Posted by: S ||
07/04/2011 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At least two were killed in this sector today while emplacing IED's. All that was found and burried were feet and scalps. I was saddened that they died a painless death. We will gain nothing from this involvement. These people are members of incorrigible society, guided by a religion of hate and hopelessly lost in tribalism, curruption, dope, and banditry. Anyone who tells you there is any gain or purpose to our involvement in Afghanistan is a delusional lier. Please continue to lift our troops up in prayer in order that they can survive this waste of blood and treasure. They are very, very brave and deserve our thoughts and prayers.
Our nation confronts a challenge this Fourth of July that we face but rarely: We are at odds over the meaning of our history and why, to quote our Declaration of Independence, "governments are instituted." I'm not a historian, but I think E. J. overstates his case.
Only divisions this deep can explain why we are taking risks with our country's future that we're usually wise enough to avoid. Arguments over how much government should tax and spend are the very stuff of democracy's give-and-take. Now, the debate is shadowed by worries that if a willful faction does not get what it wants, it might bring the nation to default. Somehow, a minority will rule? Who set the budget at $4.3 trillion? Who passed the "Stimulus"? The minority is the only one being hard-headed? When Obama can only find $775 million out of $1,500 billion to cut?
Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression. Partially true, mostly false, and possibly true if dead people continue to vote several times.
In the long list of "abuses and usurpations" the Declaration documents, taxes don't come up until the 17th item. The very first item on their list condemned the king because he "refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of "the public good," not about individuals or "the private sector." Laws. Equality before the law. Not management by fiat by Czars and bureaucrats. Equality, not exemptions from Obamacare for the favored few.
They knew that it takes public action -- including effective and responsive government -- to secure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having "forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance." Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots. Some laws, E. J. Isn't it possible over the last 225 years we have enacted too many?
This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. "The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around," Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently. I assume he meant for the things the States could not do for themselves, like raise an Army and Navy, facilitate interstate commerce, to name two.
No, our Constitution begins with the words "We the Preferred Politician People" not "We the States." The Constitution's Preamble speaks of promoting "a more perfect Union," "Justice," "the common defense," "the general Welfare" and "the Blessings of Liberty." These were national goals. Like Obamacare, for the general welfare! How about liberty from government decrees about health care?
We praise our Founders annually for revolting against royal rule and for creating an exceptionally durable system of self-government. But if we pretend we are living in Boston in 1773, and you believe everything I write we will draw all the wrong conclusions and make some remarkably foolish choices. In the echo chambers of the media, all are nodding their heads in agreement by this point.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/04/2011 07:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No, our Constitution begins with the words "We the Preferred Politician People" not "We the States."
As usual the man is full of himself. There was no plebiscite for ratification. If he continued to read the document it required ratification by states.
Article 7 - Ratification
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The document still requires that states ratify any Constitutional amendments, although that approach has been undermined by the judiciary which has decided simply to 'redefine' by interpretation what the printed words say thus usurping the states.
#2
E. J. Dionne is not just being foolish, he's desperate. He sees the writing on the wall in the 2012 election. Not just that Bambi could go down, but the Dhimmicrats could lose the Senate and more Dems could leave the House.
Why, imagine what a President Bachmann could do in such a situation.
Dionne has imagined precisely that, and he's scared silly.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/04/2011 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Don't forget that the original Consitution had the State Legistatures electing the Senate and not direct representation. There was a very good reason it was setup that way - so the states can assert their rights.
When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights.
#4
E.J. Dionne (D- hack) is one of those reliable weathervanes of Donk politics. You can bet if he's against something, it's likely good for America. If he has advice for the GOP or Tea Party, do the opposite
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/04/2011 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights.
Comparing how IL filled the vacant seat when Obama became president with the manner that MA filled the seat of the deceased Kennedy, we might be able to grasp why the 17th Amendment was passed.
Posted by: S ||
07/04/2011 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nervertheless - the states gave up their representation and their rights - even to make stupid, corrupt, moves like that - when they ratified the 17th.
#8
the states gave up their representation and their rights
The political machines that owned and operated the state governments weren't concerned about "states' rights". Most of the 'states rights' have been hobbled by the judiciary, using inventive interpretations of things like the commerce clause, in the latter half of the twentieth century with little noise from the Senate because those in the office were more interested in promoting the agenda of the courts than the integrity of the Constitution.
#1
By contrast, FDR joined the Second World War only when Hitler in possibly the most unhinged decision of his calamitous life declared war on the United States.
It wasn't FDR reluctance to go to war with Hitler that delayed it, but Congress'. FDR was dragging America into the conflict by any means necessary short of pulling an Obama [cause people back then still believed in the words of the Constitution]. Even in the debris of Pearl Harbor, the White House was still trying to focus on Europe and were delivered from their Gordon Knot by Hitler's action. That declaration was probably promoted by the various 'short of war' acts that had already been implemented; the Lend Lease Act of March '41, basically put America's industrial capacity and military resources* into the fight and the expansion of merchant escort operations into the North Atlantic and occupation of Iceland in July with Task Force 19. The Arcadia Conference held shortly after Pearl Harbor place the grand strategy as Germany First even though the real military blow had come from Japan. FDR wasn't the one who 'showed up late'.
* we'll never know if material diverted and denied the forces in the American territory of the Philippines in the months leading up to December would have resulted in a different outcome for those forces subsequently lost there.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
