I love my country but the Governments are killing us
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
Mad Puppy
What IS So Hard About Following The Constitution?
Some guy decided to respond to comments on this video with the headline "Newt Destroys Ron Paul's Foreign Policy". The guy is responding, basically, to the charge that libertarians are nothing more than anarchists and are kooks and some more of the usual bullshit. He writes back:
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the Fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a declaration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the Fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a declaration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
What IS So Hard About Followiing The Constitution?
... to comments on this video with the headline "Newt Destroys Ron Paul's Foreign Policy". The guy is responding, basically, to the charge that libertarians are nothing more than anarchists and are kooks and some more of the usual bullshit. He writes back:
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a decleration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
"Your statements are entirely wrong. And please learn the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. No, libertarians do not all believe in anarchy and no government at all. We believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, and the Rights of the States. Within certain limits, a state can actually do a lot of the conservative/liberal big gov’t projects that neocons and liberals like. They just can’t do it at the federal level. And likewise, I can choose to move to a different state that fits my philosophy of liberty, and you may do likewise. If a state wants to ban abortion or ban gay marriage or any other number of things the right (or left) love, then I’m all for it. I will argue with every breath to let that state do it. But I will vociferously argue equally that if the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t that power, then the fed has no business in it, and according to the 10th Amendment it is up to the states to decide themselves.
As for being pacificts or peace-niks or anti-military, that is also false. Again, libertarians recognize the need for a military for defense of our citizenry, as laid out clearly in the Constitution. We also recognize the need for war at times, usually due to an attack upon us, but ALWAYS with a decleration of war from Congress. Again, as laid forth in the rules for governing our country that we call the Constitution. We don’t believe in being the world’s policemen. That may be your idea of “providing for the defense” but it’s not mine. You realize that Congress hasn’t actually declared war since WW2? Yet there is no doubt we have sent our troops abroad to engage in combat. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq x2, and numerous other smaller engagements… not once has war been declared. Congress just “authorizes” the President to send troops… and we end up in open conflict for 10+ years. Does that sound constitutional?
What is so hard about following the Constitution as written?
The GOP and most Republicans give a lot of lip service to “small constitutional government”, but it’s a bunch of crap. You are no different from the Democrats when it comes to small government. You can cry about the left’s regulatory adventurism, but the right loves regulation just as much. The right and left just disagree on the CONTENT of the regulation, not the volume of it. And if that’s how you all feel, then be my guest… to each his own… but don’t tell me you are for small government in the same breath. The fact is, you aren’t… neither is Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum (especially Santorum), and Perry is probably somewhere in the middle."
Its only the founding document, after all...
15 Great Truths
These came to me in an email, thought I would share them:
GREAT TRUTHS
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
-- John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
6. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
7. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)
8. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
-- Will Rogers
9. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
-- P.J. O'Rourke
10. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-- Voltaire (1764)
11. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-- Mark Twain (1866)
12. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.
-- Anonymous
13. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-- Ronald Reagan
14. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
15. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson
FIVE BEST SENTENCES
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for...another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!
BONUS:
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
-- Ronald Reagan
GREAT TRUTHS
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
-- John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
6. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
7. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)
8. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
-- Will Rogers
9. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
-- P.J. O'Rourke
10. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-- Voltaire (1764)
11. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-- Mark Twain (1866)
12. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.
-- Anonymous
13. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-- Ronald Reagan
14. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
-- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
15. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson
FIVE BEST SENTENCES
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for...another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!
BONUS:
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
-- Ronald Reagan
Who Are The Real Free-Marketeers?
It doesn't appear to be any of the Republican candidates, at least as far as it goes on attacking Romney for being a part of Bain.
But,
for Republicans to be attacking a Republican for winning in the free
market and for turning companies around so they make a profit (without
public subsidy) is a sad sight.
Who are the real capitalists out there? The true free-market people? The true conservatives?
And, Newt, you've become a disappointment to me in the last 2 weeks. Instead of being Newt you now sound like your handlers want you to sound - which sucks.
Just one of many articles...
UPDATE:
More here and here
And, Newt, you've become a disappointment to me in the last 2 weeks. Instead of being Newt you now sound like your handlers want you to sound - which sucks.
Just one of many articles...
UPDATE:
More here and here
The Ultimate Consumer Protection by Ron Paul
From Ron Paul's latest Straight Talk:
This week, partisan games in Washington reached a fevered pitch as Congress acted to prevent recess appointments, yet the administration made them anyway. Congress has been gaveling into session for less a minute every three days for the express purpose of technically staying in session. The 40 second "pro forma" sessions may strike supporters of the President as obstructionist, but Congress was using its clear constitutional authority and playing by the rules. Frustrated, the President simply disregarded the Constitution, and appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Board, and Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board anyway.
Playing fast and loose with the Constitution only gets worse with every administration. Because of the dangerous precedents being set, both parties would be wise to defend constitutional bounds, no matter who crosses the line. Defending a constitutional overstep always comes back to haunt them once power changes hands.
The Obama administration expressed extreme frustration with the Senate's refusal to confirm its nominees. The truth is, for better or worse, these are the cards the voters have dealt Washington. The Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, not only allows for gridlock, it practically guarantees some degree of it. The Founders knew that gridlock can be a very good thing. If nothing can be agreed upon in Washington, harm to the country is limited. Considering the Obama administration's ideas of what caused our problems, and how to solve them, the wisdom of the founders certainly shines through today.
According to the administration, the new Consumer Financial Protection Board is an absolute necessity. Another bureaucracy, with more rules and red tape and paperwork and procedures is supposed to protect the people from bad actors in the marketplace. On the contrary, the answer was staring us in the face in late 2008 when these bad banks and corporations threatened to go belly-up. The laws of economics were working to remove corrupt companies from the market forever, to never abuse or defraud another customer or depositor or shareholder again. Bankruptcy is the ultimate consumer protection, and what did Washington do? It protected the banks instead, and created more bureaucrats.
This is exactly why constitutionally-inflicted gridlock should be respected. But instead it is clearer than ever that we are now a nation ruled by men, not laws. This nation needs to respect the Constitution again. No exceptions. The oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is still in effect when checks and balances get in the way of a political agenda. If not, it has no meaning at all.
This week, partisan games in Washington reached a fevered pitch as Congress acted to prevent recess appointments, yet the administration made them anyway. Congress has been gaveling into session for less a minute every three days for the express purpose of technically staying in session. The 40 second "pro forma" sessions may strike supporters of the President as obstructionist, but Congress was using its clear constitutional authority and playing by the rules. Frustrated, the President simply disregarded the Constitution, and appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Board, and Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board anyway.
Playing fast and loose with the Constitution only gets worse with every administration. Because of the dangerous precedents being set, both parties would be wise to defend constitutional bounds, no matter who crosses the line. Defending a constitutional overstep always comes back to haunt them once power changes hands.
The Obama administration expressed extreme frustration with the Senate's refusal to confirm its nominees. The truth is, for better or worse, these are the cards the voters have dealt Washington. The Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, not only allows for gridlock, it practically guarantees some degree of it. The Founders knew that gridlock can be a very good thing. If nothing can be agreed upon in Washington, harm to the country is limited. Considering the Obama administration's ideas of what caused our problems, and how to solve them, the wisdom of the founders certainly shines through today.
According to the administration, the new Consumer Financial Protection Board is an absolute necessity. Another bureaucracy, with more rules and red tape and paperwork and procedures is supposed to protect the people from bad actors in the marketplace. On the contrary, the answer was staring us in the face in late 2008 when these bad banks and corporations threatened to go belly-up. The laws of economics were working to remove corrupt companies from the market forever, to never abuse or defraud another customer or depositor or shareholder again. Bankruptcy is the ultimate consumer protection, and what did Washington do? It protected the banks instead, and created more bureaucrats.
This is exactly why constitutionally-inflicted gridlock should be respected. But instead it is clearer than ever that we are now a nation ruled by men, not laws. This nation needs to respect the Constitution again. No exceptions. The oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is still in effect when checks and balances get in the way of a political agenda. If not, it has no meaning at all.
Ya Think?
Obama sucks as president - period; I don't have the time nor inclination to run through all the reasons again. Meanwhile, the Republican elites want the moderate Romney because in spite of all their rhetoric they don't really want to cut the government because THEY want to run it with all its perks, and the conservatives want to dictate who you can do what with, too.
THAT'S why someone like Ron Paul makes headway with a lot of people, because he is neither. But its all over when a guy that talks individual freedom, less Big Brother-ism, personal liberty, an end to never-ending war, and government financial responsibility is ridiculed by both major parties and a good portion of the citizenry.
Then this article appears:
Jake Tapper: Romney ‘probably’ the elitist left-wing media favorite
Here's the article
Ron Paul DOES have a few quirks... but he's not all the (negative adjectives) that the other crooks-in-waiting are
THAT'S why someone like Ron Paul makes headway with a lot of people, because he is neither. But its all over when a guy that talks individual freedom, less Big Brother-ism, personal liberty, an end to never-ending war, and government financial responsibility is ridiculed by both major parties and a good portion of the citizenry.
Then this article appears:
Jake Tapper: Romney ‘probably’ the elitist left-wing media favorite
Here's the article
Ron Paul DOES have a few quirks... but he's not all the (negative adjectives) that the other crooks-in-waiting are
Come On, Libertarians...
My (sometimes) brethren of the Libertarian persuasion can be just as stupid as conservatives and liberals, especially when it comes to the military. Some of the guys at Lew Rockwell's blog are just idiots, especially considering how smart, intelligent, and thoughtful they think they are.
One guy, doesn't matter what the story is, is totally anti-military personnel, every time, all the time. Calling them terrorists. Hey, Vance, hey Kramer, the soldiers follow orders from their superiors who follow them from the politicians. You guys seem to think that everyone who is in uniform is there to kill as many people as they can, commit atrocities whenever they want, blow people up including innocent bystanders at every opportunity, and are just plain evil. That's just fucking stupid.
Are there a few bad apples? Yes, just like there are a few bad apple bloggers, philosophers, and writers or whatever you guys profess to be. But for the most part, soldiers are there to protect and defend. They are told what to do and where to go do it by civilians - politicians... perhaps you military/history geniuses can come up with the last time the MILITARY started a war all by themselves, but I can't. ALL wars, that I am aware of, started with politicians, of almost every stripe, going after something that they shouldn't have.
You want to bemoan war and killing - that's great. But at least get the blame squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for starting the damn war in the first place. It ain't the soldiers.
One guy, doesn't matter what the story is, is totally anti-military personnel, every time, all the time. Calling them terrorists. Hey, Vance, hey Kramer, the soldiers follow orders from their superiors who follow them from the politicians. You guys seem to think that everyone who is in uniform is there to kill as many people as they can, commit atrocities whenever they want, blow people up including innocent bystanders at every opportunity, and are just plain evil. That's just fucking stupid.
Are there a few bad apples? Yes, just like there are a few bad apple bloggers, philosophers, and writers or whatever you guys profess to be. But for the most part, soldiers are there to protect and defend. They are told what to do and where to go do it by civilians - politicians... perhaps you military/history geniuses can come up with the last time the MILITARY started a war all by themselves, but I can't. ALL wars, that I am aware of, started with politicians, of almost every stripe, going after something that they shouldn't have.
You want to bemoan war and killing - that's great. But at least get the blame squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for starting the damn war in the first place. It ain't the soldiers.
December 7th
Like virtually every other kid in the public - and private, I'm sure - schools, I was taught how the evil Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and killed a whole lot of American soldiers and citizens. They did. However, seldom has any history leading up to the attacks been taught. Pat Buchanan writes an interesting article dealing with that very history, and you can read it here.
Super patriots are still convinced it was all Japan's fault. Many libertarians, though, want to blame the U.S. totally for putting Japan in the fix they were in and saying Roosevelt was praying for a way to get us in the war. I think that FDR did want us in, and that is the main point behind Buchanan's article, which is based on a book of Herbert Hoover's notes.
But like most things, there is more than one side to the story, usually many. After all, Japan was already on a mission to score more land and resources. FDR certainly gave them an extra push, a reason to lash back at us for freezing assets and other actions and backing them into a corner.
In any event, a lot of good men and women died that day. And regardless of whoever at the upper levels of both governments screwed up - or deliberately pushed - us into that war, those dead need to be remembered with honor. Their government, like so many other times, put its citizens in harms way, whether with good intentions or bad. They still were there to defend their country and risk there lives - and sometimes pay the ultimate price - and that is a debt we can never forget nor ignore.
