It took me a day to get to a point of writing this.
You see, I was this voice in the wilderness during the primaries, often beaten down by republicans and so-called conservatives (much like Stacey Dash was beaten down by democrats for supporting Romney), for saying that Romney couldn't win.
The reason is that difference must be shown, an absolute contrast seen for a choice to be made, and Mitt Romney doesn't offer that especially on the issue of trust. Take what Romney said in 2002 when running in Massachusetts:
This is pretty big, and let's pretend I was a republican and not a Conservative, for, to be sure, all those republicans (the “so-called conservatives” I mentioned above), did not find this video to be enough, or viewed the video as why Romney can work with democrats, can be a truly bipartisan President. For me, it was a statement that he's unable to be a Conservative, and true Conservatives only began to look at Romney due to the absolute 110% accuracy of his 47% comment, which was made far into the campaign. It was impressive to us for a man to be that accurate thinking on his feet in a high pressure situation before those he's attempting to get money from for his campaign, and was nowhere near as denigrating as Obama, during a fundraiser in his first campaign, when he said that people are clinging to their guns and religion in a derogatory, backwards manner.
In any event, I wrote an article regarding how the National Black Chamber of Commerce who, during the 2008 primaries wrote an article asking if Romney is a racist, that is answered with more questions, then reversed their position during the 2012 primaries based on Romney's father, George Romney, being a Progressive, the man Mitt Romney campaigned for at age 15. Here is the opening to that article that, to this Conservative, says it all:
“I posed this question in an article written back in December 2007. I left it “open ended”. Lately, now that there is another presidential race going on interested people are starting to uncover this old article and make it contemporary. This is troubling to me so I guess I should put closure to the whole matter. First, let me answer the question: No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.”-- My article citing this and many other portions of the article from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.208.
Now, though I don't trust the mainstream media, there remains this little article from ABC News that explains something no Christian could ever vote for:
“Former Gov. Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively "pro-choice," the Romney campaign confirmed today.” -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3157749&page=1
And lastly, Reason Magazine, a Libertarian publication, had an article from 2007 that I will not quote here because the subject matter is sexual abuse of children, a subject that needs to be discussed very delicately, as it should never achieve any sort of promotion, referenced in the footnote of this article which was written long before the 3rd debate but accentuates, almost prophetically, Romney's positions that night, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.217,
Now that I've set forth my reasons I knew Romney couldn't win, even though Obama's people didn't even bring up this last point, here's the logistical issue: Bain had never been vetted during the primaries.
While Republican after Republican argues against any talking about Bain, claiming it is an attack on Capitalism, especially when done by Newt Gingrich, and claiming also that this is expected from the left, to Progressively turn a knife in the stomach of the Conservative who wants a full disclosure, these same Republicans claim “the primaries vet the candidates, and help them perfect their debating skills.” Stupid Republicans turning Conservatism away from their platform; turning away the vetting of Romney; turning away from having a far right candidate because, apparently, they subscribe to appealing to the Left by being somewhat Leftist, by being Progressive, while at the same time claiming that the dependency that Progressivism promotes is detrimental to the very people Progressives claim they are are helping. Hypocrisies of these sorts are not something the People, and never the generals amongst the Progressives, will miss. But they won't bring it up to you, oh Stupid Republicans, they won't challenge this and help you learn of the mistake, and instead will work some outside angle that amplifies the meaning of this to those to whom they target their message.
Please understand, oh Stupid Republicans, that by assuming an attack on Bain as an attack on Capitalism, Romney wasn't vetted, and this is an appearance of something to hide and exploitable, particularly when it also appears the party was out to hide it too. How better to amplify this effect than talk about how Romney isn't discussing his plans until after the election? And how much more effective is this with ads explaining how under Romney's running of Bain there were many people that lost jobs, that some of the companies went out of business, that Bain made promises they didn't keep, and, lastly, that Bain was responsible for the death of a man's wife? And if you're thinking, “he sounds like a Liberal with all this, these are all lies,” I sure do, because this is the very strategy Obama used. You Stupid Republicans left Bain as a mystery for the Progressives to define, and they pounced on this with everything they had. This is a classic case of Soros’ Reflexivity principle being used successfully during an election.
The failure of addressing Bain during the primaries, and further, making it a subject not to be discussed throughout the campaign, is to leave Bain an undefined commodity. While Romney could nullify the negative ads against his character by merely showing up at the debate and not being the monster described, it remains that by not having ever discussed Bain, and Stupid Republicans always attacking, with party support, anyone that tries to question Bain, that Romney could not nullify Obama's Republican-enabled capacity to define Bain merely by posing the myriad unanswered questions.
Thus, it doesn't matter what's true of what Obama, or the PAC's supporting him, said because you Stupid Republicans handed Obama the authority to make the case of first impression of what Bain is, and establish a persistent negative about Romney as the election outcome, even below McCain and Palin's performance, shows.
Republicans seem to have applied the Union rule of Tenure and merit by time, assuming “it's Romney's turn,” and immediately acted to silence all opposing views, I contend they even used Rick Santorum to accomplish this task, his sudden dropping out of the primaries handing Romney the nomination was rather suspicious, especially since the excuse used was something his daughter had done before. Now if this seems heartless, let it pass. It is heartless to place the lives and dreams of the American people in jeopardy for the sake of party, and exploit your daughter's illness in use as an excuse for party as well.
Now maybe it was just that the Stupid Republicans were hoping that belief and Prayer would beat a Chicago originated and schooled career politician, who has an innate appeal to the growing population of what once were minorities, and, according to the “demographics” is elected solely because his skin color is closer to theirs.
I blamed the people in 2008's loss because Obama accentuated redistribution of wealth, now he has a record of failure and willingness to encroach on State's rights as well as Individual Liberty, so I could blame the people again. But no, I blame every single Republican who parroted the talking point, “attacking Bain is attacking capitalism,” making a mockery of the primary process for the sake of their party and not giving a damn about nominating someone for the sake of their country. These were the very same Republicans who said “get in line and vote for Romney” or attacked every effort to have a genuine discussion of who would be best to go against Barack Obama, and did all they could to silence and discourage, waging war with the very Conservatives they needed to have vote for the nominee if the Stupid Republicans wanted to beat Barack Obama, apparently oblivious to the fact our vote is no less important than theirs. It is interesting how they adopt collectivist union styled tactics when the true Conservatives see through their fake Conservative nominee whose government-run healthcare solution in Massachusetts is the very model for Obama's Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.
Thank you Republicans for making sure the Conservatives in this nation suffer by your incompetence, blind belief, and failure to embrace the conservative movement that saved your party's hindquarters in 2010.
To be clear, a Massachusetts Liberal with an R next to his name should never be President for they offer no real difference to the ruling party and President, and that means no real difference to the nation as a whole. A simple solution to the equation is arrived at by the voters in this situation: that whatever the people are suffering will persist anyway under the New Guy. The re-election of Socialist Barack Hussein Obama unequivocally demonstrates the application of this solution by the American People.
And I made a decision that I think every Conservative, irrespective of party, has to arrive at, and I believe we need to make sure the Republican Party knows this decision is non-negotiable before all future elections: If you put up a candidate who I cannot vet without being attacked, and who resembles their opponent so much that difference, and thereby my conservative values and voice, are lost, I will register as a Republican and vote for the opposing party candidate every single time as you've nullified my vote by the candidate you've chosen and want to force down my throat. Thus there is no difference in who I vote for, for neither of them represent me and I see no reason to change course and amplify false hope amongst the American people.
Thus, Conservatism did not lose in the election of 2012, but Progressive-Light Round 2 (after McCain) lost with emphasis. Will the Republican party descend further into insanity and try this a third time in 2016? Let's hope not.
Thank you for reading,
This article is a reflective glance to help comprehend the one-sided divisions being done against the People of the United States of America.
Let's say Mitt Romney is President of the United States. And then, let's say, there's an attack on our Embassy in Saudi Arabia. For sake of this view, let us also note that the Ambassador there is black. Now let's say 3 other black servicemen died with our Ambassador, who, like Chris Stevens, was sodomized (apparently somehow this is okay with the Quran).
Someone tell me we wouldn't have Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Van Jones, the ACLU, and as many as possible in the Liberal leaning press doing all they could to get an investigation. Of course they would take every piece of evidence, from the lie stating that “the attack started over a video,” to the actual workings of 9/11/2012 that show all measures of aid were denied even while various government agencies were watching these people killed, claiming this is evidence that “Romney let them die because he is a racist.”
President Romney wouldn't be able to get away with saying, “I issued an order to give them anything they need.” He'd have been called a liar without anyone even looking to see if an order exists or not. Every activist group for racial equality of any kind would be out contacting everyone in their communities about “those heinous racial acts of President Romney,” to then connect this to the Republicans and then claim it is all the Tea Party's fault.
What you just read is the quick summary explanation of the mind of the enemy, of the meaning of the collective to use their persistent anti-conservative (and anti-American in my book) bias agreement as their moral authority, irrespective of the obvious, particularly those pesky facts. This is because their collective is an emotional one, wrought with knee-jerk reactions for sake of a movement that once sought equality, but has since re-defined this to mean vengeful oppression. They must to survive, for America showed that the change they had been waiting for had happened, the proof was the election of an African-American President, and this took the wind out of their sails. You see, their ideas about shaping things based on shaping the up and coming generations is a track they stopped following, assuming their objective to be impossible, a perfect power trip for those who seek to have power over an emotional mass. But then America proved that racism is dead by voting in an African-American President. The trouble is their movement, both on the street, and in the Oval Office, lags far behind the American People, unless of course they are doing this on purpose, for sake of the power they had for so long, entirely based on the assumption of a racist America and hatred of all things owned by those who, in their mind, are so racist. Yes, the hate motivated racism against all who aren't black in particular, is a rug that's been pulled out from under the racist leftist black leaders.
But they would easily claim that rug exists the moment Romney is elected, and of course this goes to show who the real racists are now, doesn't it? I mean, the blind eye they are giving to Obama when 4 white men died is something I expect, however not because they are black and those who died are white, but because this issue has not been an issue for a very long time, and has been dead, only to be given CPR by the racist leftist black leader.
And to make sure, whether Obama issued an order or not for Ambassador Stevens and any who were in Benghazi to get the help they need doesn't matter, for either he did it and those under him ignored his order, or, he lied, and, in either case, it is the utter incompetence of the Obama administration on display for the world to see.
Thus this American of a variety of racial descendents asks where all these folks who jump up and down screaming racism are now that it appears a black President has let 4 white Americans die in Benghazi. If they treat this as meaningless now, I contend they have agreed to never bring it up again, even if it is 4 black people who die serving under a white President. Please, make sure that whoever you're putting in Congress or the Senate isn't one who would jump upside down and sideways to get Romney impeached over a Benghazi-like incident, but is remaining silent or even being reserved at all, as to African-American President Barack Hussein Obama's failure to protect 4 white Americans in Libya with full knowledge of escalating violence that suggests inside knowledge and a targeting of our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, who supported the Libyan rebels in overthrowing Gadhafi.
In a way, maybe in setting forth that Obama is a Racist President for allowing 4 white Americans to die I am illustrating “change we can believe in,” and that “change” is one of Obama's fulfilled promises. Further illustrated by my wondering what African-American from Chicago wants to be the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. I have to admit that Susan Rice's talk show circuit to emphasize this was all started by and over a video may admit that Obama isn't racist at all but that he is simply suffering from an extremely overdeveloped incompetence, exacerbated by a bipolar disorder where all personalities involved have a common trait of narcissism.
It would seem the genius of We The People, as it is often referred to in The Federalist Papers, has been thwarted by our educations. Many may immediately argue this fact, however, irrespective of the educational facts we set aside, there remains our approach, our angle and perspective, how we derive our conclusions. Much of this can be taught both by what we reject and what we accept, a sort of tugging of these back and forth in order to confuse, debase, and destabilize a variety of natural and inherent knowledges we gained from our parents. Those who may dismiss such a notion, please see http://web.archive.org/web/20090423190627/http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm.
So now, let's look at Romney's comment:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
How many of you have heard the question, and listened to pundits and others ask, “What's Romney's plan for seniors?” or “What's Romney's plan for healthcare?” or the classic “Republicans want dirty air, dirty water, etc.”?
If you let these questions become a means of making your decision, first understand that Ronald Reagan, a Republican, was the one that established the conservation movement, which had been very successful. However, eventually, the power of it (assumed in it being successful) was targeted by the left, and this was taken over to become what we know today as “environmentalists” (they had to change the name from “conservation” as that would remind people it was a conservative, a Hollywood film cowboy who appreciated nature and instituted the land conservation and preservation movement as an element of government).
Next, however, are the aspects that heinously align with what Romney said, for these questions directly set forth the mentality he described, and the destructive force of the NEA union (established in 1857) backed public school education, that approach and perspective training we received, irrespective of whatever we rejected of their direct informational education.
What self-reliant, independent American who believes in caring for themselves, believes they own their own property, and takes care of themselves, would entertain the idea government should take care of them, (code phrase “protect you from ___[fill in the blank]___ )? This is how healthcare was sold to us!
Remember when the president said this about Doctors?....
Google if you wish to determine the accuracy of his statement about why doctors amputate, because my purpose here is to address the purpose of such a statement, to couch doctors as something to protect you from, and how a government regulated and run healthcare system would protect you from the evil doctor, and this speech was given to sell us on healthcare.
So now, understanding Obamacare is intended to protect us from these menaces to society, doctors, who altogether, as a collective, carry on this heinous activity purely for the money every time they amputate, it is another class of rich to demonize, apparently. Notice the Progressives never came out and said that Obama needs to qualify what percentage of doctors have been sued and lost based on this claim, how often it is proven beyond any doubt that what the doctor is paid for an amputation is the basis for his decision. No one included, nor has any leftist requested, the stats on how many people actually were properly treated and eventually were required to lose a foot – akin to seniors who do not pay income taxes as related to Romney's comment.
Yet, Obama said this and has gotten away with it in spite of it being the direct sales pitch of Obamacare, a law the American People never asked for, and passed at a time when the President was telling us “Jobs are my top priority.” Anyone notice that unemployment hasn't dropped since the passage of Obamacare? And of course, the hypocrisy of passing a new tax to create jobs, in a country where private enterprise is the economic engine from its founding, hasn't been taken to task either.
These are the illustrations of what I call “the NEA head,” a means of thought, approach, receipt, and acceptance, that show one’s basis of reason has been molded and shaped to initiate, and give weight to, the same point of determination that the collectivists embrace: being taken care of.
Romney, and hopefully no republican, has ANY plan for seniors, or healthcare, but comprehends the true meaning of “regulation,” meaning “to make regular” those activities that cause the highest ethical standards without placing an undue burden on anyone except those who would act in a manner inconsistent with the industry being regulated – the lawbreakers aren't fictional characters created by a bunch of academics in government, but are those who are breaking away from the tradition of an industry that has led to its success in a free market economy. In this way the regulation supports the industry and those practices of good behavior and good sense, instead of regulations being a means of dictatorial imposition subject to fines, and thereby, merely a means of government revenue.
And if you missed it, the reason we want less regulation (as it is today, a mechanism just to generate government revenues) and a straight taxation, instead of a Progressive one, is to assure incentive in the people to create, to embrace their job and eventually pursue an entrepreneurial endeavor, and every desire as well as opportunity to become as successful as possible. It is in this way that the limits claimed of money, of resources, etc., are broken through. Democrats often refer to the “glass ceiling” of a woman being President. I submit the “glass ceiling” of oil reserves, of “money sitting in banks that belongs to us,” and “of upward mobility from poverty,” and many others, are imposed as a matter of course on victims who have accepted that they failed as though it is to be worn as a badge of honor, and seeing more and more regulations in their way, have given up to never try again. Is this the American we want to be? Is this the American that will assure an America of free people will exist in the future? Are you sure you aren 't one of these Americans?
Get away from the noise of assumption and the many notions that spur on the voice of some teacher or professor in your head when reviewing this article, and instead, try thinking entirely on your own, then consider, reflect, and come to terms.
Thank you for reading,
Since the leftist media is making the story September 18, 2012 about what Romney said in an off-the-cuff moment at some fundraiser, which was actually the most conservative I've heard him, as well as the most honest, then it would seem it's time to call on the President of the United States to demand that the Los Angeles Times release the video that was given to them in 2008.
In fact, the LA Times is accused of “suppressing” the video by the McCain campaign on October 29th, 2008:
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb… The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."
And then argues that they essentially broke the story:
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Of course the comments of some person designated the “Readers' Representative,” that it appears also works for the LA times, was piled on:
Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."
All of this is here in this LA Times (biased) article about the whole situation, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story.
Ask yourself if “a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape” is the same as seeing the people present there, to see Barack Obama present and to hear the actual direct comments from the horse's mouth. Then ask yourself if that readers' representative is representing the readers' view.
And of course, there is more about this at a variety of blogs. This one features a number of excerpts from the LA Times “detailed account.” Using another blog as a guide (that didn't cite the article with 100% accuracy, http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2008/10/la-times-has-video-of-obama-attending.html), I'll share the portions they noted word for word, such as this “poetry reading” that Barack Obama sat through:
“At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
“One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."” -- http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/10/nation/na-obamamideast10
And then there is this statement that, in light of the current situation in the Middle East, appears almost prophetic:
“His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."” -- Ibid.
I hope you can appreciate that President Obama is, as President of the United States, the head of the Democratic Party. Thus, the changes in the platform, such as removing recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, were, it appears, known, and maybe even initiated, by President Obama. His supposed request to have it reinstated at the convention....A programmed spin on the situation perhaps? Considering the state anti-Americanism today, you be the judge.
Could this type of failure to exercise the Freedom of The Press, by failing to publish the video itself, be a clearer explanation of media bias? I think not.
But...The point of this article is something far less sinister, and more to point to the very manipulations being done by the White House regarding the Mitt Romney video excerpt.
For the first time I actually heard a conservative Mitt Romney by what he said in this video clip, a true Tea Party conservative who seems to have come to a greater, more Federalist Papers view, of Our Written Constitution.
This, my friends is the scariest thing the Obama Campaign could have nightmares over, that “Massachusetts Mitt” would have left his Saul Alinsky student father's Progressive teachings, and come to the light of reality, appreciating, comprehending, and embracing conservative principles.
So, naturally, Obama's people pounce on this video, bringing forward how careful you have to be of what you say, blah blah blah.... While to this day the Los Angeles Times hasn't released this 2003 video of President Obama Toasting Rashid Khalidi, a former and known PLO spokesman, who, it appears, was also a good friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Now, sure conservatives had their say about it. Rush Limbaugh's take, Gateway Pundit show the hypocrisy in relation to Sarah Palin, Debbie Schussel sets forth that a “beheading dance” occurred at the event as well. And I fault nor argue against any of these, in fact believing that, without the LA Times releasing the Obama/Khalidi video and especially at Obama's insistence for the sake of transparency, that there is a bias shown that denies us ever knowing the truth about what happened there, a bias imposed from the top at the Los Angeles Times.
But the bigger picture here is that Obama and his campaign are criticizing directly and by innuendo what Mitt Romney said behind closed doors that happened to be videotaped, while, in perfect Obama hypocrite fashion, continuing to keep the Obama/Khalidi 2003 video, that also was behind closed doors and happened to be videotaped, from being released to the public.
In the Obama narrative by example, this is Obama's idea, his vision, of “fairness.” The unconstitutional media bias in his favor, Obama exploits videos of his opponent while knowing full well his friends in the Liberal Progressive Media that Media Matters isn't caring about, will not release his “reality TV” from 2003 that could have changed the entire election.
The LA Times is just another “news” organization that hides behind the First Amendment while actually acting in a manner inconsistent with their corporate charter that established them as a news organization, to be treated with certain exemptions and privileges in accordance with the idea of the First Amendment.
To me, a suit against the Secretary of State where the LA Times is headquartered, mandating that their charter be revoked until such time as they act consistent with being a member of the “free press,” for a period of not less than 2 years, is in order. And they can start by releasing the 2003 video tape so We The People who are their customers can determine for ourselves if Peter Wallsten’s LA Times article cited above is “a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape,” or if Mr. Wallsten took some editorial license, likely by omission.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. There is more to this but I have left much out for the sake of brevity.
The recent ruling in the healthcare law, that government has this taxing authority by the Constitution – which is not an unbridled taxing power except during war, and, where Article I, Section 7 requires a specific “origination,” which is not a starting point of the legislative record but that the idea, the mere notion of taxation, the taking of the private property of citizens for government to perform a constitutional duty, started in the House at the behest of the People – is a perversion of the Constitutional power of taxation, a perversion done by the U.S. Supreme Court. This most perfectly demonstrates that our entire government is dysfunctional when compared to its intention and purpose pursuant to the Federalist Papers of assuring a limited government that also naturally assures the freedom of the people. The very Constitution and its limits is the express statement of the meaning of Liberty, that We The People function without government restraining us for its own purposes, as though above us and with rights beyond the very People whose ratification brought the National Government into existence.
No, today (and likely for the last 50 to 100 years), every branch, including the Supreme Court, is working for the goal of expanding government power through claims of jurisdiction not supported by Our Written Constitution, so long as the paperwork and the use of words as a means of bending the activities to appear in adherence to the Constitution is met, the Constitution today a mere tool of government to stave off liability through a contrived legal fiction of “government immunity” and nothing more.
Explain to me why every single limit that was placed on government by Our Written Constitution for the United States has been finagled, has been taken to court by our illustrious BAR association (a union, see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.129) with the general intention of setting a case precedent and tone that involves the National Government, and thereby creates an opportunity for the National Government to assume authority and jurisdiction, irrespective of the Constitution, which is to say irrespective of the loss of Individual Liberty, of constitutional legitimacy; the Constitution which is every American's written assurance that their freedom is not trespassed upon, manipulated for the purposes of a few to gain a greater manipulation of the many.
The undermining of the Constitution generally began with civil rights cases for money, where an agency of government is found in error, the case doesn't take the government to task to follow the Constitution but instead takes some agency to task to rewrite their rules along with paying money in settlement. Yes they force the agency to use wordsmithery to alter the most miniscule terms that the lawyers used to win the lawsuit, to be brought within the meaning of some antecedent court case, or create a new non-existent legal thing, a legal fiction, that has no direct express citation in the Constitution – essentially forcing the agency to use words that cause a “permissible evasion” of the Fundamental Law and Duty of Government without any concern for the loss of Individual Liberty in such a settlement.
A perfect example is “Person of Interest” as it is not someone who is subject to any constitutionally imposed limit of the government in pursuing criminal cases under the Bill of Rights, that list of government's rights particularizing the limits of government, that often includes examples of what would be construed as the National Government exceeding its authority. The reason Person of Interest is used is that it is not a “person held to answer,” an accused, invoking the necessity of “probable cause” to pursue an investigation, as stated in the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, and therefore this entire legal method is a scheme, merely a strategy, for government to approach you with a terminology that denies you the ability to claim you're being persecuted, oppressed, and your life intruded upon unconstitutionally as an accused, and to which you will assume (by officer encouragement) that you can be entirely cooperative with law enforcement, unaware the officers are going over every word you say, every inflection, every tone, every body movement, looking for anything they can use to justify their hunch (which is not allowed to be used to pursue an accused) and use your statements, your testimony against yourself as a “person of interest,” to make you an accused. The investigating agency then makes certain to release to the press when you stopped cooperating after having announced you were a Person of Interest, the public obloquy being done for the sake of a conviction, a notation of merit in a group of government employees’ records, that is used by the agency as a justification for budget increases.
What I am saying is that it seems government is more than happy to always recognize the original maximum taxing power that exists under war, pursuant to the Constitution, as the constant of taxation (likely due to a lack of activity by lawyers in this area, as they often get disbarred shortly thereafter) and yet government is persistent in seeing a finagled meaning to the limits of government; 1) consistently moving away from Article I, Section 8's “enumerated powers” provisions (not “general powers,” and thus “limited powers”), to their contrived for political purposes meaning of the “General Welfare Clause” (President Jefferson best defines the limitation of this at paragraph 5 here, http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres17.html) purposefully claimed in mistake to imply Our Founders intended to establish Communist social welfare programs; 2) finagled meaning of the First Amendment as well as the Second; 3) and assuming Jan Brewer is acting inconsistently with the Tenth Amendment with her recent executive order to deny State of Arizona services to the illegals that were given amnesty by President Obama's executive power fiat – meaning without the legislature, and as an act of dictatorial rule.
Please note that the above list is not even a scintilla of the historically researchable record of the National Government's acts to expand itself, irrespective of the Constitution which is the written expression of the Will of the People and their States, in forming the Government, which explains the imposed limits on the National Government and how Our Written Constitution is intended to guarantee Liberty for all. Arizona, as any other State, joined on an equal footing with the 13 colonies, and therefore so too does its population continue on the same equal footing with Our Founders, with all exception according to The Will of Obama -- government's historical expansion so intrusive on the People that, when someone who assumes an office for its power, and see us all as mere subjects to their views, they make it pretty clear that we no longer rule our own country, “the problem with the opposition [Romney-Ryan] is that their philosophy is something I fundamentally disagree with.” Thus, in the president’s view, his will, Obama's Will is to be imposed upon the America People and that is all that's important, not the Will of the People and their imposed limits on Government by Our Written Constitution. Illegal and unconstitutional expansion of government, combined with a person in the office of the President who sees their power and rule as the meaning of governing, is what Monarchs, the original noble title for a Dictator, are made of.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. This is why the most important part of the 2012 election is the taking of the Senate from Harry Reid, a man who used his immunity for anything he says on the Senate Floor to persecute an American Citizen running for President who is a member of the opposing political party by making claims of facts by information that is the private knowledge of that American Citizen and the IRS alone, unless the IRS (an executive branch agency under the President) leaked this information to Harry Reid there is no factual basis for his claims at all. This man, the Majority Leader of the Senate, who has filibustered the entire House of Representatives in failing his constitutional duty to have a vote on what the People's representatives have ratified and passed on to the Senate, will not be removed by his own party – the partisanship more important than effectuating the Will of The People. Thus it is imperative we take the control over what comes before the Senate away from Harry Reid by taking 20 Senate seats in November (a buffer of seats to make up for the Progressive block of the Republican Party) if we wish to save this nation from the dictatorial power of the Executive Branch, and return this government to fulfill its purpose of carrying out the Will of The People in self-government alone (Our Written Constitution), no matter who is elected President.
Although the word ‘cabal’ came into common use after the early 1600s, the Chaldean root: to acquire, fits right in with the more modern definition of a conspiracy or plot, as in overthrowing a government. Why else create a ‘cabal’ if not to acquire power?
You have got to be wondering why I’ve chosen this particular word to describe what President Obama is about when he already occupies the most powerful office in the land, and as generally accepted, the world. This is going to be a deep discussion, so hang onto your scuba mask so you don’t drown under the obfuscating rhetoric and blow-by that continues to spring from the oval office.
How many of us have truly considered who are the beneficiaries of all the ‘green’ bucks that continue to be laundered through the executive branch? The multiple billions of dollars that have been awarded via Stimulus and grants constructed to prop up the alternative energy industry – a term used for lack of a better one since there is no actual industry in motion, just a scheme (look up that word, too, while you’ve got your dictionary handy) – are going precisely where?
In answer to that, there is the oft-mentioned $535 million to Solyndra, but let me add these few to the list:
• ½ $186 million for federal weatherization in California produced a total of 538 full-time jobs; 3 homes weatherized and 14 jobs in $20 Million grant to Seattle • $510 million in stimulus loans and grants to green-tech companies: Tesla Motors, RecycleBank, EdeniQ and Amyris. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/09/06/president-obamas-green-jobs-pretense-is-an-unmitigated-fiasco/. And then there’s the Soros’ investments in ‘green’ tech growth capital with government funds http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.167
(though you’ll be interested to know that both articles linked therein are, strangely, no longer available… hmmm).
Although these are drops in the bucket, as they say, it should be noted how hedge funds that drive oil speculation and oil moneymen like T. Boone Pickens are now hip-deep in ‘green’ technology. Why is that? And why are think tanks like the Milken Institute pushing for federal Competitive Renewable Energy Zones to tap into the $11 billion for grid upgrades ‘created’ by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. By the way, isn’t Milken, better known as the junk-bond king, the guy who went away for securities fraud? We should examine where our advice originates. http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/8419/designate-renewable-energy-zones-across-us-suggests-think-tank/ What is most disturbing is the assumption that government can and should design and implement the “plan” for grid modernization to accommodate government-driven (read that “compelled”) private investment into “renewable” sources that maybe pans out to 20% of (unreliable) energy generation, with losses of 40% in transmission alone over copper conduction lines. (Kristenev, A. Dru (2009). Energy Barons. ChangingWind, softcover editon, Page 418)
Who, then, is Obama, our ultimate corporate (billionaire) lobbyist-in-chief for alternative energy, as Toddy tags him, working to benefit? Certainly not the average citizen, you or me, as we will be in hock to the handful of billionaires that own the rights to this or that technology that “converts” the wind, Sun and whatever other inconsistent and obscure energy source they can conjure up for “usage fees.” President Obama is the frontman for the legal regime that manufactured the separation of mineral rights from those of the land, thereby dividing property owners from the full usage and enjoyment of their land. And what about airspace? How does that figure in to this creation “of a legal system to control invented energy generated by inventions?” (I stole that from Toddy Littman, too.)
Think about it. Harnessing contrived methods of transmitting free energy, the only purpose of which is to take profits… who can afford the manipulation of government and the political hacks in order to accomplish this except for the small number of outlandishly wealthy such as the Soros’ and Buffetts of this world? A scheme is built where a contraption like a specialty windmill “gathers” energy without burning, or really “generating” anything, as opposed to what occurs with coal, natural gas and oil, all to sell to the highest bidder, who then backs the socialist government which gets its cut via leases. The cycle is self-proliferating… lawyers breed laws that feed the money-source that engenders the governmental regulations to keep the circular-dwindling of individual rights in motion. The entire thing is owned by the invention owner because the legal regime was created for that purpose, to bilk the people through the legal control of the alternative energy industry, being defined by government as a “public utility” and given a specific local monopoly. Beyond that is the fact that there is no liability to the invention owner. Do not forget that most legislation quite often is created to protect government, and its cronies, from liability (which is the whole point of lobbyists like Obama).
This all goes to the “end user license agreement” applied to every use of technology, including now the “generation of energy.” Here again we will be “licensed” to use energy. The more we license, the less we own, because we relinquish our rights in favor of government-granted privilege, “government-granted” because it is a privilege created by “legislation,” known to the “end user” as a license. This is the road to capitulate to government, “constituted” by us to be our servant, handing over to government the free usage of our property in exchange for an “allowed” use (so long as we pay the government fee of course), wherein it is a “use crime” to access it unless duly licensed.
We shall go one step further. Recall the June 28, 2012 ruling of the Supreme Court (note our last article: “Let’s go back to Egypt; Freedom is just too hard”) to understand that the Obamacare decision opens the door for a government mandate to purchase energy according to government standards. The days of culling energy with a personally owned windmill, solar panels or even a wood burning stove could be over. Instead, you’d be taxed, or fined for “generating” your own power except under government purview and by prescribed acceptable means. Even the gas station will go by the wayside, replaced by a “power station.” Funny how all that stimulus money that was designated for electric vehicle charging bases that never materialized, seemed to dissipate into thin air. The Phoenix company, eTec (parent company ECOtality) secured a $99.8 stimulus grant in 2009 (part of the $2.9 billion to DOE) to build 12,000 charging stations across five states http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-03-electric-cars_N.htm. They have released almost nothing to the press since August 2010 http://www.etecevs.com/pdf/08242010_Biden.pdf. So, where have they been and what have they done with all that cash? Looks like they’re using part of it to sue California energy regulators for giving a contract to build charging stations to NRG, a New Jersey outfit. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/26/business/la-fi-nrg-charging-20120526
Oh yes, it looks like they’ve built 556 of the planned 12,000 plug-in corners thus far http://www.blinknetwork.com/locator.html. That’s progress as progressives look at it. On top of that is the ridiculous cost of the electric vehicles in the first place, not to mention that those charging stations are still being powered by coal. (Charleston Daily Mail, 12/14/10: “National energy policy isn’t making much sense; electric vehicles depend on coal; wind and solar can’t supplant it”)
We are witnessing cronyism at its worst: Obama working the country as lobbyist-in-chief to corner the alternative energy market for his billionaire chums, trying to persuade his constituency that he’s a “man of the people” when, in truth, he is anything but. He is a sellout and corporate toady. He’s also the one who said we want to be Brazil’s (Petrobras) “biggest customer” for oil, the company that saw Soros’ investment of U.S. funding not once, but twice (Progressive Brute Force Marketing: Egypt). Obama is setting up for the oil barons to become the alternative energy barons, plain and simple.
Who loses? You, me and all the minorities Obama calls his base, who are facing bankruptcy at the hands of White House crony energy policy. New energy scheme, same owners, same old cabal, yet with greater financial leverages, no cost of drilling, no cost of mining. It's all in who owns the “rights to harness” the movement of the oceans, or the wind, where maintenance is the highest “cost of production,” irrespective of the intrinsic environment over our own land being made unavailable to us for our use without paying The Alternative Energy Piper Lord their homage, what they so appropriately call “royalty” á la “end user license fees.”
Thank you for reading,
A. Dru Kristenev and Toddy Littman
A. Dru Kristenev is a citizen of the great Northwest United States, former journalist and author of the Baron Series, novels of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.
Visit ChangingWind.Org for news links and insightful postings by a legal researcher as Toddy Littman, “Gold Baron” character, who reappears in the sequel “Energy Barons.” You can also find Toddy on twitter "@ToddyLittman" or http://twitter.com/?_twitter_noscript=1#!/ToddyLittman
Read all three books now available in soft cover!
Or PDF e-books at ChangingWind.Org
I thought I'd try a little change in format and hope the following demonstrates the evaporation of life as we know it. 2008 began the continuing epic reality show saga as the “POTUS with the leastus” was inaugurated, and the era of America's Dear Leader was born. And, as it is the normal Progression of centralized power, Barack Obama bears an uncanny resemblance to the character portrayed in the song King of Pain by the band, The Police. May the following suggestions and commentary elucidate the key points of this analogy, please enjoy their song.
Subversive Tyranny for Dummies
According to the powers vested in Barack Obama, apparently by Barack Obama, he can nationalize our entire productivity and the entirety of all resources attached thereto, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/ (NDRP).
Anyone else find it rather puzzling how our “Dear Leader” can fail entirely to follow Our Lead?... But then again he is “Dear Leader” after all. I mean, let's look closely at Eric Holder's 1995 speech, care, of course, of Breitbart, that immortal presence of defiance to tyranny, who linked us to this C-Span piece of history lost in Obama's Cult of Personality & Propaganda Presidency:
Move along, move along, nothing to see here, folks. Confiscated guns, while arming the cartels in Mexico á la Fast & Furious, and, Holder's boss is taking control of the production of resources, while the crickets leave the House and Senate out of boredom, and a bad case of leg rash.
Now a lot of people got upset over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), though I was happy with the legal exclusion in the act, it seems succinct and reasonable. And then comes the NDRP + NDAA to completely liquidate the idea of a private/public separation of property, and thereby, power, authority, and who is beholden to whom.
To illustrate how the Government is claiming to be the victor over the American People, one needs look to today's (May 16, 2012) article regarding the Obama Administration's adding footnotes to the historical bios of past Presidents, and their justification “this is no different than other websites in promoting their policies and products” as they politicize and footnote the factual history of others with spun claims of being no different than any other President, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/16/.
It is worth noting what President Ronald Wilson Reagan actually said regarding fairer taxes, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38734. And what must be said is that there is a difference between paying capital gains on post-tax money (the gains on profits made from productive investment in a business), and gains made from, as Reagan put it, “unproductive tax loop-holes.” This is the income tax situation prior to the 1986 Tax Reform Act, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/85inintxr.pdf. If one looks they'll notice the amount collected for those making 1,000,000 or more (50% tax bracket) was equivalent to the amount collected for the 14% tax bracket, thus it is clear that the reported income subject to tax by the wealthy, at the time of Reagan's speech, excluded certain “non productive investments” (money held in tax-shelters, that were fake businesses producing nothing, and abusing certain IRS rules), which are the loop-holes Reagan spoke of. This loss of tax-shelters is why the maximum tax bracket was able to be lowered to 32% and allowed for simplification of the number of tax brackets as well. It is easy to see how this higher 50% tax chased people to tax-shelters and how the lowering of the income tax, while maintaining a low capital gains tax (15%) on productive investment of post-tax money, created a willingness of those with property to include more of their property as subject to the income tax. Today this has resulted in the wealthy paying a higher percentage overall, which is why the upper 5% of income earners are paying 70% of the income tax revenues today.
Feigned National Debt
No, I don't have it on video, but maybe it made it up on youtube since Karl Rove explained the debt in terms that simplified the reality of our Ponzi Government (see this video as he mentions the public debt and “intergovernmental transfers,” which is what needs to be highlighted, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Gg-Lc4zD8)
Mr. Rove explained on O'Reilly (where the crickets have found respite when Bernie Goldberg is on or Bill has no guest), as I quote the best I can recollect, “First we have the debt that's about 10.1 trillion, that's a bond, China owns about 1 trillion of that,” and then the important part, “and then we have another about 6 trillion, of intergovernmental transfers, what government agencies owe to, or amongst each other.”
Wow, isn't that a revelation of what Obama has done in that whole redistribution of wealth thing? He's shifted the debt which was mostly the public bond prior to his election, and therefore money we actually owed to run the United States of America (which would be around $31,010/person the date of this article) – even if mostly on unconstitutional expenses as they are not listed under Article I, Section 8 – to accruing what is considered “each American's debt” to a “debt-we-owe-to-government” (around $49,617/person the date of this article) for government agency benevolence amongst each other, both State and Federal, WITH OUR OWN MONEY!
In corporations they call this type of financial cross-support between the various divisions, “internal sales.” What Obama's done is identical, except our government was organized to own nothing without us as the funding principle and actual beneficiary, and using this, naturally, all funding of government is debt we owe, an ever-growing debt we owe due to this inter-department/inter-agency bookkeeping “Ponzification,” mostly under the “Government Union Label.”
Now, apparently, this is how they plan to “fund” healthcare. I say this because it seems the new 6 trillion out of 16 trillion is a means for the government approach of an actual right to take off the top of what we pay in taxes to refund these agencies first (approaching 40%) so the government doesn't have to shut down (yeah, a shut down would end government agency bureaucrat “budget directors” yelling, “we must Ponzi, Ponzi, Ponzi” in reply to their excessive spending, said in Saturday Night Live John Belushi fashion of “Pepsi, Pepsi Pepsi” which is always the bureaucrats answer, when the polar opposite of “CUT SPENDING” is said by We The People. As a matter of Socialist course the Progressives in the House and Our Unconstitutional Senate say: “No Cuts,” or “No Coke” the static “stay the course” mantra in conversion of private property to public use, of “Government redistribution of wealth.” And of course, this is why we have a deficit in the first place, the remaining, currently 62.5%, is for the affording of that unconstitutional spending I mentioned earlier that far exceeds that percentage of the 2.2 trillion dollars our Government already receives in revenues every year.
Thus it does certainly appear that 6 trillion of our national debt is not debt at all, but merely the rigging of books between agencies to have the appearance of money owed between each other, to chase the overall figure higher and higher, in a pressurizing of America over the breaking point, a zealous march of Socialism, of Fascists when you consider the President's push of “African-Americans for Obama,” (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU). It should be obvious that Obama's 2nd term is the necessity for his persistent goal to end Capitalism, which is merely the idea of private property as a legal regime of rights to which the Citizen as Sovereign earns the fruits of their labor for themselves instead of a King/Government. This is why Capitalism has been the footing of unalienable Rights and Freedom for 234 years.
Do you feel historic as you witness Progressivism 2.0 for the 21st Century, brought to you by Obama 2008 and 2012, where everything you need to know about America is on the Teleprompter Of The United States? I can already hear Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the typist behind the teleprompter keyboard, Toto.”
I'd quote James Madison from Federalists 46-49 to present Our Founders' voice here, but, to keep this short I'll instead offer up a bit of a solution. And so ends the news/commentary part of this Blog post of the illegal tyrannical taking of power by America's Dear Leader, Barack Obama, a post that used the somewhat Progressive GOP pundit Rove's explanation of the debt to explain how Obama is using the bureaucratic cost of government as a feigned “leverage” to end Capitalism, to end Private Property Rights, and the United States of America from within. Now, should you want a lengthy read, I suggest you stop whatever social networking you’re doing for about an hour and go read Federalist 46-49, and take your time too, hear the words in your head, it helps a lot to understand what Our Founders meant, start here, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html.
Though I realize why we can't be on a “gold standard,” to use gold as the item in exchange for transactions, I cannot say we shouldn't have a direct gold backing to the dollars we have.
I'd find this a particular limit to how much they can use the printing presses if this ratio were by law, and subject to a 3/4 ratification in both Houses to be changed.
More important than this is that such a backing establishes a private ownership in the gold through paper that has a direct value in ratio to the gold, even when held by the United States Government, since the monikers of value held in every facet of the U.S. Government do belong to us.
Snippet of Reality of Our Failure to Act
Essentially, we are the principle to which all money in government is a form of asset, no matter how they claim the values, and especially amongst each other, the entirety of the system is assets belonging to the People when one makes a balance sheet of it all, with government entirely on the liability side of the equation, sucking up the entire amount as through a black hole to another dimension. That dimension is poverty, oppression, and losing all dignity, all Individual Liberty and right to anything without government's license, without their permit, their blessing, or sanction, a parallel universe of darkness and despair coming soon to a reality near you: Yours, mine, everyone’s.
I finally agree Obama's kept his promise of “change we can believe in,” and his change, as delivered, is one that destroys all belief, to leave its reality the only thing to deal with, suffocating all futures, all plans, hopes, and dreams, for the sake of his power, of his need to be a dominant, tyrannical, militant ruler, and to which America is merely the last of mankind on the world to be “objectified.” America has historically been the only one to stand tall against this oppression of our entire race of mankind, carrying out the genuine act of doing “what's right,” stopping this oppression in its tracks in 2 world wars. Yet, in perfect Progressive hi-jacking fashion, those words, “what's right,” are now a historical truth in manipulation used by those seeking power over everyone else, the siren song of the corrupted, and now it has returned full circle to destroy America, Obama singing it gleefully as though knowing the song as intimately as the Muslim Call To Prayer (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.158), and that this singer has his eyes on doing “what's right” for the world. This tune promotes the notion that one alone who claims they could know “what's right” for everyone else is a an absolute truth beyond reproach, though Obama hides behind the chorus, the collective. Their rhythm, a beating drum of our duty to deny that we each know best for ourselves, our feet picking up the beat, they begin moving in lock step to give up our wherewithal to accomplish on our own, and our minds swaying back and forth as we look for others to sacrifice or take from in our denied affirmation and acknowledgment we are dependent, “that someone else knows best what's right for me.”
This is the way of those present Americans, the corrupted, who support Obama now, and whose entire mode of discerning difference is based on “the issues.” Witness the American future, the “Obama Citizen” if we do not rise knowing our Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness, and all other unalienable Rights, are soon to be extinguished, and thereby, every future generation placed in blindness by us, by our failure to act when Liberty, as a matter of right to each and every single one of us, is about to be destroyed forever, “Freedom” to become a historical remnant of a time when we were immature children who failed to appreciate the wisdom and authority of the collective over out very Soul.
May God be with you and thank you for reading,
P.S. So now, if we are able to actually have an election, which candidate do you think is going to comprehend and appreciate what's been said above, and do something about it? Vote your conscience.
If the fundamental of fairness is that someone sacrifices, it isn't fairness at all. It is revenge!
Sacrifice is an act done to right a wrong. This is not to say that in times of limited resources, there is the sacrifice of taking less, a part of an objective act on the basis of a factual certainty of there not being enough resources for the survival of a specific group of people, usually in an emergency situation and on the idea of the weight on the conscience of any who would take more, that they are sacrificing others for themselves. This is a morally wrongful act of death and infliction of injury on another, and thereby not a sacrifice at all, for, in that circumstance, there is nothing making that one human life worth more than all the rest.
Of course one must also consider corruption in those who decree the necessity of the sacrifice, such as a king or others who claim the wrath of a deity if you don't. This may well be using the innocent masses in a like manner to how a con artist uses one mark to pay off their misdeeds to another. This is the principle, the purpose, of sacrifice, a means to right some wrong that will satisfy another and end turmoil; a process to atone for some misdeed, at least in the eyes of one’s self if no one else, or in response to someone rising to claim a wrong done and wanting to be made whole. The point being a certain wrong has taken place and sacrifice is the means to right that wrong, to bring an end to some conflict.
Thus, when government suggests there is sacrifice to be had, and particularly this President, what wrong is being corrected? In actuality: none.
What trial? What due process? What presentation of facts? What rebuttals? What objective magistrate? What judicial determination? What, if any of these, has occurred to establish the wrong? Who brought what action to what body to determine the wrong? A: no one.
The politics of Progressivism is to appeal to the emotion, to find a way to bring one to arrive at the conclusion of a wrong having occurred, and a fairness needing to be administered, on the basis of empathy, of transferring one’s jealousy of their neighbor into actions on behalf of a government willing to abuse this uglier side of a person's thoughts.
This is why it is merely the Politics of Fairness. A pure manipulation because no actual wrong is attached but one of circumstantial conviction on the basis of rhetoric and the manipulations of emotion that come with it. This will especially be true when the economy is down, as it is now, and is easy to manipulate when those who've followed the ideology that began the promotion of this false relation, Marxism, and they who have taken on all the component beliefs necessary to set aside all ethical and moral principle--for sake of the appearance of these as some aspect of “social justice” for the catchphrase of the moment--are willing to support government in implementing this plank, this footing, of the foundation for the ultimate goal of that ideology in which these people have made such an ego investment.
My “fair share” is my own voluntary self-assessment, that one hopes is honorable, that, in most cases, once was, but has been corrupted by government skewed rules, by “allowances” and “write-offs” as forms of government property, that they can then claim we are using as a “benefit,” to encourage the dishonorable tendency to take all one can get, treating the amounts as an entitled legal right, where the government's definition of these justifies taking them. Essentially, our voluntary self-assessment starts as honorable, and ends up corrupted by these government owned and created benefits which total up to a savings we admire so much we feel compelled to use them. Through this notion of fairness, including taking our fair share of this type of government benefit, we are blind to the fact we're making it a “co-operative” or “joint” assessment. It is in this we subject ourselves to being 2nd guessed, a co-mingling that makes the entire amount subject to government jurisdiction, their intrusion now justified as an investigation of our using that government benefit which is their property.
What I find most terrible about this is that we accept the entire process as the means to an end, as a necessity incident to having a government, that we do not place our relationship to government within the same relationship we have with our neighbor. If our neighbor did this, if the person we bought something from did this, or a business did this, we'd be all over it as a wrong, and in that instance the wrongful gains would require sacrifice to make us whole. However, instead, when it's “government,” we assume the power of government is over us, in the form of stubbornly doing whatever it wants and as something we can do nothing about), routinely we capitulate to the force this represents to the cumulative point of acquiescence. It is the King coming and taking the virgin wife of a newlywed couple to the Royal Bedroom on the idea that it is the King's prerogative because he is the King all over again, and we turn a blind eye on the assumption the guards will kill us if we do anything else.
The Politics of fairness is the harnessing of the anger, the tears, the pain, and frustration attached to all the wrongs that have occurred in our lives, to which we let it happen for the good of the situation, then only to find the whole thing was a lie, or to which government was the taker, and of course we always made the best of it, but harbored the rightful sense of this wrong being perpetrated against us by our own government, a feeling that comes with the adjunct, “one day it'll fix itself,” as though government ever does that, when in fact this is a statement of the revenge we hold, “one day I'll fix this.”
This is what Barack Obama and the democratic party are appealing to by their rhetoric, using government and whatever other powers have no conscience when causing agony, as the manipulative tools to force popular opinion, to force a collective set of ideas and values amongst those listening, to foster hate, to tap into the negative energy created by the suggestion of a perpetual sense of being wronged, and to which “fairness” is the answer. “Hope and change” was the mantra of those who let their anguish become a smorgasbord opportunity for the politically ambitious who will leave no stone unturned in establishing their dictatorial right in the minds of the people. These are using hatred as a torturer uses pincers to reopen an old wound and pour salt on it, to eventually seal it again with melted lead, only to forcibly rip the lead out once more with a jovial “good morning it's the next day and time to do it all again,” spit in your mouth and tell you “that's breakfast.” Think I this is just an over amplified expression of my own anger at the current situation? Here's the record to prove at least 3/4 of it is true, the rest was certainly a bit of artistic license of the likely, Acrobat pages, 2-3 here, http://itpedia.nyu.edu/mediawiki/images/3/3e/Foucault-Discipline_and_Punish.pdf.
In all, there is nothing unfair about some having more than others, just ask Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and our own President, as well as others, though they'll make sure to express the public good aspect of who they are and/or their management of the position they hold as justification for their “enrichment.” And it is in this justification where one finds the the truth in all of this, dare I say for absolute accuracy “scandal,” that “fairness” is merely a tool of power, means of keeping their power intact, a force of mind. Their desire only this: A self-proclaimed fairness that is their entire power, valued by their personal fruits reaped at the expense of the masses who follow and are sure that, “he's making it better for me,” irrespective of their cost of living, of surviving, of the lack of having any opportunity to do more than survive, to just “skyrocket” into oblivion. And in any given moment where there is the slightest sign these followers may be at all disgruntled, the leader picks another target who can be pointed at, mocked, ridiculed, and taken from, to pay-off the sell-outs of their own Liberty. Yes the other ugly head of “Progressive taxation” as a new class who makes less than the old class, is the new victim of this manipulation, to reignite the egocentric certainty of a leader and those of the same party who hope to lead after him.
This is the meaning of “fairness” as engendered by those defining it as a collective value to the masses, a mockery of freedom that cannot be left unchecked without achieving the certain goal of tyranny and despotism that always results from vesting absolute ruling power in a Dictator.
Thank you for reading,
[This page intentionally left blank.]
Thank you for reading,
P.S. Now, the one difference that suggests Mitt Romney would have no chance against Barrack Obama, http://reason.com/archives/2007/06/27/romney-torture-and-teens/1
It's funny. You go to the trouble to learn about the candidates only to learn the've all been on many sides of the issues. This is just another blog of disclosure in follow-up discussing the problems I am finding with each candidate, and more specifically those problems that seem overlooked by everyone in listening to the candidates speak a set of words that, taken together, express their world view of America rather well. I use the Constitution as intended by Our Founders, pursuant to The Federalist Papers and other writing by them as a backdrop to ascertain their worldview, and moreover, looking for that Conservative and non-Libertarian candidate who comprehends the Constitution. There is a very serious need for a candidate who well appreciates the blood shed for this nation from even before Our Founding (1641 when the first Plantations tried to leave the Crown) to today.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a predisposition against lawyers since they show a persistence to claim the Constitution and “Bill of Rights” as the ultimate entitlement documents “BAR” none. This is a gross misstatement of these documents, as the entire guarantee of rights of Our founding Documents, starting from the Declaration through The Federalist Papers, is Our engagement, and thereby Our enforcement, by civil process, or, if necessary, musket. WE are the only ones to safeguard our rights and this is why our representatives were given certain, specific, and limited powers by Our Written Constitution. There is little that is more natural in considering the notion of Republican self-government than this, and it is the crux of difference to representative Democracy as well.
Reason for my stated predisposition: Lawyer, Rick Santorum. Keep in mind lawyers learn every nuance of words and wordsmithery in their “craft,” which is why Obama pronouncing “Corps” as in “Marine Corps” as “corpse,” when read off a teleprompter, leaves myriad questions about him. Using this criteria I submit the following is a certain position of Rick Santorums in June of 2011, and yes, that's less than a year ago from the date of this blog post:
Now, RightScoop has made sure to claim “definitive proof that Rick Santorum has no concerns about the Tea Party” through showing he was answering a question about Libertarianism. Here's the problem: Rick Santorum had no need to mention the Tea Party and chose by his own words to include them himself. Basically, it appears the phrase “Libertarian,” triggered Santorum's need to include the Tea Party in his claims. TheRightScoop claims the whole thing had to do with Rand Paul and set forth a transcript of the entire dialog. I made a very minor change to how Santorum's words were put to paper in critique of how they were originally transcribed. Here's how I'd have done it:
“24:05 Pennsylvania Press Club Moderator:
Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?
“24:11-25:35 Rick Santorum:
No. Look I supported Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and there was a reason for that … I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the Libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government [obvious or we'd never have had a written Constitution]. We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; and I’m just hopeful that is a mistake that will be corrected by Mr. Paul. But as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.”-- Emphasis mine, from theRightScoop, http://www.therightscoop.com/
It appears theRightScoop had it right about Rand Paul, but now the question is: Why? The question was about the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, and specifically the Public Accommodations section. Rick Santorum read into the question the need to defend his support of Trey Grayson over Rand Paul, but without stating that reason, his defense relied on explaining the specifics to the need for Public Accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – An act that has been exploited and abused to the point of Obama making an effort to bring “unemployment” within the definition of a Civil Right to be protected by this act (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.183). Santorum goes on to denegrate the Libertarian movement's position and I tend to agree with Santorum's view of Libertarians, as Our Written Constitution forming the first Republican form of Government is the settlement between the Independent State Sovereignty Anti-Federalists and those who wished to preserve the union. Both of these factions accepted the ratification by We The People after the matter had been submitted to us for Ratification and we agreed with this design.
However, the following sentence by Santorum is what should make any conservative's ears perk up with question, as it goes against the 10th Amendment, and to that degree, also against the 9th Amendment, claiming the National Government the heavy handed parent to straighten out children States, their local governments, and thereby the Will Of The People at the local level:
“...when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something...”
“Clear wrongs?” “Injustices in society?” “the federal government has to step in and do something?” The ugly head of “social justice” has been spewed by Santorum without the slightest notice. The ugly head of the Supremacy Clause as viewed by a Washington Insider, sadly, Santorum claimed with ease, treating the trespass upon the States for asserting their Sovereign Rights in relation to the Constitution we ratified, as a permissible, even required, act of the National Government over an Act alone, a far less standard than brought about the Civil War.
I hate to say it but this shows this blogger that Santorum is completely ignorant of the self-executing requirement that only acts (including treaties) of the National Government, that are pursuant to Our Written Constitution, have any Supremacy (Article VI, Clause 2, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html).
This alone qualifies The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in total as an act subject to repeal. The only thing The Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished legally is to exacerbate the existing fact of trespass upon the States that was done by the 14th Amendment Civil War, as these are not in compliance with Article IV, Section 4 of Our Written Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” -- Emphasis mine, Ibid.
“An Abraham Lincoln Conservative” would be the appropriate view of Rick Santorum. He at least mentally suspended the Constitution in making his statements of the Federal Government's role in relation to the States after admitting Conservatives view the roles in a very specific way, which would indicate, a very Constitutional way. Santorum's explanation of the roles, to end with, “...the federal government has to step in and do something...,” is the epitome of the very role that the Obama administration is already playing out in pursuing Joe Arpaio, the State of Arizona, and others for making an effort to enforce America's immigration laws, let alone the recent contraception issue in Texas. Of course I have to assume Lawyer Rick Santorum knows the Constitution, and was hoping candidate Rick Santorum knew it other than in the lawyerly terms described above.
What must be mentioned, as it is ignored by lawyers and ourselves as well (per our Progressive NEA educations), is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the result of Abraham Lincoln choosing to favor one faction over another, a power play provoked by the stubbornness of the Southern States and what they legally recognized as their People. This brings us to have to answer from Our Founders if what the South did from the inception of this nation through to the Civil Rights Act is a rightful assertion of their rights under the Constitution. Keep in mind our NEA educations never mention how one of the Civil War's actual “achievements” was the diminishing of States' Rights by the National Government dividing them, and resulting in the Civil War being also viewed as heinous D.C. encroachment on the Peoples' unalienable Rights, in no less way than the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States....”
“...[S]hould an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.” -- Emphasis mine, Credited to James Madison, from Federalist 46, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html.
Thus, though I once said I'd settle for Santorum, this sort of direct statement that demonstrates his lack of knowledge of Our Written Constitution, Our Founders, and respect for our Individual Liberty as expressed through our State Governments and our local affinities, I find I cannot settle for him, that when he is honest he exudes the divisive power grabbing Northern attitude of Supremacy that is abhorrent to a Constitutional Republic, Freedom and Individual Liberty. There likely will be a time when a President Santorum would be a good thing, but, not after the first African-American President, Barack Obama, whose social justice agenda is based on having identical views of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act as Rick Santorum displayed here, http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3. We cannot have a “Commander-In-Hesitance” replace our current “Commander-In-Thief.”
Make no mistake, slavery and racism, as separate issues, remain joined at the hip as wrongs against mankind, in every form they carry, including, among these, prostitution, bullying, and intimidation, irrespective of the color, religious affiliation, race, etc., of the perpetrator. But, this doesn't mean the national government must be invoked to assert use of force, to continue, what are essentially Civil War Powers, in a post Civil War era ad infinitum; to only continue the illegal violation of Our Written Constitution until it is lost under such persistent trampling by a population uninformed of its intended design to end slavery by 1808:
“The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration. It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!” -- Emphasis mine, the bold to emphasize the affection held by Madison in 1788, i.e. “brethren”; James Madison, Federalist 42, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html, referencing the provisions under Article I, Section 9, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
This above is the story that repudiates all claims of, “...the federal government has to step in and do something...” Our National Government today has given more leniency to Iran than has been given to our own member States of the Union of these united States of America in recognizing the rule of law over the rule of power, and it is high time we “stop voting for Barabbas” and vote in folks who understand, appreciate, and will be guided by us, with an adherence to Our Written Constitution in their role of administering Our Government. This alone will put an end to 90% of the woes, the “issues” we see emanating from the National Government and its encroachment in our lives. The Power of Rule is ours to behold if we can appreciate the Blessing of self-government bestowed upon us by Our Creator, akin to The Blessings of Abraham.
Thank you for reading,