Freedom of Choice
May 24, 2009 Political
I have been posting for a little while now, and I have come across many other opinions, some agreeing with me, and some not so much. Some have been truly vindictive (probably evidence of poor breeding), but this has not, nor will not deter me from presenting my viewpoint as I see it. This is a part of free speech, and also a part of our freedom of choice- we can choose to say something, or abstain from speaking. They are also free to go to another site if they wish. It’s all about the freedom here.
As the days of this “revered leaders” term winds on, the term “Freedom of Choice” will increasingly be under fire from all quarters of the liberal front, as these socialists seek to make us all into “good people”. This would mean, of course, people who blindly agree with their nutjob socialistic thinking.
But to do this, they have to subvert the little roadbump in the road called the Constitution, and they have found ways around this.
A good example is the First Amendment, which details freedom of speech. Well, they can’t get past that one, can they? Oh yes- by two different ways- first is a little innocent thing called “localism”, whereby a radio station could be forced to put on “local” opposing views to counter the talk radio. The trouble with that is, first, the opposing views would not have to pay for their time, so stations would lose money on these “views” (comments from the Commissar, perhaps?). The second problem is that IF these views were popular, they would already BE on the radio. The failure of liberal Air America radio proves there is no market for their drivel.
The second step in the battle over freedom of speech is what is known as “diversity of ownership”- where certain stations would be stripped from the rightful owners, and given, in the name of “diversity”, to others with the politically correct viewpoint. I’m not saying that Barama is Chavez, but he’s looking “Chavez-ish.”
The restrictions on the Second Amendment are, in part, thanks to the comedian Chris Rock who made the suggestion of pricing ammunition at $1,000 a bullet, and so there will be onerous taxes on the ammo- that’s not the only way around the Second Amendment, but mark my words, that is at least one of the ways they will go, because they need the money, their printer is about out of ink.
Green jobs will make us less prosperous, because as a study of the Green industry has shown in Spain, 2.2 jobs are lost for every 1 job created by green technology, and subsidies for companies put many utilities out of business, causing the others who survived to be monopolies and able to charge what they wished, and it was not cheaper for the consumer.
We will have less freedom in our job choices, because the government wants to determine just what THEY determine you are worth. Keep in mind, this is the same people who tout the 7.35 minimum wage as a step forward- Bulls**t! The minimum wage should have been tied to the yearly rise in inflation back in 1970, but nooooooooo. So now the government wants to look at other wages? Might they do as poor a job on these as they did with the minimum wage. One might think so.
Small businesses will not be able to grow as they might in a capitalistic society- many people forget that Bill Gates was a small businessman once. But under Barama, you get just so large, and you will be punished for your success, taxed to within an inch of your life.
Because of the hybrid technology, and the blind refusal to drill off of our coasts, our choices for transportation will be severely restricted to p**spoor electric and wimpy little tinfoil cars that can’t carry a driver, much less a real- life load for work. And of course less choice in auto maker, because only a fool or a Russian buys a government- made car, and I am neither.
There is already less choice on schools- Congress, in its infinite stupidity, cancelled school vouchers for Washington D.C. schools, so Barama’s children, I guess, wouldn’t have to mix with the riff- raff of common people. They will continue this pattern for the rest of the states, and that runs counter to the Tenth Amendment, pertaining to state’s rights, but they’ve done so many end arounds on the Constitution that they probably feel they can do it all.
And finally, there will be less choice in terms of social services and infrastructure, because of B’s onerous taxes, there will have to be less. All the people making or having enough money will find ways around taxation, even if it meant moving somewhere in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands. This puts the burden on the captive people,those who can’t move, and these people will be taxed to the max. Streets, which already look like those in Iraq, will go longer between repaving, but it will all work out, I am sure, because we will not have the money to drive anywhere, nor will we have a car that would be able to navigate the potholes in order to get to a sub-standard school.
We will, however, be able to sit in the car and listen to the local Commissar rant.
It will be SO much fun.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: choice, constitution, deception, freedom
Obama Does Not Understand The Constitution
Apr 28, 2009 Political
I have heard time and again that Barack Obama was a Constitutional law professor and this was supposed to mean that his word held some kind of weight on issues regarding the Constitution. I have written before that Obama is no scholar when it comes to that important document and he has discussed how the courts should have undone constraints the Founder’s placed on government. Obama is a believer in judicial activism and thinks the courts should decide in favor of undoing what the Constitution enumerates.
Barack Obama has nominated a pal from the University of Chicago Law School to be his “regulatory czar.” Cass Sunstein is an anti Constitution moron who wants to enact things that he admits violate the Constitution. Sunstein is interested in regulating the Internet because, to him:
“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.” World Net Daily
Perhaps this Chicago thug and absolute moron is unaware but America is all about limitless individual choices whether it is in communications or any other arena and that this is absolutely in the best interest of citizenship and self-government. To this schmuck, we should ignore freedom in order to regulate FREE SPEECH. I wonder if he feels that burning a Flag is OK or if that is not in the interest of citizenship…
This moron is also in favor of a system that would not allow emails to be sent for a 24 hour “cooling off period” in order to regulate the nasty emails that sometimes get sent. I agree that people often send emails when they are mad and regret it later but that is a decision with which they have to live. It is not up to government to regulate how we communicate in the name of civility.
He is also in favor or requiring posts on the Internet to have links to OPPOSING views. Call it the Internet Fairness Doctrine. He does not believe that you have the right to seek out only the opinions that you desire. In other words, you should be required to look for differing views. This guy is an idiot and has admitted as much when he stated that this view would “almost certainly [be] unconstitutional.”
This guy is an absolute disaster and as anti American as they come. He should not be confirmed to run anything and should be locked up in Gitmo for his anti American activities and beliefs. Here are a few other things this Communist, anti American believes:
- In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
- In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”
- In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
- In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”
This guy believes that all gun control legislation is in agreement with the Constitution and believes that the Second Amendment does not confirm an individual right to bear arms. He is absolutely WRONG on this. The guys who wrote the Constitution had a big discussion on this and they all said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one. That settles the issue. We do not need revisionists changing the Constitution. We need to stick to the Founder’s intent and we will have no problems. What kind of Constitutional scholar is unaware of this?
This guy also believes that hunting should be banned and that animals have the right to sue and have humans as their representatives. Is this man on some of Obama’s leftover stash? The guy is out of his ever loving mind and if he is confirmed we will have all kinds of unconstitutional things flying around.
Why should this guy surprise us? He is no different than Obama who believes the Constitution is too restrictive. Hell, Obama must agree with this brain dead parasite because Obama selected him and then praised him:
“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”
All one needs to do is read what this guy wrote and listen to what he beleives and it will be clear that he is not a Constitutional scholar, he is not distinguished, and that he is not uniquely qualified.
He is anti American and he is an idiot. His brain is rotted from too many drugs.
I don’t know if he will be confirmed or not but if he makes it in I intend to ignore anything he wants to regulate.
No dissenting links, no ban on hunting and no gun control for me.
And if he and Obama do not like it they can go back to law school and learn what the real Constitution says.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: chicago, constitution, Democrats, gun control, hunting, liberals, morons, Obama, regulatory czar, sunstein, thugs
You Are The Only Ones That Think Your Kids Are Cute
Apr 18, 2009 Political
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, long an ardent supporter of Illegal Immigration Enforcement, and advocate for the enforcement of existing laws regarding same, was booed off of the stage during a speech in South Carolina, by protesters who evidently feel that free speech applies only to those with whom they agree. Egged on by liberal professors, these wastes of space, who were evidently never taught manners by their parents, did not allow Mr. Tancredo to make his case about the inherent wrongness of allowing in- state tuition for illegal aliens, when in state students were being turned away.
Now, you might or might not agree with Mr. Tancredo’s speech, but freedom of speech implies that he will at least be allowed to make his case. You are free to agree or disagree, but you are not free to impede his freedoms, and for them to do so sends a strong signal that their parents utterly failed in teaching them anything regarding the Constitution, or common manners, for that matter.
I have, throughout my life had children, been exposed to children of others, and seen how some have been taught right and wrong, and others are more like feral children in their manners and attitude. Unfortunately, the parents of these snot- nosed brats are generally the proudest- one example I witnessed was when a friend’s wife had brought her little Damien (complete with his own little 666) over to show him off. ” Oh, look at him, trying to find himself, isn’t that just the cutest thing?”
At that time, the child in question was trying to drown a puppy in the water tank, and only ceased when I yanked him up by the nape of the neck, whereupon his momma became irate that I had laid hands on her little precious thing.
“Thing” was right- in the years to come, as this brat aged, both the father and mother coddled him, while his behavior grew worse, until they became afraid of him. Eventually, he was arrested for stealing cars, and sent to prison.
I can just imagine how the parents are on pins and needles waiting for him to be released. Before he went away, he had “issues”- and took it out on the sheetrock in their house. I was called on the first couple of times to fix the damage, but they quit asking me when I suggested some tough love. They did not want to hear of it.
And yet, they don’t want to hear how this is really their fault for not parenting as they should have.
These college kids are “acting out”, goaded by many of their professors, who think that acts of civil disobedience are the mark of the coming of age with students. That might be true if they had been taught civil discourse, but like the study of History,(which has been dropped as a requirement in Ivy League schools and minimized in many others), civil discourse and its sister component debate have been eliminated as a part of civilized behavior. And their parents gaze in adoration.
Remember, you have freedom of speech- so does the other side. You also have the freedom to not agree with what someone says.
What you do not have the right to do, is to stifle someone’s free speech. When that is allowed, it might be your free speech that is the next to be silenced. And still the parents gaze in adoration.
This is why the American Nazi Party and the KKK are allowed to parade- there is scant support for their extremist views, but in this country, they have that right. Still, university professors rarely teach this, instead, probably lost in a drug- addled flashback to the sixties, when it was the free love era, and they still had hair, they focus on acting up when there is a speaker or cause they do not agree with, instead of instructing their student on how to argue cogently and peacefully. After all, if you want to counter someone’s argument, you have to hear that argument, or you lose by simply opening your mouth and showing your ignorance. And still the parents gaze in adoration.
Winston Churchill once said, ” If you are twenty, and not a liberal,you have no heart. If you are forty and are not conservative, you have no brains.” This is, or should be, the difference between the children and the parents, in the most basic sense. The one is idealistic and believes that the world is theirs to change. The other knows that some things should not change.
One of the things that should never change is manners, and respect for others- a lack that many children show in their everyday behavior. A lack that their parents are responsible for- now they have raised monsters who cannot act in a civilized society.
And still these clueless parents gaze in idiotic adoration.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, illegal aliens, rude behavior, tancredo
State’s Rights v Obama Administration
Apr 16, 2009 Political
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”
This may end up being the single most important amendment in our lives at this moment, as His Anointedness attempts to do an end- around with respect to “offering” the states bailout money. If the Governors decline the money, the O’bama administration says that the respective Legislatures may override the Governors veto of the money.
If, however, the states do take the money, they will find the Federal government doing extensive oversight on these states, and intruding into state business in clear violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, but then this has been a trend for some time, and it needs to cease now.
States know better what their own citizens needs are than do the mokes in Washington, and perhaps there needs to be some failure and pain in this nation regarding the overspending of money, whether by an individual or a government.
After all, pain is a wonderful teacher- the lesson usually only needs to be experienced once to make an impression. There need to be consequences for actions taken, and a state that has been fiscally responsible should not have to take this money when so many unconstitutional strings are attached.
In Texas, two state lawmakers, Rep. Brandon Creighton, and state Sen. Robert Nichols introduced legislation in their respective chambers, asking the Federal Government to respect the rights of states, as defined by the Tenth Amendment. Will the Feds do so, or will they strong- arm the states, just so they can try to exert control? This is a dangerous game they play here.If the feds try this maneuver, many of these states will refuse, and that could lead to a confrontation over whose jurisdiction is pre eminent in this country.
The founders of this country put in the tenth amendment so some states, nervous that they would lose their autonomy in dealing with their people and the various needs with regard to ethnicity and religion, would sign on to the Constitution. Even as airlines and 24/7 news helps us grow together, we still find that it is not only the “buy locally” that makes sense here, but the “govern locally” also applies to the situations that come up in the day to day business that states do. I find it incredible that the Federal Government even wants to try to micro manage all the states this way. This is a plan that is a fast track to disaster for the feds, and it is an insult to all of our people in the states. The last thing we need is a mother- being coddled is not our nature.
We are Americans, we are independent, innovators, and explorers. We are inventors, and tinkerers- we find a way to make something out of what others thought was trash. This is what we are, and to stifle this by trying to coddle us from failure, when it is failure that toughens us. It makes us more determined to get it right, and get it right now. This is nothing more than an attempt to kill the American spirit. There are some in government who are jealous of the independence of the American spirit, and they seek to quash it, quell it, tame it for their own uses.
It will not succeed. It should not even be tried.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, law, Obama, tenth amendment, texas
What Did Democrats Say About The Constitution?
Jan 27, 2009 Political
For the last eight years Democrats have told us time and again that George Bush shredded the Constitution. They complained about the warrantless wiretaps of overseas calls that involved Americans and said it was a violation of Constitutional rights. I pointed out several court cases where the courts concluded it was an inherent right of the president and that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had done the same thing. That did not stop the liberals from screaming about the Constitution. The courts recently upheld the inherent right of the president.
[note]Bill Clinton illegally intercepted wireless phone calls to listen to his political enemies.[/note]
The funny thing about all this is that Democrats will ignore the Constitution. HR 45 is a gun control bill that infringes upon the rights of gun owners and those who want to own guns. The left routinely looks for ways to limit or remove guns from society and take them from law abiding citizens in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
It is the left who shouts “separation of church and state” when they want to remove some item of religion from the public (usually Christian items) but the Constitution contains no such words and specifically states that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Democrats like to find things in the Constitution even if they do not exist. Abortion and separation of church and state are not in that document.
Funny though, the Constitution does put Congress in charge of interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) but that is one that Barack Obama has taken away from them and given to the states (more specifically California). I like the way Democrats cried that George Bush usurped his authority and that he involved himself in legislative business and assumed too much power for the executive when Obama removed the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce which is clearly a legislative function.
Barack Obama will grant the waiver allowing California to set its own tailpipe emission standards. Other states will follow suit but California had requested the waiver. This act removes the regulation of interstate commerce (with regard to automobile emissions) from Congress and, at the present, gives it to California.
Putting aside the fact that the auto industry is in bad shape and will be further burdened by this, it still causes other problems. Automobiles are made in different states in the country. Automakers will not make different models because it would be more costly than making all cars so that they conform to California’s standard.
Barack Obama has given California the power to set fuel efficiency and tailpipe emission standards for the country. Whatever California sets, automakers will have to meet and that means the rest of us will have to live with what California sets. Suppose another state gets a waiver and sets a different standard?
This is going to cause a mess and it is because Obama took it upon himself to give a Congressional duty to a state. The uninformed say this is a state issue and belongs in the states but the Constitution is clear on whose responsibility it is to regulate interstate commerce and it is not the individual states. There is no doubt that since cars are made in various states and then shipped to others that this is a matter of interstate commerce.
It is interesting how Obama will give this up as a state right but things that are absiolutely state’s rights issues such as abortion are regulated at the federal level.
This whole situation will end up as one big mess and it will further drive our auto industry into the ground. We have the same issue with gasoline. There are dozens of different blends for different regions of the nation and making so many different kinds is one of the things that drives up the cost and causes problems when a refinery is off line. Allowing states to define the tailpipe emissions of vehicles will cause even more problems.
Democrats claimed that George Bush shredded the Constitution. It looks like the Democrats are not doing a very good job of following it themselves. And to think, Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer and professor.
Of course, the Constitution Obama follows and is an expert on has a different name…
Source:
My Way News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: california, constitution, emissions, Obama, tailpipe standards