Happy Thanksgiving to one and all

from the Nukester, Terra and Bane

I WILL BE BACK!!!

Will the last Conservative in the room please turn out the lights when you leave?

In watching over 50 years of Presidential elections and the Congressional elections that occur during the same and also the off years, I have come to the conclusion that there really is NO difference between the parties. They all get into office and continue on with the process of getting re-elected and spending our money, never ending any previous programs.  The "throw the bums out" routine just does not work.

After first becoming interested in Presidential politics when John Kennedy was running for President and paying close attention up to this current election, I am resigned to the fact that the country I love and support is no more.  I feel it is no longer going to survive as the free and vibrant land of opportunity that I was raised to believe in.  I have watched Presidents come and go who have promised the world to and for us.  The only ones I have seen deliver anything have been the Democrats, who have only delivered us more socialism, never less, delivering more towards what they promise and believe than any other party.

Eisenhower gave us nothing, except an attempt to nationalize some industries (steel and railroads) - not very Republican nor Conservative.

Kennedy gave us tax cuts - a more Conservative act than most so-called conservatives today and actually used a balanced budget.  (This was a Democrat?)  Interestingly his term was cut short before we could see what else was in store.  He did open us up to the possibility of being radiated to death tho........................

LBJ gave us the Great Society and the War on Poverty - both, as usual, were and are failures because whenever the government gets involved, failure is almost always guaranteed.  Poverty rates were actually falling faster before these programs and have actually risen since their inception. Absolutely not Conservative.

Nixon gave us the Imperial Presidency and opened up Red China.  Nothing like trading with our enemies and selling them the rope to hang us with. He also attempted to institute wage and price controls.   (This was a Conservative?)

Ford did nothing - perhaps for the best and pehaps making him a better President than most people give him credit for being.

Carter - His name should actually be four letters!  Creator of the Misery Index and one of the biggest cutters of our military, causing us to be helpless to do anything with a 2-bit country that actually has declared war on us and refusing to do anything about America's National Security crisis with energy and it's deadly effect on our National Welfare and Security.

Reagan was a great talker as a Conservative.  But please name ONE socialist program that he did away with?  Name one budget that he balanced, or one spending increase that he didn't allow? He did have a major hand in ending the Cold War, but look at the spending needed to do it.  (I am not saying I don't agree with this part, but take his terms as a whole)

Bush One was a blue blood patrician Republican.  The exact same type as the ones that gave us our current Presidential candidate on the Republican side.  He raised taxes instead of cutting spending.  He did however show a 2 bit dictator what it means to cross the United States and what the consequences can be.

Clinton taught us all about "the Lewinsky" , the "peace Dividend" and the meaning of "is".  He did serve up some semi-balanced budgets and a roaring economy and welfare reform, but these were mostly forced on him by a Republican Congress that had actually turned Conservative.  Howerver, the budget surpluses weren't real, they were from the tax increases he put in place on Social Security and were never labeled as such by a biased media and the economy ultimately only turned out to be a bubble.  He also gave us NAFTA, sending our jobs overseas and gave our nuclear and space secrets to our enemies and allowed America to be attacked again and again without consequence to our enemies other than a few criminal indictments.  But he did ruthlessly kill Americans who had different beliefs, because he could.  (Waco, Ruby Ridge)  This President also signed all the laws making energy independence for America impossible by making Wilderness Areas of the most energy promising areas of the United States. (Alaska, Calfornia, Wyoming, Utah etc etc etc etc)

Bush Two - Mr. Compassionate Conservative himself!!!  Has done more damage in two terms to our Constitutional Rights than any other President.  He cut the First Amendment by signing McCain-Feingold, Instituted the Ted Kennedy plan of No Child Left Behind (remember his effort to reach across the aisle and let Kennedy write the education bill?  NCLB is Teddy Kennedy's effort, not George Bush's, ending your Freedom of Choice on the Education of your children. He then made one of the largest expansions of our government towards Socialism - the Medicare Part D Drug plan, 700 billion a year not paid for and certain to never be cut.  Adding more entitlements and not paying for it, and also creating one of the biggest new government programs of all - Homeland Security.  Oh, yes, he did give us tax cuts, but where were the budget cuts to match?  Not to mention , hanging all his friends out to dry and failing to discipline and control our intelligence agencies for their very obvious failures. (Instead, let's give them medals!) Compassionate maybe, but no Conservative.

Next?

McCain?  Law of the Sea Treaty?  Giving away our sovereignty and right to travel the seas freely?  Heard this one mentioned during the election?  He's for it.  How about the Kyoto Protocols?  He has said he is for it.  Can our economy withstand it?  NO.  Immigration?

He is still waffling since he hasn't been elected yet, but I will bet you that if he is elected, he will sign anything the Democrats send his way on immigration since it would match his previous positions.  He says he would keep the tax cuts in place though, but hasn't explained how with the Democrats in control of both houses.  Good thing he says that he will only serve one term, as the Democrats will do everything they can to destroy him (even worse than Bush, because they can smell the blood in the water). And before I forget - Carbon Credits.  Think your electric bill is high now? How about your gasoline bill (yes it will affect cars).  Just another code word for higher bills and higher taxes.  Says he will give us Conservative judges, but can't explain how he will do it through a Democrat controlled Senate. And by the way, do you think he will pardon Bush? You know, the Democrats will immediately put him on trial for "War Crimes" immediately after the election.  Yes, he will "reach across the aisle" - "More of the same McCain".

Obama?  800 Billion to Africa for the Global Poverty Act.  Another 800 Billion for Healthcare.  This bill is currently being written by Ted Kennedy as one of his last acts. (Probably with Hillary in charge - a campaign promise?)  Who will be able to resist passing this one?  (Do it for old Ted!)  Says he will do away with Bush's tax cuts.........welcome to 11%, 14%, 50% increases in your taxes, all at the same time your house values have plummeted, your utilities and property taxes, and school tuitions have skyrocketed and your 401k is on its way to being worthless (OH, and also plan on it being taken over by the government - not bought, or borrowed - TAKEN - it's already being talked about in the House Revenue Committee, and the Democrats are said to be "intrigued" with the idea.) But yet he is offering tax cuts to 95% of Americans.  (before or after he raises them by doing away with the Bush tax cuts?)  There is also the reason he wants us out of IRAQ - he can then declare another "Peace Dividend" and slice our military to shreds again, making it take even longer the next time to ramp up when the threats come.  Then there is his "weath redistribution".

If he is going to give 95% of us a tax cut, then the other 5% had better be prepared to become American Exiles just like they have in any other country that has raised confiscatory tax rate.  Once all the rich leave, who will he have to tax to pay for his "lofty programs"???????

Be prepared to become even poorer.  Oh, and don't forget, all the new Supreme Court judges he will get to appoint.  Will even one of his proposals be found unconstitutional?  NO.

Can we also say "Fairness Doctrine" ? Along with the Socialist Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. (Happy Halloween!)

You say, but.............but.........................

I have consistently voted for my beliefs and convictions thru the years.  Have You?  Or did you just vote AGAINST someone or AGAINST something?  Each one of these Presidents listed who served during my lifetime have participated in the socialism agenda.  Each one has done unconstitutional acts or allowed them to continue, by not cutting or doing away with them, much less, the ones that actually proposed them and passed them.

But......But............some of you will say, The Supreme Court said they were OK............................................

Does that make it right?

Does that absolve your conscience?

Does that allow you and them to ignore one of the most amazing and fantastic man-made documents ever written?

Do you continue paying your Social Security taxes, even though there is the likelyhood that you will never collect (you younger ones), or that your children will not be able to afford to pay it? Or that you are paying it twice? (You pay once, they spend it, and issue T-Bonds which you then have to pay again as the national debt)

Do you continue to pay your income taxes?  The 19th amendment does not mention unequal rates, nor does it say that it denies you the most fundamental right under the Constitution - Equal Protection under Law.  What is equal about me or you paying more percentage wise than your neighbor, or even your neighbor paying none, while you pay throught the teeth?

Do you continue to rent your land from the government?  If you pay property taxes, you are renting your land and acknowledging the governments rights as owner of your property.  You want proof?  Try not paying them, and watch them sell your house out from under you.

Are you allowing cities and states to tax your utilities?  They mandate these items - sewer, water, garbage etc, then tax you for using them.  If you don't pay the taxes on them, they will shut them off and then say your house is unfit for human habitation...............Double jeopardy?

Do you accede to the governments power to tell you who you can associate with?  Remember, that with Handicap, racial, sexual preference protection comes restrictions on freedom of association, another Constitutional Right.

Does the government have the right to tell you what lightbulbs to use in your home? (remember incandescent lightbulbs are ILLEGAL after 2012) What car to drive? etc etc

These are just a few examples.  You have gone on like sheep and participated in these unconstitutional acts and permitted them to continue by your acquiescience to them.

You have allowed the voting system of this country to allow the non-producers to be able to out-vote the producers because of "equal votes" , when it should be if you are a "producer" towards our economy and nation, you should have more of a say than a "non-producer" after all, the "producers" are the ones paying for it..  There will be more to come, just look at the recent Supreme Court cases - they took away your land rights and the original definition of Eminent Domain, they took away States Rights in a continuing series of decisions from the 1930's to today.  They have superseded the President's War Powers, yet nobody says a word except that the Presidency is too powerful now - never being balanced.  They've allowed a non-government agency to spend billions upon billions of our money with nary a peep (the Federal Reserve) and start owning major portions of our economy.

Where are the marches and the outrage?  Where are the boycotts?  Where is the Civil Disobediance?  It only seems to occur from the left and only for items that don't advance the socialist agenda.  While you have done the responsible thing and gone to work and paid your taxes, they have advanced and advanced. You have condoned these outrages by your silence.  Yes, you write and you call your congressman, but does it really stop or change it? NO  Only taking to the streets works as the left shows everyday.  You will have to scare this government into any changes.

They can not put ALL of us in prison - there is not enough room or money - and the government is absolutely terrified of Jury Nullification, which is why they try so hard to keep you uninformed about it and unaware of it. Research it and start using it.  Sure, it will cost you a little time and money, but start serving on those juries and volunteering to do so.  It's one of the last places where you can keep your freedom from the government.  Right now, with the election almost over, the Liberal Left are already writing new laws to withdraw drilling rights and everything you thought you had stopped.

Remember, they don't stop, it's continually advance, advance, advance.  Anything to the contrary is only a temporary setback to be counteracted at the next oppportunity.

You are a fool if you don't start fighting back.  It might be a little uncomfortable doing without some of your "comforts", but it is either that or become a Socialist Slave to the "Non-Producers".

One last thought:  You always hear how the Communist/Socialist program creates a "classless" society.  In a way they are quite correct - everybody becomes poor, except for the ruling elite.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Very simple, but very eloquent.   Amazingly ignored.  Where is the justice? The blessings of Liberty?  And especially note:  Promote......................NOT, provide the general welfare.

Who will I vote for?  How am I going to vote? You may be very surprised.  I will give you my answer on November 3rd.

 Remember:  If the leaders of our Country do not have to obey the law of the land, then why do we?

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

Rep Barney Frank has proposed a 25% cut in the military...............

Currently listening: Chopin: The Complete Nocturnes And Impromptus Release date: 1997-08-12

2:46 AM 

40 Comments

(Add Comment) |

78 Kudos

Translate

Powered by

English

Albanian

Arabic

Bulgarian

Catalan

Chinese

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

Estonian

Filipino

Finnish

French

Galician

German

Greek

Hebrew

Hindi

Hungarian

Indonesian

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Latvian

Lithuanian

Maltese

Norwegian

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Russian

Serbian

Slovak

Slovenian

Spanish

Swedish

Thai

Turkish

Ukrainian

Vietnamese

"Leveling the Playing Field"

"Winners of Life's Lottery"

"Fairness"

"Tax the Rich"

"Share the Wealth"

"a Hand Up"

"Stop the Excesses"

Just sounds like "nice" descriptions of ARMED ROBBERY to me!!!

Let's see............................................

300 Billion went into effect on October 1, 2008 (the HOPE Act) for mortgage relief

770 Billion to be voted on tomorrow by the House and already passed by the Senate (with 38 Billion in Pork Added)

TOTAL: 1 TRILLION

that's 1,000,000,000,000.00  folks...........................

ALMOST 1/10 OF THE U.S. ECONOMY (Our total GDP is estimated at around 13 Trillion)

BTW........................Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where this all started own 2 Trillion in mortgages

Where is the Franklin Raines perp walk?????  Just because he is black, makes him better than Ken Lay?????

Or because he is a Democrat who contributed heavily to Democrats thru these companies and the Democrats are in charge of the Banking Oversight Committees??????????????????????

-- admitting in a state criminal trial evidence of guilt that was obtained by an unlawful search;

-- permitting invocation of God at public-school graduations;

-- electing one of the two houses of a state legislature the way the United States Senate is elected, i.e., on a basis that does not give all voters numerically equal representation;

-- terminating welfare payments as soon as evidence of fraud is received, subject to restoration after hearing if the evidence is satisfactorily refuted;

-- imposing property requirements as a condition of voting;

-- prohibiting anonymous campaign literature;

-- prohibiting pornography.

And the future agenda of constitutional evolutionists is mostly more of the same -- the creation of new restrictions upon democratic government, rather than the elimination of old ones. Less flexibility in government, not more. As things now stand, the federal and state governments may either apply capital punishment or abolish it, permit suicide or forbid it -- all as the changing times and the changing sentiments of society may demand. But when capital punishment is held to violate the Eighth Amendment, and suicide is held to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, all flexibility with regard to those matters will be gone. No, the reality of the matter is that, generally speaking, devotees of The Living Constitution seek not to facilitate social change but to prevent it.

There are, I must admit, a few exceptions to that rule -- a few instances in which, historically, greater flexibility has been the result of the process. But those exceptions serve only to refute another argument of the proponents of an evolving Constitution: that evolution will always be in the direction of greater personal liberty. They consider that a great advantage, for reasons that I do not entirely understand. All government represents a balance between individual freedom and social order, and it is not true that every alteration of that balance in the direction of greater individual freedom is necessarily good. But in any case, the record of history refutes the proposition that the evolving Constitution will invariably enlarge individual rights. The most obvious refutation is the modern Court's limitation of the constitutional protections afforded to property. The provision prohibiting impairment of the obligation of contracts, for example, has been gutted. I am sure that We the People agree with that development; we value property rights less than did the Founders. So also, we value the right to bear arms less than did the Founders (who thought the right of self-defense to be absolutely fundamental), and there will be few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard. But this just shows that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may like the abridgment of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights.

My pointing out that the American people may be satisfied with a reduction of their liberties should not be taken as a suggestion that the proponents of The Living Constitution follow the desires of the American people in determining how the Constitution should evolve. They follow nothing so precise; indeed, as a group they follow nothing at all. Perhaps the most glaring defect of Living Constitutionalism, next to its incompatibility with the whole anti-evolutionary purpose of a constitution, is that there is no agreement, and no chance of agreement, upon what is to be the guiding principle of the evolution. Panta rhei is not a sufficiently informative principle of constitutional interpretation. What is it that the judge must consult to determine when, and in what direction, evolution has occurred? Is it the will of the majority, discerned from newspapers, radio talk shows, public-opinion polls, and chats at the country club? Is it the philosophy of Hume, or of John Rawls, or of John Stuart Mill, or of Aristotle? As soon as the discussion goes beyond whether the Constitution is static, the evolutionists divide into as many camps as there are individual views of the good, the true, and the beautiful. I think that is inevitably so, which means that evolutionism is simply not a practicable constitutional philosophy.

But the difficulties and uncertainties of determining original meaning and applying it to modern circumstances are negligible compared with the difficulties and uncertainties of the philosophy which says that the Constitution changes; that the very act which it once prohibited it now permits, and which it once permitted it now prohibits; and that the key to that change is unknown and unknowable. The originalist, if he does not have all the answers, has many of them. For the evolutionist, on the other hand, every question is an open question, every day a new day. No fewer than three of the Justices with whom I have served (Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun) have maintained that the death penalty is unconstitutional, even though its use is explicitly contemplated in the Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law; and the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime without grand-jury indictment. No matter. Under The Living Constitution the death penalty may have become unconstitutional. And it is up to each Justice to decide for himself (under no standard I can discern) when that occurs.

In the last analysis, however, it probably does not matter what principle, among the innumerable possibilities, the evolutionist proposes to use in order to determine in what direction The Living Constitution will grow. Whatever he might propose, at the end of the day an evolving constitution will evolve the way the majority wishes. The people will be willing to leave interpretation of the Constitution to lawyers so long as the people believe that it is (like the interpretation of a statute) essentially lawyers' work --requiring a close examination of text, history of the text, traditional understanding of the text, judicial precedent, and so forth. But if the people come to believe that the Constitution is not a text like other texts; that it means, not what it says or what it was understood to mean, but what it should mean, in the light of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" -- well, then, they will look for qualifications other than impartiality, judgment, and lawyerly acumen in those whom they select to interpret it. More specifically, they will look for judges who agree with them as to what the evolving standards have evolved to; who agree with them as to what the Constitution ought to be.

Who can doubt that if the issue had been deferred until today, the Constitution would be (formally) unamended, and the courts would be the chosen instrumentality of change? The American people have been converted to belief in The Living Constitution, a "morphing" document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean. And with that conversion has inevitably come the new phenomenon of selecting and confirming federal judges, at all levels, on the basis of their views regarding a whole series of proposals for constitutional evolution. If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all.

Antonin Scalia

COPYRIGHT 1997 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

"truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's
empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."  Barack Obama