AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Obama's transfer of property from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it, is a high crime against the "general welfare of the United States."

Foxfyre wrote:

...I don't see how you can make it stick that Obama is doing anything illegal there as the law is currently interpreted. Outside the intent of the Constitution, sure. Outside what is humane, profitable, and edifying for the nation, of course. But illegal? I think you'll have a very difficult time making that case. We first must have a law that makes it illegal.

Yes, the Republicans will have "a very difficult time making this case!" But the Republicans will not have a very unnecessary "time making this case!"

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This amendment clearly does not grant the federal government the power to deprive any person of private property for a private use. But Obama has granted the federal government the power--by signing into law and directing the federal government--to deprive persons of private property for a private use. This is clearly a high crime.

This amendment clearly prohibits the federal government depriving any person of private property for a public use without just compensation. But Obama has granted the federal government the power--by signing into law and directing the federal government--to deprive persons of private property for a public use without just compensation. This is clearly a high crime.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution as amended does not grant Obama the power to sign into law and direct the federal government to deprive a person of private property for a private use, Obama cannot lawfully exercise this power. If Obama cannot lawfully exercise this power, then he is committing a high crime when he exercises this power.

Since the Constitution as amended does not grant Obama the power to sign into law and direct the federal government to deprive a person of private property for public use without just compensation, Obama cannot lawfully exercise this power. If Obama cannot lawfully exercise this power, then he is committing a high crime when he exercises this power.

These are fundamental principles. But it is not enough to merely articulate these principle. Failure of the Republicans to act in accord with these principles dooms them to losses in the House and Senate in the 2010 election. Assuming Obama is not impeached prior to the 2010 elections, their effort to impeach him will win them credibility with the voters so they can win back majorities in the House and Senate, and can impeach and remove Obama prior to the 2012 elections.

Stopping Obama from committing these and more high crimes is absolutely necessary to prevent further degeneration of the "general welfare of the United States."

You've correctly observed that the present consensus in America does not support these principles. Probably true! Therefore, it is the responsibility of those of us who support these principles to as quickly as we can act to help change this consensus to support these principles.

By the way, the American consensus prior to the Revolutionary War was opposed to the Colonies separating themselves from the government of England!

1 Reply

The Obama Health Plan? Well, the Chicago Tribune which endorsed Barack Hussein Obama and continues to back him strongly had this editorial today.

The left wing may want to avert its eyes because they are not able to digest this editorial.

0 Replies

cice girl,

I find it very strange that you constantly badger me for evidence/proof, yet
you and your ilk never ask the same from Obama and his ilk... very strange.

Are you liberals afraid of the truth?

0 Replies

Editorial- Chicago Tribune

Sticker shock
June 20, 2009
Talk about bad timing for President Barack Obama.

There he was on Monday, exhorting doctors at an American Medical Association confab to join his once-in-a-generation overhaul of health care in America. He drew several standing ovations, even as he told them things that would probably cut their pay.

But then, on the same day, came an astonishing Congressional Budget Office analysis of what all this could cost.

The CBO analyzed the first major health-care proposal introduced, by Sen. Edward Kennedy, and concluded that it would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That sent a jolt of sticker shock through Congress.

But hold on. Here's the kicker to that breathtaking figure: Even after spending all that money, 37 million Americans still wouldn't have health insurance.

Yes, that's a tentative analysis, as the CBO warned. It will change as the bill is fleshed out. And the Kennedy bill is only one of several health-care reform proposals now percolating in Congress.

But the analysis sure seemed to rattle advocacy groups and the White House. "This is not the administration's bill and it's not even the final Senate committee bill," a White House spokesman said.

Ooh, chilly.

So, OK, this is a work in progress, things will change, blah blah blah. But the point here is that the CBO analysis tells us three things that probably won't change, no matter how a major health-care reform law is crafted.

It will be:

--Complicated.

--Extremely expensive.

--Full of unforeseen consequences.

Congress doesn't have to take our word for it. Lawmakers can learn from the experience of Massachusetts, the first state to mandate health insurance coverage.

How are things going there? We'd say it's mixed.

At last count, the Bay State had the lowest rate of uninsured people in the nation, 2.6 percent. That's compared to the national average of 15 percent. Those holdouts are either unwilling to pay for insurance (and willing to incur the penalties assessed by the state) or they can't afford the insurance (even with state subsidies) and aren't required to buy it. Conclusion: Even if coverage is mandated, Congress will have to settle for something less than universal coverage.

Then there's the budget. The state expected to spend $472 million in fiscal 2008 for its health-care plan. The actual cost: $628 million. Budget projections for fiscal 2010 range from $750 million to $880 million. The state is struggling because it underestimated the number of adults who would sign up for subsidized insurance, which under some circumstances covers a family of four that earns up to about $66,000.

Conclusion: Congress has considered subsidizing American families earning up to $110,000 to buy insurance. That would be too broad and too expensive. It appears that lawmakers are moving away from such a commitment.

Beyond the numbers, what about suddenly insured patients who need care? A recent report by the Urban Institute wasn't too reassuring. It found that even those who got health-care coverage in Massachusetts found they couldn't afford needed treatments. It's not clear why.

The sudden influx of the insured has strained the health-care system in the Bay State. Patients report long waits to see doctors. One in five patients has reported being told that a doctor was not accepting new patients, or not accepting patients with their type of insurance, according to the report.

The upshot: People still wound up in emergency rooms for routine care. That undercuts a major premise for covering all Americans, which is to stop them from going to the emergency room for routine care that could be less expensively dispensed in the doctor's office.

Obama wants to push a bill through Congress before the August recess. That deadline may be slipping, thanks in part to this bolt of fiscal reality from the CBO.

0 Replies

For those unable or unwilling to read-the editorial states that the Obuma plan will be

Complicated

EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE( on top of a 1.6 Trillion deficit-courtesy Obuma.)

FULL OF UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES-This is for those who do not know, as revealed in the editorial, that the Massachusetts Plan(Massachusetts is run b y a left winger named Deval Patrick--A "brother" of Obuma's) was projected to cost 472 Million in fiscal 2008 but is instead going to cost 658 Million.

Obuma once admitted( in his autobiography) that he experimented with hard drugs. He may still be on something if he thinks that any plan like his will not overshoot original targets. Typical example--Medicare.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

These are fundamental principles. But it is not enough to merely articulate these principle. Failure of the Republicans to act in accord with these principles dooms them to losses in the House and Senate in the 2010 election. Assuming Obama is not impeached prior to the 2010 elections, their effort to impeach him will win them credibility with the voters so they can win back majorities in the House and Senate, and can impeach and remove Obama prior to the 2012 elections.

Stopping Obama from committing these and more high crimes is absolutely necessary to prevent further degeneration of the "general welfare of the United States."

You've correctly observed that the present consensus in America does not support these principles. Probably true! Therefore, it is the responsibility of those of us who support these principles to as quickly as we can act to help change this consensus to support these principles.

By the way, the American consensus prior to the Revolutionary War was opposed to the Colonies separating themselves from the government of England!

It was the failure of the Republicans to articulate and act on the principles you state that has put them out of power for the present. And, because of that, they currently they do not have the moral credibility or authority to now lecture the Democrats on what the role of Congress and the President should/must be. Again, what you describe as high crimes and misdemeanors would not be recognized as such by a majority of the people, and t0 attempt to educate them through an attempted impeachment process will almost certainly result in much criticism and additional loss of good will and faith for the Republican Party. This is evenmoreso true due to the way the President's surrogate media will present such an attempt to the people.

For that reason I continue to disagree with your proposition to attempt an impeachment process. It might provide some emotional satisfaction, but it would not even win a battle, much less the war. And if our intent is to be effective in addition to being right, that is not the way to go.

We must first educate the Republicans and bring them to a state of repentence. This is on the theory that most of the Democrats now in power are uneducable. And we have to build on the growing anti-government sentiment that is developing among the people and get everybody on the same page as to what is most important.

And then we have to pray that we can find enough leaders who are also on the same page to put into office to turn this all around before that will be impossible to do.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I see you decided to ignore it when it was pointed out you are arguing the content of a program that you haven't seen and hasn't aired yet Fox.

1 Reply

@parados,

You're still in your own little world Parados. When you finally post something that I actually said, I won't ignore you so much.

2 Replies

@sangiusto,

sangiusto wrote:

I have read the study that George refers to. He reports it accurately.

a newly hatched sock puppet

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

A used sock at that!

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

An interesting little fact about Fox news showed up this week. It seems Fox news was given the story about Ensign's affair and sat on it rather than report it.

http://gawker.com/5296882/updated-fox-news-kept-mum-on-its-involvement-with-ensigns-affair

Because Fox did not immediately announce they received a letter, you call that earth shattering news? And your source or link on this is not particularly impressive, in my opinion.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

By examining the fact that all the sources you listed have Conservative commentary and presence, whereas Fox News effectively has no liberal presence whatsoever. Which is exactly what I did in my last post, and you didn't care to refute.

Cycloptichorn

What is a "liberal presence" ? Does the term refer to an identifiable person who exhibits a liberal bias; or to an accurate reflection of liberal points of view in routine reporting ?

I'm not aware of any "conservative presence" in NBC, CNBC, CNN or ABC. Are you?

NBC has Joe Scarborough hosting a three-hour morning show every day, and he's Conservative, and Pat Buchanan on at least one of their shows every day. CNBC is thoroughly fiscally Conservative and spends tons of time knocking Obama and his fiscal plans. CNN had Glen Beck on for forever and has Lou Dobbs to fear-monger about immigrants and taxes and foreign companies. ABC, it's fair to call them liberal.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Scarborough is at MSNBC, not NBC and is under the same constraints not to criticize the Administration as the other staff is. Further, he has attempted to ingratiate himself with his liberal colleagues (and probably his bosses) to his detriment and lost a good percentage of what audience he had in the process--I think he probably didn't get much more than half of what Imus got. I'm pretty sure that Scarboroughs days at MSNBC are numbered.

Quote:

Internal Friction at MSNBC? Joe Scarborough Cancels Appearance on Ed Schultz Show
By Jack Coleman (Bio | Archive)
June 19, 2009 - 20:16 ET

You could see this one coming.

"Morning Joe" co-host Joe Scarborough was due to appear on MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz's "The Ed Show" on Tuesday, in apparent reciprocity after Schultz was on "Morning Joe" that day.

But Scarborough canceled his appearance, Schultz told a caller to his radio show Tuesday, with Schultz saying he wasn't sure why.

Here's how Schultz described it after initially speaking with the caller about Liz Cheney (click here for audio) --

(Update: Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer describes how "the backstabbing has officially backfired" for Scarborough as his badmouthing of conservatives has apparently translated into sluggish sales for new book)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2009/06/19/internal-friction-msnbc-joe-scarborough-cancels-appearance-ed-schultz-

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Scarborough regularly criticizes the Administration, Fox. What constraints is he under? Ingratiate himself with liberals? You mean, as in talk to them without hyperbole and attempt to have an actual conversation with people with opposing views? Banish the thought. If he lost some viewers who are mostly interested in the blood sport that news reporting has become then he's gained some from those of us who are more interested in the discussion than the bloodletting.

Oh -- and I saw the segment where Ed Schultz was going on about Cheney on Morning Joe. I can imagine that the discussion was a bit heated off set afterwards.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Sure.. you have no complaints at all about ABC.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We must first educate the Republicans and bring them to a state of repentence. This is on the theory that most of the Democrats now in power are uneducable. And we have to build on the growing anti-government sentiment that is developing among the people and get everybody on the same page as to what is most important.

And then we have to pray that we can find enough leaders who are also on the same page to put into office to turn this all around before that will be impossible to do.

Wow. What a bunch of self-righteous pap. If that's your goal, fox, then I think we're safe.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

ABC will be PROMOTING the President's healthcare initiative and DISALLOWING any opposing point of view and THAT is the problem here.

That is what you said Fox....

Now.. tell us.. When did you see the program?

1 Reply

@parados,

Asked and answered Parados. Asked and answered. Don't you have a hobby or anything at all to occupy your time other than nitpicking and badgering other members? Especially when you get it wrong so much of the time and won't admit that ever?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We've posted this information re a university study from time to time which is instructive I think re media bias...

Quote:

...
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

...

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News,

...

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Add a dose of Jim Lehrer to that mix and I think it's a fairly good unbiased mix.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

When did you answer the question Fox? I must have missed it. Post a link to your post and I will apologize for not seeing it.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know