Do we still know the freedoms intended for us by the founding fathers? UPDATE: Thomas Sowell
As I have said before and I will say again, this is the most critical election you will likely face in your lifetime. The ones who would rob you of your freedom, your liberty, all in the name of saving us from ourselves, always, and I mean always tell you who they are and what they intend to do.
This video, via Hot Air, was put together by the Republican Study Committee and Congressman Tom Price. I have played each of these sound bites individually on the air, but this video puts it all together. Watch, and be affraid. Government, my friends is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wusgcG4rfo&feature=player_embedded
It is my belief that America has indeed been awakened. That it will no longer allow itself to be run by statist clowns in Washington. It will no longer let bureaucrats run their lives. My guess is I’m not the only one who tinks this way either, although not always for the same reasons. This from Roger Simon’s piece in the Politico.
Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.)
I am not saying Obama is not smart; he is as smart as a whip. I am just saying he does not understand what savvy first-term presidents need to understand:
You have to stay on message, follow the polls, listen to your advisers (who are writing the message and taking the polls) and realize that when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term. If at all possible. And it will help your legacy. And not endanger the election of others in your party. And not hurt the brand. Or upset people too much.
November 2010!
UPDATE: Here’s the link to Thomas Sowell’s piece in National Review “Dismantling America”.
It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call “the needs of the times.” Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more amendments, for that would have meant that the much-disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind of, amendments were needed.The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting “the needs of the times” — as they choose to define those needs.
Can anyone seriously call Øbama an "orator" after you have listened to a speech by Reagan? Maybe it was because Reagan actually believed what he was saying.
Every time Barney Frank speaks, I want to wipe my monitor from the inside.
Oh, and they don't teach the freedoms intended for us by the founding fathers anymore. They are now taught as a bunch of irrelevant, elitist, white guys. The Constitution is treated similarly.
Civics? History? Geography? Watch Leno's "Jay Walking" skits sometime.
Two semesters ago, I took a required public speaking course. One of the assignments was to critique any live/recorded speech. Coming from the time I come from, I chose the speech President Reagan gave after the Challenger disaster. I contrasted that speech to the speech given by Obama after the massacre at Fort Hood. If anyone here thinks that Obama is a first-class orator, give both speeches a listen to. President Reagan's is first (of course)….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKIZ7j20EA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNN_ETf50o
As for Jim's video above, it goes to prove that President Reagan will always be relevant. His words will always be worth listening to.
That is a stark but fantastic contrast, Winnie. Such clarity and purpose to Reagan's words! I just so loved RR, not just for his principals and positions about freedom, but how he made us feel to be Americans. Even now, he brings a new spark to my pride and optomism.
This past election was so hard to get behind as a moderate conservative, because as much as I wanted to vote for McCain, I could not see in him what I had hoped for, and I think had he chosen someone other than Palin for VP, I might've given him a better shot. That sounds pretty shallow, won't lie, but I guess a part of me wanted to believe that Obama could elicit change, and when he failed to live up to the expectations he set for everyone during the campaign, I regret being taken in more by his slick words than the act of voting for him. I don't like to party-vote one way or another, because I don't like to put myself in league with Republicans or Democrats, I vote based on who I think will represent my values.
The man is smart, yes, but smart in a Marxist way. He is street savvy and he knows how to get around in the circles he has chosen to live in. You must understand what circles he floats about in to understand where he is steering America towards.
Obama is handled, you clearly see this when he is not prompted to say what is prepared for him. His prepared speeches are articulate and well delivered so long as a teleprompter is there. When he needs to speak off the cuff his words are stumbling and disjointed along with views that astonish. His handlers must chastise him for such outbursts. Yet the people have not noticed, not figured it out.
The democrats are following him, while I bet not so willingly at this point but like in 1939, they will follow the party line, they will follow their leader. If it means to follow a mad man into total destruction of Europe or to follow a man guided by Islamic handlers into total destruction of America, they will do so even to their death. It is just that way with those weak in character.
This election is more than a midterm election, it is a rallying of the American people. It is a reason for Americans to hit the streets and the airwaves to wake up their neighbors to a coming calamity.
The more I read history and see today's events and hear speeches in its perspective, the more I see socialism or redistribution of wealth and arbitrary unconstitutional decisions as a regression to a type of modern feudalism. "You support me and pay me taxes and I will take care of you. Those who do not support me or rebell against me, and I will confiscate your property and give it to those who do support me. Displease me and I will not protect you from the invading hordes (at the border) or assist you during other disasters." This is feudalism broken down to its basics.
The Constitution was the solution and still is. This election is crucial, and the movement to return to Constitutional government must be an ongoing, generational movement. And we do need to seek the assistance and guidance of the Divine Power as did our Founders. The Modern Feudalists will not relinquish their grip too easily.
Feudal? It sounds more like protection money! Chicago style gangsterism is alive and well, but now the gangsters run the government, so no little thing like tax evasion will be enough to stop them.
Feudalism or gangsterism who cares, they are both stealing what is not rightfully theirs to give to either themselves or to others as a payoff for subscribing to their insane ideas.
What people need to look at is from whom is Obama following orders from? I had some thoughts along the way but I am more convinced as of late that he is being handled from a group of Islams that more than likely were behind his education as well. Follow that money trail and I do believe you will find out who wants control over America. The too will you know your enemy.
In order for freedom to survive sometime you have to fight for it.
Not too much difference between feudalism and gangster rule. Both are rather tribal at its root, based on a strongman, or strong faction, eliciting loyalty through generosity to its patrons and coercion or fear towards its enemies. Both dispense justice by arbitrary rules that benefit one's own power base, as opposed to the ideal of all being equal before the law, and rules being set and predictable, agreed to by the governed.
BTW, how do you get the little box to be inset, as a specific reply to a comment?
To reply to a specific comment simply hit the reply button right under that particular comment. If someone commented to your comment and you want to comment back you will see that under that person's comment to you there is a reply button. The comment regarding your comment will be seen slightly indented from the general comments. Hope this helps you.
Thanks, weregettinghosed. I'll try this.
You have an interesting thought, following the education money trail. My original belief was that religion was merely a political tool for O's socialist agenda. But his actions in office definitely display a preference and deference to Islam. Are the international socialists playing a dangerous game using the conflict with the Muslim world to collapse the West? Or are the Muslims using the socialists?
These are scarey but also exciting times. All my life I've wondered when America would wake up to the chipping away of their Constitution. It is exciting to know that many others were always out there. 2 + 2 = 4
I seem to remember a certain president who tripled the deficit and led us into double digit unemployment in his first 2 years despite not being handed a collapsed economy which was shedding 750,000 jobs a month and a time of peace. I also remember Dick Cheney saying that Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter. As soon as Obama was elected the story changed.
You mean the story of the "worst economy since the Great Depression" attributed to George Bush? Funny how that screed stopped after Øbama was elected.
Do you actually remember what Carter did to the economy? "Collapsed" is insufficient to the task.
Now let's talk about "deficits as far as the eye can see"!
I do remember the economy during Carter, the economy started to sputter during Nixons 2nd term and continued for several years, but the unemployment level was the same when he left office as when he entered, He was the only Democratic president of the last 6 who failed to lower unemployment. During the early years of Reagan the unemployment went up to double digits and they added military personnel to the equation to make the numbers look better, something that had never been done before. I liked Reagan, he instilled a sence of patriotism that had been sorely lacking since JFK and the economy eventually turned around followed by a severe recession in Bush 41's term. He was also the only Republican president out of the last 7 that left office with a lower unemployment rate than when he began. But he had plenty of faults also. Funny how Bush's chickenhawks became deficit hawks when Bush left office.