Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Like Mice In A Wheel

October 5, 2012 by  

Like Mice In A Wheel
PHOTOS.COM

The Presidential debate Wednesday night showed once again that neither of the rubes at the top the Presidential ticket understands the Constitution.

When asked by moderator Jim Lehrer about the proper role of government, President Barack Obama went into an insane diatribe about all the ways government can steal money from Americans to build railroads, start unConstitutional Federal agencies and hire school teachers, citing the mercantilist tyrant Abraham Lincoln for precedence.

Mitt Romney referred to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but then misconstrued the second paragraph of the Declaration as giving the government the power to steal money from one segment of society to give another. His answer was simply argle-bargle.

The role of Constitutional government is found in Article I, Section 8. Nowhere does it speak of using money forcibly removed from citizens to build railroads, hire teachers or give to the less fortunate, or any of myriad other things that it currently does that will continue regardless of who wins in November. I would suggest both should go back and read the document for the 17 enumerated powers, but I’m sure neither would get it.

James Madison thought this was very clear. He wrote: “It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the ‘general welfare’, it would be absurd, to say the least, to supersede a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited as heretofore supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all.” Unfortunately, the political class has turned the phrase on its head almost from the beginning.

And like mice in a wheel, no matter how hard they run Americans are going to continue to see more of the same scenery and the Nation will continue to slide further and further away from Constitutional governance, regardless of which of the two puppets is elected.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Like Mice In A Wheel”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I would say the role of government as relates to the constitution is to “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare”. The issue about money is whether its from Republicans or Democrats it always seems that spending is only tyrannical and stealing when is used to pay for things they do not like. Taxes are not stealing. Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society.

    • Buster the Anatolian

      “Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society.”

      Wrong, wrong, WRONG. One example. I live in one of the poorer states and we are a doner state as far as fuel taxes are concerned. We have never gotten back as much in federal fuel taxes for road construction and repairs as we have paid in much less gotten back more.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Thats terrible Buster.We need more efficient and more intelligent spending of our tax dollars. But so often that is not how the issue is framed. Its not how our taxes are being spent that is discussed by pundits and politicians. Its how bad it is that government is taking anything at all. I believe that government is not the problem. Bad government is the problem.

      • Vicki

        close. Government is a necessary evil and must always be strictly controlled. When that control fails government automatically becomes bad government. It is the natural way.

        George Washington even said something specific about it.
        ““Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.”
        http://www.policyofliberty.net/equotes.html

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Buster: “We have never gotten back as much in federal fuel taxes for road construction and repairs as we have paid ”

        Do you live in a state with a moderate climate? You know, one where the roads aren’t torn up by winders…

        Rob

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So according to Jeremy L., the states that are fiscally responsible and have businesses prosper and have jobs available for their populace,those states should be punished by having to support the irresponsible states.
        So debt ridden states like California, NY, etc., should parasitize the rest of the United States.
        Jeremy L., your philosophy and debate classes are worthless since you are not able to reconcile these to shoe leather.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No Nadzieja. What I am saying is we need to work together and help each other in times of crisis. When a natural disaster hits or some other misfortune happens and any state is unable to pay its bills we should help out. We are a nation, a family of states. Family members do not ignore each other just because they disagree with their personal choices. I am not saying punish successful states. All I am saying is dont discount the idea of sharing resources. After all look at the military. Soldiers from one state are stationed in others. And all our soldiers act to defend the nation, not just their home state. Working for the common good is not about ignoring the needs of individual states. Its just a matter of not ignoring the needs of the nation.

      • eddie47d

        Nice spin Nadzieja! So should “Liberal” California have to support “Conservative” Alaska since that is your way of thinking. California has the worlds 8th largest economy and only receives $.80 for every dollar sent to Washington. Alaska on the other hand gets $1.25 for every dollar they send to Washington. That would make the Conservatives screwing the Liberals.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Hey Robert, it don’t make a dam where i live. We should have gotten back what we paid in and if you use the argument that other states needed the money more at one time it is time we got ours back with interest.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “What I am saying is we need to work together and help each other in times of crisis. When a natural disaster hits or some other misfortune happens and any state is unable to pay its bills we should help out. We are a nation, a family of states. Family members do not ignore each other just because they disagree with their personal choices. I am not saying punish successful states. All I am saying is dont discount the idea of sharing resources. ”

        The proper method is donation not taxation. So when you have a state in trouble it can ask for donations from individuals. It is NOT proper to take tax money from other states nor from the federal government. To do so is to force people to give up their money for YOUR charity. Or in simple English it is called theft.

    • Vicki

      Jeremy Leochner writes in error:
      “Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society.”

      Sharing (actually taking) resources at (government) gunpoint from one state to pay for things in another is a part of a criminal enterprise. Trading resources from one state in EXCHANGE for money or resources from another (by private individuals or groups) is commerce and is what the federal government is supposed to be encouraging. (See Commerce Clause).

      • Nadzieja Batki

        The United States has all the resources of the world within our own confines but yet we bounce around the world picking up the rubbishy agriculture and clothing and goods of the world. We have all the climatic differences that can be seen across the world so our agriculture should provide our sustenance and trade and commerce should flow between states.
        How did this nation grow its own rope (Regulations)and wrapped itself and tied itself with the selfsame rope?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki the problem with that argument is just about anything related to the government could be called at gunpoint. But by that logic all our laws, our constitution itself could be said to be enforced by gun point. For the sake of argument Vicki are there any things the government does that you think are good services. Like you pointed out they are supposed to encourage commerce. Could not it be said that government would do that be force in some way. Everyone feels left in the lurch by government in some way. But disagreement does not equal oppression. Like I pointed out earlier its always a problem when you do not like it. But if it is something you support its okay. I know the government can be intrusive and that their efforts can be counter productive. My problem is it seems like what people want is for the government to do better at their job. That the issue is how the government uses its resources or how the government exercises its authority. Yet when the debate is brought up all that is talked about is how terrible it is that government does any thing at all. I think the problem is how government works and acts,not that government works and acts.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vicki the problem with that argument is just about anything related to the government could be called at gunpoint. But by that logic all our laws, our constitution itself could be said to be enforced by gun point. ”

        Since the Constitution is a set of limits ON GOVERNMENT you can use that logic but it would not yield the result you intend.

        Now forcing other people to fund your pet charity has a name. It doesn’t matter if you do it yourself or hire government agents to do the dirty work. It is called theft. Taking from others and giving to your friends is just as evil when you do it as when the government does it for you. (Solyndra is the most recent obvious example but far from the first).

    • momo

      Jeremy Leochner says: “Taxes are not stealing.”

      No, taxes are not theft, they’re legalized extortion, because if you don’t pay them you go to the gray bar hotel.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Momo if I break just about any law I can get sent to the gray bar hotel. Are you saying laws are extortion. Also it logically follows that if taxes are extortion they should be gotten rid of. But without taxes our country would collapse with no means to pay for any thing. Taxes may be an agony but they are not tyranny or criminal. They may feel that way but they are not.

      • eddie47d

        Good grief MOMO are you that lame. The majority of taxes are voted on within this nation> That is not extortion if the majority says so. You also hire (vote) for Representatives who also vote for those taxes. I don’t like America’s continual wars and the debt(taxes) they involve and my Representative agrees with me but I can’t do much about the Representatives who do vote for those wars (taxes). .

      • momo

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        October 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm
        Momo if I break just about any law I can get sent to the gray bar hotel. Are you saying laws are extortion. Also it logically follows that if taxes are extortion they should be gotten rid of. But without taxes our country would collapse with no means to pay for any thing. Taxes may be an agony but they are not tyranny or criminal. They may feel that way but they are not.

        What did this country do before 1913, before there was an income tax? Seems to be it got along just fine.
        “The power to tax is the power to destroy”
        Why didn’t the country collapse before the 16th amendment was passed? All taxes do is support the crminal class that governs us.

      • momo

        eddie47d says:
        October 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm
        Good grief MOMO are you that lame. The majority of taxes are voted on within this nation> That is not extortion if the majority says so. You also hire (vote) for Representatives who also vote for those taxes. I don’t like America’s continual wars and the debt(taxes) they involve and my Representative agrees with me but I can’t do much about the Representatives who do vote for those wars (taxes). .

        Gee eddie are you that blind? Never heard of tyrrany of the majority? Just because the majority says so doesn’t make it right. I don’t like America’s continual wars either, but the criminal class that governs this country seems to love them, of course they’re not sitting in a foxhole dodging bullets. And its both Republicans and Democrats, and if you think Obama’s going to save us, then you’re worse off than I thought.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Momo the first income tax was created during the Civil War. Before that virtually all of the services provided by the government now adays did not exist. The government paid for the army and that was miniscule. Also most of the states fended for themselves. That can of free for all helped lead to the Civil War. Our government now provides things like social security and Medicare. The bills of now a days are much higher then they were before 1913 or the Civil War. From the armed forces to education the population of our country and the realities of a modern world means bills go up. The financial system of the time before the income tax cannot sustain our country now.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        eddie47d says the majority of our taxes are voted on! That’s a big bunch of crap! First of all the people have NO vote and second of all MOST of OUR money is spent on things that congress has no idea of and no control of!!! Just this week, obumass pressured the defense contractors NOT to follow the law! He promised them that if their were financial penalties, the government would pay them! That’s not HIS money!!! It’s OURS!!! He didn’t ask for congress’s approval. He just promised them OUR money to help himself win the election! The CROOKS are working out in the open now!!! It is also OUR money that pays al quaida to fight our dirty war with Syria! Do you think that congress voted to fund al quaida?!? I think not! Did ANYONE vote to give Solyndra hundreds of millions of OUR money?!? NO!!! Did ANYONE vote on qe3? NO!! Billions of OUR money go to bail out the crooked bankers! Did ANYONE vote on it??? IF we had TRUE representation and IF the expenditures of OUR money were voted on things wouldn’t be as bad as they are!!! Congress is SUPPOSED to vote on expenditures. Instead they give big pools of money to the different agencies to spend however they want. NO ONE is keeping track of where the money is going! They havent even been operating off a budget for YEARS!!! These people are ROBBING US BLIND and WE HAVE NO REPRESENTATION!!! Did you hear me?!? NO ONE IS REPRESENTING US!!!

      • eddie47d

        Congress approves the Defense budget and that “supposed” al Qaeda support in Syria comes out of that. I heard that Romney wants to increase the military budget by 2 trillion so who’s going to pay for that? I never said all money is properly tracked and many small expenditures are tucked into larger bills. Most Americans probably don’t know what is in those bills yet they are still voted on.

      • eddie47d

        MOMO; How would you handle voting in this nation if the majority vote shouldn’t count?

      • momo

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        October 5, 2012 at 2:58 pm
        “Momo the first income tax was created during the Civil War. Before that virtually all of the services provided by the government now adays did not exist. The government paid for the army and that was miniscule. Also most of the states fended for themselves. That can of free for all helped lead to the Civil War. Our government now provides things like social security and Medicare. The bills of now a days are much higher then they were before 1913 or the Civil War. From the armed forces to education the population of our country and the realities of a modern world means bills go up. The financial system of the time before the income tax cannot sustain our country now.”

        I know the first income tax was unconstitutionally instituted during the Civil War. Don’t you think that government costs so much because our money is worthless. Don’t you find it just a little coincedental that the income tax and the Fed came into being at the same time. Social Security is broke, yeah the feds tell you its not, but all that’s in that fund are a bunch of IOU’s. Why do we have such a large military force? And don’t you think a person who earns a paycheck has a much better idea of how to spend it than some dumba$$ in Washington?

    • http://www.poorgrandchildren.com poorgrandchildren.com

      Taxes ARE stealing when money is taken from some and given to others. Taxes for legal (constitutional) purposes are the only ones which are not stealing.

      • AZ-Ike

        Thank you, poorgrandchildren.com. You have succinctly stated that government DOES NOT have UNLIMITED TAXING POWER. The federal government has only the taxing power to accomplish the limited authority they have been granted under the Constitution. Taxing for anything else is theft. Theft is a crime; it is not an acceptable societal activity.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With all due respect porrgrandchildren all taxes are taken from one person and given to another. Taxes are used in legal and constitutional ways. So taxes are not stealing. Misused taxes are stealing. Of course what exactly defines misused taxes.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Thank you, poorgrandchildren! You speak the truth!!
        Jeremy says, “Taxes are used in legal and constitutional ways.”. THAT’S A LIE!!! There is NOTHING constitutional about stealing from one person to give to another! The only reason it’s legal is because the criminals passed laws(?) making it legal!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        So Nancy. Is spending money to pay for our national defense wrong. Or our roads and our bridges. Our police force, our fire departments. Is that wrong. I am sorry to argue this way but I feel it illustrates the point. Taxes are used for things we all use. In and of themselves they are not evil. They can be misspent and misused. But just because something can be used for bad does not mean it cannot be used for good. The problem is how its used. Not that it is used.

      • eddie47d

        There may be some criminal activity in Congress but to broadly say they are all criminal is over the top. Is the Conservative or the Liberal the criminal since all vote for things the “other side” doesn’t like?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Jeremy, the constitution allows the federal government to spend our money for defense. I would suppose that since the interstate system was built for defense, that would count too. Everything else was left up to the states! Each state is to determine their own plans for roads, bridges etc… If the federal government stopped stealing our money, each state would be able to pay for those things that they want. Instead the federal government STEALS the money and decides how to dole it out, according to their supporters!

    • Kimery

      “Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society.”—Jeremy do you live in Illinois and are you expecting that the Federal Gov’t force the other 49 states to help bail out Illinois incredibly large unfunded public pensions? Is that your idea of “sharing resources” from one state to another? I live in TEXAS and we say HELL no to that load of garbage.

      • Karl Landgren

        Well said. The 9th and 10th Amendments encourage the 57–er, 50-states to try different experiments in liberty. And, if citizens of the left coast decide to Califronicate themselves or if New Yorkers vote for high taxes, or if the folks in Massachusetts want a state-run health-care system, then so be it. Other states may observe and either emulate, modify, or avoid–as they would a plague–various programs and policies. It’s much easier to drop or improve a failing state program than it is to eradicate a national one. And there certainly are several federal ones that we must curtail, phase out, downsize, or streamline.

      • ChuckS

        Karl, I’m sure you’d agree with me that when some liberal state like California does something crazy and gets itself into trouble, the feds shouldn’t bail them out. They made the mess – let them get themselves out.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No Kimery. I believe in sharing in case of disasters and other such times. For the sake of argument you live in Texas. I often hear about people in Texas demanding money for building a wall along the border or for better border patrols. Why should money from other areas be sent to Texas. It goes both ways.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Jeremy, in case you didn’t know, SHARING is voluntary!!! THEFT is NOT!!! I have NO problem with anyone who WANTS to SHARE!!! But NOBODY has the RIGHT to SHARE what’s MINE unless I say so!!! THAT would be STEALING!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Nancy what if a law is passed that you disagree with. Do you disobey that law. Is a law you disagree with equal tyranny. Just because some thing is done without your consent does not make it tyranny. Not wanting something is your right. But not winning an argument or an election does not mean you are living under an oppressive regime. Taxes are used for things you benefit from. If taxes are stealing you are an accomplice same as me.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Jeremy, what IS tyranny is when you have NO representation! Our “supposed” representatives DON’T represent us! One example: Nebraskans were and always have been overwhelmingly AGAINST obumasscare! Knowing how Nebraskans felt, our senator, ben nelson was pressured by the democraps to vote FOR it! His was the deciding vote! We had NO voice! We were NOT represented!!! Back room deals won out! Another example: Nebraskans are very independent, freedom loving people. ALL of our congressmen AND senators voted for the UNCONSTITUTIONAL patriot acts and the ndaa! THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTING US!!! Truth be known, NOTHING they do represents the people! They may represent the corporate people who funnel money back to them but they NEVER represent the average Joe! Not ever! So, laws passed by people WITHOUT representation IS tyranny!!! We must obey the laws or be punished. This is oppression!!!

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Nancy what if a law is passed that you disagree with. Do you disobey that law.”

        If a law (NDAA 2012 comes to mind) violates the Constitution then we have moral obligation to disobey the law.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Hey Jeremy, taxes didn’t originate as stealing but that is what they have become!!! When the government can take my money WITHOUT my permission and WITHOUT representation, THAT IS STEALING!!! When the government can take MY money and give it to private corporations like Solydra, THAT is stealing! When the government can take MY money to build THEMSELVES bunkers and shelters without providing any for me, THAT is STEALING! When the government can take MY money to spray chemicals on us day and night, THAT is stealing! It’s bad enough that they’re poisoning us but they’re making US pay for it!!! We have NO REPRESENTATION! They NEVER ASK US is WE want to spend our money on these things! They give US NO CHOICE!!! THAT is NOT representation! When the government takes OUR money to form the department of homeland security, which is DESIGNED to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS, THAT IS STEALING!!! Taking money from one state and giving it to another is NOT society!!! THAT is communism! Everyone working side by side is society!!! My state has a LAW that says its legislators can NEVER spend more than they take in! WHY should I have to pay for the states who do not control themselves? WHY am I giving food stamps, unemployment and medical care to people who live in bigger houses and drive nicer cars than I do?!? Should I not have a CHOICE in who I want to “help”? When people have NO CHOICE or NO SAY, they have NO REPRESENTATION!!! Our country has come full circle!!! Once again, we have TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! Time for another revolution!!!

      • Mikey

        Nancy, you are absolutely right! Unfortunately, you are wasting your time trying to make Jeremy understand: he’s a liberal. I’ve found that liberals are more closed minded than any other group of individuals. You can’t teach them anything, regardless of how much factual information you try to give them.

      • http://Yahoo JD

        Dear Nancy, Well said. Unfortunatly our people, “in my life obvious’ since the 60′s have been more and more influanced by THE PROGRESSIVES.
        Our schools, have bred the pride of ” United States of America” out of our being. Since all but a few are left of the WW2 era, Only warped history, ‘again infiltrated by progreesives’ is all we have left of the greatest concept known to man, The United States of AMERICA. Free men, Free will, on and on.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Nancy just because you disagree with some thing does not make it tyranny. We do have representation in the form of our Republic. If someone gets elected who you disagree with or they pass something you disagree with it is bad. But it is not tyranny. Taxes are some times given to things I disagree with. I wish that was not the case and I oppose it. However it does not mean taxes themselves are being stolen. It sounds like your saying it is stealing when it is used to pay for some thing you feel is immoral or unjust. I can respect that. Maybe what I am trying too say is I am willing to have that discussion. The problem is when people speak about taxes as though the very idea is wrong. Taxes pay for things we all use. Its how our country pays for its own upkeep.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Mikey my being a liberal has nothing to do with it. I have my values as you have yours. I am sure Mikey if I tried to convince you to change your position on some thing you believed strongly in you would not want to. Does that make you close minded. I do not think so. I believe what I am saying is not that unreasonable. And I believe changes to our government and tax system are badly needed. Its just that I want them to be better not gone. And I hear a lot of people speak as though they wished it to be gone rather then run more effectively and efficiently.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Jeremy, you and anybody else who THINKS we have representation are just fooling yourselves! We’ve a government invested ONLY in self interest! Not only does our government conduct itself in secret, it conducts itself AGAINST the people and their rights! Elections are bought and sold! You are only allowed to hear what “they” want you to hear! If you paid any attention at all, you would realize that the passing of the patriot acts I and II were not in any way representing the people! The passing of the ndaa was not in any way representing the people! These are laws directed AGAINST the citizens of this country!!! The senators and congressmen in BOTH parties passed these! So WHO were they representing?!? Lest you argue that “they” were protecting “us” with the passage of these bills, ask yourself, “why were there no protections for everyday Americans written into these”?!? WHO is representing US when the president(?) writes his executive orders (dictates) that allow him to take away our houses, our cars, our money, our food, our water and everything else that belongs to us?!? WHO?!? WHO is representing US when the president(?) says he can assign us to work whatever jobs he decides and relocate us to FEMA camps?!? These things only cover a fraction of what is going on in this country! WHO is representing US?!? NO ONE!!! That’s who! And the sooner we recognize it, the better!!! We lost our representation a long time ago! Now, it is nothing but a facade!!!

      • Jonathan Baker

        Well said, Nancy. NDAA, Patriot Acts i and II, presidential edicts, all represent attacks on the US citizen – on us.

        We have two choices: 1. elect individuals who believe in stopping these encroachments of our Constitutional rights or 2. rebellion. For the sake of peace and tranquility, I lean toward #1. Barring that….

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “taxes are not stealing”.
      Any taking of money that has not been specifically and voluntarily agreed to by the victim of the taking is indeed Theft, no matter how the Progressive mind tries to rationalize it.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well what about laws I disagree with. Or what about when obeying the law is inconvenient for me. I have to go the DMV to get a drivers license. As anyone who goes to the DMV knows it can be a hell hole. I do not consent to that. But does that make it tyranny or oppression, of course not. Just because you disagree with some thing does not make it immoral. I am not trying to rationalize an evil. I am trying to be rational. Taxes pay for our country. I am certain Dave that they pay for some thing you benefit from. How do you rationalize that. Taxes in and of themselves are not stealing. Misused taxes are stealing.

      • DaveH

        As I said, Jeremy (aka Flashman), you can rationalize anything.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Dave if there is reason behind what I am saying and what I believe its not rationalizing. Its reality.

      • DaveH

        That’s the problem, Jeremy (aka Flashman). There isn’t Reason behind what you say, just your desires and rationalization.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        How is it rationalizing to say government is not the enemy, bad government is the enemy. I never said government is all good or everything the government does is fine. I believe we need a better government. It needs to be lead more responsibly, more efficiently and more effectively. My point is I want it better not gone. And I think a large number of Americans including the people here would not disagree that our government is being run badly. But running it better and getting rid of it are two different things. When you say government itself is bad you want to get rid of government not make it better. When you say taxes are stealing you want to stop all taxes not change the tax code. I say this because the implication of the statement “Taxes are stealing” is that taxes themselves are bad and the only logical conclusion is taxes must be gotten rid of. That is going to far That is not rationalizing or my own views or desires, its reality. I am exercising reason, not rationalizing evil.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “I have to go the DMV to get a drivers license. As anyone who goes to the DMV knows it can be a hell hole. I do not consent to that. But does that make it tyranny or oppression, of course not. ”

        Really? So you think that being forced to go get a permission slip from the King to take YOUR private property from your home to your friends home using the Kings highways isn’t tyranny or oppression?

        How about when the King orders his men to take your PRIVATE property from your house because you didn’t pay tribute (vehicle registration) to the King?

        None is more enslaved that he who falsely thinks that he is free.

    • DaveH

      Mice in a wheel. And then there are the Multiple Personality Disorder mice in a wheel. Good Morning Jeremy (aka Flashman).

    • DaveH

      Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society”.
      Part of being in a Society of Criminals, that is:
      http://mises.org/daily/4125

    • Jay Linebotanical

      “Taxes are not stealing. Sharing resources from one state to pay for things in another is part of being in a society.”

      Hmm, ‘redistributing’ my tax revenue to those who can’t, or wont, work is different in what way? Socialism, or sharing the wealth has never worked throughout history. It was tried by the pilgrims in this country, failed! I would go into how that went, but you can look it up.

      One of those white haired founders said something like: “I can not lay my hand on that article of the Constitution that authorizes the expenditure from the public treasury for acts of benevolence.” In other words, the government is not the keeper of the less fortunate!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      The role of government. Remember every person who serves as president, despite the illegal actions of those in the past, are still assigned specific duties, and those duties do NOT include unconstitutional things done by past presidents. It was illegal and unconstitutional when it was done, and since there is no time limit from our constitution, they are still unconstitutional and illegal. Impeachable, prosecutable once used – criminally for some, civilly for others.

      “It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

      “If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when
      there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.” Calvin Coolidge

    • SJJolly

      Would any of the Strict Constitution Constructionists care to estimate how many years it would take to shut down all the Federal government economic activities they consider unconstitutional, such that the effect on the US economy isn’t akin to a car going 100 mph hitting a bridge abutment head-on?

      • Vicki

        I think you best start worrying about the cliff called QEinfinity. The effects will be much the same but without moral compass to help the survivors.

  • Vigilant

    “President Barack Obama went into an insane diatribe about all the ways government can steal money from Americans to build railroads, start unConstitutional Federal agencies and hire school teachers, citing the mercantilist tyrant Abraham Lincoln for precedence.”

    It may be of some interest to those who value historical accuracy that both the Republican and Democrat (Douglas and Breckinridge) platforms for the 1860 election endorsed the building of a transcontinental railroad. The Breckinridge platform says:

    “Resolved, That the National Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the construction of a Pacific Rail road from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment.”

    It may also be of some interest to those who value historical accuracy that Obama cited Lincoln ONLY in regard to his aspirations for a transcontinental railroad. I guess we have to assume that if Stephen Douglas or John Breckinridge had been elected in 1860, their support for a transcontinental railroad would have made them “mercantilist tyrants.”

    • Vigilant

      As for the funding of the railroad,

      “Funding initially was primarily from the personal savings of the Big Four Sacramento merchants (Stanford, Crocker, Huntington, and Hopkins) and additional investors. These men each risked their entire life savings, as limited liability companies such as modern corporations were not yet available.

      “The U.S. government provided funding with the Pacific Railroad Acts, starting in 1862, in the form of bonds sold to the public (issued only as construction proceeded and which had to be and were repaid in full with interest) and land grants. The government kept half of the land in alternating squares, giving the other half of the squares to the railroad, and the increase in value of the land due to building the railroad meant (as the U.S. Supreme Court later concluded) that the land grants were not really subsidies because the increase in value of the government’s land exceeded the value of the land granted to the railroads.” (http://discussion.cprr.net/2007/05/who-funded-first-transcontinental.html)

      Looks to me like the taxpayers were fully reimbursed for the interest paid on the bonds. Not quite what either Obama or you had in mind when he/you referred to it.

      You would be well served if you stopped relying on the jaundiced pseudohistory of neoconfederate Thomas DiLorenzo. I would also suggest you read Stephen Ambrose’s “Nothing Like it in the World” for an uplifting history of the Transcontinental Railroad, an accomplishment of which America was proud, and still should be.

      • DaveH

        If indeed the Railroads and the Canals were profitable investments, there would be no need for the Force of Government to be involved.
        James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad “without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash,” as Hill himself stated.
        From Albro Martin’s, James J. Hill and the Opening of the Northwest:
        http://www.amazon.com/James-J-Hill-Opening-Northwest/dp/0195020707

        It is only when an investment doesn’t show potential for profit that Government must step in and risk other peoples’ money.

      • DaveH

        Vigilant says — “You would be well served if you stopped relying on the jaundiced pseudohistory of neoconfederate Thomas DiLorenzo. I would also suggest you read Stephen Ambrose’s “Nothing Like it in the World” for an uplifting history of the Transcontinental Railroad, an accomplishment of which America was proud, and still should be”.

        No, Vigilant, we would be well-served to recognize that there are Court Historians and Real Historians, the former plying their wares to Propagandize people in favor of Big Government.
        Interested readers should read all they have time to read and form their own conclusions, instead of relying on the opinions of obviously biased people.

      • DaveH

        Here is another side of the Lincoln story as written by a Black Historian:
        http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851

        I know, Vigilant, he must be a “jaundiced neoconfederate”, because he doesn’t agree with the biases of a Vigilant.

      • DaveH

        Here’s another book that exposes Lincoln’s pillaging of the people for the enrichment of the few:
        http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Reconsidered-Essays-Civil-War/dp/0375725326/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349454359&sr=1-1&keywords=lincoln+reconsidered

        He was a former Railroad Lawyer. Does anything else need to be said?

      • DaveH

        From “honest” Abe’s debate with Senator Stephen Douglas in 1858:
        “There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race”.

      • Vigilant

        Yes, Dave, we all know how impeccably correct your views are. And how I haven’t read voluminously to measure all points of view. And how I quote source document after source document just for the fun of it.

        I’ll not take the bait, son, this time. I’ve bested you in argument so many times that I know you have nothing new to offer beyond your limited library of Lincoln hatred. And you are blind to any source document I produce.

        Ignore history (as does DiLorenzo, who’s not even an historian) at your will. I’ll not try to speak sense to you any longer.

        You are right, Dave, you’ve always been right and I’m just a befuddled pimple on the a$$ of the world. Have it your way.

        You feel better now?

      • DaveH

        You debate like a Liberal, Vigilant — Lots of ad hominem attacks and very little substance.

      • DaveH

        Vigilant says — “I’ve bested you in argument so many times”.
        I like how your committee of one has declared you the winner, Vigilant. You’re getting desperate again.

      • Vigilant

        You are right, Dave, you’ve always been right and I’m just a befuddled pimple on the a$$ of the world. Have it your way.

        You feel better now?

  • Corkey

    Why not let us keep most the tax money rather than have these retards piss it away ?

    • lew

      WHY you ask! MONEY is POWER and Power is Control and WASHINGTON DC wants it all! None to WE the PEOPLE,None to the States = Central Power! TOTAL CONTROL! HELLO 1984! This refers to the Book or Movie not the year. LOL

    • momo

      Corkey says:
      “Why not let us keep most the tax money rather than have these retards piss it away ?”

      Now that’s the $64,000 dollar question!!!

      • Karl Landgren

        Make that: the $64 Trillion question!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The big government crowd doesn’t believe that we know how to live or manage our money or even know what we want. Supposedly they “care” more than we ourselves do so they have to stick their hands in the taxpayers pockets.
      “making a difference” and “caring” are utopian “Visions of the Anointed” as Thomas Sowell would say. If you hear these two catch phrases from any other person run from them as if hell was in front of you because it is and it will cost you more than you could ever pay.

    • SJJolly

      “Piss it away” meaning spend it for purposes you disagree with, no? Considering that a number of citizens are sure to object to the purposes you favor, wouldn’t ending “pissing it away” cause the Federal budget to drop to cold, hard zero?

      • Vicki

        Why yes. It would. Or very close to 0. Which is were it was supposed to be. Where the founders intended it to be. Small. To the point. Limited to a very few enumerated tasks.

  • Williams

    You are so right Vicki!

    “Sharing (actually taking) resources at (government) gunpoint from one state to pay for things in another is a part of a criminal enterprise. Trading resources from one state in EXCHANGE for money or resources from another (by private individuals or groups) is commerce and is what the federal government is supposed to be encouraging. (See Commerce Clause).”

    Comments like Jeremy’s reflect the “share the wealth” philiosophy that Obama loves so much and is the root of the demise of our civil liberties and feeds flourishing statism. Sad.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Two possibilities with the language used in the debate is that the rescuing of the debt ridden states is already in progress and it has been a worthless failure or we are being primed to accept the fact that the parasites will be given a go ahead with the feeding frenzy.

      • http://Yahoo JD

        Reading your last few posts, I can’t help but feel good that you, and I pray many are out there like you. You sound sincere and honest with YOURSELF as well as comments to others. I hope if people agree or not with you, they appriciate your thoughts.

    • DaveH

      Forced Sharing not only is Immoral (something that is meaningless to Progressives), but it inevitably leads to the impoverishment of countries due to the moral hazards that are created by taking from the Producers and giving to the Non-Producers. As it becomes less and less personally enriching to do the necessary efforts required to be productive, the Producers inevitably slack off, thus joining the numbers of people (like Jeremy) who are already non-productive. It becomes a snow-balling effect of non-productivity until the whole economy collapses and countries face the fact that Free Markets (Capitalism) are the only way to Prosperity:
      http://library.mises.org/books/Kel%20Kelly/The%20Case%20for%20Legalizing%20Capitalism.pdf

  • Sandy

    So great to see someone who reads their history! My Poli Sci teacher always said that the biggest value in knowing your history was that history can predict the future. After much reading of the history of hyperinflation, I fear there is a rough road ahead for our presidential winner.

    • Ted Crawford

      Exactly what I’ve been looking at these past couple of years. If we could have elected a more balanced Senate in 2010 some of this might have been mitigated. The primary difference I see with the November election is that if Obama is re-elected this condition, like QE-3, will continue in perpetuity! With a Romney victory an end is possible and with the addition of a Conservative majority in the Senate and House, that end might even be in sight, if a very long way off!

      • DaveH

        “With a Romney victory an end is possible”. But NOT probable.

      • vicki

        Since neither obama nor Romney can repeal the laws of economics and neither of them show any interest in controlling Ben and his QEinfinity I do not think that it is even possible with the 2 pitiful offerings from the Democrat and Republican parties.

        Our best current hope still resides with the Libertarian Principles espoused by Dr Ron Paul and (hopefully) embodied in Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President.

        Vote for greater or lessor evil. Or vote for good. The choice is yours, but please don’t blame us when voting the lessor of 2 evils consistently begets evil.

        • lew

          Anyone who votes for Johnson,votes for MR.B.O! I’m no Romney fan but I understand a vote for anyone else will return KING B.O to the White House. So get off Your high horse!

      • Vicki

        lew says:
        “Anyone who votes for Johnson,votes for MR.B.O! ”

        Actually no. Anyone who votes for Romney votes for Mr.B.O. In this particular case not only because you threw away your vote on a lessor evil but because in this particular election your choice is Obama, Obama spelled with an R, and the libertarian candidate.

        If all those people who say they are going to hold their nose and vote for Romney as the lessor of 2 evils would vote for principle thus Gary Johnson, then he would easily win.

  • roger gunderson

    The nation had the perfect chance to get back to out constitutional meaning
    when Ron Paul was in the running. Ignorant people are consumed with the external.

    • Vigilant

      Paul would have been a start, but would have been completely ineffective without the support of Congress and the courts. Placing faith in one man, no matter who, to restore the Constitution, is a fool’s game.

      The president has no power to repeal unconstitutional laws, create a budget or whip the SCOTUS into line.

      Most of all, the president is almost powerless to change the entitlement mentality of so much of our greedy society. If he attempted to radically scale down the entitlement budgets, no pandering Congress would go along with him. Worse, the outcry from the “takers” in society would be so great that he’d be susceptible to impeachment for political reasons only. At best, he’d be a one term president.

      No, the way to Constitutionalism would take at least a decade, and the key would not be the chief executive, it would be grass roots activism at ALL levels of government to remove the progressives from office.

      • http://Yahoo JD

        YES!! Remove the PROGREESIVES!!! All American citizens who love this country of OURS, stop the in fighting and get down to how to achive what we want, by using, and putting together all ideas to come up with the home we all love. Politcal partys are just that. The people are supposed to be running them, for their love of America. Carrer polititions have forgotten. Power and always they become rich, while in, and finally retire, is what they scratch and claw to stay in for. The young or new go in with good ideals,but soon are forced in to the bull-.

      • Jonathan Baker

        So, the rise in popularity of Dr. Paul was not “grass rooted”.? The election of Dr. Paul would have had no “ground swell” effect in the Congress? You have such omniscience to prognosticate no effect whatsoever? You overlook the impact of such an election result. Yes, a Ron Paul win would have been a beginning. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step! Any change begins with a first step. And that is what is needed now. That is why I will vote for Gary Johnson.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Have you not been paying attention, the Constitution has already been set aside on the proverbial shelf and gathering dust. It is like a marriage contract between a man and a wife, it does no good if one party abides by it and the other ignores and breaks its tenets.

    • DaveH

      We have to start somewhere. The race can not be won when one remains in the blocks.
      Ron Paul has bowed out, but we still have a choice:
      http://www.youtube.com/user/pjt3488?v=JBXgLUSbZnU

  • lew

    The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

    • DaveH

      Thomas also knew that — “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground”.

      • http://Yahoo JD

        Thats why our forfathers expressed constant diligence. Humans are human. This idea of OUR AMERICA, was a huge and amazing concept. The love, want, and bravery has gradually, and carefully been indoctrnated, and being bred out of us. The under 50 citizens don’t understand, or even know what I’m talking about.

  • 2004done

    to Williams: yes, I think Jeremy would like to know whether you are Rep or Demo. It seems principles are not as important as principals to him. We live in a “democratic republic”, I guess that’s why I see so little difference in the two parties, neither being able to stand upright without leaning against the other. But I AM curious Williams, which party is more able to make you fear waking up in the morning, without that political party having to resort to following the Constitution to allay those fears? I suspect Libertarian, you seem to think, instead of follow.

    • lew

      We live in a “democratic republic”, NO,NO,NO! WE DO NOT!
      WE have a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC! This is something OUR government wants you to forget!
      LINK n LEARN. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Sorry, lew. We USED to be a constitutional republic! We aren’t anymore!!! We aren’t even a democracy. Our government acts in secret and AGAINST the American people!!! Our ENEMIES have infiltrated our government!!! The few rights we have left are on the chopping block!!! Unless the people recognize what’s going on, we’ll have NOTHING!!!

      • lew

        Nancy in Nebraska You are right and I agree with your post,But still WE are a Constitutional REPUBLIC! The Rule of LAW is DEAD and I FEAR what it will take to restore it.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Agreed, lew! Thanks!

  • lew

    No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
    I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
    Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
    Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

    I can go on and on,but my point is WE the PEOPLE need to return to OUR CONSTITUTION as OUR FOUNDATION of LAW! AND enforce its limitations placed on OUR GOVERNMENT! IF not WE will wake up as SLAVES to GOVERNMENT one DAY and that DAY is NEAR!

    • Karl Landgren

      That very well sums up the whole crux of the matter. Our Constitution was Divinely inspired. The closer we adhere to and comply with that amazing document–the Supreme law of this hallowed land–, the more we’ll enjoy the blessings of Liberty.

    • DaveH

      That day is NOW.
      Government spent 3% of our GDP in 1900. Now that spend 40%. If that isn’t Slavery, I don’t know what is. Even the slaves were given time off.

      • DaveH

        It is interesting to note that a common rationalization for Slavery in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was that the Slaves were not capable of taking care of themselves. Sound familiar?

    • Cecil Leonard

      To all of you history buffs I would say that you all have some good ideas and quote some interesting history. However, I say, I don’t know when all of these problems started but I can pretty well say how they started. It all began when “We The People” allowed Them the Congress, Senate and all of the rest of the government to declare themselves separate from us “The People”. In other words they have made and passed legislation that declares them above us and self voted themselves all the pay raises, health benefits, retirement privileges without any input from we the people. And every time we think we have sent a good representative to Washington he is soon corrupted the old timers by sticking them into a corner and telling them they will never have any part of any committee and they will remain simply a single vote in that body of government. I have always said that if you will show me where the money is I’ll show you where all of the crooks and thieves are. Case in point, “U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate” Most are some kind of thief or transgressor.

  • Denni

    FLAT TAX everyone pays and you get to keep whats in your paycheck, except when you buy something thats when the tax is payed

    • Karl Landgren

      Actually, the flat tax is still an income. As it is NOT graduated, or “progressive” i.e. Marxist it is far simpler and fairer than the monsrously complex, diabolical system that we’ve been saddled (as in beast of burden) with for 99 years now. Wouldn’t the centennial of both the 16th Amendment as well as of the sinister “Federal” Reserve be a great time to end both! What Denni refers to is known as the FairTax. Congressman John Linder and Neal Boortz co-wrote a book that every voter, and definitely every congress(wo)man should read. This plan makes good sense for a baker’s dozen of mostly irrefutable reasons. There are–as far as I have been able to determine–only three excuses that a “representative” can give for opposing HR 25: 1) (S)he hasn’t read it. That would clearly be egregious dereliction of duty. 2) He’s lying about what the bill is, says, and does. 3) He admits to being a power-hungry politician who cares not one whit about your rights, freedom, or liberty. Call, write, fax, email, and/or visit him or her(and his challenger too; and politely insist that he co-sponsor, or at least support wholeheartedly this vitally important bill this coming January.

      • DaveH

        One important thing that everybody should know about the proposed Fair Tax is that they intend to put the “Fair” tax into play before the abolition of the 16th Amendment. See here:
        http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/WhichComesFirst.pdf

        Like Nancy Pelosi’s — “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”.
        There is little doubt in my mind that it is yet another Trojan Horse that the elites will use to foist both systems on us, similar to what they have in Europe. Don’t fall for it, people.

      • DaveH

        More analysis of the “Fair Tax”:
        http://mises.org/daily/1814

        There is only one truly “fair” tax, and that is for every adult in the country to pay the same yearly amount for those Government services that couldn’t be easily assigned to User Fees. After all, we all get to vote for how the money will be spent, don’t we?
        Can you imagine what it would be like if shareholders of a company got equal votes no matter the number of shares they owned?

  • Schlumbio T

    While it may be true that “the Nation will continue to slide further and further away from Constitutional governance, regardless of which of the two puppets is elected.” hopefully with a Romney presidency, more of us will be able to ESCAPE the USA and plant flags elsewhere – and get out of Dodge…

    • Karl Landgren

      Amen.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So out of the proverbial frying pan into the fire, never to return.

    • Vigilant

      “hopefully with a Romney presidency, more of us will be able to ESCAPE the USA and plant flags elsewhere – and get out of Dodge…”

      If you wish to leave your country because she has serious problems, instead of staying and trying to make a difference, then fine, don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. No one will miss you.

      You would do well to read the short story “The Man Without a Country” by Edward Everett Hale.

  • http://www.facebook.com/george.somsel George Somsel

    Bob, it’s about time you became a conservative. You advertise yourself as an “ultra-conservative”, but you aren’t even a conservative, let alone an ultra-conservative. What you are is a neo-confederate.

    Building railroads DEFINITELY IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If you would go back and read the Constitution once again, you would find that interstate commerce is definitely enumerated among the Federal powers

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; …”

    The Constitution of the United States of America. 1998 (elecronic ed.). Oak Harbor WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

    This is not to say that I advocate for Obama’s “high speed rail” proposals. As a matter of fact, I think they are very wrong-headed, but not on Constitutional grounds. High speed rail simply happens to be a loser. I think you should study the Constitution a bit more thoroughly before you go shooting off your mouth.

    • DaveH

      You would do well to educate yourself, George Somsel, about the true meaning of the Commerce Clause from a learned man:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dwrAFXEEN8

    • AZ-Ike

      George Somsel,

      The ‘General Welfare’ clause and the “Commerce’ clause are the two most corrupted clauses in the Constitution and have been used by the all branches of government to give government ‘UNLIMITED POWER.’

      ‘Regulating’ commerce is a limited action and does not include participating in commerce, engaging in commerce, ‘punishing’ private sector commerce through excessive taxation or regulations, etc. It’s original intent to was ensure the fair practice of commerce with foreign nations, among the States and with the Indian Tribes–to make sure State governments treated all other states equally, to make sure trade with foreign nations did not negatively impact domestic commerce through pricing or dumping practices (use of tariffs), and to make sure the Indian Tribes were treated in the same ‘fair’ manner in which States treated one another.

      Do you actually see anything in the clause (‘with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes’) that indicates Congress has the authority to regulate individuals or individual businesses?

      The People may have given their individual State governments the Power to regulate individuals and business within the State, but there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to affect individuals and individual businesses with federal regulations.

      Although the federal government may have encouraged it, there is no federal authority to ‘build railroads, or highways, etc.’ It should have been a cooperative effort by individuals and the private sector, and/or possibly with State taxation for roads wtihin each State.

  • cerebus23

    Government should be local, the more local it is the more efficiently in theory it should be run, barring the typical need for human corruption of any system, but you cut out 100 layers of bureaucracy and one size fits all top down government you can imagine that states and localties might find ways to do things like health care, and social programs that actually work and they can afford.

    At the very lest it gives you 50 different test beds from programs, maybe some programs are more successful than others and can be used etc and things will evolve more “organically” than when you have one centralized seat of power where every lobbiest can hang out all day and cut deals for big big dollars. Then you get corporations and every other major power that can throw tons of money at something buying national policy.

    The federal government should be cut down social progams cut out and shifted off to the states in the next 20 some years, before the major crisis that those programs are going to hit comes to a head, the fedeal tax roles should shift back to the states claiming the major part of taxes and the feds claiming a much smaller share, that money should stay in the states and not filter down from on high.

    And lets get back to free markets with laws that make sense lie, cheat, steal, kill, bully competetors, and you will be prosecuted simple as that.

    Why not go this route since the route we are on now clearly is not working? It matter not if its democrats or republicans who are in charge both lie cheat and steal, both spend us into the poorhouse and make sure your children will be slaves if you have any, there is hardly any gods damn difference between the two but a few 100 million here and there, anyone that tells themselves otherwise or that democrats are not as beholden to big business interest just like the republicans are, wake the hell up.

    • DaveH

      Good job, cerebus.

  • Erik

    Dear Mr. Livingston, Which rube would you rather have? Would have,should have,could have doesn’t count at this point. Personally I’d like to see Romney win! Do you really think it wouldn’t matter if Obama won a second term? Get real Bob! There is a major difference between the two!

    • DaveH

      What are the differences, Erik? Please enlighten us.

      • momo

        Different sides of the same coin, though we’ll die a little slower with Romney.

  • lew

    NEVER forget why WE the PEOPLE made a Declaration of Independents! I think WE the PEOPLE need to remind OUR GOVERNMENT why! KING B.O the FIRST COMMIE, TAKE notice this is OUR DECLARATION to you!

    The Declaration of Independence

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    • Cecil Leonard

      Lew, it’s all well and good what you have quoted, however, I remind all of you that our Congress and Senate is not like they were when that document was written. Today it’s every man for himself in Washington. If they were to laws simply or any law for that matter how would they be able to steal the money that they do. They, by their very nature must and will keep all of the legislation as confusing as possible so they put into it all kinds of loop holes for themselves. As I’ve said before. They are above us “The People”. They have a separate pay scale they have a separate health system they have a separate retirement system and I must say that all of their benefits are quite lucrative.

      • AZ-Ike

        We, the People, have the right to ‘fire’ them by electing new representation. We don’t! If today’s Representatives and Senators are ‘different’ from those who wrote the Constitution, it is because we have continually elected and re-elected corrupt, career politicians and allowed them to assume absolute power.

  • chuckb

    romney was right even though he denies it now, i would guess there are at least 47% of the entitlement society depending on the governments teat. the congress becomes a client to these people and the bolshevik party is registering these people faster than the tax collector. we will be the first free nation in history to vote away our freedom for welfare.

    the constitution makes no difference to these people, look at barry, i’ll bet he couldn’t tell you the first words of it, unless he has a teleprompter in front of him.

    bob, i am disappointed in you saying there is no difference, you can’t really mean this.
    after watching the debate, you can honestly say there is no difference.

    one other thing just imagine what the vacation will cost the taxpayers if barry wins again, the queen of sheba will pale to the outlandish luxury moochella will bathe herself.in.
    barry is an insult to human intelligence, something he lacks.

  • http://Yahoo JD

    GOOSE BUMPS !! Still amazing to this day. I hope always for America.

  • AZ-Ike

    Earlier comment stated:

    …We have NO REPRESENTATION! They NEVER ASK US (if) WE want to spend our money on these things! …

    Actually, we do have representation. WE elect the people’s representatives to the House and WE (now) elect (what used to be the States’) representatives to the Senate. Therefore, both legislative groups are supposed to be our representatives to federal government. It is true THEY NEVER ASK us what we want, but the bigger problem is THEY REFUSE TO LISTEN to us when we tell them what we want.

    Comment also said:

    …They give US NO CHOICE!!!.. …Once again, we have TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! Time for another revolution!!!

    Instead of asking us what we want, THEY TELL US what they are going to do FOR US. So why do we continue re-electing the same career politicians to representative Office and expect different results? Because too many of us think it is easier to take what they offer instead of exerting personal effort and responsibility to work for what we can earn for ourselves. Multiple terms of elective Office results in accumulation of power. Accumulation of power results in increased corruption. They now think they have absolute power, and THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT.

    We, the sovereign People of the United States have the power, through the election and recall process, to elect men and women of character and integrity, AND to change representation frequently in order to limit the possibilities of elective corruption. We don’t use it effectively. For the past century, WE have allowed the infiltration of various forms of Marxism into every facet of our society. WE have been indoctrinated into accepting a (soft) totalitarianism instead of the freedoms endowed by our Creator.

    We allow the infiltrated and indoctrinated media and political parties to manipulate us–by defining elections; by telling us it is the President who is most important and who controls government and the legislative process; by convincing us that it takes ‘an experienced politician’ to be an effective representative; and by further manipulating us by their constant barrage of promoting ‘their own BIG government candidate.’

    If it is not too late, we can still take back our government—and more importantly to restore a moral and virtuous culture. We can convince our churches to refuse the continuing ‘bribery’ of tax-exemption and again influence People who ‘consent to be governed.’ We can take back our schools at the State levels–with parents’ involvement–and stop the indoctrination of Marxism. We are fortunate (so far) to have technology that allows us to communicate, refuting Marxist media manipulation. We can expand the ‘grass roots’ efforts to reverse the infiltration of the political parties by electing new representation.

    Everything stated here also applies to State governments. Our elected State representatives, from the top–down, are now thoroughly accustomed to feeding at the federal revenue trough. It will never be enough to address corruption at the federal level, if we don’t address it, also, at the State level.

    But, WE must do it. It is long past time to stop asking ‘why doesn’t SOMEONE do something?’ Every one of us is ‘someone.’ If we don’t, as ‘lew’ said above, “WE will wake up as SLAVES to GOVERNMENT one DAY and that DAY is NEAR!” If we find we have waited too long—then it will be time for a second revolution.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I’m the one who made the remarks that we have NO representation. To clarify: we get to choose between the red guy and the blue guy, but they’re both the same! Ergo: no choice! Your words speak of the revolution I have in mind. Unfortunately many more people will need to wake up to the truth! I worry that it may already be too late to act, as the government has made plans for just such a situation. The department of homeland security was not set up to secure the “homeland”, but the government! They have already purchased over 1.6 rounds of hollow point ammunition. These are NOT for the military! They have military troops posted on American soil, which is unconstitutional. They have FEMA camps with instructions to “reeducate” anyone who doesn’t go along. They have executive orders in place to declare martial law and confiscate EVERYTHING we own. The orders also allow them to assign us to work. It is getting VERY dark and unless we can make people get off their comfy couch and pay attention, we’ll be in big trouble.

      • AZ-Ike

        I agree that the federal government’s actions leave little room for restoring this country to God and freedom, and there are still too many individuals who can’t be bothered to ‘get involved’ in restoring Constitutional government. Whether we have any chance of taking back our country peacefully, will depend on the election results.

        If Obama is re-elected, we will be the slaves of an increasingly harsh totalitarian government intent on destroying everything we have known. If Romney is elected, there is still a chance to restore Constitutional government without a bloody revolution. However, that will depend on the People. Each time an elected Representative votes against the Constitution or fiscal responsibility, the People must react with recall efforts. We need to force our elected representatives not only to hear our voices, but to act for the Rule of Law. And, unless we also do this at the State levels, we will never regain sovereignty over the federal government. Clinton was forced to moderate governing by a Republican House and Senate. Romney can also be forced to ‘preserve, support and defend’ the Constitution, also.

        The People are the sovereign authority in the United States. Gvoernments can ignore that fact and overrule us by force–but the authority is still there. It can’t be permanently removed or destroyed by anyone other than the People. We have the power. We must use it.

      • DaveH

        But you do have a choice, Nancy. You just choose to ignore it:
        http://www.lp.org/

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Dave, I don’t consider Gary Johnson a choice! I refuse to surrender my integrity just to not vote for obumass or romney.

  • chuckb

    az-ike, it seems to me it’s too late for people too rebel, the bolshevik party has built a nation inside a nation, they ignore the constitution, the president rules by exec. order. the senate blocks any attempt to straighten out the economy and does barrys bidding.
    in order to organize opposition you would have to start recruitment and then the feds would be down your neck in a minute.
    they have a large portion of the country who are black and they worship barry, they care less what he says or does, “free fon’s, free bama money”
    another large segment is the mexican and latinos, for the most part they want nothing to do with this country other than suck on the government teat. this and the past administration has catered to these people for their vote, the bolsheviks and their court lackeys have stopped voter id. this election will no doubt be the most corrupt in american history.
    then you have the die hard bolsheviks who are natural born socialist and see no wrong in this country turning socialist..
    so count me in as a protestor, when the american people have enough they will look for someone else to die in their place and i doubt if there’s enough patriots to consider rebelling.

    • AZ-Ike

      See above reply to NancyinNebraska.

      There are large segments of the various minority populations who are not in favor of Obama’s policies and depraved beliefs. Just because the media is the voice of the Obama administration, doesn’t mean there are not significant numbers who will refuse to support him.

      If the Marxist Democrats and Republicans can use the old media to advance their views and positions, the rest of us can use other forms of communication, including actually talking with others (and isn’t that a novel concept) to begin a re-education campaign for the Constitution and the Rule of Law–for God and Country.

  • Louis

    The constitution, is, “a spiritual document,” wich comes from GOD, and written by those chosen by GOD, to write such..
    If one is a spiritual person, he, or she should be able to understand what is written there-in, and the meaning thereof..
    There is what is known as, “a supreme court,” who are supposed to outline this doccument for its true meaning, but unfortunatly, they choose to, “interpret!” what is int it, according to, “political, or personal views,” wich is the same as anyone saying, that, when it comes, to “interpretation,” “anything goes!”
    These people forget, that they are a product of the constitution, and not the other way arround..
    The most important part of this preascious doccument, is, The head part that says, “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.”, wich pertains to the populance, and not to governance.. Part two, the body, belongs to, “we the people” against exceses of government..Part three, the legs, belong to, “we the people” for tyhe righst, wich come from GOD, and not from government…
    Papa…

  • http://www.facebook.com/rafaelgiovannetti Rafael Giovannetti Sr.

    The problem isn’t really goverment, the problem is that from the time that the private Federal Reserve was formed it has had a contract with the goverment to print money without earning it and charge interest to the goverment. This freedom to print money has gradually turned our politicians into the puppets of the private Federal Reserve, the puppets of the bankers of the world which are the organizers of the New World Order. They control the goverment and the media. When you have all the money you can print, what else is left to get? World domination, world dictatorship, a New World Order! A dictatorship that could not be challenged. This is the United States of America, that would never happen here! That is the Attitude that they are counting on. They are achieving their goal and they are covering up their tracks with the deceiving help from their puppets, the media and the goverment. When a politician has the guts to speack the truth and stand up against the puppet masters, they are delt with accordingly to haw bad a threat they are, as they did with Kennedy. I have lost the hope of having a president who is really a president and not a puppet of the New World Order.

    • DaveH

      To implicate the Federal Reserve and absolve the Government is just plain wrong. They work hand-in-hand with each other. One could not continue without the help of the other.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        The government are merely puppets for the bankers! Why do you think none of them will do anything about it?!?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Yes, absolutely!

        It was, after all, Congress that let the enemy (Federal Reserve) in through the gates…

        However, i do disagree with you on one point; one/Congress, can very well continue without the other, Federal Reserve. But why do i have the feeling that the clarification was unnecessary…perhaps for the benefit of Mr. Giovannetti Sr.?

  • nickkin

    Well Bob, it sounds like you say we have two choices……socialist marxism or the democratic way of fending for ourselves….make everything a private business and convert the agencies of the government to private enterprise and the hard workers survive and the deadbeats die…everyone for them selves…..Congress to have two people. Dumb and Dumber (repubs & demos). lets try that for 4 more.

  • M. J. Fleming

    I disagree with Mr. Leochner. The government does not provide us with social security and medicare. We provide ourselves with social security and medicare through the taxes we pay.
    You make it sound like they are entitlements and they are not.

    • DaveH

      Actually, MJ, it’s the other way around. Social Security is a bona fide entitlement. Welfare is Not.

  • http://windowslive tom g

    Question: If Obama would have did what he claimed he was going to do, and that was “I’M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE BUDGET LINE BY LINE AND CLOSE DOWN PROGRAMS THAT DON’T WORK OR ARE OUTDATED”, we would not have near as much of a problem of national debt.( he lied and never did what he promised) Vote him out.

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    Look, all the rhetoric aside the facts are, { we don’t need a D or and R or an I } what we do need is the following, “A TRUE AMERICAN” who tells the TRUTH, and that should be also followed up by 535 members of Congress in both houses.

    These persons should not be going into politics for gain or power. Who cares what their hair looks like or if they have a flaw or even dress funny. Afterall the people placed up for you to consider are all full of Warm Brown material, so much so that even a total IDIOT can see that.

    All the Rhetoric about who’s party is better is as worthless as a bag of turds — when not a single one of them ~ can or will tell any of YOU the people ~~ one single Truth!

    Thus what are you to do?
    Should you vote for the lesser of two Evils, why should you have to vote for any form of EVIL?
    Is that not Insane?

    All people no matter what you believe or think, ~ should have certian values that are CORE level, these Values should transend everything ~~~ aka- partys and all the other worthless rhetoric.

    The first and formost is: “”TREAT everyone like you would wish to be treated.””

    YOU are all just as guilty of Fraud as the people you elect, Stop allowing Criminals to RULE and RUIN your life as well your childrens future.

    Only YOU can stop this maddness, the question is; do you have the CORAGE, ~ as it all starts with YOU?

    Demand better, “YOU have the POWER as YOU have the NUMBERS.”

    May The Christ help you to open your eyes to TRUTH, .

    Peace and Love

  • Chris

    Here’s a good example of “WASTE”: every year the Government’s budget allows so much money to be given to government agencies to spend on what is “needed”………if one agency gets $100,000 to spend and does “not” spend the entire $100,000, then the following year that agency will be given “LESS” to spend, so in order to avoid the decrease for the following year, the agency WILL FIND WAYS to spend the entire $100,000…..even if it means spending some of the money on UNnecessary “niceties”……..a WASTE of our taxdollars folks! I have SEEN this in my good ole federal government job…..oh everything is “properly documented” but no one is “doing” anything about what all monies are being spent on to curtail waste. What the government “should” be doing is setting aside money each year to be requested by agencies “only” when really needed, and once this pot starts growing too large, then that money should be put back into Social Security which your good ole “powers that be” horrendously stole from years ago and spent on “whatever” – a royal smack in the face to the population who were promised the money would be used for Social Security ONLY but were LIED TO. After “that” is replaced, then the excess can be used to deal with the trillions deficit. This is just ONE area of waste……..I wonder how many OTHER areas exist????

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.