If you are under the assumption that these examples are on par with what McVeigh did, then we have nothing to talk about.
Sound like the Ward Churchill of the extreme right.
Chuck Norris calls for a revolution.
- Thread starter Debaser82
- Start date
If you are under the assumption that these examples are on par with what McVeigh did, then we have nothing to talk about.
Sound like the Ward Churchill of the extreme right.
I abhor violence of any kind
But I read in your statements that the life of a government functionary is of more value than the life of the private citizen that feeds their families.......
This is the mindset of "our" government, and it is getting worse.
Pure nonsense.
Reclaiming the Bill of Rights in the face of a belligerent Government intent on usurping them, is the ultimate duty of any Patriot.
Fact is, pansy-ass Kool-Aid Drinkers - on both sides of the aisles - can't admit whats already happening.
There's a North American Union in the works.
Border and port security is nonexistent.
That liar Obama still operates unconstitutional spy programs he railed against Bush for.
We're still in Iraq and guarding the opium fields in Afghanistan.
Glad you brought up McVeigh. Its the one shred of capital you Commie Left-Wingers got in the fight against the Constitution.
There were 2 additional bombs found INSIDE the Federal Building at OKC. Both were reported several times larger than the original truck bomb.
Some 30-odd drums of fertilizer were dollied and stored in the Murrah Building. Does that sound like something a lone-nut could do!?!?
And you would know.
Should we just call you McCarthy now?!?
Name these "seditious elements". And do share your intelligence on their diabolical, offline activities.
Based on what evidence?
What difference does it make that I'm Canadian, MooMoo?
Btw, I've got dual-citizenship. You can add that to your little 'dossier'
You're a nut-case, Moo-Moo.
Or are u gonna tell me my American Passport isn't real?
That aside, you never answered my question.
You're grasping at straws, Nutmuncher.
Maybe you can guess my weight, too (within 3lbs). I'll give you a Twinkie.
Maybe you can guess my weight, too (within 3lbs). I'll give you a Twinkie.
I take it you would have said the same thing around 1776.
Go rent John Adams and gain some perspective.
Or even better get to know some small business owners and realize what will happen to them when their taxes go up.
Obama is asking for a revolution/divorce from his policies. Would you stay with your wife if she kept spending a couple thousand on your credit card each day after you were already 100k in debt?
Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama's Plans to Fail
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/10/09
James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document â one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the U.S. Constitution â itâs clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history.
Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a âgreat opportunity,â as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that âgreat opportunityâ to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop.
In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, âmay be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.â
For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:
âThere are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?â
Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.
Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senateâs job is to delay action on them until Obamaâs power to stir popular passions fades. Then, whatever legislation is truly needed on health care, etc., can be undertaken in a more reasoned and measured way.
Five years ago, in the 2004 presidential race, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did some research on behalf of candidate John Kerry. Greenberg wanted Kerry to be more bold in advocating wholesale change, so he convened a series of focus groups to test the publicâs reaction to a number of aggressive policy proposals.
Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. âWhile voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,â Greenberg concluded. âAll together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.â
In our current situation, the people elected Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in Congress. They didnât elect them to do nothing. When action is needed to deal with the economic crisis â it would be nice to have a financial stabilization plan, Mr. President â they will support it.
But they didnât elect Obama to change everything, either. With Pelosi eager to go along with the presidentâs every wish, itâs up to temperate and respectable citizens to distinguish the crisis from the non-crisis, and act accordingly.
In other words, itâs up to the Senate to slow things down. Just like Madison planned.
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/10/09
James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document â one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the U.S. Constitution â itâs clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history.
Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a âgreat opportunity,â as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that âgreat opportunityâ to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop.
In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, âmay be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.â
For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:
âThere are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?â
Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.
Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senateâs job is to delay action on them until Obamaâs power to stir popular passions fades. Then, whatever legislation is truly needed on health care, etc., can be undertaken in a more reasoned and measured way.
Five years ago, in the 2004 presidential race, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did some research on behalf of candidate John Kerry. Greenberg wanted Kerry to be more bold in advocating wholesale change, so he convened a series of focus groups to test the publicâs reaction to a number of aggressive policy proposals.
Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. âWhile voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,â Greenberg concluded. âAll together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.â
In our current situation, the people elected Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in Congress. They didnât elect them to do nothing. When action is needed to deal with the economic crisis â it would be nice to have a financial stabilization plan, Mr. President â they will support it.
But they didnât elect Obama to change everything, either. With Pelosi eager to go along with the presidentâs every wish, itâs up to temperate and respectable citizens to distinguish the crisis from the non-crisis, and act accordingly.
In other words, itâs up to the Senate to slow things down. Just like Madison planned.