March 31, 2010

Drill baby Drill...

985-obama-dr-evil2  Today, in a total change of direction, mr. obama announced increases in permits to be allowed for oil exploration. Is this a victory for common sense? Has obama really decided to tell his environazi base to go chop down a tree? Should middle America jump for joy as our fearless leader has grown some common sense? Absolutely not and here's why.

 

First, here are the areas he opened and closed up:

39950_drilling-areas I do not know how much oil anyone thinks is off the coast of Delaware or South Carolina, maybe they think there is a lot.  Environmentalists and Conservationists both seem to be happy about the removal of the Bristol Bay area for exploration because it is the best fishing in the entire country, and to look at that map you would think, “so what it is a small area”. Think again, it is the size of the Texas pan- handle, or maybe as large as Virginia.  Oil exploration and oil production and Fishing and enjoyment our natural wildlife are not mutually exclusive no matter what those environutters say.  It is not as if once there is an oil well all wildlife dies, in fact in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Tx fishing around the oil platforms is where the best action is.Alaska_-_Lower_48 

I think it is important to point out.  Obama did not open up oil     D-R-I-L-L-I-N-G ;

he opened up oil     L-O-O-K-I-N-G. 

This:                                                                  Not this:

 

feature_pinnacle

oil-drilling

 

 

  

 

 

Also, any benefits to exploration allowed in this proposal won't be seen until after obama is long gone.  One has to wonder if this is some sort of first step to nationalization of the Oil Industry a’ la’ Chavez.  The oil companies better read the (new) leases with the hubble space telescope sized magnifying glass.  Beware the fine print.  I have yet to hear anyone else mention this notion but with the banks, car companies, and now the healthcare system, obama says he has no desire to control such companies, but he has yet to give up even 1% control of any private entity or industry that the federal government has taken over. So when the regime starts talking about getting it's fingers in the energy business, I get concerned that those fingers will ultimately belong to the hand of the grand puppeteer.  After all, that has been the means that this regime has used to gain control of everything else it has touched, right?

So, there is a lot of oil that we a) already know is down there; and b) are not allowed to drill for; while we have oil and know where it is, the administration is proud to tell us that they are going to start thinking, and looking, and studying, and they are going to start doing all that thinking, and looking, and studying real, real soon. 

Meanwhile we are left with  wishin’, and hopin’, and prayin’, and dreamin’ and  wantin’. 

Just like always.

HighGasPrices10

-AD33 and KOOK

2 weeks until Congressional elections...

I just received this E-Mail from Karin Hoffman, on behalf of DC works for US. I interrupted my post I was working on to write this as it is that important. The Florida District 19 special election is a big deal and let me explain why. This will be the first time that the American people will have had a chance to speak since the passage of Obamacare. The media and the regime will play a win by Ted Deutch (D) as a victory over the tea party movement, and a portray such a win as support for Obamacare by the American people as well as a mandate to continue pushing everything from cap and trade (energy tax) to nationwide bullet trains and I believe that covered up in Obama's new support for oil drilling will be the biggest tax increase in US history. So all you readers from places other than Florida, this election WILL affect YOU. It is now a question of WILL YOU use your blogs and e-mail lists to support Ed Lynch and send a message to Obama and his media lapdogs that YOU have not forgotten what happened last week, last month or last year. I know Ed Lynch personally. I have personally done everything I within my abilities to help the Lynch Campaign. Now you can have an impact on the national story. You can donate time, funds or send this to your friends as even though this is a local race, it is a national story. That will be especially true if Ed Lynch wins as Obama can't keep explaining "Scott Browns" to the American People forever, now can he. So the choice is now yours, you can help us send Obama and his cronies a message that this war is far from over, or you can relax and watch reruns of Desperate Housewives. That choice is yours. I can only speak for me and I know what my choice is.

Dear Patriots, (National help needed for Election, April 13th, if Ed Lynch
gets in office, he can be one more vote against funding of the Health Care
Bill)

1) Herein lie the challenge: The first Congressional Election is 2 weeks
away. We have been made aware that the Democrat candidate in the race,
Ted Deutch, now has the powerhouse, Organizing For America, in place to
help with the campaign. That should help clarify

We need your help, America. Contact Lisa at
lisa@electlynch.com to obtain
a phone list to call the District Republican and Independent voters.
50,000 votes are needed. Let's go.

Here is Edward Lynch:
At CPAC on Illegal Immigration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tRjJtHre6M

On Fox Business Network http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyBLw2FUVg

2) DC Works For US meeting at Wings Plus, 7-9pm 9880 Sample Road in Coral
Springs

Report from Glenn Beck Event: Faith, Hope and Charity
Latest Findings on the Constitution Party
Town Hall with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
Candidate Bryan Reilly running in District 20 of Florida.
Candidate Corey Poitier running in District 17 of Florida
Last push for Election in District 19 April 13th
Tea Party throughout the nation April 15th

Check out great gear to wear proclaiming the reminder that DC does Work
For US

www.dcworksforus.com

No time to waste.

Great to serve with each of you.

Karin Hoffman and the DC Works For US team

Viral of the day: Obamath

Biohazard Obamath is a new form of mathematics where more  money is spent than gained and negative outcomes for taxpayers are automatic and desired by those in charge of legislating. Thus, in Obamath, negatives are positives bad=good

Think of it this way:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will  reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save$350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved!! I'm pretty sure they will do a GREAT JOB with our health care, though.

obamateurism-new2

-AD33

March 30, 2010

Getting some Perspective

Reaching Out This post is long, but my comments are short, and it is fascinating (to me at least).  Folks,  the whole point of blogging is to spread the word.  We all try to get the max number of readers, we look at out page hits, our link backs, our maps, and our stats.  Most of the time we all agree with each other.  Because we all share similar viewpoints.  Rarely do I get a Liberal to come my way, and if they do they spew a bunch of hate and then they leave.  I feel like we are all digging trenches, we dig ours deeper, and they dig theirs deeper, and we rarely see each other and we never talk.  Sharky recently felt pretty depressed because he wanted to have a constitutional debate and no one was showing up.  Well, most of us already agree.  That is the problem, and if you are a dyed in the wool liberal you don’t really care about the constitution much anyway. I do not mean this in a hateful way; those with the other viewpoint see it as archaic and a little irrelevant.  So I went out and found some liberals to talk to.  I kept it nice, and they kept it (relatively) nice.  It is eye opening, they say the same things about us that we say about them.  I still believe what I believe and know that I am right, but it is interesting to see just how fervently they feel the same way. Hats off to Silverfiddle as well, he waded right in too.   Below are the results so far:

Jerry Critter said...

Educate and rightwing nutfucks do not go together. If it wasn't the health care bill, it would be something else. They are ignorant, scared, racists. They are tools of the elite. Simple tools who vote against their own self interests. They are American kamikazes -- in this case kami-crazies.

March 28, 2010 11:53 PM

Infidel753 said...

I hate to tell you this, but if "Romney is her God", she is actually one of the less crazy ones. The real ultras wouldn't touch Romney with a ten-foot pole because he's a Mormon. So if you'd been talking to them, you'd probably have gotten even worse results. Their concept of "limited government" is that the only legitimate domestic functions of government are banning abortion and harassing homosexuals and non-Christians. The health bill does not conform to that, therefore it is Communist.

March 29, 2010 7:16 AM

TRUTH 101 said...

Some are born stupid. Some choose to be stupid. Others succumb to the stupidity that is thrust upon them. Republicans are in all three of these categories. I think after 4 years of blogging I've found maybe a half dozen righties worth talking to.

March 29, 2010 11:44 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

so...no one here has any issue whatsoever with the constitutionality of requiring individuals to buy a product? Please do not flame me, I am attempting to understand your points of view.

I am not Ignorant, scared, or racist. I do not wish to vote against my self interest. I miss the part where it is ok for the government to take money from me that I earn to give to someone else. It appears to be state sanctioned mugging.

I would not touch Romney with a ten foot pole because he is a wishy washy DC politician, Mormon or not, he is a weathervane changing direction with the political winds.

My concept of limited government has absolutely NOTHING to do with harassing homosexuals, although I do believe that aborting a baby deprives if of ever having a life; mostly I believe the govt should get out of the legislating morality business- MINE or YOURS.

The health bill seems to subvert the constitution and my natural rights; it appears to give Govt the control over healthcare and more importantly student education and therefore seems collectivist. Communist if you prefer.

If you all promise not to talk about Michael Steele, I won't bring up Rahm Emanuel, Jeremiah Wright, John Edwards, Joe Biden, or Keith Olbermann. You have your idiots too. Michael Steele is a boob. How he went from crappy talking head on the news to leader of a political party I am still scratching my head over. Of course there is still the conundrum of how with only two working brain cells Biden remembers to breathe.

Lastly, I fail to see how it is more desirable to have bad behavior and flaunt it than to engage in bad behavior and attempt to hide it; Liberal and Conservative politicians are largely scum, and all are guilty of bad behavior. How is it that if you do not subscribe to morals it is better than if you do?

really I figure we all want the same things, we just see certain issues differently, and I am trying to see some from another perspective.

March 29, 2010 12:22 PM

Jolly Roger said...

“If you all promise not to talk about Michael Steele, I won't bring up Rahm Emanuel, Jeremiah Wright, John Edwards, Joe Biden, or Keith Olbermann. You have your idiots too.”

You're batting .200 here. In other words, you don't have a point.

Consult facts instead of what Beck tells you to think before posting.

March 29, 2010 12:24 PM

Infidel753 said...

“KOOK: no one here has any issue whatsoever with the constitutionality of requiring individuals to buy a product?”

You're already required to buy car insurance if you own a car, which is a de facto necessity for most people. That passes constitutional muster, apparently.

“I miss the part where it is ok for the government to take money from me that I earn to give to someone else.”

That's called taxation. Nobody likes it, but it's both constitutional and an unfortunate necessity if we're to live in a functioning society.

If the mandate were challenged and found unconstitutional, the rest of the HCR bill would still stand. Presumably the government would then be forced to go to a single-payer plan so that they system could function by funding universal coverage via taxation rather than a mandate to buy from private insurers.

March 29, 2010 12:40 PM

Sue said...

KOOK I will give it a shot...

What the democrats are trying to do is bring down the cost of insurance, therefore having all covered will do that, they say, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and let things take their course before we condemn. That seems to be the problem, your side does not even wait to see if an idea will work, its automatic condemnation.

Second, with the education bill, all they did was get rid of the middleman(banks) which in turn will make education costs lower. So they say, give it a chance to work before condemning.

You have your point when it comes to both sides having their talking heads. I don't agree on two of them. Biden is more then qualified to be VP, in fact he is more than qualified to be president. Just because one has a slip of the tongue now and then does not make him stupid.

Rachel Maddow is highly intelligent and when she works on a story she does her damnedest to be fair and always tells the truth. I don't think I'm being partisan when I say that either.

Now, when you whine about the government taking your hard earned money you seem to think that it's always the rich who have to share with the poor. I don't ever hear the middle class or the working poor cry about taxes, how come?? We give in taxes too, and we make a minuscule amount of money compared to the top 1% in the country. Why is it they who cry the loudest? GREED???

March 29, 2010 12:45 PM

Radomu said...

Stealing money and freedom from the people, redistributing to the other what they didn't earn, consolidating power while playing victim; planting the crowd with your fake people; lying and blaming others. Like people won't see your hilariousness. Here's the facts America the left are straight up liars and playing us stupid; the wasn’t no racism that day not like using affirmative action other man got my job and my money based on the cultural diversity without even a degree.

Non-violence was the objective expressing our right to freedom; were tired of being blamed because we happen to white. To all you race baiting and race card playing minorities you are playing with fire; you don't want to really ignite the anger within because we are sick and tired of the racial pin.

Fear not my freedom loving friends including all colors and cultures the Tea Party is here.

This is an attempt to raise up barriers of our community trust because the liberal progressive socialists just don’t want conservative minorities to join us; you see even though you are all welcome here in our movement; you see they fear that you their followers might listen to us and make the escape and fight with us against the socialist slavery they hold dear…

Every day I am polite and kind to all minorities if you knew me you’d see; yet because I am Indian I am labeled racist snake using a stereotyped smear. These racist labels is wearing old and our patience is thin because they want us to spend our time fighting over our skin. To the liberals we holler no not ever will we surrender our guns, our freedoms, our speech or our doctors! No not today or next year; we will not stop until they repeal this socialist plan and stop the dictator Obama from forming his leftist IRS based Politburo here. The Dem’s got you all fooled my fellow Americans; wish you would wake up and realize the we are your friends; please quit claiming that something that happened many generations ago is still near and join the effort to protect your freedoms we all hold so dear.

March 29, 2010 1:49 PM

Sue said...

Radomu, you got it twisted my friend. It's not the liberals who are racist. It's the tea baggers who are racists. You are Indian and are allowed to party with the baggers?? Hmmmm, interesting..

March 29, 2010 2:30 PM

TRUTH 101 said...

Let me take a stab at KOOK also.

You are the party of "personal responsibility." Yet you would rather have people that can afford cars but not , ahem "afford insurance" driving them around. These mandates are about personal responsibility. Whether it be responsibility for the 4,000 pound machine you're operating, or your own body and it's health care.

KOOK: I know you're trying to be sincere. Your argument is totally without merit and goes against what the ideals of the right concerning responsibility are. If your kids or wife have no health insurance you will still take them to the emergency room. You won't let them suffer and/or die because some kooky sense of "freedom" compels it.

This shows that the left is truly the party of personal and fiscal responsibility. We want everyone to help pay for our government and programs that keep us safer and make life better for all Americans. Your position exposes the right for what it is when the blinders are taken off. The group that wants everything but is unwilling to pay for it. (!!??…???)

March 29, 2010 2:30 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Fantastic, this is what I wanted. Real Conversation from Real People who seem to want to also have real conversation. Thank you for not flaming.

@infidel: Yes I am required by my STATE to buy insurance for my car. I agree a car is a de facto necessity for most people. This is not the same as a "facto" necessity. I cannot choose to have whether or not to have this body.

Taxation, yes I am familiar with the concept. But is it ok to tax me to provide for someone else in every instance? In what instance would it NOT be ok for the Fed to tax me to the benefit of someone else in order to gain favor with that group, in your opinion? Taxing all of us to provide for the security of the Nation, for Postal and Military roads, for running the offices of government, I get that. I understand my state and local government taxing me for public schooling and public parks and public transportation. I am with you there, especially on a State and local level. I do not get taxing me at the federal level to pay for someone else's healthcare, food, housing, in a place far away from where I live for political favor of a politician I cannot control at all. What ability do I really have to assert my right for redress of grievance when some politician from CA, MI, NY, or wherever uses my federal tax dollars to subsidize a federal housing program in their state. It is no better than the days of old with the King. Those who take money from me are not representing me in that case. That is just the way I see it.

March 29, 2010 2:33 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@Sue, thank you for being civil in your response. I am all for, ALL FOR, lower health insurance costs. I just do not see how this is going to do that. Something does not seem to add up. In my limited experience government control does not make prices lower. Let me give you some background on me. I am 33, divorced, college educated, I work in corporate America, in the mid-south. I make 42k a year gross. I am not rich. I am not a "bible thumper" but I do have faith.

I understand the desire to give them a chance and take the wait and see approach. Really I do. I pride myself on being a pragmatic realist. The problem as I see it is that once begun a government program or bureaucracy never dies. The Dept of Energy is a good example, the ATF is another. Why do we have an ATF, and FBI, and a DHS? Why do we need another panel of reducing our dependence on foreign energy; that is the DOE's mission as stated under Carter. What have they done? It is getting to where FedEx is cheaper than the Post Office, an Amtrak Ticket to Chicago costs what a Plane ticket does, farmers with their subsidies make less than they did before. on and on. Our history seems to be littered with governments good intentions gone awry. So I am a little apprehensive of giving them a pass on this attempt. Especially when we are told that "we have to pass the bill before we know what is in it" - Nancy Pelosi.

But, the Education thing worries me even more than the healthcare issues. It is such a tiny small jump to make that in order to qualify for Federal Loans on education that not only where you go, but what course of study could be implemented as part of the approval process that it is all just a little too dystopian for my tastes. I think the private loans kept the Government somewhat honest. Want to go to a private Christian school -bzzz nope. Not on federal money... Want to go to school in Tx to be a lawyer? bzz sorry we need Doctors in CA. that is my fear, that is what many other countries do, and that is not what this country is about.

Ok. On paper Biden has a good resume, but to characterize his verbal diarrhea as "occasional" is stretching it. The man is a walking gaffe machine. He is as embarrassing as Dubya was, you know it is true. I do not dispute Maddow's intelligence at all. I know the lady is smart. She is also very capable of being a good journalist, but starting in '08 she got every bit as hateful and catty as anyone anywhere else in the news. I used to not mind watching her as an interesting counterpoint, but not anymore.  She leaves her credibility at the door when she recites the party line word for word.

March 29, 2010 2:33 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@sue, and Infidel

Referencing the middle class or working class crying about taxes. that is me, and I am crying. Do you know how bad it angers me to hear people who do very little to help themselves act like they won the lottery every March? I work my ass off and pray I don't have to pay in any more. I see half my income disappear...just gone...and then see cars in front of the low income housing nicer than what I can afford. People get back 3x what they pay in, how is that right? I went to college and have what most would consider a good job, and after taxes my income is about what someone who does just barely enough to get by makes after their tax "rebate" at the end of the year. what is the point of working? Rich people inspire me, I don't begrudge them their fair earnings. People on the "struggle" do not inspire me, and I look at the two ideologies' philosophies and think "which one of them can best help me achieve my dreams" I do not see the Liberal approach helping me up. Keeping me from starving, maybe, actually helping me prosper, not at all. And the price seems to be chains limiting what I can eat, how much I can eat, where I go, what I drive, how warm to keep my home, what doctor I will use, what I earn, where I work, everything.

Just my opinion folks, not trying to start a fight. Just want to talk. You guys ever get tired of talking to each other and agreeing? I do, I get tired of people giving me the amen for everything I say, we just keep digging trenches, I want to talk to sensible people who differ with me to try to reach an understanding.

March 29, 2010 2:34 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@Sue, Saying all Tea PARTYiers (tea bagger is really offensive)are racists is like saying all Liberals are dope smoking welfare hippie communist sympathizing felons. It just is not true at all.

I was in DC on 912. There were a lot of old white folks, yes. There were a lot of young white folks. There were blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, too.

This is NOT about race, Sue, not at all. I am NOT racist. I am not a homophobe. I am not going to get drawn into a "let's count your minority friends" game either. Race and Gender are tools used by BOTH sides to divide us. They are using us to play their game of Control, Sue. Do not play into that. Real racists are a dying pathetic 1% of this nation. Just like not everyone who rides a motorcycle is not in a gang, not everyone who has a tattoo is a gangster, or a delinquent. Not every white man from the south is a racist.

March 29, 2010 2:39 PM

Jerry Critter said...

KOOK, What if it was your State, instead of the feds, mandating you buy health insurance like they do for car insurance? You seem to be OK with the car insurance thing.

March 29, 2010 2:41 PM

Sue said... KOOK, I know my posts are a little colorful but my guests are always treated fairly.

Baby is awake, I'll be by later! Thanks for the great debate.

March 29, 2010 2:43 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@Truth 101. No, you miss my point. Personal responsibility, PERSONAL. If my State (not the Fed) mandated me to have insurance (a la Romney Care in MA) I would not have a constitutional objection. I might still have an objection. The people elected from Whatever state you live in are not accountable to ME. Therefore they should have NO right telling ME what to do in matters that should be legislated by people who are accountable to ME. I have health insurance. My family has health insurance. The other point I was making about the ER is that NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY is denied emergency medical care. Period. The stories about people dying in waiting rooms of dehydration comes from countries where medicine is socialized. In the UK doctors see X patients a day. period. then they go home.

This debate really comes down to the legitimate role of government. I do not believe the government should take care of us. When you allow yourself to become a dependant (like a child) of society you lose a little freedom. I do not choose to be a ward of the state. I believe the legitimate role of the federal government is to protect us from aggression, and people who prey on the weak internally and externally and other than that, they need to stay out of our lives.

March 29, 2010 2:47 PM

Silverfiddle said...

Now for some reality...

But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks.

Benefits are phased in "so that the first 10 years of (higher) revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending (increases)," ex-CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in The New York Times.

Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later.

Then there's the "doc fix" -- higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/29/planting_the_seeds_of_disaster_104952.html

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

@jerryCritter. If it was my state, I might still object, the difference is that I can drive in a day to the capitol of my state to talk to the people legislating my life. I know my local representative. Believe it or not I have actually spoken to the man.

If my State enacted a law that I simply could not abide by, I could move. I have thought about moving to TN for example because there is no state income tax at all. State governments are more accountable to the people of their state.

What redress power do I have over some politician elected in some far away state? should we have to contribute money to political candidates in states we do not live in just to try to make sure that someone who is not in ANY way accountable to us makes good decisions for our lives?

What is good for folks in Michigan is not always good for folks in Missouri.

Let's say the Nation regulated the cost of gasoline. At first everyone would say YAY. A study is done and it is found that average cost of a gallon of gas is 2.95 in Fl and 2.85 in MI. $2.90 sounds like a great price to set it at. But wait, it is 2.54 in Missouri. That is the problem with Federal Control. That is what the Founders thought too, which is why we have those restraints in the Constitution.

March 29, 2010 3:08 PM

TomCat said... One small correction. The Reconciliatation act reset the fine from $695 to zero.

March 29, 2010 3:10 PM

Jerry Critter said... TomCat

Are you saying that there is no fine for not having health insurance?

March 29, 2010 3:52 PM

Jerry Critter said...

KOOK,I agree there is more accountability at the state level and that what is good for one state may not be good for another. I am not convinced, however, that something as important as health care should be left up to each individual state.

I believe that were will be a proposal to allow each state to setup a single payer system for themselves. Single payer started in Canada that way.

March 29, 2010 3:55 PM

Sue said... KOOK I can as a middle class earner and also can speak to my son who is practically poverty earner and single. (the single guys get the shaft on everything including car insurance rates) We have never gotten back 3x more than was taken out in taxes. I have never heard of such a thing. Even my daughter who takes the earned income credit with one child doesn't get back more than she has taken out of her paycheck. You must be listening to haters of the poor.

My understanding is we all will have to PURCHASE insurance, that means we all will have premiums to pay. So why do you think your dollars will be paying for others insurance? We do that now when the uninsured go to ER's.

Your fears are unwarranted. Your fear of education reform especially. You need to calm down and have more trust, Your fear comes from years of a republican president gone awry. This president is trying to get rid of fraud and waste, give him a chance. There has been so much waste in our history we just take it for granted and fear change. But Obama has promised change and I trust him.

March 29, 2010 6:10 PM

Hugh Jee From Jersey said...

Whoa..some spirited political back and forth here between the right and left....

I have no problem with people on the right....unless they have guns. Lots and lots of guns. Loaded. And they're pissed off about something.

And wanting to use them to start their 21st century version of Helter Skelter. But that's another story

BTW....as far as "collectivism"....after the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth and they had their first harvest, they set up the first "public school system" of sorts. A few ears of corn, and we'll teach your kid to read and write.

Education with the cost spread out among a population. Not to mention protection from fires, and law enforcement, and a court system, played for by the citizenry. A concept going back to the days of the Founding Fathers...and nobody screamed "socialism".

This constant yelling of "FIRE" by the right is getting monotonous, tiresome, and "heard it all before".

But its their inalienable right to scream, if they wish...just leave the guns home, if you please.

March 29, 2010 8:14 PM

Sue said...

I agree Hugh, too many guns and too much screaming going on. It all comes down to fear and distrust. The right doesn't trust us, that's too bad. I think they should don't you?

March 29, 2010 9:07 PM

Jolly Roger said...

ratomoo brayed,

Stealing money and freedom from the people, redistributing to the other what they didn't earn, consolidating power while playing victim; planting the crowd with your fake people; lying and blaming others.

You know, I have yet to hear one of you selfish motherfuckers cry about having a good school, or a road you can drive down, or the cops in your neighborhood. Hell, you chickenshits won't fight, but you sure love those wars-as long as SOMEBODY ELSE PAYS for all of it, right?

And you want to talk about redistributing wealth? Let's take Carly Fiorina as an example. She tripled her salary while she slashed payrolls and benefits. She didn't have a profitable company, so how did she do it? RIGHT-she redistributed the wealth. Why is taking from the lower classes and giving to the rich OK, but a good union is "socialism?"

I cannot maintain my decorum when faced with idiotic motherfuckers like you who think you're all intellectuals because you read that psychopath Rand. I wish we could give you stupid sons of bitches your own country and let you run it into the ground, while you were all fucking each other out of every dime you could get your money grubbing hands on. You and your kind not only sure as hell didn't make America a great country, but you've been the downfall of any society you infest in any numbers.

Sue-my most humble apologies. I just couldn't take it.

March 29, 2010 11:06 PM

Silverfiddle said...

Jolly Roger:

I don't know who you are addressing your eloquent rant to, but I did fight for my country.

"Spreadin' it around" has failed everywhere it's been tried. The only reason Europe makes a halfway go if it is because we pick up their security tab and they have North Sea crude revenue. Still, like us, they are broke.

Decrying a corrupt and wasteful government in no way conflicts with wanting that government to efficiently provide services.

So are you defending this government that now has us tens of trillions in debt? Are you defending a government that had quadrupled spending on schools while our schools (and our kids' test scores) have gone down the toilet?

Is that the government you are defending? You have low standards.

March 29, 2010 11:23 PM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Sue, you seem like a very sweet lady. My Distress does not come from the last 4,8, or 33 years. It comes from history. These people are not altruistic, they are greedy and power hungry. All of them. As for not getting back more than you pay in in your taxes; that is precisely what the earned income credit IS. Money that you didn't pay because you didn't earn it. It us welfare built into our tax code. I know people in Missouri who bank on their tax return every year as a huge part of their income. Stores have sales promoting it. They should call it UN-earned income. I am not listening to haters of the poor I am listening to my poor friends and acquaintances. My mother works for DFS. It is widely discussed here.

I know that we will all have premiums, and the ones in the lower end will be subsidized with higher taxes. As I said before I am already insured already paying for insurance (at least until my company gets wise and drips my plan, without paying me the money it costs them, making me worse off than before) so when my taxes go up what would you call it? I call it paying for someone else. These policies just make it harder for me to get to that next level; locking me into this level or the next one lower. The government doesn't produce anything, it cannot give to one without first taking it from Somewhere else, doesn't that make sense to you? Your last paragraph... All I can say is wow, uh, I guess you can get back with me in four years. Amazing.

March 30, 2010 1:55 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Jolly, roads are constitutional. Legitimate function of government. Our schools? Seriously. They have been in decline ever since the fed took over the purse strings and the unions got involved. We have a 50% drop out rate in many areas, Kansas City just closed like a hundred schools or something. We have thrown more money at them my whole life. Our education system is one of the biggest failures of bloated central government there is. Police officers salaries are paid by LOCAL taxes. Except for federal grants for new equipment and such.

Don't forget to tell the end of the story with the pilgrims and their experiment with communal living: it killed productivity and it nearly starved them out. That is the part y'all always leave out. It didn't last.

I am very very much in favor of local communities being left in Charge of their local schools. That is where the power belongs; not in DC.

Collectivist policy and everything being government run is not what made this nation the most powerful nation to have ever existed on this planet. The USSR did not win the cold war for a reason. Their economy did not work. What they did do was infiltrate our schools and our prisons resulting in widely accepted socialist thought.

Ps. Unions are parasites that feed off of the working people of this country and drive prices up and push jobs overseas. The UAW is the reason the govt owns GM and Chrysler, no wait that isn't right. The UAW and shitty mgmt that appeased the unions for fifty years are the cause. No wait still not right; that and a shitty govt. (D & R)

March 30, 2010 2:08 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Ps sorry for all the typos. Doing this on a phone

March 30, 2010 2:10 AM

Sue said...

I hope you weren't driving at the same time KOOK! :-)

I'll be by sometime today, lots to talk about.

Sue said...

Seriously KOOK, I don't understand the tea party gangs and what they protest. My husband has been a blue collar worker all his life, hard, back breaking work in factories, refineries, steel mills etc. we were happy to get back less than a third of what he paid in taxes in our refund. We don't complain about taxes, we don't whine about government, we are happy to be alive and continue to work hard and contribute to be able to live in the greatest nation on earth.

teabaggers think they will put their people in leadership positions in Washington and change the whole fabric of our democracy but it will never happen. Palin can scream herself hoarse and it won't change a thing.

The right and their obsession with big government and taxes is something I just don't understand.

March 30, 2010 8:22 AM

Jolly Roger said...

It is kind of funny, how Government has only seen 8 years in the last 30 where waste and fraud actually declined.

I'll give the delusional Rushpubliscums a clue as to when that was: it WASN'T during the era of Saint Ronnie, or the eras of Pere Chimpy and/or the Reign of Error we just left.

tnlib said...

I'm a little late stopping by. My, my, my. Sure is a lot of hot air blowing - and more than enough mythology to last at least a decade. I think the righties have organized to "target" your blog, Sue.

The one thing I like about SF, even tho I don't always agree with him, is that he's always civil and substantiates his arguments with mostly credible sources - unlike so many who simply regurgitate the myths from Beck and Co.

I don't know which chicken-shit anon said there was no evidence that venomous slurs were hurled at Congressmen but apparently he/she has his/her head up the ole wahoo. I bet this individual says there is no evidence that the Holocaust took place.

Beck and Co. keep saying we live in a police state. If that were true, they would all be in jail.

Sue, this is a terrific post - one of your best.

March 30, 2010 10:37 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Sue, I don't mind not getting back a little, or none. That is not the point. Look at it from an amount paid in perspective. Let's say you and your husband pay in 30% final. Someone else works a part time job and has two kids and pays in -10%. Didn't you just pay some of their share? Kids don’t just happen. The are the logical biological outcome of a (generally) voluntary consensual act. If you can't afford them; don't have them. (and I don't mean abort them, I mean protect yourself or *gasp* don't have sex.)

seriously, what % of your income being taken from you would be excessive? 40% 60% ? would 80% bother you?

Does the waste and bullcrap spending and special deals not anger you in the slightest? The Louisiana Purchase 2 or the Cornhusker Kickback? The billions spent in retarded projects like the turtle tunnels in fl. and the roads to Nowhere in West Virginia. All the scandals and corruption? It is not just a Democrat thing; you are right the Republicans spent like drunken sailors at a frat party. That is what the tea party protests are about. All of the politicians are pretty much scum.

March 30, 2010 10:38 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

I would not say Sue has been targeted. I have been looking for a mirror image to my blog for a while and it seemed that. The discourse here was mostly civil. None of us do any good just talking to people who agree with our viewpoint. We will never reach any sort of understanding. The alternative is some sort of divorce or revolution because we cannot keep living like this.

So I wanted a chance to talk to the other side. But calling us all liars and saying we have our heads up our rears really isn't getting us anywhere. I do believe there was a holocaust. And a Holodomor. They were both perpetrated by Marxist regimes. I believe we put a man on the moon and we beat the socialist soviets to it. I believe that a lone communist sympathizing nut is who killed Kennedy ( probably the democratic president with the most potential in the last 100 years). I do not believe that Dubya and co. Caused 9-11. I am not a birther, although I do have a few questions. Questions which are somewhat irrelevant at this point. I am glad we elected a half black man as president, I am sad that he will probably go down as the worst president in history, causing a serious setback in race relations.

March 30, 2010 11:12 AM

Jolly Roger said...

“Someone else works a part time job and has two kids and pays in -10%. Didn't you just pay some of their share? Kids don’t just happen. The are the logical biological outcome of a (generally) voluntary consensual act.”

With all due respect, this is a shit perspective. The younger people are going to have to maintain the society when the older ones slow down. There is an absolute value to society, and trying to nickel-and-dime it this way is intellectually dishonest.

March 30, 2010 11:53 AM

The Keeper Of Odd Knowledge (KOOK) said...

Jolly- so by your comment you are willing to subsidize the raising of society's children on the basis that those same kids will grow up to be productive members of society and will then take care of you in your old age. That is putting lots of faith and trust in the parenting ability of people who lack the drive or foresight to not have children they couldn't pay for on their own. I really do not want to trust people with that poor of reasoning skills to raise my future caregivers and yet I have no say in their raising either. I am just helping pay for it.

Do not misconstrue it, I am for children and would do anything to keep a kid from being homeless or hungry. This is not about the kids: it is about the parents.

I get so steamed. My good friend has a twenty yr old daughter who dropped out of college, got pregnant, got married, lasted six months, getting divorced has the kid. Living back with mom and dad. On all sorts of govt assistance and makes me and her dad furious because she says she has not done anything bad. She made bad decision after bad decision and now we are all paying for it. And her child now has less of an opportunity than he would if mama would have waited to finish college and had better earning potential.

Blogger: Helloooo...... Mr. President, are you listening?? - Post a Comment

Go check her blog out, BUT PLAY NICE; SHE IS A NICE PERSON, she just doesn’t see things our way…yet.  Name calling and hateful talk really is not going to get us anywhere.   There is lots more where this came from.

-KOOK

March 25, 2010

Challenge to liberals: Find a racist tea party sign!!!!

Right now, the anti-liberty crowd in DC and in the media is running a smear campaign claiming that the pro-liberty (Tea Party) movement is racist, violent, they are comparing us to Nazis, claiming that protest attendees used racial slurs against and spit on members of the "black Congressional Carcass"..I mean "Caucus," sorry, I get words confused sometimes. So, I challenge any liberal reading this to dig through all the photos of tea party protests and rallies and find me a racist sign. Find pro-neo-Nazi signage within the tea party events. I don't think you can and here's why: The Tea Party movement is not racist by nature. We, unlike the despot claiming to be President are not fascists. We unlike those in the media and the education system are not neo-bolsheviks hellbent on destroying the American way of life. So, prove me wrong. There is plenty of footage and photos from Tea Party rallies available to look through but just to make it easy, I will give you some never before seen photos from the big rally on 9/12 in DC. When I was there photographing for this blog, I put a strong emphasis on photographing signage as it shows what issues matter most to those who are protesting. So here's some photos, and if any of you find such signage from another source you can click the link to e-mail me and send me the photo along with info as to location and date of event and I will post the photo here along with an apology for what I would consider reprehensible behavior. You libs would love to prove a conservative wrong, right? Well. here's your chance. Here are some to check as I will pick at random 10 photos from 9/12 to make it easier on you so prove me wrong as I say you cant find any racist signage whatsoever....










Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

 Constitutional Tug Of War2  We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:
[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”
The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'
pelosi_queen_nancy“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”
So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :
“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce james_madison2 among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.
cargo_ship_1_ue62   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.Fedzilla
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Lady Justice Out To Lunch Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),
Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.
The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

Have Rickshaw Will Travel

Waking up is getting dicey these days. I wake from one Obama Marxist induced nightmare to the next on this oddly unbumpy road to the "total transformation of America". Today I woke to a news report that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood "has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling".Link. Yup, as we always knew, they are coming after our cars next. Because what is more symbolic of American liberty than the automobile? That's right, nothing.

How am I going to get the groceries home from Costco on my bike you ask? They have an answer for that also in Totally Transformed America. It comes from the Granddaddy of societal transformation and planned sustainable living, the Soviet Union. It is called the CommieBloc™ apartment housing. It will be close to work and near public transportation. And because food will become so prohibitively expensive, you will never really be buying in bulk anyway. Soon you'll be paying $5 for about two ounces of jelly just like the Europeans. You Americans are all too fat anyway and, really, you never did spend enough of your discretionary income on food.

I can not help but think of all those great societies that bike and walk as a main mode of transportation. Mao's China, North Korea. Folks, this is typical 3rd world and 2nd world mobility. For those of you who haven't watched this youtube I urge you to.

This is Obama's vision for our future. A great Leap Forward to the 19th century.
-KMBR

March 24, 2010

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

obama-shreds-constitution We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these workers of the world unitethings, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

    Nasty Botoxi Night of Living Dead House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
     
  • bernie_sandersSen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  • claire_mccaskill-736450 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  • feinstein1 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  • landrieu Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  • ben_nelson Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”

 

And now for someone with credibility…James_Madison

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, , have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK

March 23, 2010

Slavery to be reinstituted in America

I am not mincing words here so if you are easily offended, oh well. Have you ever heard of the American Civil war? Try a little harder, remember the really tall President with the funny beard back before there were cars and computers and people worked in factories and on farms? That war resulted in a part of the Constitution aptly known as the 13th Amendment. That Amendment was one of the most sweeping legislative works in American history. The 13th Amendment ended legal slavery in the former Confederate States of America.
Let me present this scenario: Lets say that a prominent national politician I proudly announce that I am going to support repealing the 13th amendment and legalizing slavery again, but this time slavery would not be restricted to people of a certain skin color or nationality. Would the American people accept such actions? How would the media react?I bet many of you have never read the 13th Amendment or the 14th Amendment that strengthened the 13th. Since this is such a major part of American History check it out really quickly. This is the basic version so it wont be so time consuming.

Amendment XIII.**

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV.***

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

*Superseded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amend- ment.

** The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified December 6, 1865.

*** The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

25or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, fast forward to 2010. Have you noticed a conflict between these Constitutional Amendments and the stellar redesign of our Healthcare system by the scrotum that occupies the Oval office, the plastic toy robot that is Squeaker of the House and the 140 year old Senate dictator?

Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. But, now if I don't buy scrotum's health insurance, the IRS can fine and imprison me without even due process as the IRS does not answer to any branch of our government. So, my Constitutional right to decide for myself what kind or how much insurance I want or need has been usurped. So has yours. What happened to equal protection under the law? The nutsack in the Oval office will not be bound by this legislation. Neither will his village idiot mouthpiece press secretary or Freddy Krueger...I mean Nancy Pelosi (they look so much alike I get them confused). So now you and you and me too are not equal citizens of the USA anymore. We now have a "tiered" citizenship where laws no longer even on paper apply to everyone equally. This is a huge step towards slavery for all. You and I no longer have say so over what we do or even what we buy. Given the fact that they are stripping our citizenship away, how long do you think your right to vote will last? Think about it: those now in power know they will be slaughtered in the next election. That is, unless we don't have one! Do you think that in the 20,000 pages of legislation passed since TARP, language could have been slipped into each of these laws that when added together could turn this country into a dictatorship with an executive order from the communist nutsack? That is the method that the USSR used to destroy the U.N. from within. Adolph Hitler pulled a similar power grab in the Weimar Republic by first gradually stripping rights, then burning the government building (the Reichstag) then removing the Prime Minister and declaring himself dictator and ending elections, all in a 48 hour period. Now you are probably thinking this crazy, conspiracy theory insanity, but since I have been doing this blog, I cant count how many times I have been told that a point made was tinfoil hat material only to see it happen months later. So do you like your chains and shackles in black or grey?



Blog Widget by LinkWithin