AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

HOW SHALL WE SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?

The solution is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama. He is continually transferring wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship.

Jewish World Review March 3, 2009 7 Adar 5769
Is Talk Cheap?
By Thomas Sowell

They say talk is cheap. But in fact it can be devastatingly expensive. Among the generation of Germans who were enthralled by Hitler's eloquence, millions paid with their lives and their children's lives for empowering this demagogue to lead them to ruin and infamy.

Germany before Hitler was one of the more tolerant nations in Europe. That was what attracted so many Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe " tragically, to their doom.

German immigrants who settled around the world have been among the more tolerant peoples " not angels, a standard that only intellectuals could use, but comparing favorably with most others.

Do not for one moment think that we are either intellectually or morally superior to those Germans who put Hitler in power. We have been saved by our institutions and our traditions " the very institutions and traditions that so many are so busy eroding or dismantling, whether in classrooms or court rooms or in the halls of Congress and the White House.

Talk matters for good reasons as well as bad. Anyone familiar with the desperate predicament of Britain in 1940, when it stood alone against the Nazi juggernaut that had smashed whole nations in weeks or even days, knows how crucial Winston Churchill's command of the English language was to sustaining the national will, which was the margin between survival and annihilation.

Unfortunately, people on the make seem to have a keener appreciation of the power of words, as the magic road to other power, than do people defending values that seem to them too obvious to require words.

The expression, "It goes without saying. . ." is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying " whether loved ones in one's personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation.

Barack Obama is today's most prominent example of the power of words. Conversely, the understated patrician style of country club Republicans is no small part of their many problems.

It is no accident that by far the most successful Republican politician of our lifetime " Ronald Reagan " was a man who did not come from that country club background but someone who was born among the people and who knew how to communicate with the people.

Words can shield the most blatant reality. Legislation to take away workers' rights to a secret ballot, when deciding whether or not they want to be represented by a labor union, is called the "Employees' Freedom of Choice Act."

The merits or demerits of this legislation have seldom been debated. Who could be against "freedom of choice"?

The Obama administration's new budget, with deficits that make previous irresponsible deficits look like child's play, has a cover that says "A New Era of Responsibility."

You want responsibility? He'll give you the word "responsibility." Why not? It costs nothing.

Some observers are contrasting last week's highly successful speech by President Obama to Congress with the lackluster Republican response afterwards by Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

People familiar with Governor Jindal have a high regard for him and many think he would make a good president. But Republicans have always had more people who would make good presidents than people who would make good presidential candidates. So long as we have a democracy, that distinction is crucial.

Governor Jindal made a typical Republican mistake when he began with a "me too" celebration of Obama's "historic" election. With a very limited time to address some complex issues, he needed to get right to the point and sober up such members of the audience as were capable of being sobered up.

He was, in a sense, defensive, as if he had to establish that he was a good guy. General Douglas MacArthur gave a one-word definition of defensive warfare: defeat.

There can be too many words, as well as too few. Governor Sarah Palin is doing herself no good by discussing her disastrous interview with Katie Couric. That does not look presidential, or even senatorial. A quarterback has to forget the interception he threw last time, and just make a better throw next time.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell030309.php3

Two way sword. Those screaming for Bush's impeachment seem to be entirely tolerant of the current President's indiscretions and excesses. I acknowledge your point, but when hypocrisy is equal on both sides, it seems more practical to not focus on that but rather discuss the merit of the suggestion.

How much damage can be done in in two months? At what point does the pendulum swing so far that it gets stuck and can't be brought back? Is 'wait and see' always the best policy?

Is Dr. Sowell right that we should be wary of soothing words lulling us into complacency when we need to be defending our rights, way of life, opportunities, destiny that could be taken from us?

You're missing the point, I think. It is your opinion that President Bush broke actual laws (though a rationale for that is rarely offered and/or supported), and it is Ican's (and my) opinion that President Obama, intentionally or unintentionally, is violating the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution though Ican and I might differ a bit in how we perceive that he is doing that.

And THAT is what the invitation to debate is about. You can continue to debate ad hominem and focus on his 'hypocrisy' in bringing up the subject or the way he states it or how 'crazy' he might or might not be. Or you can rebut the premise of the argument with a better argument if you are able. He is at least providing the basis for his argument. What is the basis for yours?

The call to impeach King Bush came at the end of his reign -- it was likely interrupted early in his first term by 9/11.

There is no right to slowly poison and affect the health of those around you.

Williams disqualified all his opinions after he brought up smoking in public or around other people in a restaurant as a right.

Legal doesn't make it unhealthy or unsafe for the people around them. It's legal to drive a car, but it's a crime to harm anybody with it. What's the difference?

But funny; so let me ask you, did you try to impeach Bush for the same 'wealth transfers?' He supported the same tax code which took money from the rich and used it to support the poor.

The difference is what is voluntary and what is not. I voluntarily assume the risk of driving on the public highways knowing full well that somebody could crash their car into mine. If I don't wish to take that risk, I can stay home. I do not voluntarily agree to share the road with drunk drivers or otherwise unskilled or impaired drivers that unnecessarily increases my risk.