating their tone-deafness regarding public attitudes.
So far the Tea Party's record is looking pretty good. But what happens next? Many people -- er, well, many pundits, anyway -- complain that the Tea Party movement is entirely oppositional: For a brief moment, the key buzzword was "nihilistic," though the connection between Turgenev and Tea Parties seems rather tenuous.
In fact, Tea Partiers seem quite clear on what they're for: A limited government, one that keeps its nose out of their business and focuses on things like protecting the country in preference to redistributing income.
As blogger Freeman Hunt wrote recently: "You want a big tent? It's fiscal conservatism. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of it. You offer that, you follow through on it, and you get the Republicans, the moderates, and a sizable chunk of disaffected Democrats."
Only to the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is support for limited government a species of nihilism. But Tea Partiers are, in fact, working on a platform, which they've called the Contract From America . Though the name may remind some of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, this is something very different.
It's a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it's not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters -- it's more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.
This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I'm guessing that the political class won't like it much, either.
But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they'll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job."
Glenn H. Reynolds hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.com, and blogs at Instapundit.com. He is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. Here's how he sees the Tea Party movement and the direction it is taking:
"A year ago, the Tea Party movement didn't exist. Today, it is arguably the most popular political entity in America. The movement is already more popular than the Republican or Democratic parties, according to a recent NBC / WSJ poll .
Even in blue-state California, three in 10 voters identify with the Tea Party movement.
And, of course, Scott Brown's come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.
This is heady stuff -- and, for people in the political establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, it's worrying stuff. If political movements can bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?
It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.
But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.
Last week, Joe Scarborough wrote that the Tea Party movement might "tear itself apart." His evidence of this: Some squabbling over a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn. Well, squabbling is normal in movement politics, particularly when people think they're being shortchanged on money and credit. But what's really striking about the Tea Party movement isn't that there's squabbling -- it's how little squabbling, overall, there has been.
Scarborough's column, remember, was occasioned by the Brown victory in Massachusetts. A few Tea Party purists didn't want to support Brown, seeing him as insufficiently pure. But the vast majority made the entirely pragmatic determination that Brown, whatever his flaws, was vastly better than his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, and just the guy to stop Obamacare in its tracks if elected.
They poured in donations and volunteers (millions of dollars and thousands of people), and helped Brown win, and were immediately proven right as Brown's victory did, in fact, derail Obamacare and produce a general Democratic flight from the whole hope and change agenda.
The Republican and Democratic hacks who were supposed to be worrying about this sort of thing, meanwhile, were asleep at the switch. Republican Party support to Brown was late in coming, appearing only after the Tea Party support raised his profile.
Democrats were even slower to recognize the threat and react, and their reaction -- a last-minute visit by President Obama -- probably hurt more than it helped, demonstrating their tone-deafness regarding public attitudes.
So far the Tea Party's record is looking pretty good. But what happens next? Many people -- er, well, many pundits, anyway -- complain that the Tea Party movement is entirely oppositional: For a brief moment, the key buzzword was "nihilistic," though the connection between Turgenev and Tea Parties seems rather tenuous.
In fact, Tea Partiers seem quite clear on what they're for: A limited government, one that keeps its nose out of their business and focuses on things like protecting the country in preference to redistributing income.
As blogger Freeman Hunt wrote recently: "You want a big tent? It's fiscal conservatism. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of it. You offer that, you follow through on it, and you get the Republicans, the moderates, and a sizable chunk of disaffected Democrats."
Only to the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is support for limited government a species of nihilism. But Tea Partiers are, in fact, working on a platform, which they've called the Contract From America . Though the name may remind some of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, this is something very different.
It's a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it's not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters -- it's more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.
This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I'm guessing that the political class won't like it much, either.
But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they'll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job."
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Evolution of Marxism in America
Written by JR Dieckmann
JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Permission for reprints and reposts of this article are freely granted and approved by the author providing credit is given to the writer and linked to the original source at GreatAmericanJournal.com. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact
Here are his thoughts about what's happening here in America.
"A people can remain free and self governing only for as long as they are educated and informed, and are willing to accept personal responsibility for their own lives. Once they relinquish that responsibility to the government - they are no longer free - but become subjects of those in power.
The "American experiment" was devised by our Founders with the idea that a country could grow and prosper through freedom, ingenuity, and self rule, where the people themselves run their own government and make the laws.
Think about that - we the people run this country, not a king, not a dictator, not a ruling class. We do it all ourselves. That is a huge responsibility, and if we mess it up, our country fails. As a democratic republic, it is our responsibility to elect officials who will be responsible to us, the voters. We do not elect them to rule us. This concept seems to have been lost on those in power today.
The only way that America can succeed is by every American citizen taking personal responsibility for their own lives and electing representatives who will truly represent us, not themselves, and not their own special interests or lobbyists. That requires them to be honest and maintain a high enough level of integrity and discipline to resist the temptations of power that are so prevalent in Washington today.
They must be willing to respect and obey the Constitution and do only those things that are authorized for government to do in that document. Everything else is left up to the individual states and to the people, according to the 10th Amendment. The federal government is empowered by the states, not the other way around.
If you are a citizen who depends too much on the government for your daily needs, what are you going to do when this bloated government collapses under its own weight - the inevitable result of what is happening now in Washington?
That is to say, when the U.S. government can no longer borrow money from other countries to pay for the obligations it has made to the people who are dependent upon it, how will they survive?
It is at that point that everyone will be forced to accept responsibility for their own lives. For those of us who have made a habit of it for most of our lives, it won't be that difficult. But for those who think government will always be there to rescue them and give them what they need, it's going to be impossible for them to survive. They simply won't know how.
The more we get into the habit of depending on government to take care of us, the less equipped we will be to take care of ourselves when our government defaults on its loans to foreign nations. This point has nearly been reached, and when it is, we will no longer be able to borrow money at an affordable interest rate. How can we possibly expect to pay back loans while we continue to spend more than we make? It doesn't make any sense.
Today, we are barely able to pay the interest alone on those loans which amounts to a half trillion dollars every year. That is more than the entire annual federal budget under any previous administration. Not only is this policy unsustainable, it is national suicide.
Now, Obama wants Congress to pass another near trillion dollar stimulus bill to be marketed to the American people as a "jobs bill" - while the last stimulus bill did nothing to grow jobs in the private sector - and more than half of it still remains in his slush fund to promote and finance the elections of more of the same.
Just how stupid does he think we are? You only have to look at his State of the Union speech to answer that one. In trying to sound conservative, Obama's speech was full of rhetoric in direct opposition to his own policies. What this man says is to be ignored. What he does must be watched very closely. They are two distinctly different and opposite things.
When Obama and Pelosi promised transparency in government, what they really meant was that it will be so transparent that you won't be able to see it. We learned that from the invisible healthcare policy meetings held behind closed doors.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry
Where does the Constitution grant Congress the power to pass laws that regulate the lives of the people? In fact, the Constitution was crafted to do just the opposite by guaranteeing the rights of the people to be free from government oppression while imposing limitations on that government. Those limitations restrict the federal government to doing only those things which must be done, but cannot be done by the individual states acting on their own.
Those wise men who crafted our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government. Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "Giving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
These men knew what would evolve in a government left unrestrained by the national charter. They, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that elected officials would honor and obey these basic laws and limitations. After 230 years, we can now see that they assumed incorrectly.
The Tea Parties are just one example of constitutionally informed people revolting against the people responsible for violations against, and the corruption of, the founding principals laid out in the Constitution, and their failures to live up to their oath of office.
The early 20th century progressives decided that they didn't like the constitutional limits on government so they decided to change it. One thing they did was to change the way the Supreme Court works.
Previously, when the SCOTUS would consider constitutional challenges, they would look not only to the actual wording of the Constitution, but also the background writings of the Founders to understand their intent. The court decision would then be based on what they learned from that research.
The socialist progressives realized that their agenda could never be realized as long as the SCOTUS depended on the wisdom of the Founders for their decision - that had to be changed.
They began characterizing the Founders as a group of senile old men whose creation represented only their time and grievances against the King of England. They coined the expression "a living document" with the intent of changing the Constitution to suit their wishes. The foundation of our country would be destroyed.
The new SCOTUS, instead of depending on constitutional writings, would now depend on "precedent" for their decisions. The folly in this is that it allowed a judge to interpret the Constitution in a way that he thought it should be, rather than the way it is. A decision based on this perverse thinking then becomes a precedent for the next decision which again distorts the intent of the Founders.
At the same time, they made the same changes in the universities and law schools. Rather than teach the Constitution and the thought processes behind it, they began teaching prior legal decisions which had little basis in the Constitution. All of those law books you see behind lawyers on TV are just full of such ill-begotten decisions.
By the mid-20th century, court decisions had become so corrupted from being based on prior distorted decisions that we now get court rulings that are in direct opposition to the Constitution. It then became accepted that any court ruling on a single case would become law across the country for all to respect and obey, regardless of the fact that lawmaking is the job of Congress, not the courts.
Court rulings must be made to apply only to the specific case at hand and the use of precedence must be abolished. Each case must be judged on its own merits and how they apply to the Constitution, not to previous cases. This is the problem we see in the courts today.
The Marxist progressives, over time, have succeeded in reducing the Constitution to little more than a fairy tale of dreamers long gone. Had the concepts inscribed in the Constitution been respected and obeyed by those in Congress, the White House, and the courts, we wouldn't have 535 people today making a full time job of doing nothing but dreaming up new laws to limit our freedom and liberty.
The 16th Amendment, along with the 1000 page tax code needs to be repealed and federal taxes should be paid on a voluntary basis. This would almost be better than voting in that those who support what government is doing could pay for it.
When few people support the actions in Congress - like their current 2000 page plus bills to take over control of our lives - there would be no financial support for them to continue down their anti-American path of destruction. On the other hand, when the people are happy with what the government is doing, there would be plenty of financial support from the taxpayers.
The only other way we as a people can preserve our democratic republic and insure our freedom and liberty is to restore our Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land. And that can only be done by electing representatives who respect the Constitution and the will of the people by an educated and informed electorate.
If we cannot do that, then our nation is surely doomed, and will become just another banana republic under the supreme rule of an oppressive elite class who will make laws to ensure their own survival in politics on the backs of the American taxpayers."
JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Permission for reprints and reposts of this article are freely granted and approved by the author providing credit is given to the writer and linked to the original source at GreatAmericanJournal.com. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact
Here are his thoughts about what's happening here in America.
"A people can remain free and self governing only for as long as they are educated and informed, and are willing to accept personal responsibility for their own lives. Once they relinquish that responsibility to the government - they are no longer free - but become subjects of those in power.
The "American experiment" was devised by our Founders with the idea that a country could grow and prosper through freedom, ingenuity, and self rule, where the people themselves run their own government and make the laws.
Think about that - we the people run this country, not a king, not a dictator, not a ruling class. We do it all ourselves. That is a huge responsibility, and if we mess it up, our country fails. As a democratic republic, it is our responsibility to elect officials who will be responsible to us, the voters. We do not elect them to rule us. This concept seems to have been lost on those in power today.
The only way that America can succeed is by every American citizen taking personal responsibility for their own lives and electing representatives who will truly represent us, not themselves, and not their own special interests or lobbyists. That requires them to be honest and maintain a high enough level of integrity and discipline to resist the temptations of power that are so prevalent in Washington today.
They must be willing to respect and obey the Constitution and do only those things that are authorized for government to do in that document. Everything else is left up to the individual states and to the people, according to the 10th Amendment. The federal government is empowered by the states, not the other way around.
If you are a citizen who depends too much on the government for your daily needs, what are you going to do when this bloated government collapses under its own weight - the inevitable result of what is happening now in Washington?
That is to say, when the U.S. government can no longer borrow money from other countries to pay for the obligations it has made to the people who are dependent upon it, how will they survive?
It is at that point that everyone will be forced to accept responsibility for their own lives. For those of us who have made a habit of it for most of our lives, it won't be that difficult. But for those who think government will always be there to rescue them and give them what they need, it's going to be impossible for them to survive. They simply won't know how.
The more we get into the habit of depending on government to take care of us, the less equipped we will be to take care of ourselves when our government defaults on its loans to foreign nations. This point has nearly been reached, and when it is, we will no longer be able to borrow money at an affordable interest rate. How can we possibly expect to pay back loans while we continue to spend more than we make? It doesn't make any sense.
Today, we are barely able to pay the interest alone on those loans which amounts to a half trillion dollars every year. That is more than the entire annual federal budget under any previous administration. Not only is this policy unsustainable, it is national suicide.
Now, Obama wants Congress to pass another near trillion dollar stimulus bill to be marketed to the American people as a "jobs bill" - while the last stimulus bill did nothing to grow jobs in the private sector - and more than half of it still remains in his slush fund to promote and finance the elections of more of the same.
Just how stupid does he think we are? You only have to look at his State of the Union speech to answer that one. In trying to sound conservative, Obama's speech was full of rhetoric in direct opposition to his own policies. What this man says is to be ignored. What he does must be watched very closely. They are two distinctly different and opposite things.
When Obama and Pelosi promised transparency in government, what they really meant was that it will be so transparent that you won't be able to see it. We learned that from the invisible healthcare policy meetings held behind closed doors.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry
Where does the Constitution grant Congress the power to pass laws that regulate the lives of the people? In fact, the Constitution was crafted to do just the opposite by guaranteeing the rights of the people to be free from government oppression while imposing limitations on that government. Those limitations restrict the federal government to doing only those things which must be done, but cannot be done by the individual states acting on their own.
Those wise men who crafted our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government. Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "Giving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Madison added, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
These men knew what would evolve in a government left unrestrained by the national charter. They, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that elected officials would honor and obey these basic laws and limitations. After 230 years, we can now see that they assumed incorrectly.
The Tea Parties are just one example of constitutionally informed people revolting against the people responsible for violations against, and the corruption of, the founding principals laid out in the Constitution, and their failures to live up to their oath of office.
The early 20th century progressives decided that they didn't like the constitutional limits on government so they decided to change it. One thing they did was to change the way the Supreme Court works.
Previously, when the SCOTUS would consider constitutional challenges, they would look not only to the actual wording of the Constitution, but also the background writings of the Founders to understand their intent. The court decision would then be based on what they learned from that research.
The socialist progressives realized that their agenda could never be realized as long as the SCOTUS depended on the wisdom of the Founders for their decision - that had to be changed.
They began characterizing the Founders as a group of senile old men whose creation represented only their time and grievances against the King of England. They coined the expression "a living document" with the intent of changing the Constitution to suit their wishes. The foundation of our country would be destroyed.
The new SCOTUS, instead of depending on constitutional writings, would now depend on "precedent" for their decisions. The folly in this is that it allowed a judge to interpret the Constitution in a way that he thought it should be, rather than the way it is. A decision based on this perverse thinking then becomes a precedent for the next decision which again distorts the intent of the Founders.
At the same time, they made the same changes in the universities and law schools. Rather than teach the Constitution and the thought processes behind it, they began teaching prior legal decisions which had little basis in the Constitution. All of those law books you see behind lawyers on TV are just full of such ill-begotten decisions.
By the mid-20th century, court decisions had become so corrupted from being based on prior distorted decisions that we now get court rulings that are in direct opposition to the Constitution. It then became accepted that any court ruling on a single case would become law across the country for all to respect and obey, regardless of the fact that lawmaking is the job of Congress, not the courts.
Court rulings must be made to apply only to the specific case at hand and the use of precedence must be abolished. Each case must be judged on its own merits and how they apply to the Constitution, not to previous cases. This is the problem we see in the courts today.
The Marxist progressives, over time, have succeeded in reducing the Constitution to little more than a fairy tale of dreamers long gone. Had the concepts inscribed in the Constitution been respected and obeyed by those in Congress, the White House, and the courts, we wouldn't have 535 people today making a full time job of doing nothing but dreaming up new laws to limit our freedom and liberty.
The 16th Amendment, along with the 1000 page tax code needs to be repealed and federal taxes should be paid on a voluntary basis. This would almost be better than voting in that those who support what government is doing could pay for it.
When few people support the actions in Congress - like their current 2000 page plus bills to take over control of our lives - there would be no financial support for them to continue down their anti-American path of destruction. On the other hand, when the people are happy with what the government is doing, there would be plenty of financial support from the taxpayers.
The only other way we as a people can preserve our democratic republic and insure our freedom and liberty is to restore our Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land. And that can only be done by electing representatives who respect the Constitution and the will of the people by an educated and informed electorate.
If we cannot do that, then our nation is surely doomed, and will become just another banana republic under the supreme rule of an oppressive elite class who will make laws to ensure their own survival in politics on the backs of the American taxpayers."
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What You Should Know About Progressivism
We've all heard Hillary say that she is a Progressive. We know that many in the Democratic party also consider themselves as "Progressives." Congress has a Progressive caucus. We've hear the President speak about his "Progressive friends" in the unions and elsewhere. So what EXACTLY are they talking about? Isn't it time you understood what they stand for?
What is Progressivism?
Progressivism is moving beyond the Constitution. The Progressive dream is one of national, unlimited government and the re-distribution of wealth. Progressives detest the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because they put limits on the national government. The Declaration enshrines the idea of individual God-given rights as the end of government as Progressives want it. It's just the opposite. Here are the very words of Progressive Barack Obama regarding the US Constitution:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
Progressives hate the Constitution because it puts limits on the national government which were designed (on purpose) to uphold those natural rights.
The principles of the founding Fathers stand in their way. They want to get beyond the bedrock principles of the American Founders. Progressives are conservative Socialists – not full blown Marxists. However, they have the same aims as Marxists. They want no boundaries that individual rights can place between the State and the individual. They want full control over YOU and every aspect of YOUR life.
The Built-in Flaw
Progressivism has a built-in assumption of human nature. Progressives actually believe that man is perfectible. They believe that we can make man and society perfect. In a word: Utopia! Our Founders believed just the opposite. Man IS flawed. That's why they built-in institutional safe guards, like the checks and balances concept.
The problem with the Progressive philosophy is that history has proven again and again that it does NOT work. Marxism and Progressivism are BAD because you cannot perfect man and then you need to become more and more aggressive and brutal in dealing with him.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this problem and said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
He knew that you are never going to be able to perfect man. If you give someone too much POWER, eventually that power will corrupt that person and ultimately, the nation. This is the sole reason the Founders established the separation of powers.
When Obama says that he wants to "fundamentally change America" he is saying that the Constitution is NOT good enough. It does NOT represent HIS version of what this country is or should be today. This is DANGEROUS and RADICAL! It also means that we will NOT have rule of law any longer. Instead, we will be RULED by men, the educated elite. They will have the ultimate power and grant you YOUR rights. There will be no God-given Natural Rights!
Wake UP America
Progressivism is destroying our Constitution and OUR country! Progressives have infiltrated both political parties. That's why we have had the "choice" between two evils in the last several Presidential races. Both Presidential candidates have been Progressives! John McCain is a great example of a modern day Progressive. He idolized Teddy Roosevelt, an early 20th century Republican Progressive. Barack Obama is a Radical Progressive.
Action To Take
Become politically active. Join a 912 Project or your local Tea Party movement. Don't sit back and watch the destruction of America.
What is Progressivism?
Progressivism is moving beyond the Constitution. The Progressive dream is one of national, unlimited government and the re-distribution of wealth. Progressives detest the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because they put limits on the national government. The Declaration enshrines the idea of individual God-given rights as the end of government as Progressives want it. It's just the opposite. Here are the very words of Progressive Barack Obama regarding the US Constitution:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
Progressives hate the Constitution because it puts limits on the national government which were designed (on purpose) to uphold those natural rights.
The principles of the founding Fathers stand in their way. They want to get beyond the bedrock principles of the American Founders. Progressives are conservative Socialists – not full blown Marxists. However, they have the same aims as Marxists. They want no boundaries that individual rights can place between the State and the individual. They want full control over YOU and every aspect of YOUR life.
The Built-in Flaw
Progressivism has a built-in assumption of human nature. Progressives actually believe that man is perfectible. They believe that we can make man and society perfect. In a word: Utopia! Our Founders believed just the opposite. Man IS flawed. That's why they built-in institutional safe guards, like the checks and balances concept.
The problem with the Progressive philosophy is that history has proven again and again that it does NOT work. Marxism and Progressivism are BAD because you cannot perfect man and then you need to become more and more aggressive and brutal in dealing with him.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw this problem and said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
He knew that you are never going to be able to perfect man. If you give someone too much POWER, eventually that power will corrupt that person and ultimately, the nation. This is the sole reason the Founders established the separation of powers.
When Obama says that he wants to "fundamentally change America" he is saying that the Constitution is NOT good enough. It does NOT represent HIS version of what this country is or should be today. This is DANGEROUS and RADICAL! It also means that we will NOT have rule of law any longer. Instead, we will be RULED by men, the educated elite. They will have the ultimate power and grant you YOUR rights. There will be no God-given Natural Rights!
Wake UP America
Progressivism is destroying our Constitution and OUR country! Progressives have infiltrated both political parties. That's why we have had the "choice" between two evils in the last several Presidential races. Both Presidential candidates have been Progressives! John McCain is a great example of a modern day Progressive. He idolized Teddy Roosevelt, an early 20th century Republican Progressive. Barack Obama is a Radical Progressive.
Action To Take
Become politically active. Join a 912 Project or your local Tea Party movement. Don't sit back and watch the destruction of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
