The Bill Of Rights: An Updating


Congress of Liberals

Begun and held on board Warren Buffett’s private jet, on a day that is none of your business, peon.

The Conventions of a number of the Democrats, having at the time of their abrogating the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent protection by or use of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public obedience to the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Resolved by the President and his accomplices against the United States of America, in smoky back rooms assembled, two thirds of both Houses ignored, that the following Articles be imposed on the People of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three or four Democrats, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by liberal hate groups, and ratified by the New York Times editorial board, pursuant to the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than the worship of its authority, or allowing the free exercise thereof; or promoting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being a threat to the security of the Democrats, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be permitted.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, unless the house belongs to someone who didn’t vote for the President.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless Harry Reid heard from some guy that they didn’t pay their “fair share.”

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury or the Attorney General, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, or in the event that person has demonstrated resistance to the President and the Democrats; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless that offence involves aforementioned resistance; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the National Security Agency catches them reading Personal Liberty Digest™, or watching FOX News, or buying a copy of Atlas Shrugged, or attending a Tea Party rally; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless a real estate developer determines it would be a good location for a shopping center or homeless shelter or ACORN office.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed guilty by a partisan jury of the corporate media; unless the accused is a cop-killer, or islamofascist terrorist, or a union thug, or might otherwise be considered really cool by the Democrats, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation via notice broadcast on MSNBC or uploaded to the Huffington Post; to be berated by Code Pink; to be mocked by Bill Maher when he’s not enumerating his “mommy issues,” and to be burned in effigy by the Occupy fleabags.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, as long as the American Trial Lawyers’ Association can make an easy buck off it.

Amendment VIII

The People will pay what the government tells them; and will thank the Government for the privilege.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the President.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the President by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the President, are reserved to the President, or to Hillary Clinton.

–Ben Crystal

Personal Liberty

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Join the Discussion

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.

  • patriot156

    first comment cool!
    lol that seems about right though.

  • Motov

    If a democrat accuses you being a racist, birther, bigot, or whatever they deem is not politically correct, anything you say after that will be totally ignored, and you are banished from their circle of “academia enlightenment” . (Whatever that means)

    • nc

      Motov. what do you consider to be “politically correct” if the “democrats” are wrong in your opinion? Do you accept them into YOUR circle of academia on how the government should be run? Do you consider them to be bigots and racist?? What do you “accuse” them of?? Nothing???? Really????
      We have had more Democrat leaders of this country with more liberal views than the ultra conservative views found here and ALL those leaders have done is lead us to number one in the world and kept us there! What is the ultra conservative track record besides bitching and complaining?? I agree your opinion is not illegal or otherwise unconstitutional but I don’t find it very intelligent or remotely necessary!

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        NC says — ” ALL those leaders have done is lead us to number one in the world and kept us there!”.

        Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that wild claim, NC?
        What are we number 1 in currently? Military presence in more countries than any other country in the world?
        For those who are interested, here is a list of countries ranked by their per capita GDP:

        Notice where the US lands — 8th in one index, 6th in the other.

        • Motov

          We are also #1 with incarceration rates, Isn’t that ironic? Supposed most “free” country has more people in jail than any other?

      • Frank Kahn

        You make a mistake when you use “ultra conservatives” as the basis for your dissent. This country would not have become great without conservative values. Liberal values are still very questionable. Where are they trying to take the nation?

        Politically correctness is meant to eliminate anything that is perceived by any group, or person, to be demeaning. Even if a term, or phrase, is completely accurate, it is considered to be politically incorrect if it offends someone. Even if we ignore the fact that it is a form of censorship, you still have a problem with who gets to decide what is politically correct.

        That leads us into a series of seemingly disjointed questions. I will tackle them individually, because they do not follow a logical this, therefor this flow. For this, I will need to assume that your original use of “politically correct” to be meaning what is correct in politics.

        Political correctness is defined by the Constitution. To be correct, politicians (and their party) must perform the duties they have been given, under Constitutional authority. Any time that a personal agenda, which goes against the Constitution, is pushed on the citizens, it is not politically correct. These agendas include, but not limited to, restrictions on arms, illegal search and seizure, targeting by political affiliations, giving aid and support to enemies of the nation and writing EO’s that bypass congress in making laws. It would also include any actions that are harmful to the well-being of citizens or the economy. This would be covered in the massive amnesty bill and the disastrous Affordable Healthcare Act. So, NO, the politicians currently running our country are not acting politically correct.

        Bigots and racists? Well, in a word YES. Bigotry is pushing a personal agenda with strong convictions. The administration is doing this in spades. Some examples are Homosexuality, abortion, unions and the idea that I am a racist simply because I am white and I don’t agree with what Obama says. Also included is the push for green energy to solve the problem of global climate change. Another bigoted theme is the attempt to eliminate the idea of Islamic terrorism. Racist, you have got to be kidding me. This administration has done nothing but push racism. Every time someone disagrees with a liberal policy they are called racist. If you are against the amnesty bill you are racist. If you are an old white man you are racist. If you are a republican you are racist. The fact is, if you consider me to be racist, just because I am an old white man, you are a racist.

        And, now to the idea that democrats are the saviors of this country. That, it is liberal ideas, that has made this country great. It is never that simple, there is no single party that has done everything, no single side of the left vs right paradigm that is accountable. Democrats have been party to all the bad things in this country as much as republicans. Some moderate liberal ideas are good, some conservative ideas are good. Extreme ideas, on either side, are destructive and must be avoided.

        When it comes to bitching and moaning, the liberals have a very big slice of that pie. They are always doing that about who pays what in taxes, and how we don’t do enough for the minorities in this country.

        • Motov

          Thank you Frank.

          I will also add Liberals operate with a wolfpack mentality.

          In other words groups, (True) Conservatives operate with individual rights in mind. Meaning they are interested in liberty to do what they want, if they fail, they simply get up and dust themselves off and do something else or try again. If they succeed they feel entitled to their fruits of their labors. (Martin Luther King Jr. once said I have a dream that people would be judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. One can include any other minority group that doesn’t use skin color as an identifier)

          But liberals try to convince us that these groups are “unfortunate” and require “help”. So they pass legislation to take from the “fortunate” people and (after they pocket a nice sum) pass it to the “less fortunate”
          And thus get groups dependent on liberals, and liberal thinking they have a right to take wealth from those who worked for it.

          “Fortunate” people often worked very hard to get their wealth, even when they fail, they manage to get it because they do not give up their beliefs. So there is really nothing “fortunate” about it.

          “Unfortunate” people are accustomed to getting things “free” So they do not have the internal drive to improve themselves to achieve that goal. Really, what is unfortunate about someone who chooses to sit around all day, doing drugs then complain the Government hasn’t done enough for you? Just look at their environments. Live in a ghetto? Who made it into a ghetto? Did a group of very rich people jump into a Limo,…then trashed the poor section of town? If you try to clean up the ghetto, Some gang will come along and destroy whatever you did to try to make it better. But liberals try to blame the rich people.
          Try teaching common sense!

          There is a reason why most democrats are lawyers.

  • village idiot

    Many a true word has been spoken in jest and this is not as far from the truth as some idiots may believe! Amen to that.

    • FreedomFighter

      This jest is way to close to the truth of the matter.

  • hippybiker

    I’m quite sure that good old KG is slobbering over this one.

  • KG

    Bill is quite creative in his attacks on everyday Americans. It’s funny, but everyone here voted for what they knew was a ‘conservative’, and, yet, every time that savior turns into RINO-DIP. How many times are you ‘true believers’ going to be continually deceived? I guess G-d’s not being very cooperative.

    BTW, it was those ‘conservatives’ yous guys voted for that started this ‘erosion of our rights’ as Americans. I know GW Bush gave his heart to Jesus, but Dick Chenny took it right back and gave it to his real ‘Personal Jesus’.

    Quote:Motov • an hour ago

    If a democrat accuses you being a racist, birther, bigot, or whatever they deem is not politically correct, anything you say after that will be totally ignored…

    Just prove to everyone that you are NOT these things, and I’ll give you a pass.

    And being ‘nice’ doesn’t cut it either.

    Matthew 7
    King James Version (KJV)
    9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

    10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

    11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    • Don 2

      KG, How’s things in Doobie Land today?

    • samurai

      SSDD, eh KG? You posted the verses well, but do you know what they mean? The Bible also says this about you and your unbelieving ilk.
      Mathew 23
      King James Version
      33. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
      34. Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill, and crucify, and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and presecute them from city ti city:
      35. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
      36. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
      This is about you and yours KG. Here is an article describing how the government under Obama bin Laden wants to screw the workforce.
      FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
      “Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong – essentially wrong – a seed of evil, which can never produce any good.”
      John Quincy Adams
      6th President of the U.S.
      Devout Christian

      • KG

        Who did Jesus say those words too?

        Matthew 23
        King James Version (KJV)

        23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

        2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

        3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
        Boy, THAT describes ;modern christianity perfectly!

        4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

        That will answer who those verses are for.

        • Frank Kahn

          Yes, it does, but you mislabeled the ones called the Pharisees. It is the liberals who are causing heavy burdens on us, and they never accept responsibility (move them with one of their fingers) for the consequences.

          • KG

            I’m sorry Frank, but it was more directed at samurai. I know he thinks of himself as a bible scholar, however he seems to have missed the whole point.

          • Bob666

            Yo KG,
            He missed it by several miles on another planet.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Bill? You can’t even get the author’s name right and you expect us to accept anything you say as credible, KGB?

      • JeffH

        Must have been the ganga!

    • Frank Kahn

      Care to explain what those passages have to do with the topic?

      • KG

        11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

        • Frank Kahn

          Maybe, you have some idea of the relevance of that quote, I don’t. Since you are a liberal, you could not be meaning that we should not worry for the things done to us by the liberal administration. Therefor the twisting of this passage, that you must be envisioning, is escaping me.

          • KG

            Even evil people know what’s good. As long as it benefits themselves. However, G-d being the definition of good, will give goodness to those who ask. And, if you believe in our society, then what would prevent you from participating in it instead of looking forward to it’s destruction?

            Ain’t the Bible great? I could exegesis anything out of it!!!

          • Frank Kahn

            You have the right to make any interpretation of the Bible that makes you feel you are right. It is just your opinion.

            However, your leading paragraph is not supportable and even fails a logic test. Good is not determined by individual desire, it is greater than that. God does not grant goodness to everyone regardless of their actions. Defining what is meant by believing in our society is needed. I believe our society is doomed by the immoral actions of its liberal leaders, for this reason I choose not to participate in its destruction. You see, your two choices are not compatible, it is not an either or, it is a participate and destroy.

          • KG

            “…you are either with us, or against us.”
            -George W Bush

            You have already expressed your intentions when you called paying taxes “stealing.” I ask you, whose picture is on the Dollar?
            Well then, render unto Washington what belongs to Washington, and live on what’s left over.

  • Al Chemist

    You’ve nailed the liberal democrats. Well done.

  • Warrior

    Imagine that, it has now been reported by LSM that snowden is “hiding” in a Moscow airport. I wonder, where is john Corzine and o.j.’s wife’s killer hiding? This suspense is just too much to take. Can’t “gubmint” impose a tax to make this stop?

  • Guest

    VI was funny.

  • jimmie smith

    We have a clueless government, led by clueless lawmakers, leading a clueless people…banana republic?

    • FreedomFighter

      Those controlling our clueless leadership are not so clueless… you must realize that all the lamestream media bombarding you with this and that minor scandal, trips, Obama utterances and Obamas right hand of minor importance goals of climate this or that, what is left hand doing?
      Yes, while the right hand dazzles you with unimportant issues, what is the left hand of evil doing? There are some really important country killing pieces of legislation in congress, bills being passed that negatively effect Americans and countries being invaded…guns shipped.
      Don’t let the right hand full of Bravo Sierra blind you to what the left hand of evil is doing, remember most of these psychopaths are actually left handed. America is a captured operation, don’t expect them to play fair.
      Laus DeoSemper FI

      • jimmie smith

        couldn’t agree with you more…just using a little levity…but all this is?…and I quote… “get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything”…Frank Dane.

  • Native Blood

    In light of the highly touted amnesty bill by the senate vote, I would like to see

    Ben’s interpolation of the X1Vth. That should prove interesting as it has been heavily supported by both parties.

    • Warrior

      Ummm, congress shall not inhibit the president from taking lavish vacations even when the country is broke?

  • samurai

    Funny Ben, but I like the original God-given rights under the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution. The 5th column and progturds need to keep their grubby little hands off of it. Many of them should be impeached, charged with treason, and then sent to Guantanamo. Here is an article showing how a website has finally figured out where Obama bin Laden was born. But alas! We have known this for 5 years now.
    FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
    You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
    “When the Mason learns that the key…is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The sething energies of Lucifer are in his hands.”
    Manly P. Hall
    33rd level former Freemason
    The Last Keys of Freemasonry
    p. 78

    • KG

      WND is a known right-wing gossip site. Here’s something more reputable than ‘Batboy’.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        “WND a right wing gossip site”, not so but you wish it was so because they rattle your cage and tell of things about you and your ideological compatriots of the Dems/Progs/Leftists and that bothers you no end.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        As usual, instead of facts, the Socialist Progressive KGB provides us with an ad hominem attack on WND (and Samurai).
        One would wonder — “if the Socialist Progressives really have valid claims then why do they need to use adolescent manipulative techniques to sway their audience?”.

    • Lindy

      Samurai… I find it interesting that you would quote a Canadian! Thanks for that! I also find it interesting that you think a belief in God is a requirement for patriotism. I am an atheist yet I proudly wave my country’s flag, support our military and I am fervently patriotic. I’m also curious about your distrust about the Masons. I was approached for membership and when I said I wasn’t a “religious” person, the response was “Oh, that doesn’t matter… as long as you believe in a higher power that’s okay.” When I said I didn’t, the matter was dropped and I’ve never been approached to join a lodge ever since. (I’m okay with that.)
      I stumbled across this web site through the health tips… but it certainly is an interesting web site… with interesting comments all around!

  • Don 2

    “Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians.” ~ General George S. Patton

    • KG

      “Give me a room full of west point graduates and I’ll win a battle. Give me a handful of Aggie’s and I’ll win a war!”~ General George S. Patton

      • ridge runner

        George Patton would have herniated eye balls if he had to work with the wimpy pusified degreed pukes we have every level of society now days. Look no farther than the WH muslim and his airy fairy group of loony liars, to see how everything has gone to hell.

  • rbrooks

    the only difference between the dems and the gop is who the checks are written to. we, the tax payers, will continue to fund the checks.

  • rbrooks

    little bush and the gop brought us the patriot act. the gop and nra have supported more restrictions to the 2nd amendment than the dems. no one supports big business more than the republicans.

    the only real complaint from ben is that a democrat has joined the club.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Here is the vote for the original Patriot Act for those who don’t know better than to take a Liberal Progressive’s word for anything:

      rbrooks says — “the gop and nra have supported more restrictions to the 2nd amendment than the dems”.
      Do you have any evidence for that conjecture, rbrooks?

      rbrooks says — “no one supports big business more than the republicans”.
      Of course that is an unsupported broad generalization, but it is half-true. The Republican Party had its roots in Mercantilism (the American System) in the mid 1800s:

      And the Democrats were actually the party of Freedom throughout most of the 1800s. But then that changed and in the late 1800s they became infiltrated with Progressives and the Mercantilism that goes hand-in-hand with Big Government.
      See here for more about money and banking in the 1800s:
      And here for current information on both the Democrats’ and the Republicans’ involvement with Crony Capitalism:

      • rbrooks

        nice try dave. without the gop, the patriot act is never passed. without a republican president signing it into law, it never becomes law.

        tell us why all of those freedom loving republicans supported that act. then tell us why you keep supporting those same republicans.

        unsupported but at least half true. lol. thanks.

        you complain about the culmination of past actions. and then blame the current administration for your past support.

        a liberal progressive. you seem to use that a lot. a very fluid definition for you. that you pull out whenever you are unable to rebut a point. you hold a far more liberal view than i.

        do you still support restrictions to the 2nd amendment. most of the posters on this site support all of the current restrictions.

        corporate welfare is supported predominately by the gop. as is defense pork and limitless unaccountable foreign spending. old cheney has done well with that. again, you complain now that the democrats are doing the same.

        all politicians are crooks.

        why are you supporting any of them.

        • independent thinker

          Failed try rbrooks. without the democrats the (un)patriot act could not have passed and if the dems had chosen to filibuster in the Senate it would not have passed. If I remember correctly the original version of the (un)patriot act was written by a democrat.
          Obama and the dems had two years in which to dismantle the (un)patriot act and instead renewed and expanded it
          SO, get off the it is all Bush’s fault bandwagon and recognize both parties are equaly guilty for both the original (un)patriot act and its renewal and expansion.

          • rbrooks

            we all expect the terribly evil immoral liberal progressive democrats to vote for this type of bill. surprisingly not all of them did.

            the righteous constitutional christian republicans shockingly voted for this as well.

            and in a totally unbelievable moment, the almighty lord and savior, george bush, actually signed this into law.

            actually, the patriot act was originated by a foreigner.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          rbrooks says — “then tell us why you keep supporting those same republicans”.
          Duh, have you seen me supporting Republicans (with the exception of Ron Paul who is really a Libertarian), rbrooks ?
          Your credibility is fast eroding, rbrooks. If you even ever had any.

          • rbrooks

            well, yes. you, like the authors of these story’s, continue to blame one party on a regular basis.

            occasionally, you will include a republican or the gop, very briefly.

            the majority of posters on this site are convinced that the dems are the only cause.

            all politicians are crooks.

            this site try’s to pretend that only democrat politicians are crooks.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            That’s a lie, rbrooks, but what else would I expect from a Progressive?

          • rbrooks

            lol. according to ben and this story, they are all liberals and democrats. a story you seem to support. why were all of the republicans and their wealthy bosses left out?

    • speedle

      brooks, I have noticed that you don’t know what you are talking about. “no one supports big business more than the Republicans”? Why don’t you check your facts and get back with us? Obama’s “big business” contributors overwhelm GOP “big business” contributors. It’s small business that supports GOP candidates. You seem to be living in the 19th century when that old canard connecting “big business” with Republicans held some sway. Check your facts.

      • rbrooks

        like old dave, you simply deny the past. and blame the current administration. for what old bush and reagan started. they showed the way. the dems have jumped on that wagon. keep electing the same old crooks. stop complaining about the results.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          If you’re talking about me, I’d like to know where you get your information, rbrooks? Any of the readers who regularly read my comments will know you’re full of petukie.

      • Jeff

        All the big banks supported Romney. They like operating with virtually no oversight. After they got bailed out, they spent the money lobbying Congress not to regulate them. The bill that passed got watered down to the point it doesn’t do much at all. Still, the Republicans said it did too much. It’s like you commit murder and you argue to the judge that a year in prison is too much. Except they have the money to make it happen. Until Congress is no longer “owned” by the banks, we’ll never return to sensible regulation (e.g. Glass Steagall) like we had from the mid-30s until the late 90s.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Do you have any documentation to support your conjecture, Jeff?
          Glass Steagall? It was promoted by the Rockefeller group to hobble the Morgan group. It was about one Crony Capitalist hobbling another. It also enabled the Federal Reserve to count Government debt as an asset on their balance sheets in addition to Gold. Those who understand the concept of fractional banking can appreciate the gravity of that move.
          Interested parties can read about it here:

          • Jeff

            I don’t, but I do know we had no banking crises from 1935 until the S&L thing in the late 80s because the S&Ls were not regulated as banks. When we got rid of Glass Steagall, it didn’t take long to have 1929 Redux. The fact is we had lots of banking crises pre-1929 and the passage of the 1933 and 1934 Acts. We’ve forgotten about them because to many Americans history began with Obama, or certainly no earlier than their own birth, and something that happened 100 years ago may as well have been in the Bible. But regulations are enacted for reasons, and when you get rid of them, you tend to repeat the very conditions that precipitated their enactment in the first place.

            I’m sure there’s a bit of truth in what you say as politics can be messy. Nothing ever gets done for just one reason. But I’d say history is on the side of re-enacting something like Glass Steagall.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Since Glass-Steagall, the Federal Reserve has been able to count Treasury Securities as reserves allowing them to basically create money from nothing. They just bail out the banks before they fail with funny money (which ultimately means our money).

            Jeff says — “I’d say history is on the side of re-enacting something like Glass Steagall”.
            That’s almost a given since regulations are all about helping Crony Capitalists stifle their competition.
            I posted this earlier but I’ll post it again for convenience. Those who don’t understand Government’s role in aiding fraudulent banks should read this:

          • Jeff

            There are plenty of small community banks and credit unions. Not every bank is a behemoth capable, by its own misdeeds, of collapsing the economy. I don’t get your religious devotion to non-regulation since all the evidence suggests a return to the pre-Depression “boom and bust” cycles would be devastating to virtually everyone. In the 19th Century, a bank failure didn’t have quite the devastating consequences it does now. What you are suggesting is nutty and both Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises would tell you the same thing.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Anybody, who has done any studying at all in Austrian Economics, knows that your statement is a false one, Jeff. The Central Banks with their fiat money and Fractional Banking are the creators of booms and busts and we have had many more and longer duration booms and busts since they came into being in 1913.
            Read the book, if you really want knowledge. I submit that you aren’t interested in knowledge, but are here instead to promote your mindless Propaganda.
            The fact that you would say “Ludwig von Mises would tell you the same thing” demonstrates your ignorance, Jeff, because he would tell me no such thing.

          • Jeff

            Identify one banking crisis between 1935 and the S&L Crisis in the late 80s at all comparable to 1929 or 2008.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Jeff says — “But regulations are enacted for reasons”.
            Reasons indeed. Can you say Crony Capitalism?
            Reason 1) Stifle your Crony Capitalist Contributors’ competitors.
            Reason 2) Convince ignorant voters that you are looking out for them.
            Reason 3) Employ more bureaucrats who tend to vote for Bigger Government to feather their own nests.

            Read some of the books I’ve posted, Jeff. Become a former troll.

          • Jeff

            So, every regulation is only to stifle competition? If we regulate coal mines to protect workers’ lives, to you all that matters is you can’t start a coal operation in your back yard because you don’t have the money for the safety equipment? Is that really what you think?

            And the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Acts are just to employ more government workers? To say you’re allowing the tail to wag the dog is a gross understatement.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            No regulations, just laws. If they break the law, then the courts adjudicate the case.
            If the Coal Mines are dangerous, then I would suggest you don’t work for them. It’s as simple as that. When I was 18 and working at a cement plant, the Unionists were griping about the company sending a man up on a risky catwalk. I was mystified as to the intensity of their complaint because I would simply refuse and take the risk of getting fired if I thought it too risky a task.
            Government with all their expensive meddling just makes things riskier because the companies have less money to invest in safer equipment after the costs of dealing with the bureaucrats and paying their salaries. No company officers with any brains at all want to lose their workers to accidents. Statements contrary to that fly in the face of reason and usually are just Propaganda.
            I filter my water or buy bottled water, because I don’t want all the additives that meddling Government has forced on our water suppliers.
            Air quality is the only thing you mentioned that has any legs because we have no choice but to breathe the air, so they are trespassing on our property (in this case the air we breathe). But even there, it makes a whole lot more sense to mandate levels of pollution allowed and then prosecute those who are exceeding those limits rather than having regulatory agencies using their Power to stifle their political enemies and reward their political friends.
            Read this:

          • Jeff

            Since I answered your question and told you about my background, perhaps you could do the same and tell us a couple of regulations you approve of.

          • Vigilant

            “But regulations are enacted for reasons, and when you get rid of them, you tend to repeat the very conditions that precipitated their enactment in the first place.”

            You mean conditions like high employment, prosperity, lower prices for the consumer, median income increases, etc.

          • Jeff

            What? Are you trying to say everything was hunky dory before Government started regulating business in the 20th Century? You’ve heard of the Great Depression, I assume? How about the Triangle fire? How about how thousands of miners used to die in mine accidents? Air pollution? Rivers catching fire? Virtually no middle class – just a few rich with everyone else at their mercy?

          • Vigilant

            I’m saying no such thing, and you’d do well to discontinue with putting words in my mouth, sonny.

            You sound like you never met a regulation you didn’t like. Only an absolute idiot claims that all regulation is good or all regulation is bad, As for the Depression, it was lengthened and deepened by government regulation, and that’s something on which most economists agree.

            And don’t EVER think there’s a parallel between century-old regulation and the kind of economically paralyzing overregulation that is rampant today. They are two different animals.

          • Jeff

            I’m sorry. I’ll get off your lawn right away. The regulation thing is Republican Speak. Democrats talk about specific programs they support or oppose while Republicans talk in vague terms about “spending” and “regulation” without regard to the specific policy at issue. Are there regulations that are counterproductive and need to be repealed or changed? Of course. But when Republicans ALWAYS use the word “unnecessary” to modify the word “regulation,” it’s hard to believe they’re actually considering the merits of what they’re discussing. For example, if coal miners are dying in cave-ins and the Government regulates safety equipment that will lessen the deaths, is it really legitimate to talk about the job losses that might accompany the saving of lives?

            Same with environmental regulation. While cleaning the environment can create jobs, it might also lead to job cuts in certain power plants. If you focus only on the job cuts with no regard for the benefits of cleaner air and water, you’re hardly acting like a statesman, are you? The lobbyist’s job is to press industry’s case; the statesman’s job is to balance industry’s needs with the public good. I don’t see a whole lot of balancing with the Republicans.

          • Vigilant

            “But when Republicans ALWAYS use the word “unnecessary” to modify the word “regulation,” it’s hard to believe they’re actually considering the merits of what they’re discussing.”

            Absolutely false statement. Your memory is curiously selective here. It was the Bush Administration that on numerous occasions warned about the profligate lending policies of Fannie/Freddy, seeking to rein in the absolutely bankrupt philosophy of lending mortgage $$$ to unqualified applicants. The deaf ears in Congress failed to do a thing about it, and eventually precipitated the debacle that set off the current recession.

            Seems to me it was the DEMS who fended off any regulation of these activities.

            Get a handle on reality, son. Your propensity to stereotype Repubs indicates but one thing: your blindly dismissive failure to recognize any good thing the Repubs have done.

            Nor do I see any “balancing” whatsoever in Obama’s purposeful denial of the ability to tap and develop traditional energy sources in this country. Postponing AGAIN the XL pipeline serves no real environmental purpose. Energy independence means absolutely NOTHING to him.

          • Jeff

            “Energy independence,” if it means nothing more than freedom from foreign oil, means little to the average American. If we drill all the oil in and around the U.S., it still belongs to Big Oil and not to the U.S. It still goes to the world market and is subject to all the same disturbances oil prices are subject to now. It just means more profits for Exxon, additional dependence on fossil fuels, increased environmental degradation, and more time spent NOT dealing with climate change and the need to wean ourselves off oil, whether foreign or domestic. If we allow BP and Exxon to degrade our environment by drilling every available drop of oil, how much will that lower the price of gas? Maybe a few cents in 10 years? Sounds like a great deal.

            Meanwhile, one of the companies the Government invested in just repaid its loan at least 10 years early. More importantly, it developed what Consumer Reports calls the best car it has ever reviewed. It’s an electric car capable of going 300 miles between charges, an enormous increase over previous technology. That’s the direction we need to go in, not this endless drilling for more oil.

        • WTS/JAY

          Jeff: All the big banks supported Romney. They like operating with virtually no oversight. After they got bailed out, they spent the money lobbying Congress not to regulate them. The bill that passed got watered down to the point it doesn’t do much at all. Still, the Republicans said it did too much.

          New Chief of Staff: Former Hedge Fund Exec. at Citigroup, Made Money Off Mortgage Defaults

          JAN 9, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

          President Obama’s first chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once sat on the board of troubled federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

          Bill Daley, the president’s chief of staff whose departure was announced today, was previously a top executive at financial firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

          So of course there should be little surprise that Obama’s latest chief of staff, announced today by the president himself, also has deep ties to the financial industry himself.

          From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank’s alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting “U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments,” as the Huffington Post reported.

          The piece also reported: “Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.”

          Of course, one should not begrudge Lew his personal, professional, and financial successes. But one might wonder what kind of message the president is sending with this appointment.

          Jacob Joseph “Jack”Lew (born August 29, 1955) is an American-government-administrator and attorney who is the 76th and current United States Secretary of the Treasury, serving since 2013. He served as the25th White House Chief of Staff from 2012 to 2013. Lew previously served as Director of theOffice of Management and Budget in theClinton and Obama Administrations, and is a member of the Democratic Party.

          From February 1993 to 1994, Lew served as Special Assistant to the President under President Clinton.

          Lew was responsible for policy development and the drafting of the national service initiative(AmeriCorps) and health care reform legislation.

          In June 2006, Lew was named chief operating officer of Citigroup’sAlternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group.

          The unit he oversaw invested in a hedge fund “that bet on the housing market to collapse.”

          During his work at Citigroup, Lew had invested heavily in funds in Ugland House while he worked as an investment banker at Citigroup during the 2008 financial meltdown.

          Lew also had oversight of Citigroup subsidiaries in countries including, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Hong Kong; and during his time at Citigroup, Citigroup subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands increased to 113. -Wikipedia

          • Jeff

            So, are you criticizing Obama because he’s a socialist unlike any previous president who wants to destroy the capitalist system? Or are you criticizing Obama because he, just like every president before him, has picked people from the financial world to run Treasury and his staff? I would much prefer that he pick fewer people from the world of Big Banking, but I’m not one of his advisors. If you were saying Obama is no different from his predecessors, you might have a point, but your incendiary tone indicates you might have other reasons for hating Obama. I wonder what it could be?

    • WTS/JAY

      rbrooks: no one supports big business more than the republicans.


      Obama signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator.

      United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      And why is it you dislike big businesses? Is it because you will never be a CEO of one?
      As much as you denigrate big business the Dems/Progs/Leftists also are carrying on a love affair with big business because the Dem/Prog/Leftist politician and government approved big businesses fill the coffers/pockets with money.

      • rbrooks

        you are always confused. it is the corporate welfare and the subsidization of their cheap immigrant labor that i dislike.

  • Alondra

    Some have called her the most dangerous female on Earth. Indeed, her influence and leverage in the Obama Administration is beyond healthy levels in a free society. She began her working career under Harold Washington, then Mayor of Chicago. Following the death of Mayor Washington, she continued to work for the city administration serving as “Deputy” Chief of Staff for Richard M. Daley. So when people refer to the Chicago style politics of Obama’s administration, who would be better versed in the meaning of that concept?

    • KG

      Some have called him ‘Bushes Brain”. Indeed, his influence and leverage withing the Republican party is beyond healthy levels in a free society.

      In the fall of 1970, Karl Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Treasurer of Illinois. He stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign rally fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing”, and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon’s rally. (Dixon eventually won the election). So when people refer to the “Gestapo” like politics of the Republicans, who would be better versed in the meaning of that concept?

      • independent thinker


        • KG

          You know the name, look up the number.
          -The Beatles

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Of course no documentation. Progressives wouldn’t have ever gotten off first base if they had to supply proof instead of Propaganda.

          • samurai

            D’oh! :-) :-) :-) Here is an article showing Obama bin Laden’s style of big brother.
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
            “The true Christian is the true citizen.”
            Theodore Roosevelt

          • KG

            The Western Center for Journalism was started by the same guys who started Newsmax as well as WorldNetDaily and he wrote for the Moonie owned Washington Times. So, where’s the ‘liberal’ media bias? Oh, it’s been replaced by ‘conservative’ media bias,

            You are either truly deluded or evil.

        • mojo jojo

          College and the Dixon campaign incident


    • Nadzieja Batki

      But Hillary was already a President when Billy Boy Clinton was president in name only. Is America that stupid to want her back?

  • Alondra

    Klayman: “This Government Is Seeking To Enslave Us”

  • Alondra

    The Mentaly PERVERT and Sexualy Depraved “Hillary Clinton told a Canadian audience that she hoped the United States would elect a woman to the White House because it would send ‘exactly the right (???) historical signal’ to men, women and children (???).¨
    They want to be in the WH.

    • ONTIME

      It’s just more liberal delusion and public masturbation by another congenital liar…..

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      The Libertarians ran a female vice-presidential candidate in 1972 (Theodora Nathalia “Tonie” Nathan).
      The Libertarians also ran a female vice-presidential candidate in 1992 (Nancy Lord), and again in 1996 (Jo Jorgenson).
      In 2008 Mary Ruwart was a leading candidate for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination. She narrowly lost to Bob Barr after Wayne Allyn Root threw his support behind Barr. Hmmm, Wayne Allyn Root, where have I heard that name before?
      Have any of you heard of any of these women? Why not? Because, of course, being Libertarian and pro Free Markets, there was no chance in hades that the Crony Capitalists would allow it.

      • rbrooks

        you take a lot for granted. i voted for john. while there was no chance of a win, it was better than the alternatives.

        nixon was such a great president, wasn’t he.

        you should be more careful of the conclusions you make from your assumptions.

        • samurai

          He was a lot better than Obama bin Laden. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
          “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.”
          Daniel Webster
          American statesman
          Devout Christian

          • JeffH

            samurai, you know I luv ya but a lot better than Obama? Maybe the lesser evil but never the less still evil.

            Oh, I was pretty politically ignorant back in 2008 and voted for McCain/Palin too! My how things have changed since 2008.

          • Bob666

            Oh Sammy,

            Go back and look at Phase one, two and three along with wage and price controls & hyper inflation.

            You obviously were not there or qualified to make such a statement.

            Albert Abraham Michelson,
            American physicist. Successfully measured the speed of light, gaining the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1907. Washington Lodge No. 21 New York City.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          It figures that you voted for John McCain, rbrooks.

          • rbrooks

            it figures you would come to that conclusion.

      • JeffH

        DaveH, this may interest you.

        Recall Senator McCain

        Recall Senator Flake

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          As you know, I couldn’t dislike anybody more than I dislike McCain, but I think the illegals are the scapegoats of people who want to distract us from their own complicity in the ruination of our country. Making Government even Bigger and more Intrusive would be playing right into their hands.
          We must resist the urge to allow them to create even more laws and bureaus than they already have. We should be going in the opposite direction.
          If we have a shortage of jobs (and we do), it is entirely the fault of a Gargantuan Meddlesome Government, so let’s not aid them in their growth.

          • JeffH

            I concur and your logic is sound.

    • Karolyn

      And? A woman President is just what this country needs. Wish I could find the recent info that was on the news a couple of weeks ago about women’s brains being better than men’s. The writer made the comment that there should be more women in public office due to the superior brain.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        You had a chance to vote for a woman in 1972, 1992, and 1996. But did you?

        • Karolyn

          Never heard of any of them and was not too much into politics, especially in ’72!

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Then you must not have really cared that much to have women in office.

          • Karolyn

            At that time, I guess not.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You are joking, we have had women in politics and in occupations and businesses and in churches and synagogues and academia but nothing has changed for the better. So if more power is given them things will only get worse.

        • Bob666

          Yo Nads,
          Forget who the woman might be (I am not suggesting Clinton), could any woman be worse than what you have seen in your lifetime?

          • samurai

            Could they be any worse than the women you have known? I’ll bet I’ve known worse women. BTW, are they worse than your Mason brothers of Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, and Castro? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
            “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
            Benjamin Franklin
            Founding father
            Devout Christian

          • Bob666

            Oh Poor Sammy,
            Are you still suffering from the spanking you got on this crap? Care to cite a real source-not the crap that you troll on the web for????????

            You are coming off as desperate. BTW-Did you read the real page 183 of Ronayne’s Handbook of Masonry?

            I sent you the link for the actual book and not the misinformation that you so embrace.

            “We represent a fraternity which believes in justice and truth and honorable action in your community…men who are endeavoring to be better citizens…[and] to make a great country greater. This is the only institution in the world where we can meet on the level all sorts of people who want to live rightly.”
            Harry S. Truman
            President of the United States

      • Don 2

        Superior brain you say, maybe as in Sheila Jackson Lee?

      • samurai

        I have no problem with a woman being president. I would vote for Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Michelle Bachman, and along with some others, but just keep Hitlery and Michelle bin Laden out of the White House. Here is something that could happen here if Hitlery or Michelle bin Laden are elected to the office.
        Guaranteed they will hit minority women and babies harder. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.
        “A patriot must be a religious man.”
        Thomas Jefferson
        3rd President of the U.S.
        Founding father
        Orthodox Christian

        • Bob666

          Well Sammy,

          “In today’s selection — a growing number of early Americans — including James Madison and other founding fathers — became deists, people who did
          not believe in the divinity of Christ and instead viewed reason as the source of religious knowledge. From the perspective of today, this seems unsurprising
          and in keeping with the Enlightenment philosophy of the time. But at the time it was highly controversial — with Christian pastors excoriating deists as
          heretics and “infidels,” and some deists actively asserting their deist faith in opposition to Christianity — taking actions designed to taunt Christians and attending “infidel conventions”:

          “[While] individual proponents of deism stressed different principles, … nearly all deists agreed on two basic points. They accepted the existence of a God in one form or another, but they rejected Trinitarian theology. Jesus, in their view, was only a human, not the son of God. Second, all deists denied that the
          Christian Bible contained a special, divine revelation of God’s will. At its core, deism was a complete rejection of supernatural revelation in favor of reason as the only source of true religious knowledge. Some deists used these positions to offer moderate calls for the reformation of Christianity. Yet others hoped that deism would entirely overturn Christianity; indeed they
          believed that deism would destroy all religious systems that included supernatural or metaphysical teachings. …
          “[And] by all accounts, [the] infidelity [of deism] was on the rise. Specifically, more, not fewer, Americans publicly announced their deism between the 1770s
          and 1830s.

          “Thomas Thompson was one such deist. He was born in 1775 on the eve of American independence and by 1829 had abandoned Christianity. Perhaps he embraced deism after reading Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, published in 1794 when Thompson was nineteen. Or maybe Thompson reacted to Federalist attacks on Thomas Jefferson’s [lack of] piety during the contentious election of 1800 by committing himself to the very opinions that the Federalists feared. Thompson may have even found the emotional highs of evangelical revivals and their demands for new birth
          experiences too psychologically taxing. Regardless, by 1829 he was moderator at the Hall of Science, a prominent two-story building with Greek columns on
          Broome Street in New York.

          “Located in a former church, the Hall of Science was a venue for critics of Christianity to debate their ideas and a site where Sunday morning gatherings were held as alternatives to church services. The hall’s proprietors adorned its windows with pictures of Thomas Paine and William Godwin in order to taunt visitors and employees of the Bible repository located directly across the street. Before Thompson died in Brooklyn in 1852, he had attended ‘infidel conventions’ in Saratoga Springs, New York, in 1836 and much larger ones in New York City in 1845 and 1846, where he was appointed manager of the organization that hosted the meetings. Thompson also served as trea­surer of the Paine Monument Fund, and as trustee and treasurer of the Free Enquirer’s Library Association. The latter organization formed to counter Christian tract societies by publishing and circulating inexpensive editions of writings critical of Christianity,
          including The Age of Reason and atheistic works by eighteenth-century French philosophies. …

          Eric R. Schlereth

          Title: An Age of Infidels

          Publisher: University of Pennsylvania

          Date: Copyright 2013 by the University of Pennsylvania Press

          Pages: 4-8


    The SCOTUS has managed to get thru a couple of decent items, one being a states right issue involving the use of states to set their own election requirements for the use of voter ID, a law that has been historically depleted has been replaced by new thinking to resurrect the means to prevent more voter fraud…it’s about damn time.

  • FRENCHIE1369


  • ridge runner

    rbrooks, must have lost the brain connection to who was to blame for 9/11, it was the fascist/communist democrat party, who stopped any information sharing on terrprist especially on the goat humping pedophile worshipping muslim perverts. What party had a super majority in both houses and all 3 branches of government, it same bunch of pukes who gave us SS and the Department of Ag. The rug scrubbing muslim perverts got to not have to abide by the NoCare rule or have the terrorist gathering s–t holes called mosques, monitored for inciting terrorist acts and murder. Why the monkey nose race of these people flock to Islam , who muslims considers a ignorgant strain of humanity.

  • mathis1689

    For God’s sake don’t give them any ideas! They can come up with enough garbage on their own!

  • Nadzieja Batki

    What the hardest comment to make is that you Ben Crystal have nailed that the Dems/Progs/Leftists have made a mockery of this country’s government. They have been busy termites.

  • ridge runner

    Bob Livingston, it was Clinton’s appointees that would not information on the muslim perverts be shared between agencies that alll knew what a sorry bunch of sand lizards were up to no good. Also what party was in charge of protecting USA’s citizens, again it is the same BS of letting courts handle the problems with the terrorists, and we all know what a foul up that was. I never have understood your covering for democrats and their behavior, which always be abhorant to USA’s values and it has been that historical veiw since the democrat party was formed.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear ridge runner,

      You write: “it was Clinton’s appointees that would not information on the muslim perverts be shared between agencies that alll (sic) knew what a sorry bunch of sand lizards were up to no good.” Did you read the links? I also refer you to

      You write: “I never have understood your covering for democrats and their behavior, which always be abhorant (sic) to USA’s values and it has been that historical veiw (sic) since the democrat party was formed.” Please provide an example.

      Best wishes,