http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzI3OGZlMjlkMGMwY2I5Yzg4YjdkYTNlNTFiZmIxNmU#more
Great – now we are not only subsidizing irresponsible people who cannot pay their mortgages, but talking about subsidizing entire states that spend recklessly!
Oh well, all long as I can still get "mine" at your expense, then everything is OK by me. THAT is the mood of the day.
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fascism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A Letter to a Senator II
I got this from a friend of mine. It is an email that he sent to Senator Cornyn (R-Tx), one of the two Republican Senators from Texas that sold us out on the TARP bailout. My friend is a laid back guy that does not generally bestir himself to become entangled in the messy politics of the day because, like many of us that are not drinking the Kool-Aid, he is too busy working as an Architect.
The very fact that he has taken the time to pen this invective to his elected Senator is one of the reasons that I post his letter, for I believe there are millions like him (a.k.a. - Ayn Rand's "Creators") and that it is they that will make the difference in the next election cycle.
Indeed, if the Republicans do not wake up and smell the coffee, then they may wake up and find that the Democrats have taken even more seats because of the Republicans that figure that if they have a choice of 2 Democrats running, then it would be best to choose the Real Democrat as opposed to the other Democrat - i.e., that is running on the Republican ticket.
(Editors Note: I have taken the liberty to edit for context.)
_____________________
Senator Cornyn ,
The following is the opening paragraph of your May 1, 2009 Update newsletter.
"This week marked President Obama’s 100th day in office, and his agenda has been nothing so far if not ambitious. However, I have serious concerns about the long term impact it will have on our nation. Since being sworn in, President Obama and the Democrat majority have spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. They have managed to spend more in 100 days than we have spent on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief-- combined. And they’ve stuck generations of Americans with the tab."
Oh, Yeah Right. Last October, I sent you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Representative Lamar Smith an email asking . . . NO - demanding - that you vote NO on the first TARP Bill. And yet, each of you voted FOR.
After my letter, I heard nothing from your office. (Hutchinson's office sent an acknowledgement email, and Smith's office sent some nonsense regarding "turning the stampede".)
So, based on your showing of your colors as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when November came around, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in each race. I don't vote for people that refuse to listen to their constituency. I am not so naive to think that my opinion would sway any one vote, but, since the last election I have talked to many others who felt the same sentiment that the TARP was something that needed to be deep-sixed and were appalled at the Republican sell-out and accordingly stayed home .. or voted against you and the others. One friend of mine, Republican for all his life, actually voted for your Democratic challenger.
Now back to your disgusting and self -serving "update email newsletter". Since the water is now under the bridge, you now have a different take on the situation and you are nothing but the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, and more important, you have saddled my grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the enormous burden of paying back your excesses not only in money but in having to suffer under the tightening yoke of government control and intrusion over/ into our lives.
All of us are now in chains because of the liberal, phony propaganda machine, and "conservative" Senators like you, and Representatives like Lamar Smith, being unable and unwilling to take a stand for the beliefs of their constituency and unwilling to take a stand for private property (a.k.a. my money that is confiscated via taxation to pay for the statism that is infecting the country.)
Those of us in the private sector know what it takes to balance budgets. We don't have the luxury of printing money - which, by the way, is no answer either. My hope was that our elected officials would understand how business works, but apparently they don't.
Please know that I will work to oust any politicians that cannot or will not reflect my conservative thinking.
We were promised change . . . we got it . . and you, and the Republican Party helped bring it about!
Sincerely,
Name withheld by request
The very fact that he has taken the time to pen this invective to his elected Senator is one of the reasons that I post his letter, for I believe there are millions like him (a.k.a. - Ayn Rand's "Creators") and that it is they that will make the difference in the next election cycle.
Indeed, if the Republicans do not wake up and smell the coffee, then they may wake up and find that the Democrats have taken even more seats because of the Republicans that figure that if they have a choice of 2 Democrats running, then it would be best to choose the Real Democrat as opposed to the other Democrat - i.e., that is running on the Republican ticket.
(Editors Note: I have taken the liberty to edit for context.)
_____________________
Senator Cornyn ,
The following is the opening paragraph of your May 1, 2009 Update newsletter.
"This week marked President Obama’s 100th day in office, and his agenda has been nothing so far if not ambitious. However, I have serious concerns about the long term impact it will have on our nation. Since being sworn in, President Obama and the Democrat majority have spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. They have managed to spend more in 100 days than we have spent on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief-- combined. And they’ve stuck generations of Americans with the tab."
Oh, Yeah Right. Last October, I sent you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Representative Lamar Smith an email asking . . . NO - demanding - that you vote NO on the first TARP Bill. And yet, each of you voted FOR.
After my letter, I heard nothing from your office. (Hutchinson's office sent an acknowledgement email, and Smith's office sent some nonsense regarding "turning the stampede".)
So, based on your showing of your colors as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when November came around, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in each race. I don't vote for people that refuse to listen to their constituency. I am not so naive to think that my opinion would sway any one vote, but, since the last election I have talked to many others who felt the same sentiment that the TARP was something that needed to be deep-sixed and were appalled at the Republican sell-out and accordingly stayed home .. or voted against you and the others. One friend of mine, Republican for all his life, actually voted for your Democratic challenger.
Now back to your disgusting and self -serving "update email newsletter". Since the water is now under the bridge, you now have a different take on the situation and you are nothing but the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, and more important, you have saddled my grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the enormous burden of paying back your excesses not only in money but in having to suffer under the tightening yoke of government control and intrusion over/ into our lives.
All of us are now in chains because of the liberal, phony propaganda machine, and "conservative" Senators like you, and Representatives like Lamar Smith, being unable and unwilling to take a stand for the beliefs of their constituency and unwilling to take a stand for private property (a.k.a. my money that is confiscated via taxation to pay for the statism that is infecting the country.)
Those of us in the private sector know what it takes to balance budgets. We don't have the luxury of printing money - which, by the way, is no answer either. My hope was that our elected officials would understand how business works, but apparently they don't.
Please know that I will work to oust any politicians that cannot or will not reflect my conservative thinking.
We were promised change . . . we got it . . and you, and the Republican Party helped bring it about!
Sincerely,
Name withheld by request
Childcare, Congress & Camels
Let not thy camel's nose be seen under the edge of your tent, for soon thy beast will be inside, yea shall have no place to sleep, thy stores [food] shall be gone, and yea shall starve.
~ Jazeeb's admonition to his sons concerning the harm that befalls when one allows incursion of another onto one's property
I was watching the news the other day and saw a story about the Congresswomen that are getting pregnant and having kids while serving. After a bit of story setup from the talking head, a few snippets were played from one of the Representatives who was shown taking her kids to day care before going into session. The Rep. said that since she is a working mother and a legislator she can connect with the problems that working women face trying to juggle kids and work, and that she can use that knowledge when working in Congress on laws dealing with things like child care.
Madam, it is not in your purview to legislate child care, and indeed it is one of the problems nowadays that the Federal Government insists on insinuating itself into every facet of citizen's lives. Does the "Federal" not understand that the Constitution is an enumerated powers document and that all other powers are left elsewhere - in the hands of people other than them (Congress). Where in the Constitution does it talk about Child Care?
So, here it is then, that we have a Federal government that not only has the given power to declare war, but also a Government that has taken unto itself the power to declare how child care is to be managed in the American workplace, or declare the maximum number of gallons that a toilet can use per flush!
Am I the only one that sees such things as Federal intrusion in this seemingly benign area of child care as but one nose of the camel that is constantly being thrust under the edge of the tent of the people?
Here are the nose's of some of the other Federal Camel's brothers:
Health Care
Education
Welfare
Social Security
Retirement
Environment
Air Quality
Global Warming
Water Quality
Minimum Wage
Economic Stimulus/Planning
There are many others, but these are some of the first to come to mind. And note well that there are those that are reading this post that will take issue with one or more of these, but then again, there are those that have been brought up on the steady pap of a government that seeks always to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other entities of society that by the very Constitution retained the usurped powers.
Not to put too fine a point on things, it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to be the law giver with respect to, for example, "the environment". But "nay", you will say, (and mostly so because you think the environment needs to be saved), "then who is it that shall do this", as if the desirability of having a Federal Agency implement your desires, trumps the words of the Constitution that do not enumerate such an agency or enumerate such power, but which does set froth mechanisms for the other partners in the whole ( the people or the States) to do such things as saving that which you desire to be "saved'.
Yes, my friend, this is exactly what I am saying - that with respect to non-enumerated powers, it is the STATE (or the people) that has the power and not the Federal Government, and no amount of desire can change what the Federal is allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.
Now, those tending toward the argumentative, would have you swallow the bait that as a practical matter, such things (as saving "the environment") should be done in a consolidated and coordinated fashion, and thus the desirability or practicality of such a consolidation arrangement means that the Federal Government should do it, and that this "should' means that the Federal government "can" take on this role.
Make no mistake, however, because that a thing may be more desirable does not act to create an authority for doing that thing itself considered desirable, for if the touchstone was desire, then the bank robber should be able to freely enter the bank and take the property of another, since that act of robbery would be deemed by him to be desirable and thus allowed.
Ah, but you say, "... the bank robber is prohibited by society's law (backed up by society's police power) from robbing the bank." This then brings me to the exact point, that:
a) the Founders, acting as agents for the States that sent them to the Convention,
b) the States themselves as they ratified the document, and,
c) "the people" themselves
all recognized the temptation and tendency of a too-powerful Federal government ( or those in control of it) to try and rob the people and erect a tyranny, and they therefore put in place - in the very instrument that constituted the framework for the Federal authority - the enumerated powers shackles to prohibit such acts of robbery. In other words, society's way of protecting itself from an ever expanding government that intruded itself into every aspect of the lives of the people and ate out their sustenance, was to was to constitute a Federal government that was shackled and could only do those things that were enumerated in the Constitution.
Returning now to babies and Congresswomen, that shackling means that the Federal has no authority to legislate Child Care matters, and their meddling in these areas represents the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent belonging to the people.
~ Jazeeb's admonition to his sons concerning the harm that befalls when one allows incursion of another onto one's property
I was watching the news the other day and saw a story about the Congresswomen that are getting pregnant and having kids while serving. After a bit of story setup from the talking head, a few snippets were played from one of the Representatives who was shown taking her kids to day care before going into session. The Rep. said that since she is a working mother and a legislator she can connect with the problems that working women face trying to juggle kids and work, and that she can use that knowledge when working in Congress on laws dealing with things like child care.
Madam, it is not in your purview to legislate child care, and indeed it is one of the problems nowadays that the Federal Government insists on insinuating itself into every facet of citizen's lives. Does the "Federal" not understand that the Constitution is an enumerated powers document and that all other powers are left elsewhere - in the hands of people other than them (Congress). Where in the Constitution does it talk about Child Care?
So, here it is then, that we have a Federal government that not only has the given power to declare war, but also a Government that has taken unto itself the power to declare how child care is to be managed in the American workplace, or declare the maximum number of gallons that a toilet can use per flush!
Am I the only one that sees such things as Federal intrusion in this seemingly benign area of child care as but one nose of the camel that is constantly being thrust under the edge of the tent of the people?
Here are the nose's of some of the other Federal Camel's brothers:
Health Care
Education
Welfare
Social Security
Retirement
Environment
Air Quality
Global Warming
Water Quality
Minimum Wage
Economic Stimulus/Planning
There are many others, but these are some of the first to come to mind. And note well that there are those that are reading this post that will take issue with one or more of these, but then again, there are those that have been brought up on the steady pap of a government that seeks always to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other entities of society that by the very Constitution retained the usurped powers.
Not to put too fine a point on things, it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to be the law giver with respect to, for example, "the environment". But "nay", you will say, (and mostly so because you think the environment needs to be saved), "then who is it that shall do this", as if the desirability of having a Federal Agency implement your desires, trumps the words of the Constitution that do not enumerate such an agency or enumerate such power, but which does set froth mechanisms for the other partners in the whole ( the people or the States) to do such things as saving that which you desire to be "saved'.
Yes, my friend, this is exactly what I am saying - that with respect to non-enumerated powers, it is the STATE (or the people) that has the power and not the Federal Government, and no amount of desire can change what the Federal is allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.
Now, those tending toward the argumentative, would have you swallow the bait that as a practical matter, such things (as saving "the environment") should be done in a consolidated and coordinated fashion, and thus the desirability or practicality of such a consolidation arrangement means that the Federal Government should do it, and that this "should' means that the Federal government "can" take on this role.
Make no mistake, however, because that a thing may be more desirable does not act to create an authority for doing that thing itself considered desirable, for if the touchstone was desire, then the bank robber should be able to freely enter the bank and take the property of another, since that act of robbery would be deemed by him to be desirable and thus allowed.
Ah, but you say, "... the bank robber is prohibited by society's law (backed up by society's police power) from robbing the bank." This then brings me to the exact point, that:
a) the Founders, acting as agents for the States that sent them to the Convention,
b) the States themselves as they ratified the document, and,
c) "the people" themselves
all recognized the temptation and tendency of a too-powerful Federal government ( or those in control of it) to try and rob the people and erect a tyranny, and they therefore put in place - in the very instrument that constituted the framework for the Federal authority - the enumerated powers shackles to prohibit such acts of robbery. In other words, society's way of protecting itself from an ever expanding government that intruded itself into every aspect of the lives of the people and ate out their sustenance, was to was to constitute a Federal government that was shackled and could only do those things that were enumerated in the Constitution.
Returning now to babies and Congresswomen, that shackling means that the Federal has no authority to legislate Child Care matters, and their meddling in these areas represents the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent belonging to the people.
Monday, April 20, 2009
And You Thought They Were Any DIFFERENT???
~ from Congressman Lamar Smith's website (Dist 21 Texas)
04/15/2009
Smith Congratulates TEA Party Organizers and Participants
Congressman Lamar Smith today, on Tax Day, sent the following letter of support to TEA Party organizers and participants throughout TX-21, which will be read at several TEA Parties in the district.
"Americans in Texas and across the country today are exercising their Constitutional rights to protest the massive expansion in the size and scope of government currently underway. ......"
Publius' Commentary
More Blah Blah Blah and blowing of smoke from elected politicans .......
In the 2010 election, remember, this is the guy voted FOR the $700 thousand million TARP bailout.
That vote was over the objections of constituents, who got, in response to their impassioned pleas, not only his YES vote to sell them down the river, but also got a letter of reply talking drivel about "stampedes" and " .... getting in front of the herd".
Folks, stuff like this political blah blah letter to the tea party people, is EXACTLY why, at many tea parties, political incumbents were not allowed to speak. It was a time for THEM to listen to US as opposed to us having to listen to them.
04/15/2009
Smith Congratulates TEA Party Organizers and Participants
Congressman Lamar Smith today, on Tax Day, sent the following letter of support to TEA Party organizers and participants throughout TX-21, which will be read at several TEA Parties in the district.
"Americans in Texas and across the country today are exercising their Constitutional rights to protest the massive expansion in the size and scope of government currently underway. ......"
Publius' Commentary
More Blah Blah Blah and blowing of smoke from elected politicans .......
In the 2010 election, remember, this is the guy voted FOR the $700 thousand million TARP bailout.
That vote was over the objections of constituents, who got, in response to their impassioned pleas, not only his YES vote to sell them down the river, but also got a letter of reply talking drivel about "stampedes" and " .... getting in front of the herd".
Folks, stuff like this political blah blah letter to the tea party people, is EXACTLY why, at many tea parties, political incumbents were not allowed to speak. It was a time for THEM to listen to US as opposed to us having to listen to them.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A Letter to a Senator
October 1, 2008
Senator Cornyn,
Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No
I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.
I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.
So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.
It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.
It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.
Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.
____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.
And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.
Senator Cornyn,
Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No
I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.
I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.
So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.
It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.
It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.
It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.
Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.
____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.
And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The United Nations
Every time there is some kind of happening (aka crisis) in some remote part of the world, I hear the talking heads intoning about the United Nations, or the Word Court, or the IMF etc.
For those of us old enough to remember ... "Danger, Will Robinson .....Danger".
Our WORST nightmare (and it is coming) is that the UN will get its own "Standing Army". Now, it will not be called this, it will be called something like "coalition forces" or "peacekeeping", etc.
Initially the enforcers will come from the various member Nations and they will all wear their own country's uniform. Next, it will progress to them all wearing something distinctive and unifying - such as a blue helmet. At first, the command and control will be under a commander associated with one of the nation-state partners.
Thereafter, the idea will be floated that it would be more efficient if there was a unified world peace police, under the aegis of the UN - that the UN needs its own independent military.
This will all come to pass, and just as the States ceded their sovereignty and their ability to raise their own Armies, so too will the United States cede its ability. In the end, so as the States are now in relation to the United States, the United States will be in relation to the United Nations.
This has all happened before, in 1786 when the States were usurped at the 2d American Revolution, and in 1789 when the push was made and implemented for a standing army drawing its officer Corps from the individual States into a Federal body where their allegiance would be broken to the (their) State ..... and be transplanted to THE STATE.
For those of us old enough to remember ... "Danger, Will Robinson .....Danger".
Our WORST nightmare (and it is coming) is that the UN will get its own "Standing Army". Now, it will not be called this, it will be called something like "coalition forces" or "peacekeeping", etc.
Initially the enforcers will come from the various member Nations and they will all wear their own country's uniform. Next, it will progress to them all wearing something distinctive and unifying - such as a blue helmet. At first, the command and control will be under a commander associated with one of the nation-state partners.
Thereafter, the idea will be floated that it would be more efficient if there was a unified world peace police, under the aegis of the UN - that the UN needs its own independent military.
This will all come to pass, and just as the States ceded their sovereignty and their ability to raise their own Armies, so too will the United States cede its ability. In the end, so as the States are now in relation to the United States, the United States will be in relation to the United Nations.
This has all happened before, in 1786 when the States were usurped at the 2d American Revolution, and in 1789 when the push was made and implemented for a standing army drawing its officer Corps from the individual States into a Federal body where their allegiance would be broken to the (their) State ..... and be transplanted to THE STATE.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Producers, Not Looters
I wear one of those screen printed tee-shirts that has some nice logo-looking artwork on it. Around the logo art is the tag line "Rearden Steel - Producers, Not Looters" and from time to time as I am out and about, I am asked if Rearden Steel is the company that I work for.Now, those that know me know that I do not work for Rearden Steel - and those that really know me know that indeed in a way I do.
I especially like getting this question from the young people who are clueless about the past and therefore about the present, and , if I am lucky, and one of these seems a likely candidate for rehabilitation, I proceed to ask them they have ever heard of Hank Rearden. If they say that they have not, then I tell them:
"Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money he earned belonged to him, and not to you".
When their eyes go big, and if I sense a glimmer of intelligence, I bring it home to them by asking, direct to their face, as they are standing there handing me my triple grande venti vanilla mocha Frappuccino sissy-boy drink:
"You have a job, right?"
"You work hard at your job and earn money, right?"
"You do not think that the money you earn belongs to me, right?"
Seeing in their eyes the beginnings of understanding, I then close the deal by telling them:
"Ah, I can see that you are getting it. OK - Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money that YOU earn belongs to YOU, not him, or anybody else, and especially not to the government so that they could go out after confiscating it from you to give to some lazy bum on the street that did not want to work to earn it."
With that, they give me my drink. Another one saved!
~ PS - Blame this one on my friend Rick - he made me do it.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Obamanomics 2
2/13/09
From a news story ~
House approves stimulus plan; Senate vote next
"....... No House Republicans backed the stimulus measure,
arguing it had too much spending and not enough tax breaks. ......".
Note here, denizens of the demes, that the Republicans did not argue that it was a stupid idea in the first place to rob one neighbor to pay another. Nor did they argue that as a philosophical proposition, the entire thing should have been killed. No - They want their own version of Statism. Make no mistake, the State is the State, and it is coming for you and your pocket book - whether you are rich, or poor, or in the middle.
Do not be fooled. The Republicans stand for Corporatism (welfare for business) and the Democrats stand for Re-Distribution of earned wealth to the people that did not create the wealth or earn it.
And please, do not post any comments about how that $8/hr guy is the one that created the wealth. The only reason he has that job is because finance capital wanted to exploit itself and exploit him.
exploit - ex [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object)
To put to productive use
This, my fellow Athenians, is the meaning of the word, regardless of what the Sophists would have you believe.
So then, when you see a bunch of illegal aliens building the highway interchange, and you remark to your fellow passenger "Look at all those poor immigrants. It is THEY that are building America." Consider that NO, it is NOT they that are building America. It is finance capital that is building America, and were it not for being able to have a pool of money "just sitting around" always looking for a way to exploit itself, so that it could exploit workers, there would be no freaking job for those oh so poor and exploited illegal aliens to have in the first place.
So then, the correct way to think about what is building America is that it is MONEY that is building America.
Returning now to the Obamananigans, I have a sister in law that at a dinner party told everybody to " .... shut up because our side won." Refering to the Savior from on high.
Sounds good to me, and accordingly, because her house is nicer and bigger than mine, I will stand back as the government comes to take it after "those on her side" decide that she is one of those that has too much money.
You know, that is the problem with the Obamaites - anybody that has more money than they do, has too much and, you know, we just need to confiscate it so that we, the anointed, the followers, the true knowers of all that is good can "....... spread it around".
Makes me and about 65,000,000 others want to puke.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson April 6, 1816
From a news story ~
House approves stimulus plan; Senate vote next
"....... No House Republicans backed the stimulus measure,
arguing it had too much spending and not enough tax breaks. ......".
Note here, denizens of the demes, that the Republicans did not argue that it was a stupid idea in the first place to rob one neighbor to pay another. Nor did they argue that as a philosophical proposition, the entire thing should have been killed. No - They want their own version of Statism. Make no mistake, the State is the State, and it is coming for you and your pocket book - whether you are rich, or poor, or in the middle.
Do not be fooled. The Republicans stand for Corporatism (welfare for business) and the Democrats stand for Re-Distribution of earned wealth to the people that did not create the wealth or earn it.
And please, do not post any comments about how that $8/hr guy is the one that created the wealth. The only reason he has that job is because finance capital wanted to exploit itself and exploit him.
exploit - ex [ik-sploit]
–verb (used with object)
To put to productive use
This, my fellow Athenians, is the meaning of the word, regardless of what the Sophists would have you believe.
So then, when you see a bunch of illegal aliens building the highway interchange, and you remark to your fellow passenger "Look at all those poor immigrants. It is THEY that are building America." Consider that NO, it is NOT they that are building America. It is finance capital that is building America, and were it not for being able to have a pool of money "just sitting around" always looking for a way to exploit itself, so that it could exploit workers, there would be no freaking job for those oh so poor and exploited illegal aliens to have in the first place.
So then, the correct way to think about what is building America is that it is MONEY that is building America.
Returning now to the Obamananigans, I have a sister in law that at a dinner party told everybody to " .... shut up because our side won." Refering to the Savior from on high.
Sounds good to me, and accordingly, because her house is nicer and bigger than mine, I will stand back as the government comes to take it after "those on her side" decide that she is one of those that has too much money.
You know, that is the problem with the Obamaites - anybody that has more money than they do, has too much and, you know, we just need to confiscate it so that we, the anointed, the followers, the true knowers of all that is good can "....... spread it around".
Makes me and about 65,000,000 others want to puke.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson April 6, 1816
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Lincoln - Obama's Hero? Hummm....
February 10, 2009
San Antonio, TX
Post instigated by KH
Yesterday, I attended a professional society meeting where the topic was Politics for Engineers. In discussing his topic, and as a device to discuss some of the features of the Obama Administration, thed speaker asked the audience who Obama said his "hero" was.
Somebody said "Lincoln". The speaker then asked what Lincoln did, and, immediately seeing the connection between Lincoln, who himself was power hungry and a Constitutional usurper and sapper, and Obama who is more of the same, one soul at the back immediately remarked "Suspended Habeas Corpus". This was, of course, referring to the fact that Lincoln acted outside the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold, while at the same time, asserting that the States in Rebellion were the acting outside the Constitution, and therefore could be invaded and gutted by the Army of the North.
By way of reminder to us all - the operating manual for the United States is a delegated powers constitution. In the American system, it is (supposed to be) the people that have the power, and that to exercise that power, they articulated, through their proxies, a Constitution which confers only limited powers to the Government - all other powers being withheld .
This operating manual, in a move designed to limit the ability government's ability to tyrannize the citizens, partitioned the goivernment into 3 competing branches and delegated non-overlapping powers to those branches. For example, regarding revenue bills, ONLY the House has the power to propose a bill for spending money - all revenue bills MUST originate in the House. Another provision is that the power to suspend habeas corpus is a power reserved to Congress alone - it is a Legislative prerogative, not an Executive (Presidential) one. (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, dealing with powers conferred on the Congress' by the people.)
The speaker, on not hearing this comment concerning the illegal acts of Lincoln - acts that by the way were also judged to be illegal and without force by the Supreme Court - yet nevertheless were continued by Lincoln as the South was laid to waste, referred to his slide showing the various members of the Obama Cabinet and their party affiliation, and used it to draw a parallel between Lincoln and Obama in that they both had mixed Cabinets. (In Mexico a Cabinet is called a ....... "junta". )
This brought to my mind the fact that there was another president that had a mixed cabinet and that was Jefferson. It also brought to mind that Jefferson's cabinet was constantly going behind his back and working to undermine his Presidency. But that we can hope the same happens with this overweening President - a president that really thinks that it is the governments right and duty to "run the country, run the economy, run the economy", instead of it being the right of the people and that the government by design is supposed to stay out of such things. This guy reminds me of a Caesar or a Xerxes. This kind of thinking is called tyranny and it was tried in Russia.
As a parting shot to this entry, drafted I admit, on a short clock and therefore choppy, it is interesting to note that Lincoln, in his March 9 1832 Letter to the Sangamo Journal, exposes the "morality" that will guide his decisions decades later. He says:
Translation - The future president is here saying that he (and other officials) can do what they want "in cases of greatest necessity". Thus, all I have to do as a President is to declare a "public emergency" (a.k.a necessity) and then I can do what I want. For example, Mississippi Flood of 1927, The Depression, The Recession, the Stagnation, 9/11, Katrina, War of Terror", War on Drugs", War on the Economy", War on Poverty"
Yeah Right, sounds just like the English Kings - or Jack Bauer - or George Bush - or Obama. All doing things "for the good of the people". No thank you sir, I can do just fine without your meddling in affairs that are not in your constitutional purview.
THAT is why WE have a Constitution - to limit your power grab.
San Antonio, TX
Post instigated by KH
Yesterday, I attended a professional society meeting where the topic was Politics for Engineers. In discussing his topic, and as a device to discuss some of the features of the Obama Administration, thed speaker asked the audience who Obama said his "hero" was.
Somebody said "Lincoln". The speaker then asked what Lincoln did, and, immediately seeing the connection between Lincoln, who himself was power hungry and a Constitutional usurper and sapper, and Obama who is more of the same, one soul at the back immediately remarked "Suspended Habeas Corpus". This was, of course, referring to the fact that Lincoln acted outside the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold, while at the same time, asserting that the States in Rebellion were the acting outside the Constitution, and therefore could be invaded and gutted by the Army of the North.
By way of reminder to us all - the operating manual for the United States is a delegated powers constitution. In the American system, it is (supposed to be) the people that have the power, and that to exercise that power, they articulated, through their proxies, a Constitution which confers only limited powers to the Government - all other powers being withheld .
This operating manual, in a move designed to limit the ability government's ability to tyrannize the citizens, partitioned the goivernment into 3 competing branches and delegated non-overlapping powers to those branches. For example, regarding revenue bills, ONLY the House has the power to propose a bill for spending money - all revenue bills MUST originate in the House. Another provision is that the power to suspend habeas corpus is a power reserved to Congress alone - it is a Legislative prerogative, not an Executive (Presidential) one. (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, dealing with powers conferred on the Congress' by the people.)
The speaker, on not hearing this comment concerning the illegal acts of Lincoln - acts that by the way were also judged to be illegal and without force by the Supreme Court - yet nevertheless were continued by Lincoln as the South was laid to waste, referred to his slide showing the various members of the Obama Cabinet and their party affiliation, and used it to draw a parallel between Lincoln and Obama in that they both had mixed Cabinets. (In Mexico a Cabinet is called a ....... "junta". )
This brought to my mind the fact that there was another president that had a mixed cabinet and that was Jefferson. It also brought to mind that Jefferson's cabinet was constantly going behind his back and working to undermine his Presidency. But that we can hope the same happens with this overweening President - a president that really thinks that it is the governments right and duty to "run the country, run the economy, run the economy", instead of it being the right of the people and that the government by design is supposed to stay out of such things. This guy reminds me of a Caesar or a Xerxes. This kind of thinking is called tyranny and it was tried in Russia.
As a parting shot to this entry, drafted I admit, on a short clock and therefore choppy, it is interesting to note that Lincoln, in his March 9 1832 Letter to the Sangamo Journal, exposes the "morality" that will guide his decisions decades later. He says:
"In cases of extreme necessity there could always be means found to cheat the law, while in all other cases it would have its intended effect. I would not favor the passage of a law upon this subject, which might be very easily evaded. Let it be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it, could only be justified in cases of the greatest necessity." [Emphasis Added] ~ .........Lincoln, in his March 9 1832 Letter to the Sangamo Journal
Translation - The future president is here saying that he (and other officials) can do what they want "in cases of greatest necessity". Thus, all I have to do as a President is to declare a "public emergency" (a.k.a necessity) and then I can do what I want. For example, Mississippi Flood of 1927, The Depression, The Recession, the Stagnation, 9/11, Katrina, War of Terror", War on Drugs", War on the Economy", War on Poverty"
Yeah Right, sounds just like the English Kings - or Jack Bauer - or George Bush - or Obama. All doing things "for the good of the people". No thank you sir, I can do just fine without your meddling in affairs that are not in your constitutional purview.
THAT is why WE have a Constitution - to limit your power grab.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Obamanomics 1
dis·in·gen·u·ous 
–adjective - lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Example: His statements, amounting to nothing more than historical revisionism, were disingenuous.
_______________
Our Savior, Obama, the most merciful, the anointed on high, takes the cake. As we learned from Bill Clinton, we must watch very carefully the words that are used by politicians and parse them accordingly. Remember, Obama is a lawyer (as was Clinton) and when viewed through this lens, we see here how he is very careful to be true - but at the same time is false. This is political rhetoric at its best.
Here is the real story - The policies he is pounding on the Republicans for can only be the policies of Republicans to be spineless (as was Congressman Lamar Smith and Senator Cornyn on the bailout) to allow Congress under Barney Frank committees to coerce the banks to lend money to people that should not have been taking such Ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans in the first place. THAT (too much money floating around) is what fueled the "crisis".
Essentially, Congress thru Fannie and Freddie, told the banks that if they did not lend money to the appropriate politically correct "victims" groups, (a.k.a voter blocs), then their ability to merge with other firms and conduct their banking business activities would be impeded/interfered with.
This, my friends, is called using the government to force private enterprise to carry out government agendas - boxcars anyone? This is also called Fascism, which is when government combines with the industry and businesses to form an interlocking partnership. (Public/Private Partnerships anyone, NAFTA Super Highway anyone)
This consolidation of the private by the government has been underway for a long time, my fellow citizens, and it is not confined to Osama ( Oh, my bad, I meant Obama) although he is the most virulent representation of the tyranny of the state since FDR. Make no mistake- Bush engaged in expansion of the government and tightening of its yoke. Carter did too, as did Johnson, FDR, Wilson, etc.
Remember - It is not Left vs Right - it is the STATE vs. You!
–adjective - lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Example: His statements, amounting to nothing more than historical revisionism, were disingenuous.
_______________
Our Savior, Obama, the most merciful, the anointed on high, takes the cake. As we learned from Bill Clinton, we must watch very carefully the words that are used by politicians and parse them accordingly. Remember, Obama is a lawyer (as was Clinton) and when viewed through this lens, we see here how he is very careful to be true - but at the same time is false. This is political rhetoric at its best.
Here is the real story - The policies he is pounding on the Republicans for can only be the policies of Republicans to be spineless (as was Congressman Lamar Smith and Senator Cornyn on the bailout) to allow Congress under Barney Frank committees to coerce the banks to lend money to people that should not have been taking such Ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans in the first place. THAT (too much money floating around) is what fueled the "crisis".
Essentially, Congress thru Fannie and Freddie, told the banks that if they did not lend money to the appropriate politically correct "victims" groups, (a.k.a voter blocs), then their ability to merge with other firms and conduct their banking business activities would be impeded/interfered with.
This, my friends, is called using the government to force private enterprise to carry out government agendas - boxcars anyone? This is also called Fascism, which is when government combines with the industry and businesses to form an interlocking partnership. (Public/Private Partnerships anyone, NAFTA Super Highway anyone)
This consolidation of the private by the government has been underway for a long time, my fellow citizens, and it is not confined to Osama ( Oh, my bad, I meant Obama) although he is the most virulent representation of the tyranny of the state since FDR. Make no mistake- Bush engaged in expansion of the government and tightening of its yoke. Carter did too, as did Johnson, FDR, Wilson, etc.
Remember - It is not Left vs Right - it is the STATE vs. You!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)