If only posters had to demonstrate an understanding of the COTUS before posting...
I'm not a Paulista, but if Obama and Paul represent the two ends of the spectrum, I believe that America is much safer on the Paul end than the Obama end. Even if we are successful in restoring a Constitutional government in America, it will take years to undo the corruption created in little more than one brief year by Obama.
Any federal officer who fails to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS" as they must solemnly swear to do before being endowed with any federal authority, should be removed from office by impeachment without delay. That takes care of the president, VP, Congressional leadership (sic); at least 60 Senators; and probably 300 or more Congressmen; and at least 5 members of the SCOTUS.
The COTUS defines the limits of responsibilities and authorities of the entire federal government. There are only two kinds of people in America: those who love and honor the COTUS, and those who need to move elsewhere. The COTUS is not a living document. As crafted it defines a magnificently prescient political organization intimately mindful of immutable human nature: delegated authority will be corrupted, expanded and usurped unless vigilantly prevented from doing so.
The Bill o f Rights is a listing of inalienable rights endowed us by our Creator over which the Founders specifically and intentionally denied the federal government any authority. The president acknowledges that but doesn't accept it because it limits his omnipotence.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "The Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control religious expression: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can somehow control the keeping and bearing of arms: a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 2nd and the 14th Amendments.
Isn't it amazing that the phrase: "no person shall be denied Life, Liberty or property without due process of law" is somehow mongrelized to suggest that government can sanction the murder of unborn persons without due process of law; a travesty that requires repudiation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The list of inalienable rights that the federal government has usurped is almost endless, but as long as the Constitution exists, those travesties can, and must, be reversed.
For those living in America that don't accept that these are in fact mongrelizations, their only legal and moral option is to Amend the COTUS to permit such presently un-Constitutional acts. No rational person suggests that any such Amendments could ever be ratified in a free America. If not, then these deniers are destined for a miserable life here in the USA; and that makes no sense. That is why they need to move elsewhere.
The good news is that there are more than 200 countries in the world where folks can live unencumbered by the COTUS: but America isn't one of them. Another stroke of good fortune for them: most of those 200 provide all the cradle-to-grave government control they could ever hope for.
So, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she with silent lips.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,..."
...and we'll trade them for all the teat-sucking, liberty-fearing, elitist Liberal and Progressive freeloaders you can stand...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The COTUS is so simple!
The COTUS is such a simple document. Shorter than a college term paper it distills the recorded history of human nature to define a unique form of government designed to protect the individual rights granted to us by our Creator from the universal abuse of delegated authority.
Our Founders based the government model on a three-legged stool knowing that unless each of the three legs behaves appropriately, the stool cannot function. They so clearly understood that taxation is always used by government to subjugate citizens, without exception. For that reason they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, a critical safeguard undone by the 16th Amendment that must be restored if America is to be restored.
Our Founders understood that those with delegated authority would always attempt to usurp powers not granted so they intentionally delineated the totality of responsibilities and authorities being delegated to the federal government created by the COTUS.
Citizens weighed-in after reading the COTUS and refused to ratify it unless even more specific exclusions were included to prevent the abuse of government authority. The result was the Bill of Rights listing specific inalienable rights for which the federal government was specifically denied any authority. Surprisingly our current president understands that the Bill of Rights is a listing of negative rights that specify what the government can’t do; he just thinks its wrong. He apparently doesn’t understand that the 9th and 10th Amendments emphasize that there is nothing else that the government is authorized to do other than those specific authorities delineated in the COTUS.
Therefore no individual officer or branch of the federal government has any authority to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’. They are only authorized to do their specifically listed responsibilities; and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’.
The Tea Party Movement is a grass-roots initiative to restore the COTUS. Protesting excessive, unfunded spending is the first step. Un-doing the abuses committed against the COTUS over the past 150 years will follow.
To restore America, restore the COTUS.
Our Founders based the government model on a three-legged stool knowing that unless each of the three legs behaves appropriately, the stool cannot function. They so clearly understood that taxation is always used by government to subjugate citizens, without exception. For that reason they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, a critical safeguard undone by the 16th Amendment that must be restored if America is to be restored.
Our Founders understood that those with delegated authority would always attempt to usurp powers not granted so they intentionally delineated the totality of responsibilities and authorities being delegated to the federal government created by the COTUS.
Citizens weighed-in after reading the COTUS and refused to ratify it unless even more specific exclusions were included to prevent the abuse of government authority. The result was the Bill of Rights listing specific inalienable rights for which the federal government was specifically denied any authority. Surprisingly our current president understands that the Bill of Rights is a listing of negative rights that specify what the government can’t do; he just thinks its wrong. He apparently doesn’t understand that the 9th and 10th Amendments emphasize that there is nothing else that the government is authorized to do other than those specific authorities delineated in the COTUS.
Therefore no individual officer or branch of the federal government has any authority to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’. They are only authorized to do their specifically listed responsibilities; and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’.
The Tea Party Movement is a grass-roots initiative to restore the COTUS. Protesting excessive, unfunded spending is the first step. Un-doing the abuses committed against the COTUS over the past 150 years will follow.
To restore America, restore the COTUS.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
No more Liberal Justices
Geoffrey R. Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago contributed an Op-Ed to the NYT on 14 April extolling the alleged virtues of liberal Justices. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/opinion/14stone.html?hp
The Constitution makes no mention of liberal Justices or Conservative Justices; it requires only that the judiciary assure that the laws of the US are consistent with the Constitution.
The Constitution does not “…define our most fundamental rights and protections…”. It does identify some rights, endowed to each of us by our Creator, that are superior to any government of man. It identifies individual rights over which the federal government is specifically denied any authority.
There is nothing in the Constitution about ‘separation of church and state’: what it says is that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion”; Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech (no mention of people or corporations, but corporations have no ability to speak, only people do).
The 2nd Amendment denies the federal government any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If ‘regulation’ in anyway infringes, the federal government has no such authority. The 14th Amendment prohibits State or local governments from any such infringement on US Citizens.
Affirmative action, aside from being a failed policy, is a violation of equal protection under law; as are hate crime laws. These laws were not instituted to solve problems, but rather to assuage the need of elitist liberals to impose their will and self-imagined moral superiority on others. These laws are more discriminatory than the behaviors they allege to eliminate.
As to gay Scoutmasters, I find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to force gay Scoutmasters on anyone. I do know that homosexuality is specified in the Bible as “an abomination in the eyes of God”; and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept that as true. Therefore it would appear that any law that denied Believers the right to apply that belief to their lives is a violation of the 1st Amendment that denies the federal government any such authority.
Apparently you have a different set of framers than the rest of us. The actual framers were adamant that America would be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy because democracy is no more than mob rule: two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. The actual framers deemed that America would be governed by law, not popular opinion, or worse yet, elitist dictate.
As to judicial empathy, nothing could be further from the requirement to apply law equally to all litigants. If empathy were permitted in the courtroom, Boston public schools would still be segregated. To suggest that something other than the law should be considered in any threat to Life, Liberty, or Property is an anathema to our legal system. Justice Sotomayor, a self-avowed racist and sexist was in fact a poor choice as is so clearly demonstrated by reversal of the racial terms used in her famous “Wise Latina” comment so often voiced by her over many years.
Let us see how ‘medical privacy’, key to the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, fares under challenge to ObamaCare that makes medical records nearly universally accessible.
The Constitution is not some “living document” subject to wild interpretation by activist liberal judges. The intent of the framers is clear in their insistence that the responsibility of every federal officer is to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”. The COTUS was created to define the federal government based on a clear comprehension of human nature, and human nature, contrary to the fantasies of elitist liberals, never changes.
The Constitution makes no mention of liberal Justices or Conservative Justices; it requires only that the judiciary assure that the laws of the US are consistent with the Constitution.
The Constitution does not “…define our most fundamental rights and protections…”. It does identify some rights, endowed to each of us by our Creator, that are superior to any government of man. It identifies individual rights over which the federal government is specifically denied any authority.
There is nothing in the Constitution about ‘separation of church and state’: what it says is that “Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion”; Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech (no mention of people or corporations, but corporations have no ability to speak, only people do).
The 2nd Amendment denies the federal government any authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If ‘regulation’ in anyway infringes, the federal government has no such authority. The 14th Amendment prohibits State or local governments from any such infringement on US Citizens.
Affirmative action, aside from being a failed policy, is a violation of equal protection under law; as are hate crime laws. These laws were not instituted to solve problems, but rather to assuage the need of elitist liberals to impose their will and self-imagined moral superiority on others. These laws are more discriminatory than the behaviors they allege to eliminate.
As to gay Scoutmasters, I find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to force gay Scoutmasters on anyone. I do know that homosexuality is specified in the Bible as “an abomination in the eyes of God”; and that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept that as true. Therefore it would appear that any law that denied Believers the right to apply that belief to their lives is a violation of the 1st Amendment that denies the federal government any such authority.
Apparently you have a different set of framers than the rest of us. The actual framers were adamant that America would be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy because democracy is no more than mob rule: two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. The actual framers deemed that America would be governed by law, not popular opinion, or worse yet, elitist dictate.
As to judicial empathy, nothing could be further from the requirement to apply law equally to all litigants. If empathy were permitted in the courtroom, Boston public schools would still be segregated. To suggest that something other than the law should be considered in any threat to Life, Liberty, or Property is an anathema to our legal system. Justice Sotomayor, a self-avowed racist and sexist was in fact a poor choice as is so clearly demonstrated by reversal of the racial terms used in her famous “Wise Latina” comment so often voiced by her over many years.
Let us see how ‘medical privacy’, key to the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, fares under challenge to ObamaCare that makes medical records nearly universally accessible.
The Constitution is not some “living document” subject to wild interpretation by activist liberal judges. The intent of the framers is clear in their insistence that the responsibility of every federal officer is to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”. The COTUS was created to define the federal government based on a clear comprehension of human nature, and human nature, contrary to the fantasies of elitist liberals, never changes.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Elections DON'T have Consequences!
What is it in the COTUS that leads some to the conclusion that “elections have consequences”?
When I read the COTUS I conclude that the federal government is elected to fulfill specifically delineated responsibilities within the purview of specifically limited authorities; and to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”: only this and nothing more.
Article II does grant the president authority to “appoint” Justices to the SCOTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since both the president and the senators are solemnly sworn to defend the COTUS it stands to reason that the appointment should be a no-brainer: someone who can be counted on to defend the COTUS. However, this president has an abominable record of appointing to high office those who not only do not defend the COTUS but are avowed enemies of the COTUS. Therefore the rightful role of the Senate is to assure that the appointee to the SCOTUS can be relied on to defend the COTUS in the event the president fails to do so in his appointee.
There is no provision in the COTUS for appointing a ‘liberal’ Justice or a ‘conservative’ Justice, and there is no authority for either political party to do so. Whoever is appointed must be approved based solely on their demonstrated proclivity to defend the COTUS in all cases.
I also believe that the Senate is shirking their responsibility to hold this president accountable for his many failures to honor his oath of office: including but not limited to; his extortion of the bond holders for GM and Chrysler; his suborning of the bankruptcy laws of the US; his failure to ‘take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed’; and his failure to appoint to high office those dedicated to defending the COTUS.
There is no basis in the Constitution for the statement “elections have consequences”. In fact the COTUS stands firmly opposed to that concept.
When I read the COTUS I conclude that the federal government is elected to fulfill specifically delineated responsibilities within the purview of specifically limited authorities; and to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS”: only this and nothing more.
Article II does grant the president authority to “appoint” Justices to the SCOTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since both the president and the senators are solemnly sworn to defend the COTUS it stands to reason that the appointment should be a no-brainer: someone who can be counted on to defend the COTUS. However, this president has an abominable record of appointing to high office those who not only do not defend the COTUS but are avowed enemies of the COTUS. Therefore the rightful role of the Senate is to assure that the appointee to the SCOTUS can be relied on to defend the COTUS in the event the president fails to do so in his appointee.
There is no provision in the COTUS for appointing a ‘liberal’ Justice or a ‘conservative’ Justice, and there is no authority for either political party to do so. Whoever is appointed must be approved based solely on their demonstrated proclivity to defend the COTUS in all cases.
I also believe that the Senate is shirking their responsibility to hold this president accountable for his many failures to honor his oath of office: including but not limited to; his extortion of the bond holders for GM and Chrysler; his suborning of the bankruptcy laws of the US; his failure to ‘take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed’; and his failure to appoint to high office those dedicated to defending the COTUS.
There is no basis in the Constitution for the statement “elections have consequences”. In fact the COTUS stands firmly opposed to that concept.
Why Politicians fear the Tea Party Movement
Why are Party Politicians so afraid of the Tea Party Movement?
The left, including the Lame Stream Media is grasping at any straw possible to attempt to marginalize and condemn the TPM. False claims of racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism, violence, intolerance, yada, yada, yada; represent desperate efforts to suggest to reasonable folks that they shouldn’t be attracted to this truly grass-roots response to tyrannical federal government.
The TPM is a real threat to big government: be it Democrat or Republican. The federal power abusers are on notice that Americans are fed-up with elected representatives and their minions who run rough-shod over the Constitution; and in the process enslave free Citizens.
For several generations progressive Republicans and Democrats have been chipping away at the COTUS and the protection of inalienable rights we get from our Creator. In the process they have corrupted a federal government created to protect private property and transformed it into a government intent on confiscating private property.
There was a time, specifically between 1950 and 1970 that American economic power was at it’s zenith in the absence of competitive global manufacturing capacity destroyed in WWII. Generous Americans didn’t interfere as politicians and unions decided how the resultant surplus revenue would be distributed for social objectives nowhere authorized in the COTUS.
Rather than funding a “leveling of the playing field” as promised, our elected representatives used this revenue to create a permanent government dependent underclass at the expense of productive Americans. This also explains the progressive support for illegal alien amnesty. The number of tax revenue consumers has expanded to the point that their votes can trump the tax revenue producers at the polls. This is a dangerous condition not seen in America since 1850.
When producers have no effective legal recourse against property confiscation by non-producing consumers, bad things are likely to happen.
The TPM is an effort by COTUS-loving Citizens to restore a Constitutional America because history has clearly demonstrated that the principles inherent in the COTUS are the most effective means to set-free individual initiative and creativity for the benefit of all.
Government cannot create prosperity because it can only consume. Every tax-funded job not essential to protect private property detracts from prosperity for all by consuming resources that could be used more effectively by the Free Market.
The Free Market is most efficient because it is consumer-driven: consumers reward effective solutions with their business while simultaneously culling ineffective providers. Government is incapable of doing the same because politicians are most concerned with political self-preservation, not consumer satisfaction. We have innumerable examples of government intervention causing economic catastrophes’. Elitists solve problems that only they see, while the Free Market solves problems consumers have.
The Constitution was created by some of the greatest minds in human history. It defined a government of strictly limited powers; with strictly limited responsibilities; designed to eliminate obstructions to developing and acquiring property (the rightful fruit of one’s labor and intelligence).
The TPM represents the reawakening of American Citizens to the power, simplicity, and genius of the COTUS. If this movement is successful it will spell the end of tyrannical federal government; and it will reverse the many perversions of the COTUS implemented over the past 100 years. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, success of the TPM spells the end of the political party system as we know it because political parties do nothing to enhance a Constitutional America: In fact they do quite the opposite. Political parties exist to corrupt the electoral process.
To restore America, restore the Constitution.
The left, including the Lame Stream Media is grasping at any straw possible to attempt to marginalize and condemn the TPM. False claims of racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism, violence, intolerance, yada, yada, yada; represent desperate efforts to suggest to reasonable folks that they shouldn’t be attracted to this truly grass-roots response to tyrannical federal government.
The TPM is a real threat to big government: be it Democrat or Republican. The federal power abusers are on notice that Americans are fed-up with elected representatives and their minions who run rough-shod over the Constitution; and in the process enslave free Citizens.
For several generations progressive Republicans and Democrats have been chipping away at the COTUS and the protection of inalienable rights we get from our Creator. In the process they have corrupted a federal government created to protect private property and transformed it into a government intent on confiscating private property.
There was a time, specifically between 1950 and 1970 that American economic power was at it’s zenith in the absence of competitive global manufacturing capacity destroyed in WWII. Generous Americans didn’t interfere as politicians and unions decided how the resultant surplus revenue would be distributed for social objectives nowhere authorized in the COTUS.
Rather than funding a “leveling of the playing field” as promised, our elected representatives used this revenue to create a permanent government dependent underclass at the expense of productive Americans. This also explains the progressive support for illegal alien amnesty. The number of tax revenue consumers has expanded to the point that their votes can trump the tax revenue producers at the polls. This is a dangerous condition not seen in America since 1850.
When producers have no effective legal recourse against property confiscation by non-producing consumers, bad things are likely to happen.
The TPM is an effort by COTUS-loving Citizens to restore a Constitutional America because history has clearly demonstrated that the principles inherent in the COTUS are the most effective means to set-free individual initiative and creativity for the benefit of all.
Government cannot create prosperity because it can only consume. Every tax-funded job not essential to protect private property detracts from prosperity for all by consuming resources that could be used more effectively by the Free Market.
The Free Market is most efficient because it is consumer-driven: consumers reward effective solutions with their business while simultaneously culling ineffective providers. Government is incapable of doing the same because politicians are most concerned with political self-preservation, not consumer satisfaction. We have innumerable examples of government intervention causing economic catastrophes’. Elitists solve problems that only they see, while the Free Market solves problems consumers have.
The Constitution was created by some of the greatest minds in human history. It defined a government of strictly limited powers; with strictly limited responsibilities; designed to eliminate obstructions to developing and acquiring property (the rightful fruit of one’s labor and intelligence).
The TPM represents the reawakening of American Citizens to the power, simplicity, and genius of the COTUS. If this movement is successful it will spell the end of tyrannical federal government; and it will reverse the many perversions of the COTUS implemented over the past 100 years. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, success of the TPM spells the end of the political party system as we know it because political parties do nothing to enhance a Constitutional America: In fact they do quite the opposite. Political parties exist to corrupt the electoral process.
To restore America, restore the Constitution.
Taxation is NOT the core value of Citizenship
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/04/12/the_true_patriotism_of_paying_taxes/
Mr. Carroll appears to re-write history to fit his uber-liberal interpretation of how life should be. Liberals are always driven by their elitist disregard for realities other than their own misperceptions.
A simple reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the Founding Fathers intended to deny to the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, funding the federal government through duties on exports to be paid by foreigners. Unfortunately the 16th Amendment removed this most important safeguard against government tyranny that continues to grow daily. The 16th Amendment can, and must, be repealed.
Mr. Carroll misrepresents what did happen with what should have happened. To suggest that submission to taxation is the “core value of citizenship” is perversion beyond comprehension.
Mr. Lincoln went to war for one reason only: to preserve the taxes he needed to fund his beloved “internal improvements” (government spending programs that produced no tangible benefits beyond lining the pockets of his cronies). Ft. Sumter was a Tax Office, not a slave market. 85% of the federal revenue came from duties on cotton sold to Great Britain; and 100% of those revenues were spent in the North or funded policies detrimental to the South: thus the justification to secede.
Obama worship of Lincoln has nothing to do with emancipation; it has everything to do with expansion of oppressive federal government. It was Lincoln that changed the balance of power between the Sovereign States and the federal government created for their convenience: at a cost of 600,000 dead and more than 1 Million wounded.
Read the Constitution Mr. Carroll and you will learn that the government was created to protect property, not confiscate it. You probably believe that ObamaCare is about healthcare: you know the bill that doesn’t add a single health care provider, but does add 16,000 new IRS agents.
You also misrepresent the Tea Party Movement. It is about restoring Constitutional government; not just protesting taxes.
Every government decision is subject to prior sale. Concentration of power in DC does nothing more than provide a single point for corruption. It is virtually impossible to bribe 300 Million Americans, but it is ridiculously easy to corrupt a handful of politicians: as history continues to prove. The “severe economic downturn” that troubles you was entirely the result of federal government policies magnified by intentional Congressional malfeasance.
You will find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be a “safety net”; nothing that authorizes federal charity; or federal ‘social engineering’. What you will find is a very carefully crafted organization model designed to make it very difficult to impose federal will on Citizens; and devoid of the financial resources to do so. We need to restore that model.
If you want socialism, there are hundreds of countries in the world from which to choose. America is not one of them. Delta is ready when you are!
Mr. Carroll appears to re-write history to fit his uber-liberal interpretation of how life should be. Liberals are always driven by their elitist disregard for realities other than their own misperceptions.
A simple reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the Founding Fathers intended to deny to the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens, funding the federal government through duties on exports to be paid by foreigners. Unfortunately the 16th Amendment removed this most important safeguard against government tyranny that continues to grow daily. The 16th Amendment can, and must, be repealed.
Mr. Carroll misrepresents what did happen with what should have happened. To suggest that submission to taxation is the “core value of citizenship” is perversion beyond comprehension.
Mr. Lincoln went to war for one reason only: to preserve the taxes he needed to fund his beloved “internal improvements” (government spending programs that produced no tangible benefits beyond lining the pockets of his cronies). Ft. Sumter was a Tax Office, not a slave market. 85% of the federal revenue came from duties on cotton sold to Great Britain; and 100% of those revenues were spent in the North or funded policies detrimental to the South: thus the justification to secede.
Obama worship of Lincoln has nothing to do with emancipation; it has everything to do with expansion of oppressive federal government. It was Lincoln that changed the balance of power between the Sovereign States and the federal government created for their convenience: at a cost of 600,000 dead and more than 1 Million wounded.
Read the Constitution Mr. Carroll and you will learn that the government was created to protect property, not confiscate it. You probably believe that ObamaCare is about healthcare: you know the bill that doesn’t add a single health care provider, but does add 16,000 new IRS agents.
You also misrepresent the Tea Party Movement. It is about restoring Constitutional government; not just protesting taxes.
Every government decision is subject to prior sale. Concentration of power in DC does nothing more than provide a single point for corruption. It is virtually impossible to bribe 300 Million Americans, but it is ridiculously easy to corrupt a handful of politicians: as history continues to prove. The “severe economic downturn” that troubles you was entirely the result of federal government policies magnified by intentional Congressional malfeasance.
You will find nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to be a “safety net”; nothing that authorizes federal charity; or federal ‘social engineering’. What you will find is a very carefully crafted organization model designed to make it very difficult to impose federal will on Citizens; and devoid of the financial resources to do so. We need to restore that model.
If you want socialism, there are hundreds of countries in the world from which to choose. America is not one of them. Delta is ready when you are!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
It's Decision Time America
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/06/race_and_politics_105052.html
As usual Dr. Sewell offers sage advice. He also makes a clear observation that president Obama appears more interested in retribution and punishment of an economic system and a political system that he thinks is flawed because he believes that it has disadvantaged people of color than he is in actually advancing society.
As is usually the case when emotion trumps reality Obama has it backwards. Ideologues embrace a notion regardless of the facts of it's implementation. Communism and Socialism and Marxism and Progressivism all sound like Utopia if people would simply embrace them. But in reality when those economic systems are imposed on people they are rejected. Those who would impose them then "weed out" those who oppose them to eliminate the negativity of objectivity. As those who would follow (rather than those who would lead) also reject the idealism of the ideology, measures to force their compliance become increasingly Draconian. History proves this without exception.
What is so amazing about our Founding Fathers is that they championed individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility realizing that when a person is free to pursue that which motivates him greatest, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, the general public will benefit greatly. History has proven that too.
They created a form of government unique in all history, committed to protect the right of individual property (the fruit of individual labor and intelligence) and severely restricted from confiscation of property or subjugation of free speech and ideas.
The Free Market is so wonderfully efficient precisely because production is controlled by the consumer without extraneous overhead or third-party management. Overhead offers no inherent value and third-party management instantaneously engages in decision-making to serve their needs rather than those of the producer or the consumer.
Third party management (Government intervention and control) of the economy dooms it because it can offer nothing but harmful interference with the natural operation of the Free Market in pursuit of governance self-preservation. Government interference expands until the Free Market is paralyzed and can no longer function effectively. There are no better examples of this than our tax code; our environmental regulations; and now health care insurance regulations all of which are incomprehensible not because of their inherent attributes but because of the government controls embedded to manage and enforce them.
President Obama has many times stated that his objective is to “fundamentally transform the USA” to advantage people of color at the expense of all others. His objective is a Fool’s Errand because it cannot be done without destroying advantage for all: especially those he most wants to advantage.
It bears noting that so many immigrants come to America with no resources and often unable to even communicate in English and within a generation or two achieve objective success because the Free Enterprise system enables them to do so. At the same time we have generation upon generation never moving off government handouts. The difference is the former grabs for the fruits of free enterprise while the latter grabs only for it’s crumbs. The fault is not in the system, it is in the individual.
History proves that government can never hope to mandate prosperity: at best they can offer the barest of subsistence unless they dedicate themselves to the elimination of impediments to free market prosperity.
Every dollar confiscated by government is a dollar that will never create prosperity. Every dollar mandated to non-value-added products or services through government regulation or restriction is a dollar that will never create prosperity.
America is at a decision point: we can either embrace the economic system that has created the greatest, most prosperous, most inclusive, most productive; most generous; and most inventive society in human history; or we can embrace the universally discredited ideology of a bigoted president who has no experience and has never accomplished anything of value who is clearly dedicated to destroying that economic system. The choice is clear. The outcome is not.
As usual Dr. Sewell offers sage advice. He also makes a clear observation that president Obama appears more interested in retribution and punishment of an economic system and a political system that he thinks is flawed because he believes that it has disadvantaged people of color than he is in actually advancing society.
As is usually the case when emotion trumps reality Obama has it backwards. Ideologues embrace a notion regardless of the facts of it's implementation. Communism and Socialism and Marxism and Progressivism all sound like Utopia if people would simply embrace them. But in reality when those economic systems are imposed on people they are rejected. Those who would impose them then "weed out" those who oppose them to eliminate the negativity of objectivity. As those who would follow (rather than those who would lead) also reject the idealism of the ideology, measures to force their compliance become increasingly Draconian. History proves this without exception.
What is so amazing about our Founding Fathers is that they championed individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility realizing that when a person is free to pursue that which motivates him greatest, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, the general public will benefit greatly. History has proven that too.
They created a form of government unique in all history, committed to protect the right of individual property (the fruit of individual labor and intelligence) and severely restricted from confiscation of property or subjugation of free speech and ideas.
The Free Market is so wonderfully efficient precisely because production is controlled by the consumer without extraneous overhead or third-party management. Overhead offers no inherent value and third-party management instantaneously engages in decision-making to serve their needs rather than those of the producer or the consumer.
Third party management (Government intervention and control) of the economy dooms it because it can offer nothing but harmful interference with the natural operation of the Free Market in pursuit of governance self-preservation. Government interference expands until the Free Market is paralyzed and can no longer function effectively. There are no better examples of this than our tax code; our environmental regulations; and now health care insurance regulations all of which are incomprehensible not because of their inherent attributes but because of the government controls embedded to manage and enforce them.
President Obama has many times stated that his objective is to “fundamentally transform the USA” to advantage people of color at the expense of all others. His objective is a Fool’s Errand because it cannot be done without destroying advantage for all: especially those he most wants to advantage.
It bears noting that so many immigrants come to America with no resources and often unable to even communicate in English and within a generation or two achieve objective success because the Free Enterprise system enables them to do so. At the same time we have generation upon generation never moving off government handouts. The difference is the former grabs for the fruits of free enterprise while the latter grabs only for it’s crumbs. The fault is not in the system, it is in the individual.
History proves that government can never hope to mandate prosperity: at best they can offer the barest of subsistence unless they dedicate themselves to the elimination of impediments to free market prosperity.
Every dollar confiscated by government is a dollar that will never create prosperity. Every dollar mandated to non-value-added products or services through government regulation or restriction is a dollar that will never create prosperity.
America is at a decision point: we can either embrace the economic system that has created the greatest, most prosperous, most inclusive, most productive; most generous; and most inventive society in human history; or we can embrace the universally discredited ideology of a bigoted president who has no experience and has never accomplished anything of value who is clearly dedicated to destroying that economic system. The choice is clear. The outcome is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
