Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Nullification Of UnConstitutional Laws

January 31, 2011 by  

Nullification Of UnConstitutional Laws

Nullification, the idea that States don’t have to follow laws that are unConstitutional, is a growing movement in the United States. Legislators in as many as 11 or 12 states have either introduced nullification measures or plan to once their State legislatures are in session.

Many of these states are among the 25 that have sued the Federal government over the mandates in Obamacare — the unConstitutional and farcical legislation that would require Americans to purchase healthcare insurance whether they want it or not.

Now the zombie talking heads and pundits in the mainstream media are using lies and tired arguments to try and “educate” the populace that nullification is a losing proposition. (Watch the video to see a response to the zombies and their mindless questions.) Their points? The Federal government is supreme. Nullification equals racism. Nullification equals slavery. Only Neo-Confederates would get behind such a thing. Say it enough and the sheeple will believe it… and comply.

 

From a Jan. 26 story by The Associated Press:

“The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’ The Idaho attorney general has weighed in as well, branding nullification unconstitutional.”

And:

“‘There’s nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government," [David Gray] Adler [a Constitutional scholar who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research] said. ‘We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory.’”

And:

“Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”

Lies, lies, lies.

Nullification has a long and storied history in the country, and it stems from the idea that “the United States consists not of a single, aggregated people, but of particular people, organized into distinct states,” writes Thomas E. Woods Jr., in his book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

This idea, called the compact theory, is supported by the very fact that the states voted separately to ratify the Constitution, and that the Constitution was not ratified by a single, consolidated vote of all individuals in the original 13 states, according to Woods.

This, of course, is the opposite of what most children — educated in public schools that propagandize the supremacy of the Federal Government and centralized authority — are taught. They are taught the nationalist theory.

Woods writes that the nationalist theory stemmed from the arguments made by Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, published in 1833. In this view, the U.S. is just another modern unitary state, in which a monopolistic central authority is the source of all power, and any lesser bodies (in this case, the states) derive their own power and privileges from this central authority.

That’s the pabulum foisted on our children in government re-education education camps. It is designed to promote fealty to almighty government.

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor, more importantly James Madison, subscribed to the nationalist theory. And they made their point early on — in the “Principals of ’98.”

In 1798 the second president, John Adams, signed legislation that made it a treasonable activity to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing.” This was one of the laws that became part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. As a result, 25 men, most of them Republican supporters of Thomas Jefferson, were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down.

One of those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora.

In response, Jefferson, then the vice president, secretly wrote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. In them he argued that the Alien and Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation — that the Federal government had overstepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the States.

After all, the 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

He saw the Constitution not as a document that restrained the people, but as one that restrained the Federal government. And he believed that was a good thing. As an aside: Obama has stated just the opposite. He has said he finds it unfortunate that the Constitution contains the restrictions on Government that it does.

Jefferson corresponded with James Madison (known as the father of the Constitution) about the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison drafted similar Resolutions for Virginia.

Both Kentucky and Virginia adopted the resolutions which essentially said that when the Federal government assumes undelegated powers — those not enumerated in the Constitution — those acts are “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

In subsequent years, nullification was employed by the New England states to oppose everything from an embargo on exports to tariffs to military conscriptions to opposition of the fugitive slave act. And nullification continues today.

It was Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull who said in 1809, “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task — it is their right — it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”

And nullification continues today, as evident by California’s defiance of Federal drug laws, laws that restrict Federal law enforcement agencies from making arrests without first informing local sheriffs and measures passed by States that exempt firearms and ammunition from Federal oversight as long as it is sold in-state.

Yes, rogue U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled that Federal law supersedes State law. But that is because Supreme Court justices are employees of the Federal government — just as Congresspeople are employees of the Federal government — and they have long shown a proclivity to rule in favor of more government. They have become the despotic judicial oligarchy Jefferson feared when he wrote, “You seem… to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Finally, the idea that “There’s nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government” completely disregards the 10th Amendment — an amendment as important to those approving the original Constitution as the other nine.

Many went to the polls in November seeking to remove progressives from Congress. And in many cases, the effort was a successful first step in slowing the growing leviathan of Marxism that has pervaded both the Democrat and Republican parties. Unfortunately, the idea that the Federal government is supreme is too entrenched throughout the three branches of government and the populace to depend on elections as the final remedy.

Nullification of unConstitutional laws, and a return to the Constitution and the America envisioned by the Founders, is the only way for Americans to take their government back. And it’s got to happen one state at a time.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 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 “Nullification Of UnConstitutional Laws”

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

  • Vicki

    We have 3 methods to remove unconstitutional laws.
    1. As stated in the article above.
    2. by jury nullification. (www.fija.org) (This is the Jury Box btw)
    3. by Supreme Court ruling.

    All are necessary to keep in check the annoying complexity of government that tries to grow without end as that is the very nature of government.

    • Raggs

      Vicki… I have to disagree with your third choice…

      obama owns the supreme court.

      • Ret

        So true

        • Lomax

          Obama is trying to create a situation like they have in Egypt now, where the entire government is subserviant to him and he is the supreme power. The people of Egypt are telling Mubarak “screw you. Leave.” That is what we need to tell Dumbama again at the polls in 11/’12.

          • kate8

            Don’t forget that Obama supported the communist takeover in Kenya by his cousin, Odinga.

            There are so many facts declaring Obama to be a communist usurper. Why does so much of America continue to believe otherwise?

            It’s completely surreal.

          • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

            Lomax:

            You are correct becasue as Raggs stated: “Obama owns the Supreme Court”. The current Republican “leadership” does not have the stones to vet Obama and remove him from office.

            As you stated it will have to occur in the next election cycle, if Obama allows the next election cycle to occur.

            RINO Sen Collins is re-intorducing the internet kill switch bill. Obama, ;his fellow communists and the RINOs are curently creating the perfect storm to allow them to shut down all forms of resistance from the populace to maintain their power.

          • Vicki

            Old Henry writes:
            “if Obama allows the next election cycle to occur.”

            They (the progressives) used to say that about Bush too. Of Course Obama will allow the next election cycle to occur. All tyrants allow the appearance of democracy these days. At least until they feel they have enough control to not bother.

            The trick is rigging the elections so they win each time. The soviet union did it during and after WW2. http://magpie118.tripod.com/History/Soviet_take41.htm Democrats seem to be planning on stuffing the ballot box with the votes of alien invaders. And I don’t mean the theoretical men from outer space.

          • http://Verizon Bud G.

            We will and it is incumbent on the Governor’s of each state to place strict controls on voting, i.e., voter registration cards with signature and computer match, verification of residence and another form of ID. This will stop a majority of the illegal voters the democrats use to win elections. The last thing is to insure the machines aren’t rigged like Harry Reid did in Nevada with the help of his union flunkies.

          • Denniso

            Kate8,you’re what’s sureal. And,back to guns,a mother is depressed and stressed. Her teenage kids are driving her crazy as kids can do. She just happens to have a pistol for self defense,so instead of slapping her kids or using a belt or stick on them she shoots and kills them. She snapped…she was driving her son to soccer practice and he was mouthing off at her…she turns and shoots him as he sits in the car. She goes home and walks up to her daughter’s bedroom where her daughter is working at her computer. She shoots her daughter in the back of the head and then walks around and shoots her in the face.
            Once again, a legally obtained gun,owned w/ the idea of self defense,used to slaughter family menbers. The mother was upscale,not ‘crazy’,and was probably suffering a nervous breakdown of sorts. The gun means two kids are killed,the mother will be locked away, and the father and other family members are devastated for life.
            Oh, the glory of gun ownership, isn’t it great…doesn’t it make the U.S. unique?

          • Vicki

            Denniso writes:
            “Oh, the glory of gun ownership, isn’t it great…doesn’t it make the U.S. unique?”

            It does indeed. That is why we remain relatively free from the oppression that is the lot of most people in the world. Your illogical attempt to punish all of us who own guns because someone you know shot and killed her kids is absurd.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • JC

            Denniso you are a case in study of why Liberalism is a mental disorder. Always “imagining” the worst about everyone and “imagining” that you Liberals have the answers…but you don’t. All of your hysterical thinking has not one iota of sense in it and simply does not work.

            Why wouldn’t that same distraught mother simply drive her kids into a river? Or bludgeon them with a bat, or stab them with a knife?
            Or maybe throw them off a cliff?

            You think the gun is the problem right? Wrong! It’s the mentally disturbed who are the problem…and that include you.

          • libertytrain

            Kate8 and back to guns – oh that was Denniso – just thinking about Andrea Yates as I read his comment – is drowning your 5 kids a safer alternative to gun ownership?

          • Denniso

            Modern guns w/ large clips are unique weapons because they can destroy so many people so quickly. Sure, I suppose that the Tucson killer could have asked all the 20 victims to jump in his truck so he could drive them into a river and drown them,after he tied them all up so they couldn’t swim away…
            We have fathers, usually,killing their kids and then themselves almost everyday in this blood saturated country…lost jobs,bitter marital disputes are almost always the problem. These people are not mentally ill and they have guns that can so easily do the evil deed so quickly and sometimes painlessly. Why do we accept it as a way of life in this country? Why does it rarely happen in most of the rest of the world? It’s shamefull and pathetic that people see murdered kids(something like 8 a day)as ‘collateral’ damage for the ‘right’ to have a country saturated w/ high powered guns.
            The constitution says absolutely nothing about what an ‘arm’ is, and the inference would therefore have to be that an ‘arm’ is a single shot muzzle losaded pistol or rifle…that’s what an ‘arm’ was back then, so you constitutional literalists need to be honest/consistent and stick to the constitution. But no,there’s no honesty or consistency among most of the NRA…they want what they want,no matter the constitution.

          • JC

            So Denniso, you feel that only the military and police (government) should have access to high quantity round firearms?
            Sure why not? It worked well enough for Hitler and Stalin.
            And after all, America was founded on the notion that we are all dependant sheep sucking the government teat so why should we worry about our own lives or the right to defend them with equal and opposite power?
            After all…big brother will tell us all what to do, what to wear, whether or not we are considered breeding stock…..

            My God, but you are pathetic.

          • denniso

            You’re not worth a reply…

          • JC

            You don’t have a reply.

          • denniso

            You’re paranoid and delusional…if you think you should have weapons equal to what the police and military have,you’ve got a ways to go yet,beyond your little shiny guns. You’ll have to stock up on helicopters,tanks,teargas grenades,actual grenades,missiles,bombs,nukes…your delusional mind actually thinks you’re going to fight it out w/ the cops or military for your own piece of ‘liberty’…your right to own any weapon you think you should. Go ahead and try it,see what happens. Or just read the news for a story just like yours will be…crazed retired white man ranting about healthcare, barricades self in home and has shootout w/ swat team…one dead.

          • JC

            Denniso…I take it you feel our founding father’s were “paranoid and delusional” as well.
            After all, they were the ones who enshrined the term – “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

            The term was enshrined for good reason…so that if and when it became necessary we would be able to defend ourselves against low life fascists such as yourself and every other Obamunista out there.

            I just hopw when that time comes that you un-American sacks of…
            are out there waving your little hopey-changey buttons.
            But being the cowards you are, I have my doubts about that.

            Guess we’ll just have to search under rocks and in the sewers to rout you commies out.

          • Denniso

            I really like your tough talk,it reminds me of our great heros,Johnny Wayne,Clint Westwood,Arnold Cheeseburge and of cousre,Ronnie Vegan..

            Could you try to define an ‘arm’ for me and any other sane people here?

          • JC

            Once again you completely avoid the issue at hand and make childish comparisons. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
            And arm is something you’ll find on either side of you shoulders.
            A gun is what we’re talking about and firearms are how we defend liberty. “Arms” as quoted from the Constitution are anything you can kill with.

          • Denniso

            You did it! You actually answered my question w/ just a bit of bluster and incivility. If you believe that an ‘arm’ is anything you can kill with, then you must believe that we are entitled to any and all weapons? Nukes,grenades,poison gas,machine guns,bombs,missiles,artillery…I’ve only met one person who believes we should have legal access to any weapon,all the way up to nukes…I suspect there are more virtual nuts like you two,but usually they are afraid to state their position because they know it is counterproductive to sane people who favor the 2nd ammendment.

            You’re quite the special and almost unique guy in your belief. Now I would wonder how you get to the definition that you do,when the only arms in existence when the constitution was written were single shot muzzle loaders…aren’t you one of those pretend constitutional literalists?

          • Vicki

            denniso says:
            “You’re paranoid and delusional…if you think you should have weapons equal to what the police and military have,you’ve got a ways to go yet,beyond your little shiny guns.”

            Ad Hominem attack noted.

            Of course we should have tools equal to what the police and military have. WE are the police and military.

            I usually recommend target-able tools like rifles and pistols for defense but it is worth noting that David Koresh might have lived to stand trial if he had some tanks with big guns on them.

          • Denniso

            Vicki…more and bigger guns in the maniac Coresh’s hands would have only meant more bloodshed. I pity the dumb followers of Coresh who were stupid enough to stay w/ a child molester and elevate him to his lofty position over them and their minds,but Coresh was an idiot and criminal who could have walked out at any time and spared the lives of all the dead.

          • Vicki

            Denniso says:
            “I pity the dumb followers of Coresh who were stupid enough to stay w/ a child molester and elevate him to his lofty position over them and their minds,but Coresh was an idiot and criminal who could have walked out at any time and spared the lives of all the dead.”

            The only way you could know any of those things is to have witnessed them yourself. Were you there? Did you happen to chat with the sheriff in town?

            “On July 30, 1992, ATF agents David Aguilera and Skinner visited the Davidians’ gun dealer Henry McMahon, who tried to get them to talk with Koresh on the phone. Koresh offered to let ATF inspect the Davidians’ weapons and paperwork and asked to speak with Aguilera, but Aguilera declined.[20][21] Sheriff Harwell told reporters regarding law enforcement talking with Koresh, “Just go out and talk to them, what’s wrong with notifying them?”[22]”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

            Koresh DID try to chat with the authorities. They refused. They showed up and executed a dynamic entry search warrant knowing that the Davidians had already been warned the attack was imminent. No big surprise they got shot.

          • Denniso

            I guess you don’t understand basic law enforcement…Coresh was ‘marrying’ 13,14 yr old girls, in other words child rape…the gun issue was secondary. Also,he had no right to dictate to law enforcement what they could or should do…that’s not how it works.
            Only a maniac or lunatic would force a shootout w/ the American gov’t,when he could have walked out. He essentially comitted suicide by cop,forcing the gov’ts hand.
            The whole thing was terrible,but Coresh could have stopped it at any point. He was a total coward and lead the others to their deaths.

          • libertytrain

            Denniso – unless ALL of the stuff about this cretin was made up – I have no sympathy for a man like him or Jim Jones or any child molester using “God” as a cover. I’m not condoning the way it was handled. I just tend to agree, based on readings, that he was indeed looking for some sort of martyrdom or believed he was infallible.

          • vicki

            Denniso says:
            “I guess you don’t understand basic law enforcement…Coresh was ‘marrying’ 13,14 yr old girls, in other words child rape…the gun issue was secondary.”

            I guess you don’t understand basic law. If the gun issue was secondary why was it the only issue on the search warrant? If they were after koresh for rape then they should have an arrest warrant for koresh charging him with rape. Since when is rape a federal crime? Or are you claiming they were just fishing which is exactly why the founding fathers put in the protections of the 5th and 6th amendments.

            And lest we forget ALL the misconduct charges WERE investigated by the proper Texas authorities so why again were the feds there?

          • vicki

            libertytrain says:
            “Denniso – unless ALL of the stuff about this cretin was made up ….”

            Since ALL the stuff was investigated by the PROPER State authorities and found to be false we must presume that the “creten” was actually demonized successfully by the MSM. You know the same ones we complain about here for demonizing conservatives. I hate it when it is my ox getting gored.

          • Denniso

            I won’t waste my time arguing w/ someone defending Corresh…you’re being lied to by rightwing anti gov’t haters.

          • libertytrain

            Vicki – I chose to call him a cretin not a creten as you chose to use.

          • Vicki

            Denniso says:
            “you’re being lied to by rightwing anti gov’t haters.”

            Of course SOMEBODY was lying. Too bad the witnesses were murdered and the evidence went missing or bulldozed beyond recovery.

            Now the question to ask ourselves is was the MSM lying then or were they lying when they reported that Obamacare wouldn’t cause problems?

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/medicare_chief_actuary_confirm.html

            And we can ask government were they lying then or were they lying about WMDs or were they lying about Obamacare.

          • ssgmike

            Wow, Deniso was it. You are seriously delusional and obviously need a reality check, people have been killing people since the beginning of man, and yes, the founding fathers put that in the constitution so we have a right to take arms against any enemy foreign OR DOMESTIC. When you use a case of a nutbag using a gun to kill someone, why don’t you out law, baseball bats, cars, knives, tire irons, etc. etc. the statistics by the FBI show people are killed by what is called “Strongarm” meaning without a firearm and a lot of times without a weapon at all, just barehanded 3 to 1.

            Furthermore, if you think the federal government will turn the tanks and .50 call full auto’s against the people, then you are proving the case that the people should be able to legally own any firearm in existence, the 2nd amendment gave the people the right to have the exact same equipment the Federal Army had at their own expense. As a member of the Armed forces we had to take a survey on wether we would fire on american citizens if given a legal order to do so to enforce the laws of this country.

            Historical note, in the so called “Civil” war, the Union sent thousands of troops down to SC to crush a rebellion with overwhelming force and greater firepower, they were stomped by the rag tag group of farmers with their own muzzle loaders and will to fight, so greater firepower does not equate to winning, look at Vietnam, we surely had superior firepower. I digress.

            Please post your address so any nut with his bare hands can come in and strangle you, would you defend yourself???? even with a club? Hmmm….. You WOULD want to defend yourself, or do you like being a sheep. The saying goes a lion will walk a mile down the road to eat sheep than fight another lion to try to take his meal. It is called deterrent. BTW, all you guys that like your PEACE symbols, do you know the history of that little gem. In the sixties during the nuclear talks a representative from england was doodling on a notebook and combined the two letters for N and D in navy flag Representation it came out to be the now famous “Peace Symbol” and by the way, ND stands for Nuclear Deterrent. Oops.

            So don’t put together the candya$$ stories of some mother who should never have been a mother to begin with killing her kids with a gun as an example, people like her and denniso are the only reason abortion should be legal. Like previous posters said, they could have killed their kids a thousand different ways, Guns dont kill people, People kill People (and they don’t always use guns).

            Peace folks and by that I mean “Peace through superior firepower”

            .357 beats 911 every time

            Average response time of 911 call in a small town 20 minutes, you are DEAD by then. The job of the police force is a deterrent and to do the paperwork on your autopsy and investigation. How many cops have stopped a crime IN PROGRESS, unless they were lucky enough to be there.

            I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

            I can go all day, you can have be guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands:
            Obama will be the one to try. let the black panthers or the Farakan Nation of Islam come down here to Mississippi to block election booths, Pleeaasssee. Pretty Please

      • John

        Third choice, Supreme Court, is a valid mechanism though often not useful, because it cannot be counted upon. Problem with it is that it is too centralized and therefore too “ownable”, diminishing its usefulness to Liberty. Hence its role is propgandized as our only choice, because it is more corruptable. The other two are not well known, because they are what we should be using on a regular basis.

        If the Supreme Court serves Liberty, that’s good. If not, the other two are needed to nullify the SC. Our efforts can only be useful in nullification and IJ, as we have little influence on the SC.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          John,
          What you state is why I have never liked the idea of supremes being appointed and appointed for life!!! Their appointment makes them too beholden to the party that appoints them!

          • Denniso

            Let me help you w/ this Joe…the idea behind appointments of the Justices for life is that they can sever the political ties that may have gotten them there in the first place. If they don’t have to worry about their job or the politcis of it, then they have a chance to develop their thinking independent of the political system that attaches to everything else. If they had a term limit then they would be affected by possible future job considerations connected to their decisions….comprende?

          • Vicki

            Joe H says
            “Their appointment makes them too beholden to the party that appoints them!”

            Perhaps to get the appointment but as it is a lifetime job they can do what is right in spite of how they were appointed. At least that was the plan when the method was created. Do you have a better plan and can you explain how it solves the non-existent problem of the Judge being beholden to the party that appoints them?

          • Denniso

            WOW!! Vickie is agreeing w/ a liberal,me, and disagreeing w/ one of her own…amazing! Good job Vickie…because you’re right and Joe is wrong.

          • Vicki

            Denniso says:
            “WOW!! Vickie is agreeing w/ a liberal,me, and disagreeing w/ one of her own…amazing! Good job Vickie…because you’re right and Joe is wrong.”

            I’m not sure that Joe is one of my own but we often agree. And when YOU are right about something I have no trouble supporting your position and of course agreeing with you.

        • http://yahoo.com Chas

          Denniso is one of those Blue-shirted Liberal NAZI NUTS that need to be DESTROYED rather than LISTENED to…Her arguments are specious, only to promote her SICK agenda, and typical of ALL the BLSN methods of deflecting REALITY with PROJECTION/ DENIAL/EQUIVALENCE thereby attempting to find the WEAK among us who “it” believes will FALL for her stupidity!!..Do… NOT REPLY … outside of INSULT/ THREATS!!..It is NOT HUMAN and NOT worth considering!!

          • Denniso

            Well,well,well…just another threat of violence from a rightwing nut. I don’t expect Kate8 or Liberty or Vickie to denounce one of their own,but would it be refreshing to see them condemn threats here? Even if it’s against me?

            You, ‘chas’,don’t sound like you can put a rational thought together and probably struggle to even write the gibberish you did…sad and pathetic ‘human’…

          • JC

            There’s no threat there…you’ve just been properly labeled.
            Case in point….you’re “imagining” a threat…but there isn’t one.
            You Libbies are great “imaginer’s”.

          • libertytrain

            Denniso – sorry didn’t see this one, and yes, it is dumb, as dumb as Dogma and his continuous slurs. Comments like this and Dogmas reflect very poorly on anything they are attempting to represent.

          • Denniso

            Bob Livingston…why would you suggest civility on your site and then leave a ‘comment’ like the one above from ‘chas’? He says I need to be destroyed,not listened to…is that the sort of comment you approve of? I know it’s difficult to monitor all these comments,but you watch for foul language,why not threats of violence? You’ve said before that you don’t think these people who use violent language ‘mean it’…whether ‘chas’ means it or not or could ever carry it out or not,it should still be unacceptable on your site.

            JC apparently can’t read,or doesn’t know what ‘destroy’ means…

          • BDOG

            AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER WHO HAS ISSUES WITH BOTH PARTIES, I SADLY AGREE WITH CHAS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE BLIND NOT TO SEE OBAMS GAME PLAN THE SAME WAY CASTRO CAME TO POWER. SOON THE COUNTRIES PATH WILL PROBLEY BE DECIDED BY PHISICAL FORCE RATHER THAN CORRUPT ELECTIONS.

          • JC

            Gee Denniso…how many American lives have been given to “destroy” communism, fascism and authoritarianism?

            Far too many to put up with it on American soil that’s for sure.
            yep! “Destroyed” is the right word alright.
            You’ve been warned and that is about all the civility your kind should expect.

          • Denniso

            Leave it to JC to join in w/ a threat of violence…moronic,childish,
            foolish and simple minded threats. Such bluster from such a tiny mind.

          • JC

            You don’t like threats of violence but you want my rights as an American? You don’t get to have it both ways, Commie.
            Go after my liberties and you will meet more than threats…
            get it yet?

          • Denniso

            Why don’t you quit w/ the hollow threats and answer my question? What is your definition of an ‘arm’,as mentioned in the constitution? Let’s see if you can say something constructive for a change…

          • Vicki

            Denniso says:
            “Well,well,well…just another threat of violence from a rightwing nut. I don’t expect Kate8 or Liberty or Vickie to denounce one of their own,but would it be refreshing to see them condemn threats here? Even if it’s against me?”

            Looks like a typical ad hominem attack Denniso. You’re a big boy (girl?) just point it out and move on content in the knoledge you won the debate.

            Due to the suggestion of violence, Chas appears to be one of yours and an agent provocateur. Conservatives don’t tend to make threats. Though as threats go it was pretty lame. So Chas. Stop it. Denniso has the right to share his ideas here. We WANT him to. So much easier to show the illogic of his arguments to those who might fall for them as I once did.

          • Denniso

            You are kidding,right? Conservatives don’t tend to make threats? This site is full of ‘conservatives’ who have made threats against me,Obama,liberals and others here. Liberals are the ones who try to talk and negotiate a way around a fight,that’s what gripes the conservatives about liberals,we talk to our enemies. By your logic,all the threats made here and elsewhere on Obama’s life are made by liberals trying to cause trouble for the poor conservatives…
            Vickie, that’s plain silly.
            You may notice that after a while here you can determine a posters politics by their repeated comments. It’s not rocket science to get to know where the regulars stand. I’ve seen countless threats made here over a year by ‘conservatives’ and almost none made by ‘liberals’
            or ‘progressives’. Pay attention.

      • nationAP

        Exactly.
        And what about an “executive” order overuse?

        • Vicki

          Since executive orders can have no force of law they are irrelevant to the people. Of course if enough people are brainwashed into believing that the orders apply to them (Unless they happen to work for the President and then only with respect to that work) then we have a defacto monarchy.

          Then again that is why the founding fathers created 3 equal branches of government. To make it clear that the other 2 are NOT expected to obey the “executive orders” and when such an order is given they should react to nullify it.

          Oh and for all those people who “work” for the President they must nullify any unconstitutional executive order by refusing to obey.

          • independant thinker

            “Then again that is why the founding fathers created 3 equal branches of government.”

            According to Senator Schumer the three branches are “the house, the senate, and president”.

      • BobbyB

        I’ve read some funny stuff here, but that takes the cake. The Supreme Court is a right wing activist court. Are you saying Obamas a righty??

        • ValDM

          “Right-wing”????? You are so lost, no one can even give you directions to get back to center.

        • JC

          Wrong again BobbyB…at least you’re consistent.

        • Vicki

          BobbyB. The question is not “right wing” or “left wing”. The question is 100% government or Constitutionally limited government.

          This might explain the details to you.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

        • Vigilant

          BobbyB and others here: The Court is pretty evenly split, 4 left wingers, 4 sane and responsible justices and one swing vote.

      • James

        Raggs, that’s ridiculous, no president has ever owned the Supreme Court. There have been instances where the High Court has overstepped its power, such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, where the court ruled, respectively, that women the right to kill their unborn fetus, and men have the right to have sex with each other. These were unconstitutional decisions because Article III, Section 2 limits the cases federal courts may hear, to those there-listed. In Roe and Lawrence, both parties were of the same state, a category that was denied to federal courts. Keep in mind also that Amendment XI deleted two of those listed.

        Juries can vote ‘not guilty’ even if the evidence is overwhelming that the accused actually committed the murder he was charged with (e.g., the O.J. Simpson trial).

        Federal law is the supreme Law of the Land (Art. VI, Clause 2), but only if such law is within the powers delegated to the national government in Article I, Section 8. Congress has repeatedly gotten around that by using its power “To regulate Commerce” (Art. Sect. 8, Cl. 3).
        Our problem is most Americans don’t know that, they believe we are a Democracy where Congress has power to do whatever they or the people want.

        • Vigilant

          Andrew Jackson, in a sense, “owned” the court. John Marshall ruled Jackson couldn’t wipe out the Indians in the Southeast, Jackson said something to the effect that “well, he made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”

          And Jackson proceeded to nearly destroy the tribes.

        • James

          In our beginnings, the sole purpose for the federal court system was to determine whether a federal law, when challenged, had gone beyond the powers of Congress. And for the most part, that’s what they still do, however, certain activists justices, when in the majority, have invented ‘rights’ that never before had existed (Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

          • WARLORDX

            You make the common, liberal error, assuming if the Constitution doesn’t delineate a ‘right’, it doesn’t exist.

            I refer you first to the Declaration of Independence that clearly states that all rights come from ‘Nature’s GOD’; hence not granted by anyone alive, nor any document. Secondly, Amendment NINE: I quote: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Implying that the people get to choose what those rights are.

            I submit the most essential right, not delineated, is: THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE (by government and society) TO SEEK HAPPINESS AND LIFE AS I CHOSE IT. Not as directed by anyone else.
            DE OPPRESSO LIBER

          • James

            Warlord, I made no such error, nor did the Founding Fathers. The 9th Amendment states: The enumeration…of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Thus ALL RIGHTS were covered as off-limits to the federal government. But, abortion and homosexuality were never considered as rights, indeed both were crimes in all of the States. In my opinion, when the Supreme Court made those crimes, rights, they violated their oath of office.

      • http://Personalwebsite Leroy Baldwin D.D.

        RAGGS: Regretfully, I have to agree with you relative to the Supreme Court statement; however it is not the original intentions of our Founding Fathers. These members are to be “blind” to out side or prejudiced influences. Would that it is still so!

        • JUKEBOX

          Some of them are blind alright, blind to how they should make their rulings.

      • Vicki

        Raggs says:
        “Vicki… I have to disagree with your third choice…
        obama owns the supreme court.”

        Our forefathers were VERY wise as can be seen in the writings of their time and the craft of the Constitution. They provided us with multiple check and balance methods. That is why there are at least 3 methods as I outlined above. Had the power to nullify an unconstitutional law been left in the very institution that the Constitution was crafted to limit then the Republic would have fallen MANY MANY (about 210) years ago.

        Even THAT institution was divided into 3 parts to help delay the nearly inevitable growth of government.

        Our fore fathers were wise beyond most imagining which is why I have no faith in a “constitutional convention”.

      • skip

        Are you nuts? Big Business owns the Supreme Court – they bought it with the recent 5-4 decision empowering and allowing corporations to provide unlimited and anonymous funding for political purposes and projects. With that ruling, the average American citizen essentially became a nonentity in the political arena, and Big Business/Rupert Murdoch, and even international, foreign dominated companies assumed command of the USA. The middle class was ruled out of existence and influence on that day. Anyone really working for a living in this country, rather than skimming off the top as the money passes by, took it in the shorts. I’d advise all of you who do work for a living to really take notice of what happened, and also to read the papers of this morning announcing that Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, Leonard Blankfein, and their fellow travellers paid themselves their biggest bonuses ever by skirting the rules. And remember they create no wealth for the nation, just skim it from the top, and their activities are what wrecked the economy in 2008 and plunged us into recession. What do you propose to do about it?

    • Jim

      In regard to Supreme Court Rulings to remove unconstitutional laws:
      It is by acceptance only. This power is not written in the Constitution.

      • James

        Jim, to remove an unconstitutional federal law, an individual who has been harmed by it must file a lawsuit in a federal U.S. District Court, setting forth the reasons why he thinks its unconstitutional, such as being outside the powers delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8. If States are so-harmed, they must use the same procedure.

      • Vicki

        Jim this is true for the entire Constitution. The Constitution is just words on parchment. It is the idea and the willingness to support and defend these ideas embodied in the words on parchment that give life to the Constitution. It is the hearts and minds of the people from which comes the power.

        • James

          Vicki, well said. The Second Amendment doesn’t enforce itself. When Congress passed The Gun Control Act of 1968, did they violate that amendment? Does controlling what guns may be purchased violate the “shall not be infringed” of the Second Amendment?

          • Vicki

            James says:
            “Vicki, well said. The Second Amendment doesn’t enforce itself. When Congress passed The Gun Control Act of 1968, did they violate that amendment?”

            Yes.

            James: “Does controlling what guns may be purchased violate the “shall not be infringed” of the Second Amendment?”

            Yes

          • James

            Vicki, I agree, the Gun Control Act of 1968 clearly violated the Second Amendment’s sole purpose. So, why don’t Americans oppose such federal legislation? How about the National Firearms Act of 1934?

          • Vicki

            James says:
            “Vicki, I agree, the Gun Control Act of 1968 clearly violated the Second Amendment’s sole purpose. So, why don’t Americans oppose such federal legislation?”

            We do. The most recent 2 successes being the Heller decision and the Chicago vs McDonald decision.

            How about the National Firearms Act of 1934?

            United States vs Miller (1939)

            “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

            Since the defendant and counsel were not present there was no one to present evidence.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

          • Vicki

            Further. All these states have declared or plan to declare that Congress has no power over firearms that are made and stay within their state.
            http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

          • skip

            Is it Ok for me to buy my own F-16, or bazooka, or Abrams tank under the 2nd amendment?

          • vicki

            skip says:
            “Is it Ok for me to buy my own F-16, or bazooka, or Abrams tank under the 2nd amendment?”

            Yes. And quite a few people own or did own their own tanks at least as recently as the 1960′s

          • ssgmike

            Specific example: Larry Ellison CEO of Oracle Corp. owns an F-16 and a Soviet MIG. Now they won’t let him fly the Mig over US Air Space as that is a military thing, but he does own them.

            I can also get a license to buy just about anything and should be allowed to. Any law that infringes on the 2nd amendment, and don’t give me the militia crap, in 1700′s anybody old enough to fire a weapon was considered the “Militia” it just meant citizen soldier not paid soldier in Her Majesties Service or after we won in the “union” of States, not a federal government.

            SSG MIKE

    • ssgmike

      Heck I got so wound up with that idiot Denniso I forgot to post to the actual topic here, yes STATES RIGHTS, are specifically guaranteed by the constitution, people, liberals especially, try reading the dang thing, there are very few powers given to the federal government, then the remainder is specifically given to the States. There was a huge debate about Federalism vs. States Rights during the framing, but States won because they did not want an Aristocracy (hmm funny we seem to have that now) running things, that is what they left england for so the PEOPLE can decide for themselves.

      There is a basic rule of thumb all lawyers know this, as well as liberals, but they hate it because they want all the power, i.e. like the politburo, but you apply STATE law first, then Federal, but State Law trumps federal law and when it is said and done the United States Supreme court will give an opinion on the matter, but it defers to the State Supreme courts ruling as the final authority, I will attach a nice little write up on this after my next comment, now this whole District Federal Judges throwing out cases because THEY say it is unconstitutional is B.S. especially when the PEOPLE VOTED on the issue with an overwhelming majority, like SB 1070 and Defining marriage between a man and a woman. One person does not have that power and these judges have overstepped theirs, even the president cannot go, that is unconstitutional so I will not enforce this law. He is, but he is not supposed to pick and choose which laws we abide by. Why don’t the states just tell the feds to shove it, until the federal government starts enforcing their own laws, then we will not enforce ANY federal law at the state level, because they are unconstitutional. Governors Stand your ground you are in the right and you have the greatest fighting force in world backing you. 4 and 5 year veterans of war, oh yeah, this is for denniso as well. Didn’t you guys forget, all of the fighting since we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan have been done by NATIONAL GUARD troops of the STATES, under Title 32 of the laws of the military, my commander in chief is the Governor of the State I am a member of UNLESS he signs a release to lend me to the President through Title 10 activation, the President has to ask. Doh! That means all those Tanks in Texas, Mississippi, Field Artillery in LA, all of those combat hardened troops who fought for their country who are now being spit upon by their commander in thief, a muslim supporter, 9/11 don’t forget, who will they back when the S**t hits the fan, hhmmmm, the Regular Army folks were the trainers in these wars, they stayed on post and got he guard ready for Urban Combat. Boy doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. i went to high school with my commanding officer.

      Oh well enjoy the rest of your day. Stand Tall Governors you are in the right and we support you. Semper Fi.

  • Doug in Michigan

    States Rights. Amen!

    • Norm

      Doug in Michigan
      If you think the federal government has problems, look at some of the BS coming out of the state legislatures. Some of the bible belters would have the bible as the constitution and kill anyone who was not a Christian extremist. The cowboys in the west would have us packing side arms 24/7. We played the state’s supremacy game in the 1860′s and settled it once and for all.

      • Bud

        Norm, I feel sorry for you. That is the most telling statement about someones intelligence I have ever read.

        • Anthony

          I am one of those “Bible belters” and I have never heard any so called “Christian extremists” wanting or speaking of killing anyone that disagreed with them. I have heard plenty of leftists say this, but no Christians? Strange huh? Plenty of Ilamists; but not even one Christian “exteremist”. Very odd, huh?

          • http://comcast.net Jim

            Many leftists are christians, after all Christ was a leftist. Unfortunately christians have killed many people throughout history. Burned at the stake, drowned, strung up from trees, scalped all in the name of christianity.

          • eddie47d

            Maybe Norm was referring to the Pat Robertsons’ and all the inflammatory remarks from other Americans about killing Muslims. Instead of making a general statement about the majority of Christians he should have specified.

          • nationAP

            “By dying, Christ left four nails, and Muhammad seven swords”- Victor Hugo

          • Norm

            Anthony

            On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
            – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Carey, 1816

        • Norm

          Bud

          The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
          – Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

      • JC

        Norm if you ever hear a loud pop followed by bright light…that will be your head popping out of your A**
        Where do you get this crap…oh right, you are one of those people filled with rabid seething hatred of all things American.

        • GWF222

          He is probably one of Obama’s half brothers, as I hear tell he has many of them.

        • Norm

          JC

          The priests of the different religious sects … dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

          • JC

            Hey I don’t subscribe to organized religion either. But I know people who do and they seem decent enough. You on the other hand come off as being so venomous towards these Americans that I really have to question your sense of liberal “live and let live” decency.
            Oh, that’s right the liberals lost that value long ago didn’t they?

          • eddie47d

            How come when a Conservative quotes Thomas Jefferson then you are all ears but when Norm does you get down and dirty.

        • Pete NY “R I P FEDERAL RESERVE BANK”

          @ JC — Thanks for the best laugh I had all day. I hope Norm finds it half as funny as I did. I think so. Norm has to have a good self deprecating sense of humor, based on his legacy of comments here.

          • Norm

            Pete NY “R I P FEDERAL RESERVE BANK”
            The simple minded are easily amused.

          • JC

            Still no “pop” huh Normy? ;)

        • http://yahoo.com Chas

          EDDIE is ALSO another Blue-shirted Liberal NAZI that needs to be IGNORED!!…”It’s” STUPIDITY is echoed in its responses; specious “arguments” that are ONLY talking points to further the Blue-shirted Liberal NAZI agenda “it” seeks to promote.Cliches/ slogans/ non-sequiters are their weapons to destroy TRUTH?FACTS, which they ABHORE…Only a “high-velocity LEAD injection”will keep their LIES silent!!

      • Cawmun Cents

        Yeah…like secular people would’nt kill Christians if they could get away with it here.The people who hate the most are people who hate Christians. Oh yeah,I forgot the separation of church and state clause(the one that doesnt exsist in the Constitution)which secular people lie about having in the Constitution so they can baffle and BS the un-educated masses. Then they try at every chance to manipulate law so people who have rights under the Constitution,get those rights abridged. Just like when Muslims fire rockets from Christian neighborhoods in Lebanon,causing the Israeli’s to retaliate killing(you guessed it)Christians.Then they take the bodies and run through the streets acting as if a Muslim child has been murdered. Dont offer me your secular sanctimonius slack Norm….I,like most of the folks on this blog,know better than to buy it.

        • JUKEBOX

          I noticed that the Idaho AG was one of those that believes in Federal supremacy. Wasn’t that where Randy Weaver’s wife was assassinated by a Federal officer? Just wondering.

      • EltonJ

        Norm, you are going to be so surprised after Yahweh finishes chastising this country.

      • Jeryl

        Your comment reference Christians is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve been politically active since I was 21 (I’m now 66) and have far-ranging interests, both as a Conservative and a Christians and I don’t know a single true Christian personally who holds that position. Compared to most other religions, there are very few true radical Christians in the US. There are a few nut-jobs, but they are both rare and marginalized.

        • JUKEBOX

          Radical Chriatians were handled by the Feds at Waco.

          • Cawmun Cents

            Yes, “Christians”and”Posse Comatatus”were violated in front of the entire American populace.Janet Reno wasnt tried for treason either.Nor was the secular god Bill Clinton.Small children were burned in the name of arresting one man,who could have been arrested peacefully when he went to town a week before the “Waco Incident” occurred.But no….the ATF,and the FBI,thought they would be sly and just raid the compound.What a bunch of Idiots!The Feds tried to be cowboys and ended up being Nazis.They use PSY-OPS and Military vehicles,against citizens of the United States,but we ddidnt hear the secular cry for vengence then did we?Why not?Because it was their god who was killing “radical Christians”.You probably watched and cheered from the armchair quarter-back position,while keeping the beer as cold as your psyche.

          • JUKEBOX

            CawmunCents, I meant my comment to be an example of how well our “FEDERAL” government looks out for our general welfare. I was never threatened by any of those poor souls at Waco, even though I was in the area at the time. I was outraged at how Reno handled a situation that should have ended peacefully.

          • WaChar

            Just a side note about WACO:
            I was in Law Enforcement for 16 years. During 5 years of it I was a Tactical Response Officer assigned to a primary unit. Of all the traing I received, including both Federal and Military schools we were sent to, THE VERY FIRST RULE WHEN USING TEAR GAS GRENADES was-
            DO NOT FIRE INTO BUILDINGS WHERE THERE MAY BE NO ESCAPE AS IT _WILL_ (not may) WILL CAUSE A FIRE.

          • independant thinker

            WaChar …….. If remember my studies correctly the particular type of tear gas that was used at Waco is notorious for igniting plus it is banned from use in war because it is considered a chemical weapon. It has been a long time since I read up on it so feel free to correct if I am mistaken.

          • Conservative at Birth

            They were not Christians! That was a Cult, just like Islam is Cult!

          • JimH

            The raid in Waco was to confiscate the weapons David Koresch(sp?) had on his compound. He went into town once a week and could have been arrested in town peacefully. I believe that Reno wanted to see what public reaction to having Feds go into places like the Waco compound to confiscate firearms. If it went well, militia groups around the country would have been raided. Since it was a dismal failure thre wasn’t the kind of attack on the @nd ammendment as there would have been by the Clinton addministration.

          • Karolyn

            Conservative – Islam is not a cult. Try studying religion. If you were to say Islam was a cult, then you would have to say the Mormons are a cult.

          • JC

            Karolyn, I believe that Islam is a cult in the sense that it dictates every aspect of a “believers” every day. It relegates women to the status of herd animal and calls for its “believers” to kill all who do not convert.
            If it’s a religion, it’s the sickest one yet.

      • Bruce D.

        Nothing has been settled Norm. The States are also there as a form or checks and balance when the Fed over steps its power. It is a continous struggle. Why all the bigotry against Christians Norm. They are fighting for the right of free speech and freedom of religion to worship in public. If you believe in the principles of freedom you support them.

        • nationAP

          What do you mean by “worship in public?”

          • Bruce D.

            Being able to pray openly in public places like schools or carry a bible to school if they choose. You can carry a comic book to school, why not a bible. Kids have been censored for that. People should be able to have religious expression in public places. I don’t understand the lack of tolerance.

          • Patricia

            Any place we damn well please! Seriously, if Muslims can erect a mosque at ground zero, then don’t EVER tell me where I can open my Bible. And the only thing restricted in schools is that a religion, any religion, can not be taught by a teacher to a class as anything other then information. Christian clubs are free to meet on any CA school campus, and we are about as liberal it gets.

          • Bruce D.

            Any religious freedom in school was hard won by the Center for Law and Justice, backed by Pat Roberson. That is my point. They have been fighting hard to protect the Bill of Rights. It is a battle that helps everyone. The ACLU has been systematically attacking Christianity practiced in public places. Even historic religious symbols in place for two hundred years are under attack.
            Freedom of Religion has been corrupted and most cases are won under Freedom of Speech.

        • Norm

          Bruce D.
          Churches are everywhere in this country. Pick your religion, sect, or preacher. They have complete freedom and pay no taxes. Even donations aren’t taxed from the donor.
          Why do we need to pray in public schools and places?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Norm,
            Maybe I feel like praying at a school and according to the constitution my rights to my religeon will not be abridged!!! don’t like it? Stuff it!!~

          • Vicki

            A right is not subject to Norms limit of “need”

          • Patricia

            Norm- Maybe the more telling question is…Why does it bother you so?

          • Norm

            Do Buddists. Hindus, Shintos, Muslims, etc. all have the same right to pray in public and at YOUR public school. They pay taxes just like you do.

        • Karolyn

          Bruce – Are you saying that if a kid pulled a Bible out of his backpack at lunchtime and started to read, he would be admonished? I would have to see some proof of this having happened.

          • Vicki

            Karolyn here is a subset for you. This does not exactly match your straw man scenario but it is clearly along the same vein.

            http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/23/student-suspended-for-bringing-rosary-beads-to-school/

          • Bruce D.

            I am not interested in looking it up on the internet Karolyn but there have been one hour news shows on it. Jay Seculow from the Center of Law and Justice fights those kind of cases free for Christians. You are entitled to disbelieve it. I have no problem with that. If you are truely interested you should do the research.

      • Adele in Texas

        Norm said: “If you think the federal government has problems, look at some of the BS coming out of the state legislatures. Some of the bible belters would have the bible as the constitution and kill anyone who was not a Christian extremist. The cowboys in the west would have us packing side arms 24/7. We played the state’s supremacy game in the 1860′s and settled it once and for all.”

        Norm, do you really think the majority of people reading this are so stupid that they will believe anything simply because you wrote it? If you’re going to make wild accusations, you better learn to cite facts including who, when, where, why and how! But, you can’t. You made a ludicrous sweeping generalization, i.e. “some of the bible belters”. As for “The cowboys” I want to know what cowboys, Hoss Cartwright? Matt Dillion? What lunacy! No one, most especially those that are actually are familiar with firearms want everyone carrying one!

        Regarding what was and was not settled in the 1860′s, if the question of State’s Rights truly had been settled in the manner YOU seem to believe it was, the 10th Amendment would have been repealed. It was not; it stands today, and I strongly suggest you read it.

        • Vicki

          The 10th clearly indicates that the States have POWERS not rights. We need to re-frame the argument to match the document we are citing.

      • James

        Norm, there is nothing wrong with Christians advocating that biblical moral laws should also be state laws. That’s how our nation began. However, no state or federal legislative body has power over our rights, which include religion.

      • Patricia

        Norm-I’m not sure which states you’re talking about. Certainly many states are as befouled as the Federal Government, but I’m in CA and I don’t know of any Christians going on murdering rampages here. It must be those other seven that Obama referred to-you know, “all 57 states”. I guess you didn’t realize that those are Islamic states. Understandable mistake, since radical Islamic Fundamentalism seems to be the only religion murdering those who do not agree with them.

      • Gene Husky

        That is totally absurd.Christians are not the judges of who lives or dies.They believe in the 10 commandents.Another thing the Fed don’t believe in.We are in such a mess.It seems every system has a different teaching.People are so confussed they do not know what or who to believe.I think the Constitution should be a class that is taught from grade school through colledge.We sure would have a better understanding.I would like to know how the Supreme court came to be and why 1 person is able to appoint.

    • Vicki

      Doug in Michigan says:
      “States Rights. Amen!”

      States have no rights. Only powers. Read the 10th Amendment.

      People have rights. People have powers. The People delegate some of the powers to the state and federal government. Read the 9th Amendment. Read the Declaration of Independence
      http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

      Our Creator gave us rights and powers. We CREATED government. We gave our creation NO RIGHTS and delegated to it only some powers. (Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) We further stated in writing there were some powers we would NOT allow ourselves to delegate to our creation (government). We further stated in writing (see 9th amendment) that there were lots of other rights we did not list. The declaration of independence clearly states that governments are instituted amugh us to protect ALL OF OUR RIGHTS and that all government is given ONLY powers We The People choose.

      In the US we chose a Republic with a Constitution to strictly state the limits of what power we could give it. All other powers not prohibited by the Constitution we could give to the states as we chose. (See 10th Amendment)

      Note that because the Constitution limits both federal and state powers as exemplified in the 10th amendment we need only to reread the Bill of Rights to quickly see which ones apply to Congress (The legislative arm of the federal government) and which apply to all government at ANY level. Federal (any of the 3 branches), State, Local.

      For instance 1st amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law….. That meant that the people are free to give power to the states limiting all of those things. I say meant cause the 14th amendment passed on the limits of Congress to limits on ALL government Federal, State, Local.

      The 2nd amendment is a limit to ALL government. It does not say anything at all about “Congress shall make no law….”

      The third clearly applies to all government.
      The 4th clearly applies to all government.
      The 5th applies to all government.
      The 6th clearly applies to all government.
      The 7th applies to all government and a special note to any court of the United states.
      The 8th clearly applies to all government.
      The 9th clearly applies to all government.
      The 10th clearly applies to the State and Federal government.

      The 14th simply added the 1st to all government and reaffirmed the rest.

      • James

        Vicki, the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government. State constitutions have their own bills of rights.

        In the original Constitution (1789), the powers that were delegated to Congress (Article I, Section 8) made no mention of rights, and about half of the Founders believed that would suffice to prevent the new federal government from legislating over rights. However, others thought future congresses might misconstrue those powers, to include rights, and insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights (in 1791). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads:

        THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

        Thus the stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was to add “restrictive clauses” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” with respect to rights, where ‘its powers’ referred to the federal government. The Second Amendment reads:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        Viewing the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights’ context has misled many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as a proclamation to all governments, including state legislatures as well as Congress. But, just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” obviously applies exclusively to the federal government, so also does the Second Amendment.

        In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.”
        In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the Second Amendment right of the blacks. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”
        In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” After meticulous analysis of every word and clause in the amendment, the Heller Court stated: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

        Just remember that that decision involved an ordinance of a territory (the District of Columbia), which falls under federal jurisdiction, it has no effect within the States. The Heller Court cited Barron, Cruikshank and other High Court decisions as precedents.
        In McDonald v. Chicago, the case just recently decided by the High Court, the issue was whether a state’s city ordinance, which prohibited handgun possession in a certain area, had violated the Second Amendment. Based upon previous High Court precedents, it did not the Court rather held that it violated the “liberty” in the “due process of law” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is, the “liberty” of that Amendment now includes the unalienable right to bear arms, just as previous decisions added miscegenation, abortion and homosexual acts to one’s “liberty.”

        No State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment, for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.

        • Vicki

          James.
          “No State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment, for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.”

          Already proven false. Repeating it will not work any magic and make it true.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

      • James

        Vicki, The Bill of Rights is one document, the first ten amendments were all passed at the same time. The 9th Amendment simply stated that the restriction on Congress, concerning the enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, applies to all rights whether enumerated therein or not. Alexander Hamilton insisted on that amendment because future congressess might assume that rights not mentioned therein, were fair game.
        The 10th Amendment simply reminds Congress that powers not delegated to it, in the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people. In state constitutions, rights are generally off-limits to state legislatures as well, but they do regulate some rights. The federal government was denied all power over rights. The first Amendment’s “Congress shall lmake no law” applies to all rights, the Founders just didn’t repeat that phrase over and over.

        • Vicki

          James. If the Bill of Rights is one document please explain why varous courts over the years have incorporated some of but not all of the Bill of rights in their rulings on limitations to state governments.

          “The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

          • James

            Vicki, ‘Incorporation’ of, let’s say the First Amendment’s establishment clause, does not mean the First Amendment then applies to a State. What is incorporated, is the amendment’s theme, the protection of the right. That is always done through the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment. Why? Because the Bill of Rights says: “Congress shall make no law…” The High Court honors that, it can’t apply that to any legislative body but Congress. It can apply its principle, though, through the 14th Amendment, which does apply to the States.
            Confussion arises because most Americans have come to think of their rights as eminating from the Bill of Rights. Not true! Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence. The Bill of Rights is simply restrictions placed upon the federal government.

          • Vicki

            James writes:
            “Confussion arises because most Americans have come to think of their rights as eminating from the Bill of Rights. Not true! Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence. The Bill of Rights is simply restrictions placed upon the federal government.”

            Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence. Interesting. So why again do we have to have the 14th extend these protections?

            We agree btw that these rights exist with or without the Bill of Rights. Now our forefathers were very specific in their wording. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law…”. That of course has to apply as a restriction to the federal government but not states.

            The 2nd says “…the right of the people…” so it means the people so it is clearly a restriction on ALL LEVELS of government.

            in fact ONLY the first has the interesting specification of “Congress”. Thus all the rest of the Bill of Rights is limits on all levels of government without needing “incorporation” thru the 14th.

  • TOCB

    I agree that mandating the purchase of health insurance from private companies is a problem, but not necessarily unconstituional. The federal government can always use the “geneal welfare” clause to justify this. If Obama had remained true to his campaign promise to promote single payer he would not have this problem. The government can levy a “tax” and use said tax for health care insurance, just as they currently do with social security and medicare.

    • http://donthaveone Beberoni

      The government does not belong in the health care business. Please examine their record of running things, such as the federal budget, social security, the public school system, the U.S. Postal Service, medi care, medi caid, and a few others. These are all bankrupt, busted, and in dire straights. To suggest they now take over the best health care system in the world is both irresponsible and idiotic. They will ruin it and run it into the ground, just as they have everything they run. No, they do not belong in the health care business. Not at all.

      • TOCB

        Over 50% of CURRENT health care cost is borne by the federal government. Something HAS to change with the current system. Private insurance companies currentlty collect premiums from healthy young people and when they get old, they are pawned off on the government, which is one reason medicare and social security are in financial trouble. It makes sense that if the government is going to take care of people when they are old and sick, the government should get the premiums when they are young and well, thus single payer.

        • Robin from Arcadia, IN

          TOCB… Why is the government picking up 50% of the health care cost? Could it be illegal aliens using emergency rooms because they have no insurance? Or is some of this cost going to social security to prop up what was spent from the fund that shouldn’t have been touched in the first place? Why is tax payer dollars paying 50% of health care in this country? I know my health insurance shot up since last year. I would love to pay less and get the same benefits.

          • JohnK

            Pharmaceuticals

        • dgknj

          How could you possibly trust the federal govt. to run our healthcare system
          with their track record of financial disaster? The govt. is bankrupt.
          I wouldn’t let Odumbo or any of the lying-doubletalking-forked tongue politicians run my kids lemonade stand. They would regulate/tax it out of business.
          Until we get govt. back to the basics like protecting our borders-Oops-they can’t/won’t do that either, this country will continue to slowly(I hope it isn’t quicker)lose the middle class standard of living.
          Get the govt. and the lawyers and the lobbyists out of everyones business.

          • THOMAS STEWART

            Right-On dgknj However Only Half Pay Taxes, Yikeess, All Tea Party Groups Have Learned Basic Math And Do Not Want The Manchurian President Obamacare, Yippee, That Leaves The Gimmie Group, Payed Losers!! God Bless America.

          • independant thinker

            Shhhhhhh. Don’t give them any ideas or that will be next along with yard sales and roadside vegatable stands.

        • Ted Crawford

          You seem to overlook, TOCB, that I have paid for my Medicare for over 45 years and that both I and my employers have paid my Social Security for the same period. I do believe that I was young when I was forced into these programs. The Government isn’t paying anything! They are simply returning my own money to me!

          • Patricia

            Ted- good argument! In fact, let’s take that a step further. There is not one single dime that the Federal Government spends that is its own. All of it belongs to the citizens of this country, collected to provide for services rendered on our behalf.

        • mythbusting

          Oh, yeah. I want the *feral* gov’t jackasses managing/dictating/controlling/limiting/mandating and in general fouling up the works on MY healthcare. Do you not have a self-reliant bone in your body? The *feral* gov’t is comprised of lifetime politicians or several termers who come in, make a bunch of noise, further burden the Citizens and residents of The United States, and then promptly exit and make sure that those laws do not impact them (Rangel’s censure comes to mind). But you are so quick to dump your ability to do for yourself into the fertile hands of a bunch of jackasses. …may your chains rest lightly upon you.

      • Karolyn

        It is NOT the best health care system in the world! http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/101/16/2015

      • mythbusting

        TOCB cannot think far enough outside the box to realize that had the *feral* gov’t left the earnings of many Americans with those Americans that they could have afforded the retirement savings/long term care insurance coverage/benevolence to others to have been self-reliant. TOCB wants to ram this idea into the corner of their mind that only gov’t can provide for the masses. TOCB needs to grasp the reality of: the gov’t cannot give anything to anyone that it first does not take from someone else. The gov’t cannot create anything except misery and then campaign on how it is going to “fix” the misery it just caused, further exacerbating the misery into perpetuity. This is how our unfunded debt is in excess of $110 TRILLION DOLLARS. http://www.pgpf.com

      • eddie47d

        Beberoni; The question is whether it is Constitutional or not. Not whether it should or shouldn’t be done because you don’t like it. There is nothing farcical about the healthcare bill for we sorely need a better system that can be obtained by the majority. What we’ve had the last several years is what is farcical and it needs to be fixed.

      • Carlucci

        EXACTLY – !! Everything Fedzilla touches turns to doo-doo. And it’s not a “health care” system anyway. It is a “sick care” system. How can people be healthy when mainstream medicine’s answer to every thing is using dangerous pharmaceuticals? I cannot get over how many people I know (children and teens included) who are on anti-depressants. People simply don’t understand that the crap they eat and the “medicines” they take are poison. That’s why they have no energy or motivation. You can bet your bippy that that weirdo Jared Loughner was probably not just smoking pot, but was on some kind of dangerous anti-depressant “cocktail” given to him by the family doctor – just like those weird kids who shot up Columbine.

        • Karolyn

          I’m with you on most of what you said Carlucci. People go to the doctor for every ache, pain and sniffle and look for instant relief. I always find it interesting that someone is feeling fine, has an ache or pain, goes to the dr. and finds out they have cancer and are dead within a few months- More than likely from the treatment.

          • Bruce D.

            That is one of the reasons health care insurance cost so much. People use it when they could just go to the pharmacy and get the same advice if you already know what is wrong with you. If free people will be going to the doctor for the sniffles. There needs to be health reform but people also need to take personal responsibility for their health.

          • JC

            Karolyn says:
            January 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm
            I’m with you on most of what you said Carlucci. People go to the doctor for every ache, pain and sniffle and look for instant relief.

            __________________________________________________________________

            Wait till they know someone else (the government) is paying for it. Then watch how much worse it gets…

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Carlucci,
          I don’t know, I’ve always liked the way the chinese used to do it a century ago. They paid the dr when they were well. As soon as they got sick, they stopped paying him. Could you see that now??? They would be scrambling to cure you!! ANY WAY THEY COULD!!!

          • kate8

            JoeH – Hey, a lot of trouble and thought went into setting up a system that would make us sick, provide drugs that would reduce our numbers more quickly, and bleed us dry while they’re doing it.

            Pretty ingenious plan. And they had the power and wealth to make it work.

    • Sam

      The things he said were just to get elected to office. He never had any intention of actually doing any of that. You still don’t seem to understand. This a not a president who has made a lot of mistakes and is therefore creatinfg turmoil. He has done exactly what he set out to do, destroy our democratic form of governmernt. His words are just to mask his true intentions. He is a radical revolutionary, not a mis-guided democrat.

      • Lastmanstanding

        Sam, you are exactly right. How many true Americans will realize this???…before it is to late. Get prepared people.

      • Laura Ayala

        I agree with you there. His plans for this country is to destroy it and then take over as it’s dictator. I saw this in Obama when he first started his Presidential campagne. What does it take America? The new stations report corruption in other governments ever day, yet they cannot see what is happening to their own country. I think the appointment of Obama as President of the United States should be nullified (as impeachment is a joke here in this country).One more thought – Social Security did not go broke because of all the baby boomers reaching retirement age, it went broke because the government litterally STOLE the emergency funds for Social Security and used it for their special projects. They had no right to touch it, that money did not belong to the government. Our entire government needs to be replaced.

    • marvin

      TOCB
      trouble with that is 26 states have filed suit over the taking of states rights you or no one has the right in a republic to tell you or me when to sleep, eat or control ever aspect of your life this is still the land of the free last time i looked ,and their have been alot of people die over the last 200 + years for your right to make choices on your own ,the federal goverment has vary little power 90% is left up to the states if you belive what the constutition saz

    • JUKEBOX

      The “GENERAL WELFARE” is what has funded our excellent failing educational system, brought us $3.50 gas, ad infinitum. People need to start assuming responsibility for their own welfare.

    • James

      “The federal government can always use the “geneal welfare” clause to justify this.”
      This is one more example of how the Socialists & Marxists twist around the Constitution: The Preamble is NOT part of the list of enumerated powers. As was common then & now, any debate or discussion generally starts out with a general statement, to be followed by particular points to support the general statement. The Preamble is just what is says it is…A Preamble. It does NOT state any particulars or mandates, it only outlines a general goal to strive for, in the manner specified in the remaining body of the Constitution.

      • JUKEBOX

        I believe Hitler killed millions of Jews in the name of General Welfare of Germany, eliminating the inferior citizens.

        • TIME

          JB,
          Man you sure know how to end any argument in a snap!
          Good for you, good job.

          You all may also note Hitler also said – now get this
          “it is Social Justice.” To remove the Juden as they were in his words {a social sickness that needed to be cut out and removed.}

          I don’t know about any of you but that type of thinking scares the bloody hell out of me.
          Please also – Note that the “Progressive movments belief system” is all based in “Social Justice.”

          • eddie47d

            That crazy old Hitler card is brought out over and over again. Maybe we all can play since it is so much fun. Maybe it’s the Conservatives or wealthy or whomever that have good insurance who are the ones who are playing the roll of Hitler. Be like us or you’ll be gone. Keep the insurance rates so high that those people you don’t like can be eliminated. If you are not financially stable enough to go to the doctor then too bad and it is your duty to die. That would of coarse be a slower lingering death and would make any Hitler wanna-be be very proud. There seems to be a few Conservatives who want to “cut this social sickness out” and remove these lesser people from the Conservatives land. That in itself is probably more correct than the liberal bashing that is so easily thrown around here.

          • kate8

            JUKEBOX and TIME – Right on. They are doing the same things because they are using the same playbook, step by progressive step.

            One of the steps was to dumb the people down sufficiently so they won’t recognize this. Even though some of us older folks see it, there are enough of the indoctrinated now to give them power.

          • TIME

            So Eddie,

            Lets see you don’t like the fact that Hitler was a Progressive?
            Or is it that you think progressive have moved on since Hitler?

            If its the later, your dead wrong.

            You forget I was married to a Progressive who’s family is well set in that movment. So I do have a very strong knowledge of what their plans are. And it follows the Hitler path like railway tracks.
            The Progressive #1 motto is and has been;
            “A world Population of less than 500 million in total.”

            Now wake up, or go back to sleep.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            eddie,
            your arguement is a little lacking. IF, and I mean IF, the progressives were only worried about the unfortunate uninsured, they would have come up with a way to cover them and not screw with the coverage we that have good coverage have! All this whole thing is about is CONTROL OF THE MASSES!! Simple BUT TRUE!!!

          • eddie47d

            That’s another tired old line that you have been using Time. “Progressives want to reduce the worlds population to 500 million” It’s 6 1/2 billion now and will be 9 billion in a few years. I guess we better crank up the ovens. LOL More than likely wars or the spreading of diseases would accomplish your scenario.

    • James

      TOCB, they have used the ‘general welfare’ clause too many times. In our beginnings, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 was, for 147 years, considered to be only a lead-in general statement to the specific powers that followed. Back then, one High Court Justice said: ‘If the welfare clause should become a power, there would be no limit on what Congress could enact.’

    • GeenBeen

      there is no general welfare clause. the government can tax and spend for the general welfare, not regulate for the general welfare. The government can not force people to purchase a product from a private company. That is way beyond it’s enumerated powers by any account.

      Just a question, what’s up with Christians? I don’t get why the right has to be “Christian.” Why are conservative values “Christian?” I am not Christian and am sick of Christianity being the focus of conservativism. I am very conservative and at the same time believe in limited government, personal freedom, fiscal conservativism and personal libertarianism. That is what this country is about, not forcing Christian values, whatever those are, into everyone’s lives. Them main problem is that Christians are missionaries and try to get everyone else to be Christin. If it were not for that, I would not care about a kid thumping his New Testament in a public school, but when he starts harrassing his little Jewish school mate that Jesus loves him and that he will burn in hell unless he loves Jesus too, that just doesn’t seem like a safe environment. Now, I, of course, send my kids to the parochial school of my choosing, and I think that Christians should do the same. Public School should not even exist, much less be a forum for Christian missionizing.

      Another BTW, the 10 commandemts (along with 603 more commandments) were given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. The Nations have 7 Nohaide commandments which are:

      Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

      Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

      Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d’s image, is sacred.

      Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

      Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

      Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

      Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.

      “These seven laws are implicit in God’s commandment to Adam and Eve in Gen. 2:16-17, “And the Lord God commanded the man saying ‘From all the trees of the garden you may freely eat’.”

      If the nations of the world would recognize the one true G-d and follow His commandments as he gave them to each nation, the true Messiah (not Jesus) would come and bring true peace to the earth.

      How do you like them missionizing apples?

  • Wayne

    And if the same situation were present, except McCain is sitting in the White House, I seriously doubt if all of you so-called “Patriots” would be carrying on like this. Man up, truth hurts.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Wayne,

      You could not be more wrong. Many of us see that the attacks on liberty come from both sides of the aisle. Any time liberty and tyranny compromise, liberty is lost.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • s c

        Bob, thanks for being so polite in Wayne’s direction. When I see remarks like his, I know that we have much work to do in America. Wayne is a victim of public education and political brainwashing. He would have sided with the British when our first crop of REAL leaders were trying to give the world a FREE nation.
        People like Wayne never learned to appreciate being FREE.

      • http://naver samurai

        Same here Bob, but I guess Wayne never earned the right to be free or be called and American. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Ted Crawford

          This is true in many cases, but I often wonder, based on their comments, if most aren’t influenced by a greater factor than that. They seem to be absolutely terrified of Personal Responsibility! They seem always to need someone other than themselves to blame for their situation in life!

          • Pat R

            The population has been so dumbed down and uneducated by mind control that they have no idea what life is about. It’s time to pour out the Kool-aid!

            Pray for the Republic

            http://www.republicfortheunitedstates.org

        • Karolyn

          That “right” does not need to be “earned”.

          • Bruce D.

            In a free society with every right you you are charged with the duty to respect those same rights concerning others.

      • wayne

        Bob L, there are two Wayne’s on this forum. I had not noticed this until today, Jan 31, 2011. I am with you on this one. I do not agree with Wayne. I am not a McCain supporter, even though I voted for him. I felt I did not have any other choice. I certainly did not want to see Obama elected as our president. I don’t trust him in any way, shape, or form. We do not need a Muslim leading a Chistian Nation. Their values are so much different than the values of the folks that established our constitution. Obama’s associations with Communists, his sitting in a church for 20 years with a preacher who had blasphemed our country, his Progressive & Liberal attitude, and his association with Bill Ayers, who had bombed Federal Buildings back in the late 60′s to early 70′s. I was taught by my parents to stay away from this type of people. Wayne is either naive, or he is of the same character as Obama and his cronies. Maybe he can come back and explain what he really believes.

        • Dan az

          Wayne change your name to Wayne1 so we can determine who is writing.

          • wayne

            That is a good idea, Dan.

        • eddie47d

          Wayne 1; The Conservatives who want credibility don’t associate with the Eric Rudolph’s,Pat Robertson’s or neo-nazi’s yet they seldom condemn their actions or statements. Some of “your” associates are not as pure as the driven snow so stop giving us a snow job. I do believe there is this blindness on both sides and it’s time all recognize this.

          • Bruce D.

            Public figures associate themselves with religious leaders all the time. Billy Ghrahm being the most famous for that. Obama is infamous for associating with Marxist ministers.

          • http://naver samurai

            How about the left with Bill Ayers, Soros, Jerimiah Wright, Farrakhan, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Salazar, Chavez, Castro, etc? Sounds like the left isn’t doing well with the ones they can prop up, now does it[insult removed]? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Bob Livingston,
        your control amazes me!!! you answered wayne in 15 minutes. It would take me a whole ot longer to gain control to answer the stupidity in a post like that one. I agree with you that there are many of us that have seen the attack from both sides of the aisle and I still to this day say that McCain threw the election on purpose to elect Nobama!!! It was a case of him “reaching across the aisle” one time too many!!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          OK so it was 20 minutes, same answer!!

        • kate8

          JoeH – I thought the same thing. McCain was dead last in popularity among the Republican candidates. He had to have been the designated loser.

          Add this to the fact that America never has 2 consecutive presidents belonging to the same party. It always switches, and it was the Left’s round.

          • patrick H.T. paine

            hhhhmmmmmmm…..Roosevelt ….Truman…..Reagan…… Bush, I believe
            those were consecutive.

          • http://naver samurai

            Sorry patrick, but FDR and Truman were not conservatives. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Benjamin

      Sorry to say Wayne, but you’re sadly mistaken. The Tenth Amendment Center was founded in 2006, still during the Bush years. Their purpose is to promote the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions.

      The TAC is just as vehement about opposing the war on drugs, REAL ID, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and other big government Republican ideas as they are in opposing Obamacare, Cap and Trade and federal firearms legislation. As a matter of fact, while nullifying Obamacare and federal firearms legislation has been the drive lately, 25 states have passed Nullification laws against REAL ID and 15 states have passed some sort of marijuana use legislation, more than those opposing Obamacare.

    • http://donthaveone Beberoni

      All though Im not a McCain fan or supporter, had he been elected president, the economy would be in much better shape, as business wouldnt have shut down and clammed up saving their money for the democrat tax monsters who are in power. Successful business isnt stupid. They didnt make a lot of money and become successful being dumb. They know the democrats are anti successful business, and fully believe in taxing them to death. So they tightened up and held on to their money to make the new higher taxes they know the democrats bring. Had McCain won, that fear would have gone away, we would have saved billions not buying UAW votes for the future by paying off GM and Chrysler to secure those votes, and things would have been much better, and I dont even like McCain, but I have to tell it like it is.

      • RoBoTech

        Bebe
        I didn’t like McCain, either.
        But I firmly believe that IF he had won (he wasn’t supposed to win, even he knew hat), the Southern Borders would be secure. We might be fighting an Amnesty about now, but we would have sen some serious movement back to homelands from Illegal Aliens.
        Maybe I am wrong, but we will never know.

        • Allan Halbert

          Remember, McCain was leaning toward amnesty until he had to run for re-election in Arizona. His not listening cost him the Presidency if he ever wanted it.

          • kate8

            i’m not so sure things would be much different under McCain. He is just another progressive, and we’d probably be heading in pretty much the same direction.

            One thing would be different, though. We’d have BOTH sides of the aisle opposing him in large numbers. Under Obama the PTB knew he’d have a blind following among the Left no matter what he did.

    • RoBoTech

      You Sir, are an arrogant fool.
      I would be just as angry, no matter WHO is trying to push Socialism on me and my family. It’s been a LONG time since I was not scared of the Federal Government.
      As far as “man up”, until your mommy let’s you leave the child’s table and move to the Adult’s table, you have no skin in the game, lil’ buddy.
      Now hush and let the Adults here have a conversation.
      GEEZ, where do these idiot “savants” keep come from?

      • BobbyB

        Just curious? Do you know what a savant is?

        • S.L.Johnson

          To Bobby:
          Uh, yeah. I’m sure he knows what Savant means. He was using the term “idiot savant”, which is a well known oxymoron. Is clever speech not part of your vocabulary?

          • libertytrain

            I never heard that term called an oxymoron. Though I can see why you might say that it is.

    • Rich Frank

      Wayne – I guess you have missed the point made many times over that it makes no difference about the party in power, Dems or Repubs. The Washington Elites have been driving / steering this country away from the basics of the Constitution & Bill of Rights for many years. It is not a ‘Patriotic’ movement to speak up for the truth about the wrong doings of the Federal Government and the controlling Puppeters from outside of Washington. Apparently you are happy with the takeover of our freedoms. What will be your position when we ‘Patriots’ get the bad laws nullified ?

      • S.L.Johnson

        To Rich:

        I don’t think he would even know we patriots helped him, because he wouldn’t feel the pain and suffering that he would have otherwise felt if we had let the bad laws pass. As they say, you don’t know what you had until it is gone… The trick is to know what you have now, before it is lost forever.

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      Wayne… Your post confuses me. What exactly are you saying? That there would be no dissent if McCain were in office? If that is what you are meaning, you are wrong. For one thing, I doubt we would have government health care mandated for all. And if we did, it wouldn’t be supported, much like the lack of support Barry has gotten on his health care…

      • s c

        Robin, W doesn’t get it because he’s not supposed to ‘get it.’ His masters determined long ago that the only way he’ll be ‘acceptable’ to them is if he surrenders his common sense and does what he’s told.
        You and I know we have to look long and hard to find a conservative who has a use for McCain. Wayne
        doesn’t have a clue, and he’s content being that way. His utopia is a perpetual state of denial.
        He doubles as a useful idiot (Gore-style) because
        his “mind” is always turned off. Wayne’s main problem (progressivism) is an addiction, and Wayne
        is happy being “hooked” 24/7.

        • kate8

          s c – As I’ve stated many times, most conservatives support leaders based on what they actually do, not because they are supposedly on the Right. If it quacks like a duck…

          On the other hand, Lefties will follow anyone with a D after their name, even if it’s right off a cliff. Current administration clearly demonstrates this.

      • wayne

        Robin, this is not the same Wayne that has been posting on this forum. Must be some one who is posing as me, or just a coincidence that his name is the same as mine. I disagree with what ever point he was trying to make.

        • ValDM

          Wayne,
          i’ve seen this tactic empolyed on other conservative sites. It’s only been in the last 2 months that I’ve seen it regularly. My sympathies they used it on you.

        • Bruce D.

          Wayne sometimes it is better to use an initial after your name or a number. There are others who post as Bruce sometimes with no malicious intent.

    • marvin

      Wayne
      is what you are saying because obama is black your point ,is the reason we are not on board with his take over of this country ,then i say bullshit skin tone has nothing to do with stuped un enforcement of some laws and the take over of others

    • JC

      Oh so you think that the atmoshere of general discontent is “just” because of the illegal Kenyan in the White House?
      Nope…it’s been coming for a long time now, and the Kenyan is merely the straw breaking the camel’s back.

      • JUKEBOX

        I wonder if Obama is using the white Marxist or the Kenyan Marxist part of his heritage to make his decions, or a combination. Calling him black is a misnomer. He only claims to be black when it’s to his advantage.

      • Robin from Arcadia, IN

        JC… I couldn’t agree more. The American people are awakening. They just needed a push and Barry and his buddies were it! We need reform on both sides of the aisle!

        • JC

          Exactly right Robin. The sytem itself is so corrupt it is pretty much beyond repair.

    • JUKEBOX

      At least McCain can verify where he was born.

      • kate8

        JUKEBOX – Yes, he can and did. The Left MADE SURE OF IT.

        The usual double-standard.

    • Dagney

      There’s a kernel of truth in what Wayne says. If McCain had won, the Tea Party would never have arisen in the strength we now see. Incrementalism to tyranny would have slowly marched on under McCain’s presidency. We, who are aware of what this country stands for, would have made the same amount of noise. However, left and right sleep-walking people would have continued on in their ignorant bliss.

    • Bruce D.

      Wayne most of us did not want McCain reelected to the Senate. The left seems determined not to understand what is going on in the country right now.

    • mythbusting

      We figured out that dude early on–”the lesser of two evils” category. Ron Paul was the right man at the right time, but the MSM sent every imaginable torpedo into that Sovereign Ship of Self-Reliance and Common Sense.

      The lesser of two evils is still evil…”my friends”.

    • newspooner

      McCain is sort of like “Obama-lite”.

  • Richard

    I’m glad to see the States standing up to the tyrannical federal government. There is a “cold revolution” underway in our beloved America and I hope it keeps growing, FAST! The central government is operating way, WAY outside it’s Constitutional limits and the power structure as outlined in the Constitution is upside-down. GO STATES!

    • Ret

      You got that right, Richard,

      “It was very hard to control the narrative in a way that you would like,” Axelrod said. “I think we’ve been better at it in the last 60 days, for sure. We’ve learned some lessons.”

      This statement makes me sick. The arrogance of stating, with pride, that they attempt to control the news??? We all know that, but to absolutely state it outloud??? Well, welcome to Amerika and President Oputin if we don’t do something. I personally send lots of e-mails thanking any politician, regardless, for their fight against this treason.

      • JUKEBOX

        Obama, Axelrod & Emmanuel are all from Chicago, where Al Capone had his way for many years, until enough people stood up to him.

        • Karolyn

          Al Capone’s demise had nothing to do with people standing up to him. He was found guilty of tax evasion, cut and dried.

          • JUKEBOX

            Tax evasion was the only thing they could prove. All of his other crimes were impossible to get a conviction on, just like Obama can’t prove where he was born in a definitive manner, beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • Bruce D.

            A lot of people died trying to get Al Capone convicted of tax evasion and other things before that. So I would say that many people stood up to him and loss their lives doing so.

          • Dave D

            Capone was found guilty of tax evasion by THE PEOPLE who stood up to him. You can’t really be this stupid, can you?

          • Bruce D.

            Dave D, it is not likely he volunteered to go in prison. If you have something to say, say it. Why the hate?

          • Bruce D.

            … Extortion, Weapons Violations, Murder, Blackmail, etc, were all charges that he avoided but certainly was involved in.

            an especific crime was called the valentine days masacre wich was one of the most popular.

            Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_some_crimes_Al_Capone_commited#ixzz1CdW0EHaS

          • eddie47d

            Al Capone was another crooked capitalist who eliminated his competition. Not much different than a few corporations today who use everything in their arsenal to knock off the other guy.

          • Bruce D.

            A lot of organized crime was involved in extortion back then. If you owned a business you were offered protection. If you chose not to pay for that protection they would come in and destroy your business. If you went to the police you were killed. More up to date was John Gotti who high jacked trucks of merchandise being transported by business. At the level of organized crime killing people who stand in your way is part of the business.

          • Karolyn

            Actually, my grandfather knew Al Capone, had met him when he hopped a rail from NY to Chicago in the teens before his notoriety. He told my mother that he was a great guy to his friends.

          • Bruce D.

            John Gottii was well loved also by the people who he gave money to. Few take into consideration the violence and the people who are murdered to obtain that money. You could make a case that they like to redistribute other peoples money in exchange for power. Much like the Obama and the left.

          • S.L.Johnson

            To eddie47d-
            It would be foolish to paint Al Capone as simply a “capitalist”, just as it would be foolish to paint all capitalists into the same corner as Capone. Enough said.

        • Cawmun Cents

          The Feds arrested Capone because they didnt like competition…

          • kate8

            C C – Good one!

          • JC

            A turf war? LOL
            That makes sense.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            kate8,
            Dam these guys are good at getting people off the subject!!! We need to stay on the politicians and get back to the constitution!!! As long as this nation even somewhat closely followed the constitution we were in good condition, now since we started the bigger wanderings, look where we are!!

          • Bruce D.

            Organized crime has always made it a top priority to bribe politicians and the police. Chicago’s political atmosphere is effecting us all right now do to Obama’s election. Politics in part is always based on who controls the politicians and who the politicians control.

  • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

    I would love to see states invoke Article 5 and convene to modify the constitution to limit congressional powers, to term limit house and senate members and the Supreme Court judges.

    • Ret

      Yes

      • http://n.cates@cox.net Norman F.

        NO!
        You can only amend the Constitution the way it is written, one change at a time. The last thing we ever need in this country is a Constitutional convention. We had one and it totally did away with the one it was supposed to modify, the Articles of Confederation. That turned out fine because the people working to modify it were patriots. If we have a new convention it will be controlled by the same people who foisted President Obama off on us – the elites, the media, and the socialists. Don’t forget it was the unlucky thirteenth amendment that added the second part to amendments; “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” thereby stealing the amendments to follow.

        • patrick H.T. paine

          “To conquer, first divide.”

          I’m sorry, but a “convention” is a valid option under Article V and
          it is precisely that fear mongering which has been used to
          prevent one.

          Your comparison is invalid, as the Articles of Confederation, required
          unanimous consent to do any business at all, and while the first constitution convention was essentially illegal under it, it was
          a neccessary step.

          What you suggest IS a possibility, for a convention could address
          any issues it wanted to. What the outcome would be, however is
          indeterminate, and the results would still have to be ratified,
          so the process would be ‘constitutional”, and what you ended up
          with would still be the “constitution” as ammended by the
          convention, and ratified by the process required.

          Now the important question here is: Could this be any worse than what
          we have now, and illegitimate government which pretends to operate
          under constitutional authority, but does what it wants, by fraud,
          deception and which relies on the willfull ignorance of the people?

          No matter what the result of a ‘constitutional convention’, the very
          nature of this event, would engage every member of the population,
          in discussing matters which are primary to our continued existance as
          a nation. Right now, our politicians and the media in general, pay
          lip service to the “ideas” expressed in 1787……because there is
          nothing at stake……

          We are long overdue…..and many things need to be clarified for they have been made murky with mythologies about many things, and this
          would no longer be possible, because whatever the result, the intent
          would no longer be subject to interpretation…….

  • http://MozzelaFirefox Jo

    If we don’t do something quick, one morning we’re going to wake up in the Communist Union of America. I hope all 50 states do this!

    • Ret

      And yes

  • Mark Matis

    If the Federal Government is not rapidly brought back to within its Constitutional limits, the events in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East will look like child’s play. Got guns? Got ammo? Are YOU ready?

    • Ret

      And yes X 2

    • TOCB

      And what if some deranged person get from your post and such language that they should get a gun and ammo and go out and shoot a congressperson because they voted for Obamacare?

      • Robin from Arcadia, IN

        TOCB… Grow up! Personal responsibility! I know that the libtards think that as long as you can blame it on someone else it’s okay to try and get away with it. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don’t feel anyone needs to think that they are not free to post because it might touch off some weirdo into doing a horrendous crime spree. No one on this thread would ever advocate that sort of thing. PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY! No one makes you do anything you don’t want to do!

        • Bob

          Libtards? Are they related, to repukes?

          • Maggie

            Yes, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

        • eddie47d

          Oh really Robin ? What about Mark Mathis’s remark at 7:31? Could be innocent or very real.

          • mythbusting

            Dude, we’ve been doing this exercise for about 4 yrs now. Obviously you’re are numb. Stop the novacaine drip.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            eddie,
            Obviously you have never heard of freedom of speech!! There was a study done quite a few years ago that showed that a person could not be made to do anything against their morals even under hypnosis!! Obviously the Tucson shooter had it within his morals to do what he did and did so under his own volition

          • eddie47d

            mythbusting; Is your nose growing? I don’t think this blog has been around 4 years?

          • libertytrain

            Eddie – you’re right, it’s only been about two and a half, but Bob Livingston’s been doing this thing since about 1969 with his Bob Livingston Letter – on the other hand he may be referring to something entirely different.

        • S.L.Johnson

          “PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY! No one makes you do anything you don’t want to do!”

          Amen!

      • Mark Matis

        You ACTUALLY look at Egypt, and YOUR concern is about one congresswoman shot by a LEFTIST?

        • mythbusting

          Beautiful retort! Ha!

          • http://deleted Claire

            Gabby Giffords was shot by a nutjob–The right wing/left wing had nothing to do with it. Stop you stupid hateful rhetoric. Good grief. All this world needs is more radicals.

          • http://deleted Claire

            NOT!

          • JC

            You’re quite right Claire…but it’s difficult to overlook the Obama sticker on his car…

          • http://deleted Claire

            JC–I was not aware there was an Obama sticker on his car–I never saw it on TV etc.

          • JC

            No Claire, you wouldn’t have seen it in the MSM.
            After all it doesn’t help the Kenyan go after guns if the nut job in Arizona was actually one of his supporters does it? In fact quite the opposite…if this individual who went nuts with a firearm was an Obama man…it would just give the rest of us one more reason to arm ourselves to the teeth wouldn’t it?

            Several Second Amendment organizations published articles on the Nut case and pointed out the bumper sticker.

      • JC

        Wow, what if someone decided to jump a school bus over a bunch of cars because they saw it on TV?
        What if they decided to eat until they got big as a whale just because Oprah did it?

        Personal Responsibilty….ever heard of it?

      • JUKEBOX

        Only in Nazi & Communist countries can you get shot for being STUPID.

      • mythbusting

        So, if you’re an idiot, and I read something from you (remember, you’re an idiot) that means that I’ll do idiotic things because you, an idiot, influenced me?

        I’m not an idiot.

    • Karolyn

      You and people like you have got to get real. You would be squashed like a bug. If you think there are enough gun-toting Americans that want to support a revolution, you are not thinking clearly.

      • Mark Matis

        Keep on telling yourself that. It will make things a lot easier when the time comes. Nothing to see here. Move along now.

        • eddie47d

          Don’t worry Karolyn,Mark will make you his first bug. The government isn’t the only entity that you have to fear.

          • Karolyn

            Yeah, sounds like a real American – Get your guns and go to war!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Karolyn,
            I doubt there are many that actually WANT to go to war. I’ve been there and believe me NOBODY actually WANTS that. You progressives read into comments things that aren’t there, you know, chasing ghosts!!!

          • JC

            Karolyn, you disappoint today.
            You obviously have no idea what a real American is but you do jump to hysterical conclusions. I’m not warlike and do not wish to hurt anyone.
            But will I defend my country, my home or my family with deadly power…Yep! in a heart beat. Wouldn’t you?

        • mythbusting

          the zombies are clueless. It’s not about “them”, it’s about Liberty. They, the zombies/kook-aid drinkers/’tards want to imagine that their lack of ability to think outside the box is cause for us to worry about them when they’ve put the shackles of control on their minds willingly. Nobody in Germany believed the horrors about to be unleashed upon them in the early 1930′s–nothing like that could happen in modern times. nah, nothing like hitler could ever happen again…

          • Karolyn

            I believe that is true. We live in a different world now.

      • JC

        Karolyn, you might want to rethink that…
        Do you seriously believe that the military will side with, or take orders from a fascist government? Do you thgink that our brothers, sisters, aunt, uncles, moms, dadas and neighbors will turn their guns on the American public?

        I’d bet my last dollar agaiunst it.
        BTW America has over 200 million armed citizens, that’s a lot of people.

        • Karolyn

          You’re right if it were a matter of the whole country rising up; but that will NEVER HAPPEN! Open your eyes and take a look around you JC. You are in a minority.

          • JC

            Karolyn…Just because there are only so many that are vocally unhappy doesn’t mean that there aren’t a whole lot more quietly stewing and preparing…

            I wouldn’t count on a general uprising “never happening”.
            Depends on how far the Globalists push.

          • S.L.Johnson

            Karolyn, I get the distinct feeling from reading your comments that you are trying very hard to convince yourself that what you are saying is true. It’s not convincing the majority here… and for your information, we are not in a minority.

            I care about my fellow man/woman, so to show you that I bare no animosity towards you or your kind, I will offer you a tip…
            Don’t count it out. Prepare to side with the people, just in case. Siding with the government is not a wise decision.

          • eddie47d

            The majority of Americans don’t listen to the verbiage spewed on this site. There is nothing wrong with taking on government but most here aren’t very realistic and hardly siding with the people. Some have an extreme political agenda so be careful which side you choose.

        • kate8

          JC – I hate to say this, but the loyal ones have a target on their heads.

          Have you noticed the flurry of police shootings lately? I wonder if they are patriots…

          If you do some research, there have been large numbers of “potential threats” individuals who are meeting with untimely accidents and suicides in the past couple of years. And increasingly so. Kind of reminiscent of the Clinton era, only ramped up.

          • kate8

            Oops! I said target. Sorry. Don’t want to incite any lefty.

          • JC

            Hadn’t thought about that. Still I think in a general sense, the constabulary and the military are decent Americans and will not turn on the American people.

          • kate8

            JC – You are probably right, as it should be.

            All I’m saying is that communists and other tyrants eliminate the military and law enforcement patriots first. That way there is no one to defend the people.

  • Bob

    It’s difficult, for repubs to admit, that the constitution, is a flawed document, written by white men, who owned slaves. If the constitution is so perfect, Vicki, why was there a need, for the 19th amendment, in August of 1920. Vicki, it took 133 years, to correct a major flaw.

    States right, is a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

    Reagan, the God of conservatives, delivered his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights.”

    Read the rest of the article:
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html

    State rights, are clearly limited, and it’s about time, that tea baggers, and conservatives, admit this.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Bob,

      You are a zombie.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Bob

        How quickly repubs degenerate, to name calling. I would not expect anything less, from zealots.

        • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

          Right Bob, who started with the name calling?

          “State rights, are clearly limited, and it’s about time, that tea baggers, and conservatives, admit this.”

          • Bob

            “The grassroots movement didn’t always consider “tea bagger” a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker). In a twist, some conservatives have recently advocated that the word be reclaimed. Here’s a look at the evolution of the insult:”

            Read the rest of the article:
            http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

          • DaveH

            So, Bob, you are admitting that you knew the negative connotations of the term “tea bagger”, yet you still used it. And then you cite others for name-calling. Hypocrite.

          • Ruby

            Don’t you love it!

            Indeed, the one who first uses the race card, is in fact the racist.
            “They” see everything through the prism of racism; therefore, they think everyone and everything is a racist.

            I listen to the Al Sharptons, Jimmy Carters and others that claim Americans who oppose Obama’s agenda and/or initiatives proclaim that the opposers are racist or have a problem with an African-American in the White House and I just wanna’ barf!

            They, of course, are those that first use the race card.

          • Randy G

            States rights are what the FED govt. does not DO for them.

        • http://naver samurai

          I think you need to go back and read our history more than you have till now. I don’t mean the Communist Manifesto, Das Capital, or Mein Kampf either moron! Such a rant and not supported by facts, just like the average lib, gay loving, baby killing, marxist. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Bob

            Yes, I support gay rights, and choice.

          • http://naver samurai

            Bob you are clearly either a plant or some crazed idiot that just found this site to stir the waters. Not a real American. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • DaveH

            You aren’t supporting gay rights, Bob, you are supporting favorable unequal treatment for gays. Gays were always protected from crimes like anybody else. What you are advocating is special protections by government that the rest of us don’t have. The lawyers love you. I don’t.

          • Karolyn

            Samurai – Every American is a “real” American.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Karolyn,
            There are many, many “americans” that aren’t REAL Americans!!! Wake up and smell the roses!! Some of them actually illegally voted!!!

          • JC

            Karolyn, real Americans are not advocates of socialism.

        • s c

          B, if the shoe fits, wear it. Did you get up on the wrong side of the world today? Take your pills, chill out, get a life and go find a country where your ‘talents’ are needed.

        • Ret

          How sad it always comes down to race. I grew up in the NorthEast in a very culturally diverse neighborhood. I went to GA and could only tolerate it for 6 months (OK Georigians, get your mouths flapping). I worked with a lovely black woman who desperately wanted an associate’s degree. She had spent about 3 years in remedial reading, writing, etc., and could not get it. The state was paying huge sums for her with tutors, etc. because everyone wanted her to succeed. Please take the race card off the table. Thank you. My racial beef is with illegal aliens, regardless of color, country of origin or anything else. I saw small black, legit, tax paying businesses go under because illegals undercut their prices, along with a lot of other businesses. It’s off the topic, I realize and apologize, but had to say it, since you brought it up.

          • Bob

            Undercut prices? WTF are you talking about? Undercutting prices, is a capitalist principle, which there is only two: 1. sell the product, for the highest price possible, 2. manufacture the product, for the lowest price possible.

            Illegal aliens, are following a capitalist principle, and repubs welcomed them, for their cheap labor. Illegal aliens, only fill the void, until repubs can pass legislation, to legalize slavery, again.

          • DaveH

            Are you daft, Bob? The Liberal leaders are spending our money right and left as if it were their own, and you have the audacity to say that the Republicans are trying to recreate slavery? For sure they are part of the Big Government building machinery, but when it comes to enslaving people, they are pikers compared to the Democrats.

          • Cawmun Cents

            But yet you would never co-opt them for to vote in your radical socialists would you?You would never offer amnesty for a voting block would you?No…not the society loving Democrats…they would never use a group of people for political reasons…

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Ret,
            I too, lived across the street from a very sweet and caring Black lady down in Columbus, Georgia. Wonderful person, Miss minnie would help ANYONE!! She never saw color and only saw the person as they presented themselves. I can remember being sick and her coming to my door and bringing me soup and other things. If you wanted to see her mad and ready to fight, however, let her son Boots, who was my age get into ANY trouble!! she took very strict care of him!!!

        • Norm

          Really!! You started the name calling.
          Suggestion Leave.
          This is not your country Leave before you get run out.
          There are at lease one or two country’s that will take crap like you.

          • Norm

            Norm I agree with your comment, but I’ve been using the name Norm for a long time on this blog and I wish you’d use something else. (o:

          • Karolyn

            Norm – This is still the United States, and we have freedom of speech. If you want everyone who disagrees with you to leave the country, then you are making this a communist state, the very thing you are so vehemently against.

        • DaveH

          We will see who gets run out, Norm.
          If your way is the right way, why do the leaders you follow need to lie about their real agendas? Only people up to no good need to lie to others.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Bob,

          Sorry if I offended you. I was responding based on the assumption that you had read the article and watched the attached video that shows how “zombies” parrot the tired old arguments of racism, neoconfederatism and secession. Obviously I don’t think you are a real, brain-eating zombie and I’m not saying you are undead. However, your cry of racism seems to indicate you fit the bill as a zombie like the ones Mr. Woods talks about in the video.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Bob,

          And by the way, I’m insulted that you would call me a Republican. I am not beholden to any party or group, and don’t align myself with any. Clearly you are new to the site.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

        • JUKEBOX

          Wasn’t it the Progressives that were quick to point out the porno definition of the term. They probably resented their term being used by any conservative.

        • S.L.Johnson

          “How quickly repubs degenerate, to name calling. I would not expect anything less, from zealots.”

          Really? What backwards world do you live in?

      • mythbusting

        ROFLMAO. Great one Bob!

    • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

      A flaw is in the eye of the beholder. What is your flaw it seems is that we shouldn’t have a constitution but a manifesto.

      • Bob

        I’ll reiterate, if the constitution is so perfect, why are there amendments? The constitution, is clearly a living document.

        • http://naver samurai

          Bzzzz wrong answer. The Constitution is the law of the land and the rights in the Bill of Rights are rights given to us by our Creator (GOD). Please get your facts straight before you post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Karolyn

            The Constitution has nothing to do with rights given to us by God. Are you saying that the Consitution was inspired by God like the Bible was supposed to have been?

          • JeffH

            K, “the rights in the Bill of Rights are rights given to us by our Creator (GOD). Please get your facts straight before you post”

            Where did he mention God was in the Constitution?

          • Bruce D.

            Karolyn the Constitution has nothing to do with our rights. The Constitution places restrictions on government and also the duties they are to perform in their elected capacity. It is a compact between the States who represent the people and the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was an insurance to the already stated belief that “that Congress shall pass no law…” restricting inalienable rights of the people in any way. The Declaration of Independence clarifies the issue.

            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.”

          • Bruce D.

            I think Karolyn it would be safe to say that the ‘founding fathers’ were inspired by God or in Jefferson’s case the concept of God. Deists in those days were not Christian haters. They believed in a higher power and contemplated higher truths.

          • Bruce D.

            It is likely that because the Constitution was a compact between the States and the Federal Government that the issue of ‘States Rights’ are arrived. The States restricted the Federal Government by the Constitution and Senators were elected by the States to keep the Federal Government from usurpation of power. Now the people vote for their Senators and because most, including lawyers, have little understanding of original intent they do not understand the importance of States Rights as a check and balance against the Federal Government.

          • patrick H.T. paine

            “To conquer, first divide.”

            Do any of you actually THINK about the meaning of the words you use?

            Do any of you understand that if you are to state that freedom of
            religion is invioable as a RIGHT, that the exercise of this right,
            also entails, the right of others to be free from YOUR religion?

            Do any of you understand that seperation of church and State is
            clearly demonstrated in Article VI?

            Do any of you understand that the term unalienable, when subjected
            to analysis for any kind of definition, that what results is a rather
            simple and undeniable realisation, that you have but one, and that
            you share this right with every other life form that exists?

            We have lost our “republic”, because the Constitution was corrupted
            over time by factional interests, as well as the political reality,
            that it is the nature of governments, as with any authority, to draw
            power toward itself, and it was this that the Constitution was
            “designed” to prevent……..

            We have also arrived at a point in history, which because of industrialization and technological advancement has taken us to
            a place which is completely unfamiliar to all of us, and where
            previous mythological failures are no longer localized…..

            Forums such as this are marvelous examples of “democracy”, where
            you all get to share your “answers” to the problems we face, based
            of where ever your perceived self interest happens to lie.

            Unfortunately that you all have “answers” is the problem, because
            you don’t have either the power or consensus to put them into
            effect. ( leaving that to the current status quo )

            You might want to consider the proposition that rather debating
            which of these answers is right…..that solutions can only be
            reached……if we are and have been, asking the RIGHT QUESTIONS?

          • http://naver samurai

            Patrick, show me the exact paragraph that says “separation of church and state.” It isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. Try again {insult removed]! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • David

          Don’t come knocking on my door for protection, when you finally awake to the fact that you have no rights left. And sign your entire paycheck over to your saviour Ostinky please he needs to redistribute your wealth, NOT HIS.

          • Bob

            Sign my check over? If you continue to folow the repubs, they will legalize slavery again, and you won’t have a check to sign!

          • JC

            Bob you are completely hysterical. New Meds?

          • JUKEBOX

            If Bob doesn’t think that we are all slaves on the government plantation, then he’s probably toking on Obama’s bong.

          • kate8

            Bob, Why don’t you try reading a REAL history book, instead of parroting Marxist talking points.

            The slaveholders in America were southern democrats. The KKK was made up of southern democrats. The slaves were freed under a Republican administration, and the freed slaves were Republicans.

            Democrats found an opportunity to hijack the black vote by making a devil’s deal between MLK and JFK, and they’ve held them in slavery, once again, ever since. Just look at what happens to a black person who tries to think for himself and break from the Left.

          • DaveH

            There you go again, Kate, using those pesky facts against them.

          • S.L.Johnson

            “they will legalize slavery again, and you won’t have a check to sign!”
            Bob… Where are you getting this information? The funny farm?!

        • s c

          Ye gods, people. What we have is is far worse than a failure to communicate. What we have is is a Hillary wannabe. Your ‘standards’ for role models are truly amazing.

        • David

          Prozac Bob, you forgot to take the Prozac. You know those pills they gave you because you can’t handle the reality of everyday life.

        • DaveH

          There are amendments because the founders knew that it wasn’t perfect. No law is. And there are strict rules in place as to how those amendments are created lawfully.
          But you mistate the term “living document”. That refers to the unlawful ability that Liberal judges claim allows them to ignore the strict letter of the law and make rulings based on what they think is best for the people. Obviously that subverts the rule of law dramatically and allows unelected officials to make law. Only ignorant Liberals would advocate such a condition.

        • Ted Crawford

          The reason you would use to defame the constitution is precisely the reason that it is, as close as humanly possible, perfect! The Founders, in spite of their obvious wisdom and vision, were intelligent enough to know that, if their creation was to grow, any Governing Documents would need to be, from time to time, adjusted to reflect ambient conditions.
          They knew that they could not possibly forsee all that would occure and made it possible for timely changes to be effected, allowing The Constitution to always be relevent to the society it serves! That, sir, is indeed Wisdom!

    • David

      The federal governments right are stricly limited, as well they should be. Perhaps you should move to Iran and try to enjoy the freedoms you enjoy under what is left of our Constitution. FOOL.

    • http://donthaveone Beberoni

      Your a racist, that is plain to see. Where as I am a realist, and when I see over 90 percent of the black population voting for democrats, who have done nothing for them ever but give them handouts and keep them down, I have to wonder why. I have to wonder why it isnt racist to have a Black College fund, a Black TV network. A black actors guild, black American history month. Black this, black that. Why if we had all these things set up for just white people, and white people only, would that be racist? Why is there such a high percentage of young black men in jail, between the ages of 18 to 25? Because we look the other way, in political correctness, because we cant say they have a problem, or we are racist. Instead of quoting the obvious, that hey, we do have a problem here, and getting them to correct this. When 80 percent up of births of blacks are mothers with no father around, again, we look the other way, and no one says nothing. Hello, weve got a problem here, that needs addressed. But in political correctness, again, we give a free pass, and tell them its ok. So they get these advantages, and you say the law is to basically hurt blacks? Your wrong. It may have been 100 years ago, but now, it is quite evident, that one race is allowed to say and do anything, and it is accepted and no one says a word, lest they be deemed a racist, by their own white race. But a white man says anything that can be twisted around, he is fired and loses his job, whether it be an innocent as Howard Cosell saying “look at that little monkey run” as Alvin Garrett ran a touchdown, which had nothing to do with nothing except a little short guy running a touchdown. Howard was fired. Or Al Campanis using his freedom of speech, for right or wrong, saying he didnt think blacks had the mental capacity to manage. I dont believe that myself, but he shouldnt have been fired for it. Yet all day long, I see black atheletes, making millions, go on TV and cry that their arent enough black managers, and black general managers, and black exectives, and they do it in the NBA also where they have 90 percent of the players jobs. What happens when a white guy stands up and says we should have affirmative action in NBA player jobs, that whites want and deserve 50 percent of those jobs, whether qualified or not. Oh wait, the double standard, we cant do that. That is why I find your statement racist. You are way off base, and looking to use race where it doesnt exist. I have give you perfect examples of where it does exist, and nothing is done about it.

      • DaveH

        Good points, Beberoni.
        I feel sorry for the Blacks that have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to become good and successful human beings just in time for the Liberals to try and re-enslave them (as well as the rest of us).

      • JUKEBOX

        There is a tape recording in the Johnson library with LBJ saying, “BY THE TIME I’M THROUGH WITH THOSE N_____S, THEY WON’T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS”. His prediction is pretty accurate.

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      Bob… You are flawed! If you think our country is not the best country in the whole world, leave. See if you can find something better!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        robin,
        I have been to 17 different countries and as much as I liked a couple of them, I always come home to the USA!!!!!

    • TIME

      Bob,
      Perhaps a review if you can read and understand them the following, the 9th, 10th and 11th Amendments.

      But why let logic get in the way.

    • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Benjamin

      Yes, because the southern states were so concerned with states’ rights when they seceded, right? WRONG! The South Carolina Secession resolution expressed anger with the northern states for refusing to comply with FEDERAL Fugitive Slave Laws and the Dred Scott decision.

      “The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three�fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years, and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

      We affirm that these ends, for which this Government was instituted, have been defeated, and the government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non�slaveholding states.”

      http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=432

      Next time, try using a bit more than a magazine article to prove your non-point.

      Sure, there have been a few abuses by the states in the past, but there have been far more abuses by the federal government throughout history. I’d put a lot more trust in the states and the people than I would in DC. It’s time to restore the Republic.

      • JC

        Further to that…Lincoln’s promise to free slaves from the south came with a price tag, a years’s service in the Union Army where they were used as cannon fodder.
        That and he specifically did NOT mention the slaves of the North during the emancipation proclamation.

      • DaveH

        Here is a good treatment of the reasons the southern states seceded. It indeed was over an unConstitutional excercise of power by the North:
        http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/south_secede_southcarolina.cfm

        This is not to say that slavery was right. It wasn’t. But the notable thing here is that 3 of the states that fought on the side of the North were slave states. So much for the slavery issue.

        • DaveH

          Sorry, it was four slave states that fought on the side of the North:
          http://videoindex.pbs.org/resources/civilwar/mapsandgraphs/map03.html

          • patrick H.T. paine

            “To conquer, first divide.”

            Here is a rather useful exercise concerning slavery and the claim
            that fear of it’s abolition was a significant factor which resulted
            in the secession of the Confederacy.

            How many states existed in 1860? Since half of these were slave,
            take that number and mutiply by four, or the total number of
            states by two. You will find that the result is greater than the
            number of states which currently exist, and even if no further
            slave states were admitted to the “union”, the number of slave
            states that existed in 1860, would be greater than 25% of the
            total, making it impossible to ratify an ammendment, abolishing
            slavery……TODAY!!!!!!!!

            It was the failed attempt at secession which permitted the abolition
            of slavery by ammendment to occur……..and this presents an even
            more interesting exercise…….was the act, and therefor the
            “right” of secession, validated by the actions of the Federal
            Government……..because it would seem that, if the act of
            secession was not recognised as valid, then neither the ammendments
            which resulted, nor the creation of West Virginia, can be
            constitutional…….unless the Confederacy ceased to be a
            part of the united States, de jure as well as defacto?

    • wayne

      Bob, you are truly a nut case. You are unreasonable, and appaently just too stupid to see what is going on. What is going on in this country today is as plain as the nose on a person’s face, but you are blinded by your ideology, or maybe common sense. Regardless of how intelligent a person would be, they could never get you to understand what is happening to his country.

      • Ret

        The best thing to do with people like Bob is to ignore them. He reminds me of a woman I worked with years ago. She was black, with a chip on her shoulder as big as a house, and filed discrimination charges against a white worker. At the hearing, the white worker brought in her husband who was very black. She turned to him and called him an oreo cookie and walked out – You can’t fight a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Don’t respond is the best way. He is a sad little man who will blame every thing and every one for his personal failures, and he will never change. I’m sure he calls himself an AFRICAN-American, so if this is such a terrible place, he should go back to his culture and his roots.

        • S.L.Johnson

          Bravo, Ret. Wiser words have not been spoken on this matter.

    • JC

      Name calling? I suppose, but if the shoe fits…then you’re still a twisted idiot trying to be an intellectual.
      Sorry, but you’re no where near that…

    • James

      “State rights, are clearly limited, and it’s about time, that tea baggers, and conservatives, admit this.”
      Apparently, you have failed to see that the 10th Amendment limits State Governments a whole heck of a lot LESS than it limits the Federal Government…Got a copy of the Constitution anywhere? If not, it’s easy to find it online.

      • JC

        There’s that term “teabagger’s again…boy there’s a lot of latent homosexuals posting here. I mean…it’s a homosexual term isn’t it? ;)

        As for States rights, here’s something Madison had to say…

        “If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.”

        – James Madison
        (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
        Source: THE FEDERALIST No. 44

      • James

        While, in general, I agrew with this, I am not this ‘James’. I’m the ‘James’ that quotes the constitution.

    • Mark Matis

      That’s all very nice, Bob. But until it is amended or repealed, it IS the sole source of authorization for the Federal Government. And EVERY member of that government has taken an oath to “…preserve, protect, and defend…” it. If they REFUSE to honor that oath, they are nothing more than Thugs with Guns. But then they ARE YOUR Thugs, aren’t they?

      The stench is overwhelming.

    • Vicki

      Bob says:
      “It’s difficult, for repubs to admit, that the constitution, is a flawed document, written by white men, who owned slaves. If the constitution is so perfect, Vicki, why was there a need, for the 19th amendment, in August of 1920. Vicki, it took 133 years, to correct a major flaw.”

      Typical race card. I notice with amusement that as I have predicted it is used by an apparent liberal. The Constitution is a fine document for setting to parchment a plan to execute a series of ideals voiced in great volumes by many folk of the time. SOME of them owned property that we now generally agree are humans and therefore not able to be owned.

      In the ensuing years you conveniently left out a lot of voting rights changes including the elimination of literacy tests because they blocked Irish-Catholic immigrants and of course the changes to make it clear that former slaves really were people and really did get to vote. Those changes made by Republican controlled government.

      Bob writes:
      “States right, is a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters. ”

      Amusing that it is the Democrat party that was the primary pusher of that. Along with a democrat creating the KKK.
      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=101760

  • David

    The tens of thousands in Egypt denouncing tyranny gets tons of media coverage, WORLDWIDE. We here in America, denouncing the same thing, get coverage Worldwide, but none in our “homeland”. America has become the laughingstock of the world, and the butt of all jokes, much like ancient Rome. Americas citizens need to regenerate their spines, Throw out the frauds, and criminals. Recall elections, impeachments, whatever it takes. The MSM is the real culprit in all this BS, go figure they are all owned by liberal international bankers, Not to mention all the international corporations.

  • rimshot75

    Our current administration and government leaders can either abide by the will of the people or by the smite of the people; our forefathers went through this in 1772-3 and it resulted in an awful revolution. If that’s what our leaders want to face, shame on them. But I hope they fully realize the zeal of the people for freedom…lest history repeat itself.

    • S.L.Johnson

      Amen, brother. My will, too, is the will of the people at large. I foresee a glorious day ahead where those that think they can control us get what they deserve.

  • Alej

    Got a Webster’s, Bob? America isn’t composed of “provinces.” We are the united “States” of America, lowercase “u” intended.

    “State” is fungible with “nation,” or “country.” Did you attend public schools up North ?

  • David

    I have to wonder if Bob is related to Jared Loughner, Nidal Hassan, Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lyndon Johnson, etc, etc…, ad nauseum.

  • David

    “The urge to pass new laws must be seen as an illness, not much different from the urge to bite old women. Anyone suspected of suffering from it should either be treated with the appropriate pills or, if it is too late for that, elected to parliament [or Congress, as the case may be] and paid a huge salary with endless holidays, to do nothing whatever.”

    • eddie47d

      Hey Dan, David’s comment at 7:55 was not good sense or good judgement.

  • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

    I guess it’s better to ignore people like BOB. I should no better than to try to argue with someone who is truth and fact challenged. Who uses liberal articles and rants to make his argument instead of good sense and judgment.

    • Bob

      The conservative articles, are full of fallacies, and half truths. I would rather read Media Matters.

      http://mediamatters.org/

      • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Benjamin

        Therein lies your problem, Bobby Boy.

      • DaveH

        Try this site, Bob, and wake up to reality:
        http://mises.org/

      • Stan Smith

        A truly Libtard! Mediamatters?? HA HA HA HA! The Lefts biggest Misinformation so called news site! Bob Libtards like you show how much you hate america! No Bob even not all conservatives are Repubicans Fan boys!and your democrap party is showing their true colors on destroying America along with their RINO pals and their very elite Repubs! Don’t blame the conservatives It’s your Marxist Dems is doing it, There are no real conservatives in the Repubes party only very very Few!

        • S.L.Johnson

          Stan, even if you get a new a** hole for making that comment, I will stand by you. It is part and parcel of the very definition of change is to first HATE that which you are changing. Change is destruction of the old to make way for the new. Destruction is not done out of LOVE.

          • S.L.Johnson

            Ergo, Liberals do, IN FACT, hate America, because they want to CHANGE it… Try to argue otherwise… I dare you.

    • wayne

      Dan, that is what I have said before. We should not ever recognize Bob’s post since they do no make any sense. Let’s just not respond to anymore of his crap, and then maybe he will just fade away.

  • David

    Good point Dan, hard to argue with delusions, and insanity. It is kind of fun for a bit though.

    • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

      Your right, fun, but then it becomes frustrating because they build a wall of untruths to protect themselves.

  • David

    Lies don’t frustrate me much. I just take them for what they aren’t worth.

  • Greg

    For all you Patriots out there, I suggest ignoring “Bob”. He is obviously attempting to incite you to rage. His comments are indicative of the cowardly demaenor associated with being a lefty, progressive. These people are afraid of their own shadows and require Big Government to take care of them, as they are incapable of surviving on their own. These people wouldn’t survive for a second outside of their “comfy” government subsidized civilization. Their incompetence and lack of self sustainment is the reason they need strong willed patriots to protect them. They also think that they must control us in order to be able to leech off of us. They still have yet to realize that we are the most benevolent group of people in the world. Someday, when they’ve had time to really search their souls, they may come to realize that all we want is to be left unmolested by the government. In turn, we will do as we always have. We will live in peace as long as others live in peace with us.

    • Bob

      Greg, I’m not inciting anyone. This thread, is showing the true, unedited opinions of conservatives. These people, think they are the only ones, who “love” their country, and they want to take their country back. Take back from what? If all of the thread participants, would review history a little, they would see that the conservative movement, has moved far, far right. Here is a good article, which explains everything:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41283983

      • http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Benjamin

        Rachel Madcow? Now you’ve really shown where you are – to the far left and the bottom on the Nolan Chart. Please tell me you know what that is?

        You’re not a liberal; you’re a statist, through and through.

        • Bob

          Why resort to name calling. Ms. Maddow, has a doctorate degree:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

          • David

            And that is worth exactly what in the real world? The ability to criticize the people who make your pathetic, scholastic, inability in the real world to survive, possible? I would rather have Larry the cable guy on my side than whiny maddow. Get er done, don’t criticize and steal.

          • Ted Crawford

            So does Ted Kaczynski. That, in and of itself, is meanless!

          • Vicki

            Bob writes:
            “Why resort to name calling. Ms. Maddow, has a doctorate degree:”

            Cool Bob. You respond to an apparent argument to the person with an Argument to authority. Real winning strategy. Try debating the points instead.

          • S.L.Johnson

            Yeah? And Yasir Arafat is a Nobel Lariat.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

            See? We can link things too…

          • http://foundersrevolution.blogspot.com/ Patriot1776

            Laughable!

      • David

        Iran has a place reserved for you bob. Rachel Maddow, I’ll bet you pray to Ed (hatemonger)Schulz every night. Boy, and I thought plutonium was dense.

        • Bob

          David, you lost this argument.

          I want educated people, to lead, not palins. Here is conservative krauthammer, who agrees with me:

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/13/krauthammer_limbaugh_condescending_of_obama_speech_praise.html

          It’s good, to see limbaugh, smacked down.

          • Allan Halbert

            You mean educated liberals of course. Progressives don’t count educated conservatives, nor conservative blacks or conservative women.

          • Pat R

            Sarah Palin is very well educated too. Just because she didn’t choose the Marxist, ivy-league schools does much to prove her intelligence.
            IT’S THE COMMON SENSE THAT MATTERS!

      • DaveH

        Bob,
        If the Liberal agenda is a desirable one, why do you need to ram it down the citizens’ throats using the Federal Government as your Bully Boys? If the outcomes were desirable, the people would adopt them voluntarily.

      • Dan az

        A government that is not restrained by clear and unbreakable laws is both immoral and inefficient. How much time and money has been wasted debating, and defeating, Obama’s ridiculous health care proposal? If our republic paid proper respect to the wording and intent of its Constitution, this entire farce would have never gotten past the discussion stages, and we could be much closer to enacting truly meaningful and effective reforms that show proper respect to the freedom of our citizens and marketplace.

  • David

    Can you say rent controlled? And my dog is a Papillion named foo-foo, I also have a cat named buffy.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Bob,
    WE have many problems in America, the take over of our goverment by
    a bunch of Marxist is one of them.All you have to do is look at the people that Obama has surounded himself with. Here are some of them,
    Van Jones, Valerie Jarett, Anita Dunn, Bill Ayers, Jeff Jones, Andy Stern, Saul Alansky, Cass Sestien,Rev Wright,and the list goes on and on.Bob,find out who these people are and what they stand for.This may
    explain why people feel the way they do.We don`t want one pay health care,nor do we want one man rule with his thugs making sure he rough rides over what the people want.Check it out Bob,if you care,or maybe,
    you might just be a Marxist yourself.You sure sound like one.

    no do we want

    • Bob

      Charles, you’re wrong, on health care. Americans support health care reform:

      http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/24555

      • TIME

        Bob,

        If you believe that the HCR bill passed is what the vast majority of Americans want your tin foil cap is bent. I get to travel a lot as well speak with hundreds of people weekly yet todate I have spoken with only a few that like the HCR bill. But the really strange part of this is that very few who like it have any idea whats in the bill.
        So how can you like something if you don’t know what it is?

        Be that as it may my numbers work out more like this 1 person in 300 seems to like the HCR bill, so thats not a strong showing even on a good day.
        Then when we factor in that 1 person in 100 even has a clue whats in the bill the rational behind why they like it becomes little more than just being a “sheep and following what their Leaders” tell them to think, thus “drinking from the bottle of Stupid.”

        Rhetoric is just that, perhaps a better term would be BS still stinks even if its cold out.

        • Pat R

          The people who take these surveys are the problem with the outcome! They know who to contact to get the results they want. All surveys are rigged to start with. Nothing useful comes from them.

        • eddie47d

          I doubt if there are those who are against this bill that have read it. They only listen to the right wing talking heads and believe everything they say. I even doubt if these right wing talk show hosts have read this bill yet are telling others not to like it.Talk about following the sheep herders.

          • Karolyn

            eddie, I would not be surprised at all if you are right. The right, left, ups and downs read materials by their own “side” and take it as gospel. It is best we all keep open minds and not trust the talking heads.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            eddie,
            I have read quite a bit of the bill and I know very well there are things in the bill that don’t even pertain to healthcare!! Like a manditory reporting of any sale of gold over 500.00! Like a realestate tax on selling homes! (yes I know it is for profit over 250,000 single/500,000 couple!) Regardless they are trying to cram healthcare and other things down our throats!! If you go to factcheck.com it will also list other taxes in the bill as well. If your progressives are so honorable, then why do they need to slip things like this in a massive multi-thousand page bill under cover????

          • Vicki

            Eddie47d writes:
            “I doubt if there are those who are against this bill that have read it. ”

            And those who are for this bill haven’t read it either. Whos got time to read 2000+ pages of legalese. Even those who claim to represent us and voted for it didn’t read it.

          • S.L.Johnson

            eddie- You’re right… the talking heads haven’t read the bill. They just woke up one morning, trudged into the bathroom, and shat out a whole bunch of articles and pages from the HEALTH CARE BILL its self. Then they cleaned them off and read them aloud in front of millions of viewers. How do you do it, man? You’re like some sort of psychic!

          • eddie47d

            They have Their handlers who tell them what to say and lots of cheat sheets (talking points) and go from there.

      • DaveH

        Oh, yeah, that’s a random poll — “In the Kaiser Family Foundation’s most recent poll, conducted earlier this month with the Harvard School of Public Health, 50% of respondents held unfavorable reviews of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), up from 41% in December”.

        Try this one:
        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

        And who cares anyway if the voters did agree (they don’t) with the healthcare law? It is still not a Constitutional power of the Federal Government.

        • DaveH
        • Vicki

          Something to remind people of from time to time is that our Constitution prohibits us from delegating some powers to our government no matter how much we would like to. Requiring all citizens to buy health insurance is one of those powers that we are NOT allowed to delegate to our government.

    • Raggs

      Charles… obamas top man is george soros…

    • BobbyB

      That would be Saul Alinsky and he’s been dead for almost 30 years.

  • David in Ma.

    Wel, Well, Well….How about this information;

    The Congressional Review Act of 1996

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm

    • Vicki

      That’s all very pretty but Congress is supposed to write the laws not review them.

  • Bobber

    Can’t we just nullify the whole government and start all over?

    • DaveH

      What we need to do is wake up our children, and our friends, to the reality of Big Government today. We need to get our children out of public schools and send them to private schools where the emphasis is on Education rather than indoctrination. We need to encourage our friends and relatives to actually read the Constitution and see just how far the Government has gotten away from it, even though they all swear to uphold it. What kind of people swear to abide by a law and then trample it?
      I have faith that if the American citizens were aware just how often the people we elect ignore the law they swear to uphold, we would rise up and throw all those guilty rascals out of office at the next election.

    • Vicki

      We don’t need to nullify our government we need to enforce the supreme law of the land and insist that our Representatives abide by their oath.

      • S.L.Johnson

        Can’t we do both? Why fight with one hand tied behind our backs?

  • Raggs

    obama owns the supreme court, so this doesn’t leave us with much of a choice…:(

    • Bob

      President, Obama, does not “own” the Supreme Court. It is always 5 conservatives, making far reaching decisions, over the so called 4 liberal Justices.

      • Raggs

        Next your going to tell me that obama is not a muslim.

      • Pat R

        I can blow your socks off, if you are willing to learn the truth about what has happened to this Country since 1871.
        The Fed. Govt in Washington is nothing but a Corporation. The UNITED STATES CORPORATION was set up in 1871 and has been run as our Government. They were set up secretly without “We the People” even knowing about it or validating it. The Constitution was changed, especially the 13th Amendment. It is called a de facto government–not a de jure (by law) government.
        They took our gold and land and our persons. Look at your Birth Certificate, Drivers License, Marriage License, and any Document with your name in ALL Capitol Letters. ( This signifies that you are a private “Corporation”) These documents have a Dunn and Bradstreet Number and are traded on the Stock Market where they make money for the UNITED STATES CORPORATION every day. We, as individuals, are considered to be “cattle” by them. Look on a marriage license application for your state. It states that any “product from this union belongs to the State”. That means that by signing that document, you are giving away your kids. They belong to the State!
        You as parents, are only the “baby sitter”. They can take them whenever they choose; over whatever non-sense they choose.
        We are all slaves to the IMF owned CORPORATION in DC.
        Look it up

        http://www.republicfortheunitedstates.org

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Bob, you say the Republicans are a bunch of liars.I use to be a Democrat,now that there isn`t a Democrat party anymore,I have become an Independent.It is now the Progressive party and they lie more than any party I have ever seen.I think most Americans see this.

    • wayne

      Charles, I respect you for doing the right thing. The Democrats used to be good Americana, as well as the Republicans that wanted the best for their country. I feel that the Communist, Liberals and Socialist has taken over the Democratic Party. They definately are not what they used to be. I respect you for following you convictions.

    • TIME

      Charles,
      You and I think alike on that as I too was a Democrat, now I am an Independant. I came to the same point in logic the Progressive’s have been running the Democtaric party for well over 70 years now years ago.
      Saddly the progressives have also made massive inroads into the Republican Party too.
      A Progressive is not an American, they are “self serving Marxist” and nothing more or less.

    • DaveH

      Charles,
      I don’t know how far we have to go back, but over my 40 years of political awareness (now 61), the Democrat party has put forward leaders who have advocated all sorts of schemes to spend and manage other peoples’ money. So, as far as I can see, this behavior is nothing new. Bolder for sure, but not new.
      This is not to say that Republicans are guiltless by any means. Over those same 40 years, they have advocated all sorts of rules to protect us (and other countries) from ourselves (and themselves), Those rules have greatly accelerated our impoverishment at the hands of Big Government.
      There is only one Political Party that understands the kind of Freedom that our Founders advocated (particularly Thomas Jefferson). That party is the Libertarian Party. For Individual Liberty, Personal Responsibility, Free Markets, and Limited Government:
      http://libertarianparty.org/platform

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Boober, I wish it was that easy,however,you do have a good point.

  • Xarcht

    You know what I think is so funny, there were 15 nations that became states, one by fraud and deception, and if nations are greater than states, why don’t they just leave? Well 13 of them want the federal government to run over peoples’ rights to make it easier to abuse their citizens. Everyone , the right to redress our government doesn’t include ” Zeik Heil”. Wake up and smell the fertilizer! If it takes nullification to stop the two parties from destroying our nation , then count me in. If nullification causes our nation to fragment, DON’T COME CRYIN TO US, THE ONES THAT TOLD YOU TO THINK FER YOURSELF!!!!!

  • DaveH

    Great topic, Bob Livingston. Thank you.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Bob, you better start getting your facts straight.Did not the Nov elections tell you anything? I do agree, I as most Americans are in agreement that we do need health care reform,but not the kind Obama and his bunch of Progressives has offered up.We can not afford it.

  • DavidL

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI – US constitution.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Bob for some reason,UNKNOWN TO ME,you and many others think there still is a Democrat party.The jokes on you.

    • Dan az

      Everyday, citizens everywhere pay the price for the deeds of Sociopathic politicians. We pay for it with higher taxes. We pay for it with a bureaucracy that looks out for the interests of power brokers rather than the public. We pay for it by having a government full of waste, and one that looks out for special interests rather than the interests of the public at large. We pay for it by having corruption swept under the rug and overlooked. Of course, in the most extreme, citizens pay for it with their loss of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Sociopathic politician is a cancer to any political system and unfortunately the nature of the beast breeds such an individual. As such, we, the voters, must always be aware of it and be able to identify all Sociopathic politicians. Such a combination has explosive possibilities.

      • S.L.Johnson

        Dan az said- “As such, we, the voters, must always be aware of it and be able to identify all Sociopathic politicians. Such a combination has *explosive* possibilities.”

        Uh oh. Be careful, buddy. Some liberals might take that last part (**)as inflammatory language and think you are trying to incite violence.

    • American Patriot

      Charles, There’s no Republican party either. They are all the same progressive ass hats. Hell bent on destroying this country.

  • David

    I think it is funny (well sad) that Obamatopia wants universal healthcare, while stalwarts such as Britain, Canada, and the piigs are abandoning it at warp speed. Anyone who pays for health insurance and supports this is a definite drug trial candidate.

    • Bob

      What are “piigs?”

    • eddie47d

      David; Who says they are abandoning their plans?

      • JC

        Canada is moving back towards private health care options as people are sick and tired (get it?) of waiting 6 months for an MRI and many other basic services.

        • eddie47d

          That doesn’t prove nothing. I’m sure lots of Americans have supplemental policies even with private health care. I do because they are inexpensive and pick up costs your main insurance doesn’t pay.

          • JC

            eddie, I’m speaking from first hand experience. The candian system is not working all that well and Canadians are moving away from it towards private health care. They are quite simply tired of line ups innefficiency and Doctors who have become bureaucrats.

          • JC

            Canadian – I can spell it! :)

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Divd,till the goverment over steps its bounds.Remember,we shall transform America.No one said we were supose to have a Dictator and why would we transform what was also said to be the greatest country in the world.

  • Greg

    Well said David. For those of you who want obamacare, remember the old addage “you know why it bang my head against the wall? cause it feels so good when I quit”.

    • Ted Crawford

      “Most people seek what they do not possess and are enslaved by the very things they want to aquire.” Anwar Sadat

      • Dan az

        Ted Crawford
        Anwar Sadats comment fits what I see when I go to the city perfectly.

  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    Conservative Bob Livingston is exactly right. AND, Obama lied about this, too. Let it be repeated ad nauseum.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    I meant DavidL >> Sorry just plain Divd or David. David you are 100%
    right.

  • Robert Morrow

    I do not understand why the bill is even legal. It was passed by Reid bribing two Senators. Bribery is against the law in all 50 States, well maybe Washington DC is above the law. To me this total bill should be tossed out as it was enacted with criminal activity or rewarding criminals the thing to do now? Another Question, Why, hasn’t Reid been Impeached on bribery charges? Answer, it is that Reid is protected by the Corrupt Brotherhood of Senators. We Citizens of the Republic no longer have any voice as your Representative and Senators have sold us out. Just look at the Dictatorship of the FDA over us. The FDA approves poison drugs that murder over 200,000 citizens per year and all for the Profits of the Pharmaceuticals. Yet no one said anything. I have ask my corrupt Senator to resign in shame as his hands are stain with the blood of the poisoned man, woman and innocent children, all for his blood stain 30 pieces of Silver.

    • wayne

      I agree 100 percent with you Robert Morrow. I don’t think their is anyone with enough guts to do as you suggested, even though it should be done. If any member of society, away from governmnet, would do this, they wold be serving time in a penal institution. Harry Reid should be tried in a court of law for bribery. I can’t stand this man. There are a lot of others there I can’t stand either, but the list is just to large to type.

    • Ret

      Our real government is Soros, the banks, big pharma, Monsanto, et al. Virtually 99% of our ‘representatives’ represent them, not us. It’s been going on a long time. Unfortunately, not just here. The EU, which worships the same gods has OK’d Lipitor chewable for children under 10. Guess we’ll have it next. The joke on us is that it’s not so much cholesterol that kills, but inflammation. Cholesterol is necessary, inflammation is not.

    • David

      Why do you think the District of Criminals isn’t a state?

    • DaveH
    • James

      “Bribery is against the law in all 50 States, well maybe Washington DC is above the law.”
      It acts that way, but is NOT above the Law. From the Preamble, “We the People…ordain & establish this Constitution” & set the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Any person who wishes to become a government officer must swear/affirm to an Oath of Office UNDER the Supreme Law of the Land…Article 2 specifies the President’s Oath, but Article 6 lawfully binds ALL State & Federal Officers to a similar Oath to protect, defend & uphold the Cosntitution. Recall that We The People are the employers, all government officers are employees & the Cosntitution is the Contract of Employment between the two parties. Any violation of ANY Terms & Conditions specified in the contract WILL result in termination of employment…This is DETAILED in the Constitution itself. It’s called Impeachment & even defines what Impeachment means: Removal from Office & permanent disqualification for any employment under the Public Trust. Bribery is also SPECIFICALLY LISTED as an Impeachable Offense…But then again, even if they’re called “earmarks” or “pork” in a Bill, the actual truth is that it’s bribery.

      • Pat R

        The District of Colombia is by law a FOREIGN COUNTRY. It was quit deeded to the International Monetary Fund in 1944.

        Legally, they have no jurisdiction over us, EXCEPT what we allow them to have.

      • James

        Again, I am not the ‘James’ who wrote this.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Liars Must Be Defeated…. What hasn`t Obama not lied about,or made it seam like something else other than it seamed.You are right,he
    must be defeated.

  • Jack54

    To All:

    The problems in the USA stem from greed…collusion, conspiracy, control of the media to quell the anger of the majority of citizens, unconstitutional laws to control the anger of the majority of the citizens by redirecting fear of drugs and terrorists way out of proportion to their actual importance…excessive spending for the military and police agencies that provide ptotection for the rich and powerfull businesses and governmental leaders whose manipulation of the system has the USA dropping like a rock while the elite minority continue to get richer…

    Good leadership is based on the principles of building stable economies and the passage of just laws…and enforcement of just laws…where everyone is represented and treated as equals…no sneaky stuff is required…mostly what we get from our leaders is sneaky stuff…political parties distort the facts to achieve desired ends…political leaders are the new nobility…they vote themselves unwarranted salary increases, retirements, healthcare benefits, special privileges and police state authority to protect themselves from the backlash of the mentally ill who are the off-spring of the system of corruption that they propagate…

    If everyone can set aside special interest group and personal agendas and concentrate on common sense…doable actions to correct the wrongs within our system…then and only then will we be able to climb out of this deep hole which is getting deeper while the average person takes sides aganist one another…during which our special interest group backed leaders continue their on-going games which put us deeper in the hole economically while taking away our freedoms because they know they are building a potential time bomb within the population…hence, laws like the Patriot Act, internet and cell phone control…the supposed FEMA Camps…this is not NAZI Germany or the Stalinist Soviet Union…for shame on those who would do those acts…God and Christ are watching you…the same goes for the Al-Queda/Taliban leadership who so mistreat their people in the name of God…all will be judged and treated just like they have judged and treated others…no government or business leaders will have the luxury or excuse of maintaing national security in their excessive use of power and any injury it brings upon God`s creation…time to stop the games and right the ship…

    Common Sense:
    1. every government has a cash flow requirement to function all agencies…guarantee a safe and functional living/working environment and protect the ecological environment while providing the business infrastructure to lead prosperity…ecucation, physical/mental health included…prisons for those who truly do not want to participate as good, productive and law abiding citizens…
    2. taxation pays for all of these needed items…in a true unmanipulated economy…sales taxes and payroll taxes will pay for it all…that requires a combination of business enterprizes…farming, manufacturing, distribution, sales/services…a balanced economy…enough jobs to pay for it all…no sneaky stuff…no special/personal agendas to promote the enromus wealth of the few while putting the tax burden and loss of jobs/income on the majority…governmental/business must have an overall economic plan to make the economy function this way…it is not rocket science…it is manipulation of the government funds and laws that deny reality in the interests of a few that allows this economic downfall to happen…
    3. A US lead group of business leaders orchestrated the global economy to get wealthier…control the US work force…unitlize the cheap labor of places like China and India…manipulation of the US governmental leaders and agencies allowed this to happen too quickly for it not to have a severe downward effect on the US economy…if it was planned-out to take place over a forty year period it would have worked…
    4. The opportunity exists for US businesses to make lots of profit while allowing the job sector to increase and the US economy to return to normal…and begin paying off of the Federal, State and local governmental debts…US businesses must gradually sell-off foreign owned manufacturinbg/business operations while returning then to the US…everyone needs things…infrastructure, schools, hospitals, homes, recreational facilities…all can be built to operate environmentally/green…this is another major sector for businesses to devolope and make profits…our leaders need to stop the special interest group agendas…end the hypocrisy…start untilizing our nations talents with true leadership to get things turned around…not just the same old governmental games and business of manipulation and control of the media that has been so destructive to our country…we should not have to dislike or hate the government or our business leaders…civil unrest is only a bad thing and we do not want it or need it…we must concentrate all our efforts on constructive/proactive actions to take care of all people, animals and the good earth itself…that is our mission here on earth…and it is doable!

    • bob wire

      good posting Jack.

      Capital Hill has turned into something it was never intended to be. A platform for circus barkers and shadow men.

      These elected “people” are quickly disconnected from the people they serve by a prevailing atmosphere.

      It’s going to take much more then just “term limits” to address this in any meaningful way.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Robert Morrow… Why did Obama let Reid do what he did? May be, Reid
    was doing what his boss (obama) told him to do.I think both of them
    should be impeached.

  • Airdaleusn

    Can you say SOCIALISM, Central Planning, interesting to think someone in D.C. knows best. Actually they do know best for themselves and there contributors. Nazism, socialist ideology, Communist/Socialism same thing exactly. Isalism, a religious/political ideology, Progressive/Liberal same thing central planning or Socialism. How many Socialist countries are a success. Sweden not really if Sweden were a State it would be the poorest in the Union

    • bob wire

      Can you say ~ central planing is key to any successful endeavor or any size? Where might we be without it?

      We would all be speaking Dutch today without it.

      • DaveH

        What? Prove that, Bob. IBM might have thought that until Microsoft kicked their butts.
        Even if it was true, we are not employees in a company. We are Free People, each with our own particular likes and dislikes. One size does not fit all, and never will.

        http://mises.org/daily/4953

        • Pat R

          You are dead wrong! We are NOT free and haven’t been for the last 150 years.

          Why won’t people wake up? Even all of you posting on this site!

          The REPUBLIC has been re-inhabited! We have a de Jure Republic right now in the united States of America. Learn what it is, Support it and help this great nation survive! It’s our only chance to get America back to the original Government that our Founding Fathers envisioned for us.

          http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org

          • DaveH

            Okay, Pat, I’ll bend to your Semantics. I should have said “we aspire to be Free People”.

        • Norm

          DaveH
          IBM and Microsoft were never major competitors.
          IBM is principally a hardware maker that writes software to support it’s own customer (mainly commercial) applications. Microsoft is a software producer for the PC platform (mainly individual) markets. There is limited overlap, and in fact it was Microsoft that developed DOS and Windows for IBM PC platform in the early 80′s.

        • DaveH

          I especially like this paragraph from the above Mises article:
          “Where’s the “change”? What’s new about crooked, smug, and oblivious politicians draining the lifeblood out of the nation?”

    • DaveH

      Sweden isn’t a Socialist country (I think you may be confusing Socialism with Nanny State):
      http://heritage.org/index/Country/Sweden

  • JR

    DavidL is right with his posting of the constitution. It it clearly shown that Nullification does NOT work as long as the federal law is deemed constitutional. State law does NOT trump Federal law according to the constitution.
    The health care law will be declared constitutional by the supreme court and with that it will be clearly shown that all the nullification brew ha ha was again, theater and show by the GOP to appease the sheep

    • DaveH

      Good luck with that one. Three of the Supreme Justices are so disgusted with Obama that they didn’t even attend the State of the Union Speech. And five of them are respectful enough of the Constitution to have declared that the right to bear arms is a personal right even though that is a very unpopular stance amongst Big Government types.
      Obama has just made too many enemies, which is why he is ratcheting up the DoubleSpeak to new heights, in his pretense to be moving to the center. If he said what he really believed, he wouldn’t last much longer.

      • Norm

        DaveH
        Since when did the Court have precedence over the executive and legislative branches of government?
        Maybe they should be reading the constitution. What they showed is rudeness and a lack of respect for the foundations of this country.

        • DaveH

          For better or for worse, In the Federal Government, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether or not the Government is acting Constitutionally.

        • JC

          Actually Norm, it’s people like you who are generally rude and show not just disrespect, but a comnplete lack of knowledege about the foundations of America. When I say people like you I mean “Control Freaks” who want to tell the rest of us how to live.
          Not very American at all.

  • American Patriot

    Obama will be impeached soon. He is not a natural born citizen. therefore, all he has none should, and most likely will be null and void. DAMN THOSE BIRTHERS!

    • Ret

      I just found it – U-Tube – Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya on the Mike in the Morning Show. Other similar videos will also crop up.

    • bob wire

      I don’t see it happening and consider it a waste of precious time and effort to pursue.

      Right or wrong, ~ the train has left the station, and going back is no longer an option.

  • Howard R Gray

    Nullification is a simple concept; the constitution provides for a federal government, any powers that weren’t put in the constitution remained with the states. The English common law, received by the United States from England developed a method of permitting everything unless a law restricted it. By the same token, the Code Napoleon prohibits, in all European civil jurisdictions, all unless granted by law of the state. If a power isn’t prescribed under the common law it isn’t there period. Nullification is merely a word that describes what has always been the case. King John at Runnymede sort of got the point enumerated in the Magna Charta. Where there is no statute, regulation or other ordinance, there is the common law and later the law of equity to reckon with. That is a given, no more no less.

    Legal scholars, read Marxists, more often than not, seem free to argue the power of the government to do whatever it likes as valid without further reference to history or principle. Nullification is merely the reworking of the constitution in line with the common law drawing on precedent sounding deep into the history of the law as received by the United States from England.

    Nullification is reasonable; the common law supports the idea. Where there is a legal vacuum, law cannot step in to create what never was there in the first place. Under the US constitution the amendment process is the only way to create new fundamental federal law; all other laws created by the legislature are subordinate to that concept.

    By the way, most of the Federal Judicial structure is created by acts of Congress look closely at what the original Supreme Court was permitted to do. A substantial portion of the Federal Judiciary is a creature of statute and exists because the legislature says it does. Not only can nullification exist but a majority of Congress in both the upper and lower houses have the right to abolish much of the Federal Legal furniture of the United States. It would behoove conservatives and Tea Party folk to consider this for future reference. While arguing for nullification, threaten to repeal much of the federal jurisdiction as well, that would concentrate the minds of progressives.

    In between all that, there is a need for a way to remove laws much akin to removing governors by petition of recall. Why not create a parallel institution, akin to a grand jury, that can be petitioned into existence to hear both sides on the reasons for any law to exist, be it federal, state or mere regulatory. Should the law be found wanting, it should be within the power of such a body to render it null and void. How’s that for nullification for you? If nullification does not exist in the legal theory of the United States why not create it? So far as I am aware the constitution has nothing to say about removing offensive laws or the invention of a new institution to do so.

    Legislatures produce laws by the thousands of pages, unread by those that enact them; often these laws are oppressive inarticulate and downright suspect if not immoral. Law makers seem incapable of removing such repugnant and offensive laws; if any are removed it takes lifetimes to do so. There is a dire need to change the way laws survive. Amending the constitution of the USA to permit laws to be re-adjudicated and if necessary removed would dampen the ardor of the legislatures to create unreasonable laws. There are literally thousand if not millions of lines of laws in this country that are in need of review and removal, there is no chance that any legislature is going, any time soon, to do this vital job, thus there is a need for a law recall system to abolish laws that are seen as unfit or unacceptable.

    Legislative supremacy to make laws is accepted in the minds of many legal scholars, with the advent of super states such as the European Union and a potential world government, parliamentary or congressional such supremacy is under attack. There is a need to act now to create an institution to remove oppressive laws from where ever they come from. Balancing the power to make laws and regulations should be concomitant with a counter power to remove them ex cathedra the legislature. Nullification, in one form or another, perhaps in a more expanded form, should become accepted common practice in administering our legal system. Our recent experience in massive unread bills of law promulgating millions of lines of regulations without hindrance, calls for some method of restraining such law creation. The internal revenue code of laws and regulations would be another candidate for reassessment.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    The goverment and unions are so much in bed together it makes me wonder how we survive at all.Example, the goverment went after Toyota
    like I have never seen them go after anybody before.I agree, Toyota
    didn`t sell has many cars as the year before,but they did sell more cars in the US than any domestic car mfg. did.The Camery is still the
    number one selling car in the US.Another thing the goverment and unions don`t want you to know is that more parts go into Toyota are made in the good old USA than go into our domestic cars.( Mexico )I`m a union man, however, our union bosses and goverment hav sold us down
    the river.

    • DaveH

      We can expect that kind of anti-competitive practice when we allow Government to control companies, such as GM.
      Toyota has for decades made the best cars for the price, by far. Without Toyota’s relentless competition, our automakers would have produced even shoddier cars than they already do. Now they are under tremendous attack in the US. Why? Because Government is force, and Government now owns a car company.

      Look at these car sales figures for Australia. Note the lack of robust sales for GM cars. Australians know who makes the best cars:
      http://www.caradvice.com.au/66635/new-vehicle-sales-figures-april-2010/

      • Norm

        DaveH
        Spoken like a true patriot. Brush up on your Chinese, you’re going to need it.

        • DaveH

          You can pass all the laws you want, Norm, but you can’t make foreign consumers buy our cars. And so far at least, you can’t even make us buy the inferior US cars.
          If you don’t like that, then quit supporting Big Government and Big Unions which are driving our companies out of the country.

          • Norm

            DaveH
            Oddly China sells more GM cars than the US does. I have an almost new Buick Lucerne and a Suburu (now in with Toyota). They are both excellent cars. The Chevy Cruz, Buick Lacrosse, and Cad. CTS are world class, comparable to the Japanese and German equivalents. Ford also produces the fusion which is giving the Corona a good run.

        • DaveH

          And actually, Norm, I am far more patriotic than you are. It is your kind that are trying to take our Freedom away (what little we have left). Very unpatriotic.

          • Norm

            DaveH
            It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

          • kate8

            Norm, Only in your world. It is all depending on whether you are benefitting or losing.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            DaveH,& kate8,
            Norms a good union man(if there is such an animal) and can’t stand the competition!!!

          • Norm

            Joeh.
            It’s comical that you call me a union man.
            As an engineer (retired) I’ve had problems with unions all of my life I never belonged to a union because Engineers rarely unionize. Union members were usually very cooperative, but often they could stop progress by preventing engineers from doing our jobs.

          • DaveH

            One problem, Norm, is that we don’t know if you are the tried and true Liberal Zealot Norm, or another Norm. Maybe you could further qualify your name?

  • Henry Ledbetter

    We were endowed by Our CREATOR with certain inailanable rights and among these are LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS . It is okey if you don’t believe in a Creator God but it is my opinon that one day all will. The truth is that it rains on the just and the unjust and the unjust receive blessings when the just are in authority. Have we given God any reason to contimue blessing this nation?

    • bob wire

      Well? ~ I wish these “rights” were a little more “self-evident” and we were all singing form the same piece of sheet music.

      • DaveH

        Watch out what you wish for, Bob, it might come true.

    • DaveH

      Henry,
      We don’t need to believe in a Creator to believe in Freedom.

    • Norm

      Henry Ledbetter

      We find in the writings of his biographers … a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
      – Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus’s biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

    • Karolyn

      Henry – We receive blessings just because we exist as children of God. WE create our OWN lives, environment, culture, economy, community, etc.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Ret you are right,George Soros runs the Progressive party(Ex.Democrat
    party) through his many Wahington org.Obama is nothing but his point
    man.I`m glad somebody has gotten it right.

    • Ret

      That’s how I read it, Just look at the banking situation, the Fed, etc, then add on the others.

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Henry Ledbetter >>>>>> AMEN

    • Norm

      Charles

      I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor.
      – Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, ca. 1776,

      • http://deleted Claire

        I have posted this before, but it is one of my favorites.

        “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.” Mark Twain

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Claire,
          I have always liked the sayings that Twain came up with, especially; respect your country always, respect your government when they earn it!!
          BTW you ready for that big storm commin your way??? could drop 12-18 inches on you!!

          • http://deleted Claire

            JoeH–Yes, Mark Twain had some very clever quips. It started sleeting at noon today, it comes in waves. We have a nasty covering of ice, it is bad for the dogs and us. I use table salt to put on the steps so they don’t fall. I have the big deck gated so that they cannot get in the yard. The yard is an ice rink. I would rather have a foot of snow than this rotten ice.

          • Palin12

            Must be that global warming.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Palin12– Oh yes, the global warming without a doubt.

  • Roy Jarvis

    Nullification is only the beginning, actually the state legislatures can control what the federal government can and cannot do by exercising their right to amend the constitution. They have always had the power but until the internet they were unable to use it.

    Amending the Constitution has always been and was intended to be difficult but, with technology and the internet the state legislatures can control the federal government.
    Article Five of the Constitution “Second Method”, allows two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the constitution. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures.
    With the advent of the internet, a process could be set up in each state legislature to apply for the constitutional convention, define the convention, make proposed amendments and ratify those amendments almost instantly, thereby sizing control of the US government.

    IN THIS PROCESS ….. EACH STATE GET ONE VOTE AND MOST STATES ARE RED……

    so lets get on with it………

  • American Patriot

    ((((((WELCOME TO MEXAMERICANADA)))))) NORTH AMERICA UNION FOLKS! Done behind closed doors. Republican and Democrats selling our country out from under us “WE THE PEOPLE”. As Dorothy once said “Look” Toto, were not in Kansas anymore.

    • JC

      Which is just one of many reasons why neither party can be trusted at all…on anything.

  • bob wire

    Well, hmm? how is this to be if the FED can withhold funding from any state that fails to comply with a Federal directive?

    It’s been, in that the way the Fed has “encouraged” compliance to date or am I incorrect in my understanding?

    How are we (the states) to get around that?

    The liberty to do as one wishes is not the issue as I understand it, if one is willing to pay the cost.

    • Ret

      My simplistic idea is for each state to clamp down on the waste, – illegal aliens, welfare fraud types, businesses that hire illegals Don’t pay the feds, instead put the tax dollars in an escrow account. Stop the nonsense of ineligible students getting tax breaks on education, make Western Union demand proof of where the dollars to Messico, etc come from, just like the banks have to, and make them withhold taxes before the money is wired. Speaking for myself, I’d be glad to volunteer, in fact I did offer, several times, and was asked to file papers. I have an advanced degree and was not willing to file papers when they were begging, and could not find anyone to do the job I have years of experience in and training for. Of course, if someone came forward, I’d step down. Stop the no-child-left-behind. All that does is dummy down the average student, and it can be very frustrating for the challenged child who knows he/she can’t compete. Like Special Olympics, they need a venue whereby they can excel in their own right. I taught English in Europe, they have the right idea. If you have the talent, the perseverance and will work, you go to the best school, if you’re in the middle, you go to a trade/educational school, and if you’re incapable, or unwilling to work hard, you go to a 3rd tier school. There are plenty of whites sweeping streets, etc. We need those people as much as we need doctors, etc.

      • DaveH

        My simplistic idea is to downsize Government (both state and federal) to its 1950s size. That is one-half the size it is now. We got along just fine in the 50s without Big Government.

        • Norm

          DaveH
          We were doing nicely in the late 90′s until Bush cut taxes, started 2 wars, added free unfounded drugs to Medicare, and oversaw the decline in government controls on the banks and wall street.
          By the way, the top tax rate under Ike was in the 80-90 percent area, not 35.

          • DaveH

            It’s the Spending S…… Anything else is just a bandaid.
            Government spent about 20% of our GDP in 1950. They spend about 40% now. And we got along just fine in 1950.
            How many people would willingly spend 40% of their money to have Government do what they do for them (or against them)?

          • DaveH

            By the way, you’ve been around long enough to know that I don’t support the military state (being the world’s policemen). So, my question is — why didn’t your Democrats get us out of those wars? They had time to ram health care insurance down our collective throats. Why didn’t they have time to get us out of those wars?
            Liberals are all talk and no action. Unless of course you consider it action to ride on the backs of others.

        • bob wire

          DaveH says:
          January 31, 2011 at 1:21 pm

          “By the way, you’ve been around long enough to know that I don’t support the military state (being the world’s policemen). So, my question is — why didn’t your Democrats get us out of those wars? They had time to ram health care insurance down our collective throats. Why didn’t they have time to get us out of those wars?”

          Well Davy, ~ you heard the talk and have seen the action and that’s why you are so upset, so “all talk and no action” just doesn’t really apply.

          “O” tackled HCR first because he knew it would be next to impossible to do,~ special interest opposition had defeated all other who had tried before.

          “O” knew all presidents lose political equity by midterm, so he had to do it first to ever succeed. The need for this reform was due in part to a constant out of control rise in health care cost since 2000.

          This rising cost was bleeding American dry of their discretionary spending. As you know, top wages earners numbers have only risen and could perhaps afford these increases, but most were finding it increasingly difficult to afford.

          That cost has continued to rise, is because that’s what Insurances Companies felt they could still do, before the full affect of HCR comes into play. This reform is being phased in want take full effect for sometime. A too, ! right wing and special interest opposition prevented the administration from getting everything that was really needed for sound, solid reform. We got a compromise.

          And as for the wars, they are being scaled back, It took 5 years to get out of Nam, so keep your shirt on, it’s coming.

          Now I don’t expect you to agree with me Davy, but you did ask for a straight up answer and one has been offered.

          • DaveH

            That was your straight up answer? Looked kind of flat to me. A lot of conjecture, very little fact. The usual obtuse comment from Bob.
            The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military, Bob Wired, and with the Congress owned by the Democrats, he would have had no trouble at all ordering our troops home. Especially since the majority of Americans would like to get out of Afghanistan:
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/141068/Majority-Americans-Favor-Obama-Afghanistan-Timetable.aspx
            And, as I’m sure I don’t need to tell even you, the health care bill had the opposite level of support, but he rammed it through anyway.

          • DaveH

            Some accompaniment for your walk in fantasyland, Bob Wired:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skU-jBFzXl0

          • bob wire

            “And, as I’m sure I don’t need to tell even you, the health care bill had the opposite level of support, but he rammed it through anyway.”

            David, it’s called a majority ~ it came up for a house vote and passed

            You asked for an answer and I gave you one.

            Now if you want to attack me personally and my answer offered with no more then you are offering up while calling my response weak.

            It will be for the readers to decide which one of us is being obtuse.

            I personally believe you are spenting too much time viewing into the magic mirror.

          • bob wire

            Dave are you soliciting commentary on the Links you offer?

            You need to learn to inspire interest if you do.

            Are you expecting people to follow you and your “Links” around like lost puppies?

            To read , watch and listen and except it as some kind of gospels?

            I don’t mind some occasional direction but I find your approach greatly “lacking” in ways too many to count. You would make one awful business leader. ~ I’m not aware of what your profession might be but it doesn’t require much support from others.

          • Vicki

            Bob Wire writes:
            “David, it’s called a majority ~ it came up for a house vote and passed”

            That would be a democracy Bob. We live in a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic.

            Democracy being 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner.
            Or this explanation of Democracy vs Republic.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

          • American Patriot

            WHAT’S UP with the sarcasm BOBBY. Must you be an ass toward people? Or is that your natural view of things.

    • Cawmun Cents

      The only reason we need their money in the first place bob wire,is because the progressives have hi-jacked our states houses of legislation and created so many untenable laws that they have quandried themselves into this situational FUBAR.Progressivism is a disease which infects our legislative branch to the point where laws that are good for the people cannot be passed and laws that are bad for the people obligatorily get passed.Then an effort to makre us feel bad about rescinding them is made even though it is an ineffectual argument.

    • Vicki

      Bob wire writes:
      “Well, hmm? how is this to be if the FED can withhold funding from any state that fails to comply with a Federal directive?”

      And there you have it. Bob clearly states what went wrong and caused the federal government to grow. The FED has no authority to fund any state.
      The Fed does so anyway. The states become attached to the money and the fed monster grows and grows.

      Bob Wire: “How are we (the states) to get around that?”

      Stop accepting the bribes.

      Bob Wire: “The liberty to do as one wishes is not the issue as I understand it, if one is willing to pay the cost.”

      Government was instituted to protect liberty. Bribing states to do what the federal government wants is hardly protecting liberty. It is a criminal misuse of the funds sent to the (federal) government.

  • Larry Shepherd

    It becomes obvious to me that we have allowed the Supreme Court to assume the role of final law maker. Not considering the constitution for their decisions but in spite of it. They consider themselfs to untouchables of our society. Don’t you think we should change this and make them the same as any political servent, and make them accountable and remove them though impeachment if that is the only way to get them out. It is time to act and set aside the rhetroic. Thank you for listening

    • Merlin

      There are constitutional procedures for removing a justice from office if congress had the fortitude to do so.

  • GenEarly

    Personal,Individual Nullification works as well. I Quit, Take your progressive commie society and shove it! Socialism “works” until you run out of other people’s money. I’m doing the 60′s thing, tuning out and dropping out of this Progressive Nightmare.Protecting your wealth from Fiat Money is a vital 1st step everyone can do.

  • hbmac

    The founders saw a problem in the the way the Constitution was construted,the supremacy clause was to apply to the laws enacted by congress and applied the all states.
    The Constitution was ratified in 1787,and was amended in 1791 with the
    first ten amendments, or the Bill of Rights.
    The Ninth and Tenth amedments were put in place to put further restritions on Fedral government over reach and to afirm that is was the states that formed the Fedral government and that states retain all un-enumerated rights not granted to the Federal government.

    • Pat R

      They WORK for We the People. They are not supposed to pass any law without the support of We the People.

      • Another Voice

        It should be ‘US the people’, not ‘WE the people.’ Objective case. 7th grade English.

  • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

    Bob,
    Excellent expose. Am constantly reading the worn-out and discredited leftist talking points about which you write.

    As for the Supremacy Clause, read “The Supremacy Clause Menace” on the NY 10th Amendment Center. There’s also a thoughtufl article entitled “On Civil Disobedience and Nullification” which is worth reading.

    The propagandizing perpetrated by the left on this issue is clearly intended to obfuscate and to lull the people into submission. Nothing more. As for me, I will continue to rely on the wisdom and original intent of the Constitution and its framers and ratifiers over the parochial, ideologically-driven rantings of the Statists.

    We are definitely in a fight for our very lives and liberties. And it’s up to us alone to win that fight.

    • Vicki

      Failure is not an option.

  • nationAP

    Nazism was a leftist ideology.

    • eddie47d

      …and you are a right wing wacko like i41 below. Even a turnip has more smarts.

      • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

        eddie, eddie, eddie, be a nice boy. stick to the facts and regale us with intelligent, well-researched commentary, not mindless ad hominems. Personal attacks are the last refuge of the ignorant and ideologically driven. You can do better than that. No?

        • eddie47d

          I go after most who use the ugly Nazi card. They are the scoundrels.

          • Vicki

            Eddie47D. Since the use of the word Nazism as a noun (subject) followed by a verb (was) followed by the object of the sentence (a leftist ideology) I find that the sentence is not a (mis)use of the nazi card but a statement of observable fact. Since I can easilly back up his assertion (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/05/nazism-was-leftist-ideology.html) it stands as asserted and proven.

            Your blatant ad hominem attack shows your utter lack of ability to debate or your utter disdain for those who are reading your posts.

          • JC

            let me get this straight eddie….you are an advocate of socialism,
            but you are offended by an historical German acronym…
            you must be a racist! ;) LOL

    • bob wire

      “Nazism was a leftist ideology.”

      Ooo~Kay? ~ the term “socialist” was in deed used as a self-identifying label in early 30′s of Germany.

      So was Nazism, conservative or liberal in practice, tenor and tone?

      I’ve found a lot of mis-labeling over the years as you I’m sure have as well.

      People buy “labels”, so a recognizable label is sought after and important while it sometimes falls to accurately identify true content.

      In the case of Nazism, it was “eventually” sold as the “only” preferred brand of choice to fearful citizenry, which doesn’t accurately reflect liberal or left leaning “intent” as I understand it.

      I find it odd that the German people were offered two choices at the polls, a Socialist communist or a Nazi socialist. But whatever you might wish to call them, only one party was advocating and preaching hate and intolerance for fellow citizens.

      So what have we here today? I like to think of it as the X factor. As the name “Republic” alone leaves much to the imagination and fail to identify well with much of anything specific that might “assure” meaningful purpose or direction in the quest for fairness.

      “In modern republics such as the United States and France, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison compared the republic to democracy,[6] and found democracy wanting, due to the nature of democracies. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.”

      So? what does that all mean? People that think they truly know, worry me. I only know what it says.

      • Karolyn

        Love it, Bob!

      • DaveH

        Here we go again. Why is it that you Liberals like to cut and paste whole paragraphs, and even whole articles without referencing and giving credit to your source? It’s called plagiarism.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

        • bob wire

          Not when identifying ” ” as a quotes were used Dave.

          Plagiarism is a deliberate attempt to take credit for someone eases work.

          Why must you attempt to make things out of something that don’t exist?

          I use small quote, at times for readers convenience ~ that you don’t is up to you, ~

          I know , I sure don’t pull up every link that’s offered.

          and this has nothing to do with or even starts to address my posting.

          You are behaving as more of a thread Trolls with such a response.

          • eddie47d

            Amen Bob!

        • newspooner

          Two of the biggest plagarists of alltime were John Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

          “Ask not what your country can do for you…….” always infuriated Mary Gibran because she knew it was stolen from one of her brother’s books. But the Establishment media ignored her complaints. Those dishonest scumbags still ignore the truth today. And the sheeple are still convinced that it was original great speech.

          • bob wire

            “Ask not what your country can do for you”

            I have always hear that was stolen from A. Hitler.

          • http://deleted Claire

            bob wire–I really don’t care who spoke it first, I certainly approved of these words when JFK said them.

          • bob wire

            It does have a nice feel about it Claire. Powerful words.

          • DaveH

            Ask not what your country’s leaders can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’s leaders. Must be nice for the leaders.

          • http://deleted Claire

            DaveH–I will not do anything for leaders, just America.

          • bob wire

            Why miss a chance to turn something good inside out Dave? And you expect people to take you serious?

            Keep it up and be render insignificant by your own hand.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Besides, I liked JFK and I did vote for him. And I would do it all over again.

          • DaveH

            Bob,
            When I read your comments sometimes I drift off and wonder if I’m not in the middle of a stoner party watching Cheech and Chong’s “Up in Smoke”.

      • bob wire

        ” To all those who think “National Socialism” was socialist because it had the word “Socialism” in the title – is the People’s Republic of China Republican because it has the word “Republic” in the title?

      • Cawmun Cents

        Oh,Mr.Wire?And socialized medicine foisted on the American consumer, who is compelled by fear of being fined,doesnt fit into your little category that you mention here?Funny how when YOU look at Naziism,it takes on a consevative tone.But isnt national Socialism total government takeover of everything?Isnt that a tenant of the left?As I reckon it,it is the conservative who wants less government and the liberal who asks for more government.I do not want my business regulated,my air regulated,my environment regulated,my appetite regulated,my firearms regulated,my healthcare manditory….dont you see that these are things that the left is concerned with?Capitalism is having these things without government regulations.Let the free market do the work.But when you have a situation like the housing bubble where banks were compelled by your god Bill Clinton to sell housing at rates that po fokes could afford and then after a while it got out of hand when folks coulnt afford to pay the mortgages.they were told they could afford these mortgages by people in lending companies because they were to be subsidized by the gubment at a lower rate,but when the gubment backed out and the lending companies had to bite the bullet for you god Bill Clintons mistake,they found a scapegoat in Dubya and soon after…the economy collapsed under the weight of the lending companies not getting paid by the po fokes.Kinda sounds like pressuring folks to take on more than they can handle dont it Mr.Wire?Betcha your text book isnt going to say this…..

      • Vicki

        Bob Wire. Since socialism means collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and since that is what the Nazi regime did, the shoe (label) fits.

        The question that we need to address however is another element of the Nazi regime. The 100% government element. Also a clearly leftist element. Partial proof is ObamaCare.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

  • http://com i41

    Hope Bob and Jack54, remember to take their meds BID(by injesting drugs), not as a HB(hemmaroid balm), they would have better results. Both are Soros Socialist Democrat Party morons. Since Nazi Traitor George Soros funds and guides the democrat party slubs all the way down to county levels. The Nazi traitor is the controller of the the marxist communist union party pukes. This gathering of no minded, theory beleiving book trained idoits, who embrace the queers and steers ideaology. Also are so pusified, they will not fight, even if their life depended on it. First requirement to become a democrat is to be a follwers of any idoit who espouses anti USA bildge, must want a totalatarian run dictatorship country, embraces the UN and will live under its mandates from other sorry azzed controlling socialists, doesn’t beleive in USA’s soveriegnity, and beleive the muslims are women respecting, peace loving, and are just poor misunderstood goat abusing perverts!

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

      i41,
      While I sympathize with your sentiments and share your anger, conservative patriots don’t need to emulate or otherise bottom out with our warped liberal antagonists. We can win on logic, reason and determination. But, push back we must.

      • Vicki

        When the left runs out of facts (Doesn’t take long :) ) they will run to any and all of the poor debate arguments like arguing that their source is of great authority. Rare since they don’t often bother with a source. Argument to ridicule. A significant part of demonetization of their opponent. Argument to the person. The most common attack and used to demonize or discredit the person rather than proving an assertion to be false.

        What we should do is respond by identifying the attack and in most cases moving on. This gives them much less opportunity to blame us for using such attacks against them. Even though in most cases they individually or collectively use the attacks first. Proof of that last assertion is in the comments above and below this one.

  • Merlin

    Joseph Story (either deliberatly or ignorantly)had the entire matter completely backwards! The Constitution grants the federal government very specific and limited powers and authority. Everything else is reserved for the several States and the people. The federal government derives it’s authority and power from the people and has no right to impose unconstitutional laws, reulations, rules, or other dictates!

    • Vicki

      Yes that is correct. The enumerated powers in the Constitution are addressed at the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment is addressed to the Federal government and the State governments. The People are the source of all powers. Some were delegated to the Federal government. Some were delegated to the State. ALL the rest belong to the PEOPLE along with ALL rights.

      Note also that the 10th clearly says that there are some powers we are NOT allowed to delegate to the State or Federal government even if a majority of us want to.

  • David

    Take Soros down by fraud or whatever it takes, and another puppet will pop right up. Do you see Buffet donating all his money to charity? To be taxed? He makes Soros look like the chump he is.

  • David

    Britain wants to retake America, are we going to let that happen?

    • Karolyn

      WHAT???????

    • Bert Cundle

      THINK OF IT THIS WAY: Brit’s don’t have a President… They have a “PRIME MINISTER” — Our Government Meetings are Started with Prayer…

      • Karolyn

        WHAT??????? Minister: min·is·ter (min′is tər)

        noun

        1.a person acting for another as agent and carrying out given orders or designs; specif.,
        a.a person appointed by the head of a government to take charge of some department
        b.a diplomatic officer sent to a foreign nation to represent his or her government, usually ranking below an ambassador
        2.
        a.anyone authorized to carry out or assist in the spiritual functions of a church
        b.an ordained member of a Protestant church; esp., a pastor
        3.the superior of certain Roman Catholic religious orders
        4.a person or thing thought of as serving as the agent of some power

  • Dan az

    The Bill of Rights was attached to The Constitution for the United States of America to form The Constitution of the United States of America, which binds government officials to the limited operations of government as specified in the contract and limits them from violating the God given inherent rights of the people. These constitutions neither prescribe nor claim to prescribe any rights to anyone. Instead they grant privileges to officers of government and restrict those officers from any action that would violate The Constitution of the United States of America. Our Constitutional Republic government, only governs itself as it is limited by its Constitution and Law; it has no authority to control the sovereign people of this nation; the people govern themselves. Again, the Constitution grants no rights; our Rights are God given, inherent and unalienable.

    Therefore, though most rights in The United States of America are constitutionally secured, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional Right”.

  • Dan az

    Just think about it for a moment; all of the authority the government has comes from the people; so, how can the government lawfully acquire any authority the people do not possess?

    The answer is quite simple: “They cannot!”
    Thus, if Congress passes a law to do or compel something beyond the scope of the power the people granted them, through the Constitution, that so called law is unconstitutional and can have no lawful effect. Still, the people can allow unlawful statutes to be enforced because they do not know how to prevent such enforcement.

    Our State governments are limited in the same way. They were formed in accord with Enabling Acts and Constitutions that both grant them authority [from the people] and limit the amount of authority they can possess to that portion of authority the people granted them. Again, because all of their authority comes from the people they cannot possibly have any authority beyond that which the people possess. These facts are the controlling power behind the ninth and tenth articles of amendment in the Constitution.

    The United States of America’s Constitutional Republic form of government was not created to govern the people; rather, it was created to preserve their Liberty by: interacting with other nations, providing for our general defense and providing for monetary, commercial and judicial systems that can help insure the people’s rights to Life, Liberty and Property with our Constitutional Republic form of government while uniting the nation as it grows and develops.

    Nothing in the Constitution provided government with authority to control the people.
    Even the judicial system’s power to summon is limited to address specific trespasses.
    In fact, the Bill of Rights was formed to explicitly limit the government from any authority to interfere with the people’s rights. Thus, the people remain free to act for themselves and to interrelate with others according to their own private agreements and desires

  • Dan az

    The Constitution plainly states: ”The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth amendment; and, ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment

    • kate8

      Dan az – Good job.

      The power of government to rule over every aspect of our lives is a smokescreen, a huge illusion created by them and for them. And it only remains because we haven’t figured that out.

      I continue to say, ignore the unconstitutional acts passed by Congress. They don’t represent us.

      • kate8

        What is the point of electing people to Congress or anywhere else, and then having them turn on us?

        The only power they have is the power we give them, or that we perceive that they have.

        I just heard the comment somewhere that the ONLY power any government has is their support by a military. Take away that instrument of force, and they have nothing.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    The term Constitutional scholar is ABSURD and an insult to anyone who can read & comprehend.

    The Constitution was written and intended for ANYONE to be able to read and understand it. In other words, you may not be smarter then a 4th grader if you need a Scholar to help you understand english.

    Websters dictionary is IMHO all the help anyone needs who can read. Beyond that its wind-smoke & mirrors.

    So any effort to squash the FED bug is a Good effort as long as its Constitutional. :)

  • Karolyn

    Consumer spending was up 3% in 2010. The highest in 3 years!

    • Bert Cundle

      BUT Prices have gone up more!!!

      • bob wire

        Right! in spite of price increases, spending has gone up.

        which means ? some balance is coming into play by virtues of supply and demand.

        we were at price increases and falling sales.

        It’s a half empty or half full perception.

        Hope is returning ~ in spite of doom and gloom.

        Then next 12 months is a make or break crunch for most Americans.

        • DaveH

          Did the consumer spending go up as a result of price increases, or in spite of them?
          I haven’t seen any articles claiming that the “real” spending (adjusted for inflation) has gone up. The spending increases could be solely due to increased prices. The same is true for the stock market. The nominal increase in stock prices may simply be (and most likely is) the result of more money chasing fewer goods.
          It’s important to understand the difference between real wealth and paper money. If you don’t, you will suffer greatly in the coming years.

        • Bert Cundle

          Right! in spite of price increases, spending has gone up.
          WHICH MEANS… Ya GET LESS!!!

    • DaveH

      You may not be so excited after reading this article:
      http://mises.org/daily/4570

      Thanks to Quantitative Easing, Banks are now sitting on over a Trillion dollar increase in their reserves by the Federal Reserve (about 10% of the money supply). They are being paid interest by the Federal Reserve on those reserves to encourage them to sit on that cash currently. Watch the price of goods start skyrocketting when they stop sitting on the reserves.
      Already last year the Producer Price index went up over 4%.
      Is consumer spending up 3%, or does it just appear that way because the prices of our goods have increased?

  • chuckb

    karolyn

    do your math, half the business in the country is shut down so the remaing half would show some increase.

    • Karolyn

      chuck, Where do you get your percentages from? It doesn’t matter who got the money; the point is that people are spending more than they have in 3 years. That spells R E C O V E R Y. Get out there and buy! that’s how to help this country. Quit bitching about how much everything sucks and be a part of the solution!

      • Vicki

        I wish you were correct Karolyn but I am spending more than last year BECAUSE the prices of things are up. One obvious one is gasoline.
        Therefore I am getting the same or fewer goods but spending more money to do it.

      • JC

        Karolyn, you’re in the clouds on this one…no it does not mean “recovery”. It simply means that people are spending money that is more worthless today than it was yesterday to but services and goods that cost more today than they did yesterday and as this goes on the inflation bubble grows and grows till it “pops”.
        It’s happened before and it’s happening again right now.
        The huge debt that “stimulus” has created is coming back to haunt us.

    • Karolyn

      It doesn’t matter who’s getting the money; the fact is that more is being spent; hence, economic recovery. If everyone started spending more money, we would have a faster recovery – simple as that!

      • 45caliber

        It depends entirely upon what the money is spent for. If you buy only foreign products, you don’t help our economy. If you spend it on make-work government jobs, it won’t help either. So your blanket statement is wrong. It needs to be spent on something that WILL help the economy – of the US.

      • DaveH

        It matters a lot who gets the money. If the recipients did nothing for that money, there are two immediate problems. One is that they then can compete for the supply of outstanding goods and services against those who actually earned their money (not very fair).
        Two is that when anybody gets free money, they tend to spend it more wastefully than those who earned their money. That distorts the marketplace causing asset bubbles and other problems.
        Creating money does not create wealth. Imagine if the Federal Reserve were to suddenly double the money supply. Would we be wealthier? Of course not (unless you consider having piles of worthless money exciting). The amount of goods and services outstanding would still be the same and in fact would start decreasing as the money was spent wildly by those who acquired it the easy way. They would ‘consume’ the outstanding goods and services rather than to be productive and create more. And the Producers no longer seeing a reward for their hard work will start looking for ways to imitate the non-producers. The result will be less production, and goods and services that suffer in quality or quantity.
        This has proven itself in experience throughout history. Argentina is an excellent case study for anybody wanting to remove the blinders and learn some reality. Their economy was ranked about 10th in the world until they succumbed to leftist agendas. They now are in the mid-30s.

        • bob wire

          “Their economy was ranked about 10th in the world until they succumbed to leftist agendas. They now are in the mid-30s”

          hmm? I guess if you are included in “this” economy that’s a good thing!

          I know, back during the late 80′s I had to turn on the TV to find out how good I was doing because where I was standing I sure couldn’t tell it.

          • DaveH

            Speaking of Trolls.

  • Don T

    Bob wire, Sounds to me like the Fed has over exercised it’s power,,, it’s time to take this country back !!!!

    • bob wire

      Maybe so Don, maybe so.

      If we asked less of the Fed, some of this conflict might just go away.

      I personal think that we do often ask too much.

      Like our GOP Governor D1ck Perry threaten to succeed from the Union in one breath and the next, finding fault with the CDC and the swine flu epidemic and it’s lacking of serum production.

      It’s hard to have things both ways at your pleasure and convenience.

      Or the people in New Orleans, finding fault with a slow Federal response, yet not really wanting the Fed in their daily business.

      Or the slow Federal response to the oil spill, ~ yet wanting limited government involvement in mineral extraction.

      Finding this desired “balance” is a delicate thing to attempt.

      It’s like JFK’s response to a lady that asked him, what had he done for women’s rights. I loved his answer, “Not near enough”,said he.

      Sometimes, a good answer is just hard to come by.

      • 45caliber

        THe argument reminds me of an editorial I saw years ago. The writer – in Chicago – was stating that we were using the courts so much to solve or try to get minor decisions made that the court system was tied up. In the same article he stated that the court suit he had filed himself to force everyone playing softball to not use gloves was very important. And it probably was to himself but not to 99% of the rest of us!

        • bob wire

          I don’t believed an argument was being offered but more of an observation.

          and we all know the difference, right?

  • Bitter Libertarian

    Isnt it obvious by now that the USA is the last Prize for the International Bankers? Destroy our Constitution, enslave Americans, and its easy as pie after that.
    Once the FREE USA is out of the way(over 1/2 way there) ….Tyranny will ensue around the globe under a Global Goverment.

    Everyone who reads this on this board be that person Liberal, Conservative, democrat or republican will be obselete and lose their rights to even discuss their opinions.

    Congress was suppose to guarantee us a Repiblican form of Govt..they have failed. Instead we have been destroyed from within by Democracy (51% win 49% lose) the perfect system to destroy freedom.

  • Bert Cundle

    I think it is Viewed as “CITIZENSHIP”… Citizen of State / or / Citixen of COUNTRY (United States of America) SOME ARE DECLAIRING THEIR Citizenship to be “America”! AMERICAN JURISPRUDANCE STATES THAT: The Governing Laws Are to be by EACH TERATORY!
    So: A Citizen of California, would have there I.D. Card From California & Fly the Flag of California…
    A Citizen of United States, Would have their I.D. Card from United States, Flying their Flag of United States…
    A Citizen of America Only has their American Legiance Card. With That Flag!
    TALK ABOUT DEVIDE & CONQER…
    I Have All Three (3) CARDS ( Cal. Birth Cert. / U,S. S.S.# / A.L. Plaque.) Depending on the Problem… One of the 3, has the Solution!
    The States & Feds Useing the CRIMINAL SYSTEM, on CIVILIANS; MUST BE FIXED!
    THE MIX OF CHURCH & STATE; MUST BE FIXED!

  • BigIron

    “Nullification” is based upon the SEPARATION of “powers” delineated by the 10th Amendment of the Bill-of-Rights. It was put in place to prevent exactly what we have seen happening over the last 150 plus years and even more so in recent times. The 10th Amendment has NOT been “repealed”! … And it must never be allowed to be!

    When OUR governments exceed the “powers” delegated to them by the people through OUR Constitution the, “actions” of those governments ARE “unlawful”; “unlawful” acts DO NOT / CANNOT carry the weight of “law”. LAWS which are made in order to exercise “powers” that were NOT delegated to our governments, Federal, State, and local by our Constitution as delineated by 10A are at once “unlawful” and neither the people nor governments are NOT bound by them; it is as though they DO NOT, DID NOT, and NEVER DID EXIST. It IS the DUTY of ALL the people, the State government and the Federal government to oppose ANY and ALL such “usurpation” BY any and all means as may be required to render moot such “unlawful” acts.

    Our Constitution was NOT written for lawyers nor judges but for the people; thus, it is the people, themselves, who MUST decide what IS or is NOT Constitutional. Certainly it cannot be the courts nor the government entities for they will most always side with their own interests, not those of the people, in their quest for greater and greater “power”.

    We have seen what has happened when the people FAIL in their duties to require that our governments behave “lawfully”; we MUST now act to return our governments to their proper “chains and bonds”! We must again make our governments loyal servants TO their “rightful” masters, the people. The longer we wait; the more difficult our task becomes.

    • 45caliber

      Further, our jury system was a second and more powerful check on both Federal and State powers. If a law was passed that was wrong or bad for our country, our juries were supposed to decide what should be instead. There were NO limits to a jury’s power to decide right and wrong on any crime and what the punishment might be.

      Now the courts are to decide what is a “reasonable punishment” and in many cases decide right or wrong despite what the jury thinks. I know of a murder trial years ago where the husband killed the wife – he was guilty but the jury sentenced him to “one day suspended”. They had decided that the wife deserved it since she was trying to kill him at the time. (He took the gun away from her and shot her with it.)

      Just in the last week, I’ve seen both a jury verdict and a jury sentence overturned and a judge making the decision. That was not meant to be!

      • Vicki

        45caliber writes:
        “Just in the last week, I’ve seen both a jury verdict and a jury sentence overturned and a judge making the decision. That was not meant to be!”

        Do you happen to have cites? If the case was a criminal prosecution then the action is clearly unconstitutional.

        “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, …” 6th amendment

        The ruling of the jury is final if the defendant is acquitted. It is apealable (only?) by the defendant if the defendant is found guilty.

        “…; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; …” 5th amendment.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    From the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations=Rockafelle r pet organization) “Roger C. Altman and Richard N. Haass argue that if U.S. leaders do not rein in government debt, global financial markets will ultimately force a solution. The result would be an age of American austerity that shrinks America’s global role and leads to a less safe and less free world.”

    Can you say…”The NEED FOR GLOBAL GOVT” :)

    • 45caliber

      That is their “need” – not mine.

      The real problem is that to have a successful one world government (not capitolized) all areas of the world need to have about the same economy. Our original states started about equal but got out of kilter by the Civil War. It took us until about WWII to get it straight again – when our survival was more important that which state or region could control the rest of the country.

      I think that is one reason why so many of these “One World Government” people want to tear down the US. They can’t accelerate the rest of the world to catch them up with us (they certainly have been trying since WWII or before) so they want to bring our way of life down to the base of the rest of the world.

      • bob wire

        I don’t know of any “One World Government” people.

        I hear of them only through protesting voices and Science Fiction Novelist.

  • WayneT

    I have changed my name to WayneT. I was the original wayne on this forum. I am the Conservative on this forum who disagrees with Nobama and his Zombies who passed the illegal health insurance law by illegal means, and arm twisting. I disagree with wayne. We need to rid ourselves of the Communist, and the Liberals who are trying to ruin our country. Out with Nobama, and his Zombies in 2012.

    • bob wire

      Well we sure don’t want to get you confused with some extremest left leaning nut case. Your secret is safe with us Wayne T.

      My middle name is DeWayne, not to be confused with Duwayne.

      but what in a name? It’s what’s found inside, right?

  • Jack54

    Topic…Extremists usually are in charge:

    Common sense people…with middle of the road judgement…are not in charge…otherwise we would not be in the current condition as a nation…lobbyists ensure that special interests are followed…political parties want polarization to exemplify their existance as political parties…the extremists are propelled to the top of the groups…whether Democrats or Republicans…supposedly, we elect the through the system…but our choices are limited…and for some reason the truly good ones never make it to the top…mostly, the same things happens in business…weasels are the prevalent type to best represent the lobbyists themselves…who of course are weasels themselves… sometimes psychopaths in actions…the media always starts out telling everyone how wonderfull these people are…eventually, history takes its course and the results prove otherwise…

    So, to end this corrupt system that has been failing us…both the lobbyists and political parties need to be eliminated or better controlled…and with those groups in charge…how, do we go about doing that…peacefully…

    Capitlism can have a planned economy…that does not make it socialism…we need as system that works…millions of unemployed…millions of homeless…Federal, State and local governments bankrupt…record bonuses for Wall Street…bonuses for bankers who were part of the economies downfall in the first place…wars of appearances…wars for oil…it seems as if terrorists have no problem blowing things up in the middle east everywhere…but they can not even assemble a blasting cap/battery pack with PETN in the US(Shoe bomber/Underwear Bomber)…and bomb sniffing dogs will detect the explosives every time…and Islamic extremists are fearfull of bomb sniffing dogs…and what about trains and buses…no security measures there…the list of items that do not make sense…the list of items indicating bad leadership and negligence goes on and on…

    Also, without a planned economy where are we headed?…millions who can not retire…millions who will graduate from high school and college…and what about our guys/gals returning from the wars who deserve a good job…oh yes, opportunity requires planning…we can not compete with countries will lower pay scales, no OSHA, limited environmental regulation…and those who claim to be Christians but do not care to protect people, animals and the good earth itself are Christians in name only…why is it that governments will spend millions for environmental clean-ups when what we need to do is prevent the hazardous toxins from infiltration to our air, water and earth in the first place…the wealthiest corporation can not create a single ant, worm, fish, bird etc…I do not deny anyone a good profit or even great wealth…we just need to do things the best way possible …the safest way and with the highest quality…and we can do that easily…we set the standards if allowed to…we should not be lowering ourself to the lower standards of others…they need to rise to our standards…Toyota was not picked on…Ford, GM and Chrylser all have their recalls…unions need to be responsible and work with dedication, safety, and ensuring profitability for their employers…unions are another group of lobbyists as are the lawyers and psychobable group that result in too many goofy lawsuits and that are way out of line in reality at times…extremism once again…all groups have good people within them…but somehow, the extremists seem to rise to the top…

    • Karolyn

      It’s because they are the loudest!

      • bob wire

        “extremism once again…all groups have good people within them…but somehow, the extremists seem to rise to the top…”

        hmm? So a screaming 14 month old child with a galled bottom demanding attention should be considered a “controlling majority” in a room full of adults because? why?

        Why not simply understand the social dynamics at work and address the needs of the child without feeling some pressing need to over react and allow the child rule the room?

        This is what a few are attempting to do. ~ Whats the purpose of all the name calling and earlier threats of violence both veiled and otherwise, if it’s not to intimidate for found lacking the power of a majority?

        Smooth move Ex Lax but sorry, ~ It’s really not working very well, Oh, I admit, it created a back drop that managed to get a DNC congress woman out of the picture and now short a vote. But it’s only ended up hurting the Tea Party movement.

        I really don’t believe that it’s the “TOP” they are rising too.

    • 45caliber

      “…and those who claim to be Christians but do not care to protect people, animals and the good earth itself are Christians in name only…”

      I don’t make the assumption that I am an expert on the Bible. But a Christian is someone who has recognized Christ as his/her savior and follows the teachings of the Bible. I don’t remember a single passage in the Bible that states that to be a Christian you must “protect people, animals and the good earth itself”. You might assume so since you are not a Christian yourself but that isn’t a requirement at all.

      Further, it does say that you should give to help the poor – but it doesn’t say how much to give. Your heart is the thing to determine that. And it certainly doesn’t say that you should give to the government to help the poor. You are to give DIRECTLY to the poor. That way they get all the money rather than someone along the line taking out whatever he feels the poor doesn’t need for his own purposes. It says nothing about protecting animals and it says nothing about protecting the land from use by humans.

    • bob wire

      “and Islamic extremists are fearful of bomb sniffing dogs…”

      more then the bomb in their pants?

      • http://deleted Claire

        bob wire–Apparently they aren’t afraid of a bomb in their pants. they are still walking around with a pantload. LOL

  • Bitter Libertarian

    Ahhh..the American Dilema….One one hand we want it all..to be the BEST nation in the world, to be the most powerful and most wealthy. We want our Christian Nation to expel all Muslims, and be the Land of the FREE.
    (Sounds more like a post card for Nazi Germany)

    On the other hand we actually expect those clammoring for this “flavor of freedom” to respect the freedom of its citizens???

    I’ll tell ya, the more I look at the hypocracy running rampant in the “freedom groups” ..the more clear it becomes that we are collapsing.

    States rights need no interpretation…no scholar to “enlighten” us…its all right there!

    • Karolyn

      “Ahhh..the American Dilema….One one hand we want it all..to be the BEST nation in the world, to be the most powerful and most wealthy. We want our Christian Nation to expel all Muslims, and be the Land of the FREE.
      (Sounds more like a post card for Nazi Germany)

      On the other hand we actually expect those clammoring for this “flavor of freedom” to respect the freedom of its citizens???

      EXACTLY! Over and over I’m hearing conservatives here telling libs to leave the country because they’re not “real” Americans.

      • 45caliber

        Karolyn:

        When people want to leave our Constitutional law behind and make our government follow the law-of-the-moment, there isn’t really any law. Nothing has a basis except the emotion of the moment. They aren’t willing to follow a set of laws that restrict their control of others. That is NOT a “real” American – even if they are born in this country. A REAL American is someone who is willing to give others all the freedom possible in return for the same consideration. Everyone equal under the law. What some want is someone with a dictator’s tendencies – as long as it themselves of course. Or someone just like them. And when we say that such a person should leave our country, we are right. There is, of course, another route. But I don’t like that one. It harms both sides.

        This country was never meant to have a ruler. The President was basically supposed to take the laws that Congress passed and administer them. Nothing else. He could make a request to Congress to get a particular law passed that might aid him in this administration but he had no more authority to pass laws than anyone else. You have just as much right to request some law be passed by Congress as he does. Executive proclamations were meant only to give his people a better idea of what he expected – they were NEVER meant to act as a law themselves. But too many people try to insist today that the President is the authority. Wrong!

        When people do start insisting that whatever the President requests MUST be passed into law as is being done now, they are NOT “real” Americans. They are English or African or Russian or some other political stance. And therefore we recommend that they move to one of those countries to find like-minded people.

        • bob wire

          “But too many people try to insist today that the President is the authority. Wrong!”

          who are these people?

          • JC

            Obamunistas

  • Palin12

    Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) talks about the 3 branches of government: there is the House, the Senate, and the President:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY

    Thanks for enlightening us dumb conservatives, Chuck!

  • Anthony

    The bottom line to this discussion – is the fact that our Constitution says the States are Sovereign. Whereas, Federalists like John Marshall, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (Central Bankster, here) all felt control of the Country should be at the head of State, and NOT spread out amongst the many States. Many in Congress were worried that the many States would become mini-dictatorships … but the Constitution wasn’t written that way. It was written in such a way as to disallow a total Dictatorship or Oligarchy, which we got anyway thru deception.

    The Interstate Commerce Laws were written to benefit the Federal, not the States. And, that’s just one example of how subterfuge was used from the very beginning.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    As a student of history I have studied the history of nullification and states rights and the disastorous consequences that arose from such arguments being abused. However I have also studied history in both the world wars and in the early years of the republic with acts like the alien and sedition acts making it a crime to criticize the governement. In both extremes in my view law, justice and order were violated. The United States is a delicate balance between the rights of the people and majority in a democratic society and the checks and balances of the republican system to prevent majority from overwheleming minority. The difficulty is managing the balance. Too much Federal Power is just as evil as too much State power. In a family the parents ultimatly make rules but children have rights that must be protected and privaleges honored. Of course if the children get to much freedom then the parents are not doing their jobs and will inadvertenly spoil their kids. Though in our case it makes it even more confusing when the children are about the same age and they elected the parents in the first place. Bottom line its a complicated debate and my view is in faith in the republican system to ultimatly provide a workable solution in the end. The people have the right to amend or abolish the republic as they see fit. So long as they do not see fit I hope to reform and amend the system as much as possible while still retaining the fundemental checks and balances of that system, the authority of the national government to exert and enforce such checks and balances, and the right and authority of the states to administer such matters within the confins of their state while always ready and willing to assist others that need it just as those others would help them. But for me I simply always remember the old pledge of allegiance to the flag and republic of the United States. Though my affection is for my state, my loyalty and allegiance is for the republic.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

      Jeremy,

      Good comment. I agree with nearly all of what you said, except your belief that the issue is “complicated”. Not for me or many other students of history I know. Not by a long shot. The framers carefully crafted a Constitution which strove to maintain the co-equality of the States and the Federal Government. Since ratification of the Constitution the black-robed judicial oligarchy which is SCOTUS has shattered that perfect balance. Inherent in the framers’ plan is to empower the people, the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, to take appropriate action to restore constituional order, thus preventing dissolution and the loss of liberty. Union for the sake of union is meaningless and totally unredeeming unless the glue of that union is constitutional order and rule of law.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I guess your right Jdelaney. Hey believe me I want a Union based on the rule of law and constitutional order too. When I said complicated I just meant the issue between state vs national government. But you are right that the people are the final authority. I just hope the people choose to amend not abolish the government if they can help it.

        • Vicki

          The real battle we fight is not between left and right, nor banker and consumer etc. The Battle is between 100% government and 0% government. The winning hand for freedom is somewhere inbetween as discussed in this video.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

  • 45caliber

    “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’

    Not hardly!

    The 10th Amendment spells that out very plainly. The Feds have tried to make everyone believe they are the final authority. That’s why the Civil War was fought – at least by the South.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

      Right on, 45! The 9th and 10th Amendments were added to the Constitution as a condition of its ratification for a specific purpose, that being to safeguard the co-equality of the states and the central gov’t. Among serious–and objective–students of the Constitution, there is simply no question about this at all.

    • Anthony

      You need to read up on Lincoln before you make a flat statement about the Civil War. If you were to read the South’s Constitution, you would find that it is practically the same as ours from the 1770′s. However, they left out one glaring FLAW … the general welfare clause. The FEDs have abused that line since it was written.

  • http://deleted Claire

    Every red-blooded American should jump in line to support the Green Bay Packers!! The Packers defeated the Chicago Bears thus earning them the opportunity to go to the Super Bowl. By doing so, they saved the hard-working, red-blooded, taxpaying Americans several million dollars. How?? Simple, we were told that if the Chicago Bears had won that President Obama (and probably his family) would be attending the Super Bowl to cheer on his hometown team. Since the Bears lost, the President won’t be attending!? The money saved from not using Air Force 1, the limos, all the additional security, and let’s not forget Michelle’s entourage (probably a million dollars or so). Therefore every American should cheer on the Green Bay Packers at the Super Bowl to show them our gratitude.
    As an avid Packers fan, I had to share this with all of you.

    GO PACKERS!!!!

    • libertytrain

      As always, nicely said. Who knew the Packers would save us millions – brilliant. The Pack is Back -

      • http://deleted Claire

        libertytrain—Hmmm, no on but you replied to my post about the Packers. Could it be they are not Packers fans or that they like to spend money?

        • libertytrain

          Well Claire, I don’t know. What I like best is that they are owned by the people: “The Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues.[19] Typically, a team is owned by one person, partnership, or corporate entity, i.e., a “team owner.” The lack of a dominant owner has been stated as one of the reasons the Green Bay Packers have never been moved from the city of Green Bay, a city of only 102,313 people as of the 2000 census”

  • American Citizen

    The Constitution enumerates the powers the Federal Government has and leaves the all the rest to the states. That’s where we get “States’ Rights.” It’s about time the states start taking them back as they’ve been capitulating to the Fed far too long.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      The States have been on the federal teat for far too long. It’s high time the States stand up and tell the feds to shove it and follow the Constitution. Quit sending tax revenues to the fed until they get back in line. It would be interesting to see a temporary split between the red states and the blue states. Which ones do you think would succeed and which would go broke. the answer’s obvious.

  • DaveH
    • DaveH

      We have gotten to a point where a large portion of Federal judges are “judicial activists” meaning that they are interpreting the Constitution as they see fit, rather than the letter of the law. So we get unelected officials determining our future with their own personal ideas of what is best for the country. These types of judges are coming almost exclusively from Democrat presidents. It is very important that we stop Obama and crew before another Liberal Supreme is appointed. Right now, my prediction is that the Health Care Bill will go down 5-4, with the usual Liberal Justice minority. But one more Liberal Judge and we can kiss our Constitutional Freedom goodbye. Many people think that Obama is toothless now with the House majority Republicans, but Republicans have shown in the past that they aren’t willing to fight the good fight and stop those Liberal judges from being appointed. So, we need to get off our dead butts and fight hard to keep any more Liberal Judges from making it to the Supreme Court.

  • johnrt

    I would suggest that any state that doesn’t want to participate in the Union secede, close their borders, and then try to go it on their own in this complex world. We will see how long they last. We need to quit thinking right and left, anti-Obama or whoever the president might be and instead focus on what is best for the overall good of we the people in the United States of America and the fact that we have the separation of powers. It has worked for us for well over 200 years and will continue to do so.

    • bob wire

      good idea, but greed, lust for power, envy, jealousy and general selfishness prevents American from seeing what is “best” for America.

      I’d venture to say, the biggest complainers here, have the least to complain about. They are most likely retired maybe went out with a disability, double or triple tipping, or not, with an usually large amount of spare time on their hands.

      People that are truly busy, have little time for b1tching. There is millions of people that spend 2 to 3 hours of their day just traveling to and from work! Do you believe after pulling in a 12 or 13 hour day, they are ready to spend an hour or two on Bob Livingstons forums?

      I just don’t think so.

      • Vicki

        Must be that 10% unemployment that is giving us all this time to complain. That or the fact we know that some battles have priority so that we CAN have the job we work at.

  • republicat

    The whole nullification theory is preposterous and has no chance of surviving scrutiny in any case that may be brought in federal court. Get used to it.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      screw the federal courts to, if they don’t follow the Constitution. They can’t put us all in jail.

      • republicat

        They won’t have to “put us all in jail”; just a few. Even most of the
        crackpots on this site realize that total anarchy is a lot worse than what we have, and anarchy is what would certaily result from nullification.

        • Vicki

          Anarchy is not the result of nullification of unconstitutional laws.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          Freedom and justice and liberty would be the result of nullification. we could elect a gvt. that follows the Constitution.

  • Tinman

    As I read all the comments, I am glad our fore fathers did not sit around talking sh1t I can hear it now “Ben: I am sure glad them pig eating muslims are not here! George: you bet and we do not have any drunk jews either! Tom: and I am sure glad we do not have to hide our chickens from them minorities!” Yes we would still be under british rule. I for one am glad George Washington did not talk to the british, he shot them! Talk is Cheap, when your done blowing hot air you all be slaves and whimpering sheep to a bunch of BOZONES and JACKBOOTS! As the South said”Down with the Eagle Up with the Cross”.
    I can hear the crying from the libatars now. Can all libatards repeat “I am we todd it I am sofa king we todd it”.

    • Denniso

      Your post is hard to make sense of,but I do see you prefer shooting people rather than talking to them…that’s gteat! You belong in a place like Sudan or Iraq or Afghanistan,tough guy. I wonder, have you read or more likely heard of the history of Canada and Australia? They talked to their rulers and didn’t slaughter hundreds of thousands in a bloody revolution, that drained the country of energy and youth and $$. You and ‘people’ like you have watched too many John Wayne movies…go to sleep.

      • Palin12

        Hey Pilgrum, what makes ya think ya know more about forming a republic than the rest of us do?

        • Denniso

          It’s perfectly obvious,isn’t it?

          • Palin12

            such arrogance!

          • Denniso

            Compared to Tinman’s comment and some others here, I feel like Einstein…thanks Tinhead for raising my self esteem.

      • JC

        Canada and Australia “talked” to their rulers?
        Where do you get this crap?
        Canada didn’t negotiate anything with England. It’s a colony period!
        Australia started out as a penal colony…you think they had some magic bargaining power to negotiate with England?

        The American Revolution began only after the efforts of The Congress to reason and negotiate with King george were met with violence and murder.

        THEN! Washington and Co. started shooting.

        For God’s sake Denniso….are you a complete idiot?
        (Sorry folks, that last was just a stupid question)

        • denniso

          No, I’m not a complete idiot,but you appear to be. You don’t think that Canada and Australia are independent of Britain? You think Canada is still a ‘colony’?? Wow!! They share the monarchy w/ Britain in a purely symbolic way and have trade and defense treaties. They both negotiated their independence from Britain over a period of years.

          We are set apart as a country that was so impatient and prone to violence that we were willing to wage a bloody and expensive war because we were taxed w/o ‘representation’…the myth of our glorious violent revolution,w/ Americans even fighting ea other,is that the elites used the working people to secure independence for the elites themselves. They were the power brokers who wanted control over commerce and trade,and the big money that goes w/ that. The working people died in the ditches for a new elite that then taxed them for the war if they survived…taxed them to the point of losing their farms and homes. The elites(founders) did pretty well after the war…
          the blacks,indians,non property owning whites,women,didn’t do as well for many decades to come.
          I also don’t think that many of the ‘founders’, who weren’t patient enough to spare the blood of tens of thousands of their ‘countrymen’, died fighting for our independence.

          • JC

            As usual you lack focus and run around in circles.
            Your comparison was to the founding of the US and it’s violence as compared to that of Canada and Australia’s non violent founding.

            And while the two countries enjoy soveriegn association as opposed to colony status, that was not how they were founded.

            They were under British “rule” until the 20th century.
            America broke away from violent dictatorship in the 18th century.
            had Canada or Australia aspired to independence in the “18th” century
            they would had to have achieved it at the point of a gun.

          • JC

            Denniso says:
            “I also don’t think that many of the ‘founders’, who weren’t patient enough to spare the blood of tens of thousands of their ‘countrymen’, died fighting for our independence.”

            So while the Brits were burning American homes, raping women and hanging people…we should have been more “patient”.
            Sorry, but America wasn’t founded by spineless cowards like you.

          • Denniso

            I would guess that we have more rapes per capita now then were committed by the British and until not many yrs ago we had the KKK hanging people…where’s the revolution? Where’s the outrage? Oh, I guess that the British were ‘foreigners’ and the more modern rapists and hangmen are/were good old Americans…I see.

  • JeffH

    Judge rules health care law unconstitutional
    PENSACOLA, Fla. — A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.

    Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

    He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/3592166-417/law-health-judge-care-insurance.html

    • American Patriot

      YEP! Obama-Lama_ding-Dong and his Progressive ass hats are jumping through their own ass’s over this news. GOOD! It’s, as it should be. Bravo! To Judge Roger Vinson. Bravo sir. We The People need more judges like him on the side of American’s. Let’s hope our Supreme court justices do the right thing and stand with American’s and our U.S. Constitution in round two of this fight.

      • Denniso

        It truly pains me to be on the side of the Repubs in the healthcare mandates issue,but unfortunately they accidentally are in the right this time…it doesn’t happen often,but since I try to not just be partisan,unlike the very Repubs whose side I’m on this time,I have to agree w/ the Repubs that forcing people to buy any commercial product as a condition of being a citizen is so obviously unconstitutional that I’m amazed it was ever put in the healthcare bill by smart people. Of course, before the Repubs effectively circled their wagons in total opposition to the developing plan Senators like Grassley were on board w/ mandates,because the industry wanted them.

        The Repubs also proposed mandates back in ’94 as an alternative to the universal plan being pushed by the Clintons…but now they have flipped,probably only to be in opposition to Obama. They don’t mind being hypocrital,but I do. I said early on that we can’t force people to buy something because we have a healthcare crisis and the ‘leaders’ can’t come up w/ another plan that will be swallowed politically by the majority. We do have a healthcare crisis that has been building for 30 yrs and we have to address it rationally,but that doesn’t mean we just do anything. It has to be fair,just and constitutional as well.

        Obama blew it when he took on the idea of mandates on after deciding prematurely that ‘single payer’ or even the ‘public option’ wouldn’t be supported by enough of congress and the insurance industry. He should have stuck to a single payer plan,which would essentially be an expansion of medicare payed for by taxes,which are constitutional and the most fair and simple way to address the crisis. He and the Dems thought that they would appease the industry and most of the people/congress by using mandates in th plan….not smart politically or constitutionally.

        The hypocrital Repubs have never proposed a real plan during all the yrs of the looming and building crisis,for instance during the 8 yrs of Shrub…a plan that will work and cover all the uninsured in the country for a reasonable cost. The fundamental problem w/ our system is having it run by private,for profit corporations headed by CEO’s making tens of millions in salary. Everywhere you look in the ‘system’
        you find huge amounts of money being made on the backs of ill and dying people. Anymore than we would think that we should privatize our national defense, we need to realize that healthcare clearly doesn’t work as a market based system…the market rules don’t work when you have a captive market(the sick) and supply and demand can’t control costs or delivery of services. If it did work then we wouldn’t be in the disasterous position we’re in now. The failings cannot all be blamed on gov’t intrusion,since gov’t got involved in the first place to try to remedy the evolving problems w/in the for profit system.

        If the Repubs cared at all about anyone but the priveleged they would now work w/ the Dems to fix the plan in a constructive way that would afford access for all to healthcare…they won’t,because they don’t care and they’re hypocrites and only care about defeating Obama,and keeping their corporate base content and in the money.

    • Bert Cundle

      Bring the Judge to California!!! Abolish the Auto Ins. Requirement! & The Helmet Inforcement, on Motorcycles! ( States overstepped boundries.)

      • Denniso

        Auto liability ins is a different issue…it is a provision of driving a car,like licensing, and is required for the protection of the other person on the road to prevent financial devastation and compensation for a wreck caused by the driver. Helmet laws,seatbelt laws,sure, they are unconstitutional for adults. Kids have to be protected by the law just as in child abuse.

        • JIBBS

          You are nothing more than a TROLL, You can join the SHEEPLE club also.

          • Denniso

            Who are you talking to, and what’s your point? Do you have one?

        • Vicki

          Insurance is what I buy to protect MY wealth not yours. You don’t have enough wealth to protect and you run into my car I have my insurance protect me not yours.

          There is not and never has been a need to force you to buy insurance to protect me from your accidents.

          • Denniso

            Do you really not know what liability insurance is? That is the only auto insurance we are forced to buy by the state. It is specifically forced on us to ensure that if I cause damage to you or your car in a wreck, you are then covered for the damages…your insurance doesn’t pay, mine does. If you wind up in the hospital w/ a $100,000 bill, my liability ins pays the bill. Collision and comprehensive insurance cover your own car against damages,unless the damage is caused by another driver.
            Most or all states force drivers to buy auto liability insurance,or you don’t get a registration. It makes sense,because auto wrecks can devastate an innocent person or entire family. Now if the state forced us to buy insurance to protect our own car then that would be like the health ins mandates, unconstitutional.

          • Vicki

            I am walking down the street one day. You run out of a store and bump into me Knocking me into a mailbox and I break my ankle. Why again do you have to have insurance to cover my broken ankle caused by your inattention?

            What? You don’t have liability insurance? Why not. There ought to be a law.

          • Denniso

            Vickie…we’re talking about liability ins for autos…we are required by law to buy that to protect a driver we injure from the costs of medical attention,as well as the damage to the other car. What don’t you understand about what I’m saying? We do have to buy liability ins for driving…right?

          • http://deleted Claire

            I will tell you what honks me off–people on the cell phone texting and driving. There SHOULD be a law against this. I don’t care what anyone says. I have almost been hit by a number of people that are texting while driving. Go ahead, text all you want, crash into my big van–Make my day–and I do not mean this nicely.

          • Palin12

            I agree 100% Claire. I have never even owned a cell phone in my life. I used to work with a lesbian who constantly interrupted the workflow in a hospital setting to chat trivial garbage (like what she had for breakfast that day) with her girlfriend in Frisco. She always had the ringer turned up full blast and spoke in a very loud annoying voice so that everyone had to hear her. She also used to scold nurses visiting our department for their cell phone use.

          • denniso

            OH MY GOD!!! You actually worked w/ a LESBIAN??? That is so shocking and I have to say that I’m very glad you told us she was a LESBIAN…imagine if she had just been a loudmouth staight woman…wow!I never would have thought that LESBIANS could be as irritating as some of the rest of us…amazing!

          • Palin12

            I brought up the fact that she was a lesbian because whenever that damn cell phone rang the rest of us had to continue working while listening to her lovey dovey talk. My God why the hell does she have to do that at work, why not at home? Hey, don’t get me wrong, I have a cousin who is gay. He went to London and he wanted to know who Big Ben was.

          • Denniso

            Have you never heard a man and woman talking in lovey dovey terms and sexually expressively? You’ve got a problem only because they were lesbians. There’s a word for that…

          • libertytrain

            Personally I don’t care what lovey dovey talk people do, male or female, it just doesn’t belong in the workplace.

  • ragoodspeed

    How interesting, the constitution has become most important since the election of a Black president. People are forced to purchase auto insurance by the state, home owner’s insurance by mortgage companies, and other forced entities. The right wing and ultra consrvatives can always find fault with Obama. I certainly pray that there won’t be another Egypt here.

    • Vicki

      Interesting concept of force Ragoodspeed. I have yet to have a mortgage company place a gun to my head and tell me I have to buy insurance.

      • Denniso

        Neither the gov’t nor corporations put a gun to your head,but if you buy a house w/ a mortgage you have no choice in the matter of insurance for the home.

        • Palin12

          BTW, how’s that global warming thing going for ya today?

          • Denniso

            If you read some science about warming you would know that the theory says w/ global warming comes climate change which induces extremes in the climate and weather…extremes in heat,cold,rain,drought,
            hurricanes…the extremes we are seeing fit perfectly w/ global warming models. Notice the ‘monster’ typhoon(hurricane) in Australia and the extreme flooding there last month? An area the size of Germany and France combined flooded? At the same time it’s 110 degrees in Sydney and 115 in Rio de Janero. Remember the devastating floods covering allmost all of Pakiston and Bangledesh last year?

          • Palin12

            The problem is what you are reading is not science, it is propaganda. At least 30,000 real climatologists have debunked Al Bore’s theories. At least 9 technical errors have been reported in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. The early photo of Mt. Kilamanjaro was taken around Ernest Hemingway’s time, not more recently. He also used footage from the movie “Day After Tomorrow”. I don’t know about you, but in the last 5 years I’ve been to Alaska 3 times and Iceland twice and saw huge glaciers everytime. The global warming scare is just a hoax perpetrated by Gore to enrich himself, as if already living in a 20-BR mansion in Nashville isn’t enough. Thank goodness the residents of Tennessee voted against their homeboy in 2000 or he would have won the election outright.

          • Denniso

            No, 30,000 climate scientists have not debunked climate change…you or Limbaugh are making that up out of thin air. Something like 95% of climate scientists agree that warming is ocurring and that human activity is culpable. You can’t get your ‘facts’ from Fox News if you want to learn anything.

            If Al Gore was so powerful that he singlehandily has perpetuated a massive hoax just to become richer than he was already,why didn’t he use that power to win the presidency? What a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Climate scientists have been working on and studying warming for 40 or so yrs,long before Gore had a clue. All he did was try to use his name to publicize the problem in order to get the public to understand the urgency of the issue. You and Limbaugh/Fox want to continue to live in denial and fight against common sense plans to deal w/ what could become the biggest problem the world has faced. And why? Because it will cost a little money to deal w/ it and we have to make some minor changes to society. The oil companies are loving people like you for doing their work to keep their billions rolling in no matter the real cost to the entire planet.

          • Palin12

            Al Bore was stopped from the presidency by the people of Tennessee, that’s why! I’ll tell ya what though, if you believe his nonsense YOU pay for it, don’t involve me.

          • Denniso

            I ‘believe’ the 95% of climate scientists who have been working on climate change for 40 yrs. I also don’t ‘believe’ in much of anything absolutely,and of course there is the possibility that the scientists are wrong or don’t have all the info yet,but evidence and computer modeling are making a very strong case for climate change being caused by our activities. Could something else develop and change things? Sure, but to act like we have no possible problem and that we have absolutely NO culpability,when the stakes are so high for the planet and all of us, is sheer stupidity. Almost all the deniers have zero scientific knowledge or credibility,yet they are so certain…reminds me of how so many are absolutely certain about their religious beliefs…Muslim suicide bombers,Christian fundamentalists and even the extreme anti gov’t crowd.

        • Vicki

          Denniso says:
          “Neither the gov’t nor corporations put a gun to your head,”

          Well not exactly. If you do not buy auto insurance the government will come take away your private property if you dare to possess it on the kings highways (Public roads) EVEN IF you paid the kings tax to “pay” for those roads. If you refuse to allow the government to take your property the government WILL pull out guns and insist.

          Denniso: “if you buy a house w/ a mortgage you have no choice in the matter of insurance for the home.”

          Of course you do. Find a fool willing to give you his money and ask you to pay mortgage insurance. No guns. No force by the person lending you HIS money. I would suspect that you would like the government to force him to lend his money to you on YOUR terms. Kinda like what Barny. obama et all did with the housing market and the CRA.

          Government forces you at gunpoint if you resist to buy a product from a private company but that is not “force”? A private company asks you to pay for YOUR use of THEIR money and that’s “force”.

          As I said you and liberals have a very twisted idea of force.
          Perhaps that is why some folk claim that liberalism is a mental disorder.

          • Denniso

            Throwing around terms that you got from Limbaugh and Savage(himself mentally ill)don’t make you sound like you’re very intelligent. Would you like it if I call you mentally ill,as some extremist ‘conservatives’ seem to be?

          • Vicki

            Just observing the facts.

          • Denniso

            So are you mentally ill?

  • Benjamin Merrill

    You know absolutely nothing about the Constitution. Like the Bible, you cherry pick what you want and what you don’t like, you ignore. This is pure bunk.

  • Ruth

    You people are paranoid loons.

  • JC

    Quote from the zombie above:
    “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’ The Idaho attorney general has weighed in as well, branding nullification unconstitutional.”

    Quote from Thomas Jefferson:
    “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

    I`ll take Jefferson over Zombie Boy.

  • Eric Bischoff

    It’s not that simple is it! We don’t want to be forced to buy anything. We are forced to buy auto insurance or we can’t drive on public roads. But yet we allow people to get sick and go in public and infect others and sometimes they start deadly epidemics often because they have no access to affordable healthcare.

    There is a simple solution but somehow we are going to keep our blinders on and keep ignoring it even though it is staring at us for years. Medicare for all. It’s in place, it’s the cheapest and most effective solution. It would drastically lower our costs. The more people we employ the bigger the pool. A single payer would save a good 20% easily. Then we could move on and focus on the next issue which is even more important, Prevention.

    Remember, at first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is accepted as gospel.

    • Denniso

      You’re right Eric…single payer,medicare for all,paid for through the current tax structure and run through the medicare system that is already set up and functioning quite well.
      I really wish Obama had fought as hard for single payer as he did for the plan w/ mandates,which didn’t please a lot of people,even his supporters. It was a difficult battle,but the wrong one…now we face losing any hope of a good reform plan to fix the mess of our healthcare system.

      • Palin12

        Yeah and free health care for deadbeats who have never held a job in their life and free health care for welfare bums, crack addicts, prisoners and illegal aliens all paid courtesy of the US taxpayer and 16,000 new IRS agents to assure that we comply.

        • Denniso

          Prisoners already get healthcare in prison, and you think that if someone is an addict they should die on the street? If you want a society as heartless as you sound,move to Iran. You probably pretend to be a Christian,and I rather think Jesus wouldn’t agree w/ you.

          Also, if everyone,smoking addicts,alcoholics,daredevils and yes,even street people,get regular healthcare it is cheaper to you and me,since they wouldn’t have to use the most expensive part of care,emergency rooms. If everything comes down to money,then cut defense,NASA,oil subsidies,farm subsidies for wealthy large farms/ranches…

          • Palin12

            I have a better idea…YOU move to Cuba!

          • http://none Alex

            As usual, Denniso, you are perhaps the sanest voice here.

          • Denniso

            Thanks, I try to remain sane while talking to some pretty off the wall people here. Not always easy…

          • Denniso

            Oh, and what I know about the two countries I would prefer Cuba to Iran,if I had to choose.

        • skip

          Palin 12 – you sound very much like Palin herself. Who are these 30,000 scientists, and what are their names and credentials so we can really evaluate their data, science, and facts. Perhaps you can provide a reference so you don’t have to post it all yourself – 30,000 names and references and backgrounds is a lot of work.

          • Palin12

            OK Skip…here’s a start…
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
            Then there are many links on the side panel.

          • Denniso

            The guy being interviewed is a weatherman. Weathermen are not climate
            scientists. He mentions 30,000 scientists who agree w/ him,9,000 phds. He doesn’t say that they are climate scientists,so we can assume they are mostly not. I’ve read that most who disagree are in fact geologists and the like,who don’t study climate science primarily, or at all. In this day and age if you don’t have a phd in your field,you don’t have much credibility. So, 21,000 DON’T have phd’s.
            If someone wants to really learn about the issue,they can’t listen to a weatherman,or the rightwing detractors who don’t bother to inform themselves…read the science,learn the issue,then decide…it’s doable,but takes a bit more effort than watching youtube a few times,or listening to the obviously biased rant about what they don’t know or understand.

            The weatherman on that link shows his cluelessness by saying that climate change purports to mean that the rising temp will turn earth into an oven…wrong,and about 30 yrs behind the science and comes from the term ‘the greenhouse effect’. Climate change,global warming,does raise the overall temp of the earth,especially the oceans. The extra energy from even the 1 degree we have gone up in a hundred yrs or so,equates to a massive amount of energy in the atmosphere…it is energy in the atmosphere that influences and directs the global weather systems…jet stream,La Nina,El Nino,cold fronts,precipitation,tornados,hurricanes…all weather systems function off of energy in the atmosphere,and adding 1 degree of warmth is a huge addition of energy. The extra energy then translates to more sever weather systems,hot and cold.
            SO, the weatherman on the video exposed his lack of knowledge so clearly that anything else he says is more than suspect. He may be a good bizman for starting the weather channel,but that’s it.

  • Palin12

    As JeffH would say “blah blah blah blah”. Try some of the numerous links from that page. Does Al Bore have a PhD?

    • Denniso

      A weatherman at some local station challenges all the CLIMATE scientists who have concluded that global warming/climate changs is real,and does it while showing his ignorance of the issue,and you want me to look at other links connected to a fraud like that? Get real…I read the science,and have an engineering degree,and the science makes sense to me.If the weatherman hadn’t blown the science so blantantly,I might have looked further. I have studied the issue for about 10 yrs and don’t need to look all over the internet for rightwing wacko sites,often supported by the fossil fuel industry,to put together phony facts.
      AL Gore is only a spokesperson trying to raise awareness in the public
      to try to get some public policy going on the issue.

      There is a huge difference between a non scientist promoting scientific consensus, and a non scientist,Limbaugh,O’Reilly,Hannity,McConnell,Savage and most of the others denying scientific conclusions. If you don’t understand that then there is absolutely no point in talking about this w/ you. Science is not belief,like a point of view or religion,it is based on experiment,observation and predominance of evidence. The predominance of evidence and stidy points strongly to climate change being a real event,helped along by us.

      • Denniso

        Lousy typing,it’s late and I’m sick…’climate change’, ‘blatantly’,
        ‘study’.

        • Palin12

          I loved it last year when Pigosi and her entourage flew to Copenhagen for the climate change meeting and were greeted by the coldest winter in decades and had to cut their taxpayer-financed vacation short. You can buy Al Bore’s DVD “An Inconvenient Hoax” at Amazon for $2.96. Shows ya what it’s worth. Like I said before, if you believe that hogwash you pay for it, or better yet let the elite John Kerry, the richest guy in the Senate who has with his wife $1 billion, pay for it. Oh I forgot, these elite liberals only spend other people’s money, not their own. As for me, I’d rather spend my hard-earned money for vacations.

          • Denniso

            The economic cost of climate change will be staggering and will dwarf the relative pennies it would cost to do something about it. Larger and more frequent floods,hurricanes,droughts,blizzards,and you will pay the cost indirectly through taxes and higher prices for all goods and energy. But don’t let that bother you,because like so many others you will just remain blind to the facts and bitch about the gov’t ‘allowing’ everything to cost more. The gov’t is a good and simplistic scapegoat used effectively by the corporatocracy and their rightwing puppets,and you can hide from the truth behind your hatred for it. Dream,dream,dream…

          • Denniso

            By the way Palin, why don’t you respond to my critique of the weatherman video? Nothing to say? You choose to believe a weatherman on climate science?

          • Palin12

            denniso,
            First of all the links on the youtube page are NOT connected to the weatherman. That’s not the way Youtube works. Links are generated by similar subject matter. For example, if I did a search for “polar bears” it would generate links from other videos about polar bears. The people uploading the videos don’t even know each other. So if you want to dismiss them for being “rightwingers” that’s fine, I can do the same thing with “leftwingers”. As to your degree, that’s great; I also have a BS degree in Microbiology, which includes a lot of biology, math, chemistry, and physics. Don’t you realize that plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen? Don’t you have any comments on letting John Kerry (D-MASS) pay for it? Do you really believe Al Bore’s video showing Florida being completely underwater? Cmon what a joke! Anyway at 2200 feet elevation here in Nevada I need not concern myself with rising ocean levels at home. The whole global warming scam is about control by the liberal elites and further loss of our freedoms. One last question for you….how do you feel about the carbon footprint left by pelosi by riding solo in her Air Force jets?

          • Denniso

            I know how youtube works…I wouldn’t bother to look at links that come up w/ a climate change denier,because they are probably the same crap….bad ‘science’ from non experts. I’ve said that I’ve followed this for at least 10 yrs and probably more like 20. I read the science and I’ve read some of the counter arguments…unless there is something new from the deniers,I am not going to waste time w/ them, and I’ve seen nothing new. They have the same old simplistic arguments w/ no science to back them up,because the science points most rational educated people/scientists toward climate change. You probably know(?)that many rightwing pro biz deniers don’t actually challenge warming… they just say that we are not responsible and that technology will take care of it. They are taking that position much like the various religions continually fall back to new defensive positions when science shows their ignorance.

            If you have a degree in Micro Bio,but make that silly statement that we usually hear from the truly uneducated like Limbaugh, that plants use C02, that makes me wonder about your degree or judgement. Plants also use water…does that mean that we can’t have too much water? That people can’t drown because plants use water,therefore it’s only beneficial? Comeon. There is a general balance in the upper atmosphere that allows for life to have developed as it has. Before the favorable balance occured,life couldn’t develop…too hot,too cold,cosmic particles,ultraviolet light. If you throw the atmosphere out of that balance as we appear to have done,climate changes,and no one knows how much or how severely. They can model and speculate,extrapolate, but only time will really tell.

            I think there is too much airline travel whether it is Pelosi or you. I would guess that I could find some carbon waste in your life as well.

            Kerry? that’s too silly…

            You will of course be safe enough at 2200 ft…is that the point? That it only matters if you specifically are ‘safe’,or don’t have to pay to prevent a cataclysm? Even though, if sea levels swamp coastal cities around the country,it won’t matter if you live at 14,000 ft,you’ll be paying for federal dollars needed to protect the cities. How well would our economy work if NY,Boston,Miami,Orlando,LA, San Fran,Seattle and more were devastated by rising seas? I Have minor in Econ and I can tell you it would devastate the entire economy. That won’t happen,because we will have to save the cities…you or your kids or grandkids will pay…trillions. If you’re old enough to miss it, they won’t.

          • Palin12

            When I was in college I worked part-time after school for a research doctor for 2 years. I did the testing for him and he wrote up his findings in the NE Journal of Medicine. It did not take me long to discover his methods of research. He had already made up his mind on a subject before the testing was even started and hoped to use the data I supplied him to “prove” his contentions. Always there were “outliers” that did not fit into his hypothesis and those figures were tossed out. As time went by, more and more of these outliers were thrown out. The last study I did for him more than 50% of the results were tossed out because they did not match what he was trying to prove. That is the way some research scientists work. They have a hidden agenda and falsify data if it suits their goal.
            As an aside, Pigosi has been on more plane rides in a year than I have in a lifetime and I don’t fly alone like she did. She has therefore left a much bigger carbon footprint than I ever will. Also, I would love to see the police issue $1000 fines for people throwing burning cigarettes out the car window. I don’t care how poor they are or if they are on welfare, etc…fine them bigtime!

          • Denniso

            Why don’t you address my response to your point about CO2 being benign because plants use it. It’s a favorite line of the right and it apparently works w/ some of the uneducated deniers…do you fall for the BS? Your science education couldn’t let you do that,could it?

          • Palin12

            Face reality denniso. You and I are never going to agree on the global warming scam. More importantly, the result of last November’s elections would indicate that the current legislature will never pass any bills favoring your position. You should consider yourself damn lucky that I even respond to your leftwing nonsense. Most of the conservatives on this site ignore you. I should ignore you too after you defended Mark Chapman last month. Even his first court-appointed attorney asked to be recused from defending such a horrible monster.

          • Vicki

            Denniso writes:
            “Why don’t you address my response to your point about CO2 being benign because plants use it. It’s a favorite line of the right and it apparently works w/ some of the uneducated deniers…do you fall for the BS? Your science education couldn’t let you do that,could it?”

            Fascinating. Multiple ad hominem attacks. Both direct and indirect. Tell us Denniso, why the fixation on CO2? It is not even a major component of gases that might have an effect on the climate. Animals create it and plants consume it. Humans create more from the burning of fuels. Plants have more to grow with. Plants use it to create plant matter and release Oxygen that animals consume. Animals also consume the additional plant matter. Such a nice cycle. Now how is that NOT benign.

            Oh and the MAJOR component of gasses believed to be responsible for capturing solar radiation thus keeping us from freezing to death is that old enemy Dihydrogen Monoxide.

            http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

          • Vicki

            Palin12 says:
            “Face reality denniso. You and I are never going to agree on the global warming scam.”

            And we don’t have to care either. Climategate demonstrated the scam nature of the entire AGW argument. They will have to come up with a LOT of really peer reviewed science to overcome that little fiasco.

            Were they lying then or are they lying now.

          • Palin12
          • Denniso

            Palin12…don’t think I worry about you responding to me or that it’s any sort of favor on your part…that’s pretty funny,I’m lucky that you respond to me??? WOW!
            You claim to be a micro biologist,yet you can’t respond to the point about the usefulness of CO2? You’re doing what all of you rightwingers do,run from a challenge when confronted and turn to personal attacks…but,you do have your ally Vicki trying to make your case,and not doing a very good job of it.

            Vicki,to repeat what I’ve already said,the problem behind climate change is the balance of gases in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is one of them and the one we affect most. We have upset the balance by adding CO2 in large quantities for the past 200 yrs…we also add methane,which is worse as a ‘greenhouse gas’,but not in as great a quantity. The balance is tipped,even slightly in numerical terms, and the warming increases. We are the ones increasing the CO2 and methane…I think you don’t understand how warming happens,and you don’t care to learn since your mond is set in stone,so I won’t waste more of my time on it.
            Good of you to stand up for Palin12 when he apparently has lost the ability to do it on his own.

            One last thing…CO2 is beneficial in the proper proportion,so are water and oxygen. Too much in relation to the proper balance and they are lethal…obviously. If we tried to live in 100% oxygen,we would be watching continual events of spontaneous combustion.

          • Denniso

            I forgot,Palin12,where the hell do you get me ‘defending Mark Chapman’?? That’s an outright lie and I’ve never done anything close to defending any murderer. I loved the Beetles and Lennon especially for fighting for peace and against the Vietnam war. I would guess by your current politics that you for the war and against peace,so you would have been at odds w/ Lennon.

          • Palin12

            dumniso, it’s Beatles, not Beetles…and you claim to be a fan? I was against Vietnam war also, which was started by 2 democrats:JFK and LBJ. I’m not at odds with John Lennon as you claim; I loved him like a brother and friend. I have many musician friends and I take it personally when they are murdered. There have been several copycat killers since the Lennon murder, the Latina gal in Texas and an attempt on Icelandic singer Björk’s life (fortuneatly the would-be killer in that last instance took his own life). Chapman should have been executed for premeditated murder and it should not have been painless, rather it should hurt like hell! Now just go away I am not reading anymore of your posts.

          • Denniso

            I’m not going anywhere,and who ever forced you to read my posts? No o0ne? I still find it interesting that you can’t answer the point about CO2 being beneficial…I’ll take your silence as your admission of being totally wrong on that point. Now, don’t read this because you have no logical response anyway. You say you’re a microbiologist?

          • Denniso

            And the Vietnam war…we were involved there w/ military advisors and aid under Eisenhower,a republican. Kennedy inherited it,and there is a strong case to be made that he was going to pull out and that’s why he was killed,by the military industrial complex and possibly people like J.Edgar Hoover,who was a fanatical anti communist,among other things. Johnson was convinced by the military that there really would be a ‘dommino effect’ and that we could win w/ enough money and troops. Fatal mistake for millions of people and his presidency. Nixon won the ’68 election on a secret plan to end the war, instead he escalated and widened it. Gen Westmoreland and his cronies lied repeatedly to the civilians and the public about how well we were doing…much blame to go around for the carnage and damage done to the country.

  • libertytrain

    I’m sure he was given an honorary one back when he invented the Internet.

  • American Patriot
  • http://www.marktucker.com/ Scott Tucker Kansas City

    Quality content is the secret to be a focus for the
    visitors to visit the web site, that’s what this site is providing.

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.