AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Obama is far worse than Clinton ever was. Clinton was primarily interested in getting re-elected. Obama is primarily interested is nserving his sponsors.

Impeachment and removal of a president does not involve the Supreme Court--or any other federal court. It only involves the Congress and the Chief Justice who presides over the Senate's impeachment trial proceedings. Therefore impeachment and removal of Obama are, respectively, strictly House and Senate proceedings.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
Section 2. ...
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3. ...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Section 5. ...
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The impeacable offense that ought to be apparent to everyone is Obama signing laws that permit the federal government to take property without just compensation from those persons who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those persons who did not lawfully earn it.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think it completely naive to depend on Paul to explain why it was a bad thing to rob from Peter to pay Paul.

why didn't you question the last administration about that?

for instance, when clinton left office, the u.s. debt held by the chinese was something like 65 billion. not all that much higher than previous to his admin. within a couple of years, bush jr. had it well over 3oo billion.

as of last fall, still in bushy's column, $585 billion.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Homeless people, however, according to our LAW, are able to make choices and to function in intentional ways and are not a danger to themselves or others, and they cannot be required against their will to be institutionalized. The Lefties--probably some of the same group who made the law to be rewritten as it now is--are the ones who now blame Reagan and the Republicans because we have homeless people on the street, many or most of whom would likely be in mental institutions under our old law.

Yes. And that's makes me wonder.

I've seen dozens of those you call 'homeless' in the USA.
And I know about the reasons why they are on the streets (when I taught 'Methods of Social Work' at university, I used this as an example to show the different ways of handling such ... here and there and elsewhere).

We did question Bush about his excessive spending--in particular his excessive give away TARP excessive spending, after the Democrats won majorities in both Houses.

That's nice. But I'm not asking you to take Ex-Im bank's word on its efficacy. I'm asking you to respect facts. The Ex-Im bank was chartered to loan money (among other things) in order to facilitate US exports. It voted in April, before any Obama appointees were seated, to preliminarily approve these loans/guarantees to Petrobras. Those are assertions of fact which can quite easily be checked. They even link to the meeting minutes where they gave unanimous preliminary approval and their charter can be read on their site as well. If you won't believe that but will believe some fishy smell that comes when nameless right wing opinion writers open their mouths then that's your right. But again I ask you to think about who is pushing this story and what would be in it for them, and why they think you are so easily manipulated by innuendo.

Just admit that this story is a bunch of nothing. You got nothing, now let it go.

Makes you wonder what?

Please Participate.

We have a little less than one month and counting to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America.

THE PROGRAM:

On Friday, September 11th, 2009, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States. Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this eighth anniversary of one of our country's worst tragedies. We do this to honor those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to -shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds.

What you wanna bet Fox conveniently chooses to respond to other posts instead of this?

T
K
O

Soros is taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion. The common shares were 21 percent more expensive than preferred today, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“He knows he held a voting right in the common shares that would never translate to actual power,” Maizel said in an interview from San Francisco. “He’s just playing the spread.”

We do this to honor those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain and for the most part, not think of those innocents who have had their lands invaded and who have been subjected to horrors far beyond that of 9-11.

We do this to allow us to focus on the less than 3000 compared to the hundred or so thousand that we are responsible for killing [just in our latest round of slaughter].

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags [god what a sickening sight] as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to shoulder to instigate even more of our made in America terrorism against other peoples in distant lands.

Have we no shame, no remorse for the horrendous evil we visit upon others, all the while whining about our poor little put upon selves?

Happily, those flags have all but disappeared. Our false sense of patriotism allowed some pretty scummy powers that be, to pull us into a web of lies [it wasn't all that tough a sell for we've been there, done that, many a time in the past] and it shouldn't take another attack to make us realize that it was blowback for all our misdeeds around the world.

It's been pounded into our soft heads that the American flag is the fabric of our country and we know we can, in the near and distant future, inflict even greater terrorism of all kinds against any number of countries that have the oil, minerals and other riches we need to maintain our position as the greediest mothers on the planet.

Maybe we should just forget all this "flag and oh, poor poor pitiful us" bullshit and get down on our knees and beg forgiveness from all the Iraqis and Afghans who now lie in graves because of our greed and avarice.

Well, maybe not!

You have nothing to dispute the perception that it smells to high heaven and the perception that the Administration knows it does which would explain their uncharacteristic quiet in this matter.

You have nothing to answer the question of why it was more important to fund Petrobas and off shore drilling than to fund companies here in America who will be making and selling American products and services and hiring Americans to make and provide them.

And please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that if the President was George Bush and the person in question was say Mellon-Scaife who stood to make hundreds of millions after donating so much to conservative causes, that you would say there's no problem with the smell test there.

I haven't even been able to get any of the other MACS, let alone anybody on the Left, to agree that it is immoral for the government to confiscate property from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=due+process&x=26&y=8
Main Entry: due process of law
...
Variant(s): or due course of law
: a course of proceedings at law or carried out through agency rules or other devices that is in accordance with the law of the land -- called also due process

Foxfyre wrote:

I haven't even been able to get any of the other MACS, let alone anybody on the Left, to agree that it is immoral for the government to confiscate property from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B.

OK! Now I think I understand. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are telling me it wouldn't matter if I quoted excerpts from the Stimulus bill that were actual examples of "the government to confiscate property from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B." Conservative people you know or know of do not think that immoral or unlawful.

I'm inferring from what you posted that it won't matter to these same people to learn that the Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from taking property without due process of law (i.e.,a legal proceeding), or taking private property for public use without just compensation.

For me to say that I am stunned, would be an understatement.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=due+process&x=26&y=8
Main Entry: due process of law
...
Variant(s): or due course of law
: a course of proceedings at law or carried out through agency rules or other devices that is in accordance with the law of the land -- called also due process

So, until enough people can be persuaded that this [I.E., STOPPING OBAMA'S MASSIVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION] is a principle worth risking it all on, most conservatives will choose to proceed more cautiously and incrementally to get where we need to be. They don't think one quick brush fire will accomplish the longer term goals.

Diest TKO wrote:

What you wanna bet Fox conveniently chooses to respond to other posts instead of this?

T
K
O

Funny how this works, eh?

Foxfyre wrote:

So, until enough people can be persuaded that this [I.E., STOPPING OBAMA'S MASSIVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION] is a principle worth risking it all on, most conservatives will choose to proceed more cautiously and incrementally to get where we need to be. They don't think one quick brush fire will accomplish the longer term goals.

I doubt proceeding "more cautiously and incrementally to get where we need to be" will ever get us where we need to be..

But, we'll just have to wait until Obama provides more reason for him to be impeached and removed, and enough people are persuaded that stopping Obama is a principle "worth risking it all on." I hope, but doubt, that by that time our constitutional republic can still be rescued.

I'm going to contiue to try and convince Americans that stopping Obama by impeachment and removal is a principle "worth risking it all on." And convince them it is a principle that will encourage a majority of Americans to fight for their country, and not merely moan about its demise while they hope someone somewhere will somehow rescue it for them.

...
So, instead of focusing on impeaching the President, it is important to focus on those principles that he is violating, explain them in a way even a numbnut could understand, until indignation about such violations permeates and becomes part of the national psyche again. Once that is accomplished, and if the President continues on a track that imperils the Constitution and the American way of life. impeachment will begin to look more plausible.

It has to be spelled out with specifics, understandable illustrations, and backed up with evidence. You probably need to use really little words too that are universaly recognized. (Just look at how many Leftists and numbnuts are unable to grasp the concept of even a simple but unfamiliar acronym like MAC.) Many, probably most Leftists, I think, are incapable of thinking in Conservative or even in abstract concepts. I think that is why liberals are more prone to take excessively simplistic views about history and are unable to see any nuances that would interfere with their point of view. It partially explains why so many prefer to attack and belittle or smear people or otherwise argue ad hominem. They are honestly unable to focus on a concept and discuss it intelligently.
...

The thrill is gone for Obama and the media
By: Chris Stirewalt
Political Editor
August 24, 2009

There’s nothing like a summer vacation to rekindle a romance. So maybe a week on Martha’s Vineyard can bring back some of the magic between the Obama administration and the media.

Before White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left town, he tried to clarify President Barack Obama’s comment that “everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up.” Gibbs explained to reporters that what the president meant was that they were a bunch of bed wetters who made too much out of the implosion of the White House health care strategy.

Gibbs has grown more sardonic and patronizing as the summer wears on and Obama’s poll numbers wilt.

The press secretary has lectured reporters on the nature of their jobs " apparently to defend the administration against “misinformation” rather than asking impertinent questions like “How will you pay for it?”

When asked recently about the administration’s endless evasions on the public option, Gibbs instead opted to define a monopoly.
“If you had one place to eat lunch before you came to the briefing, do you think it would be cheap?” Gibbs demanded of CNN’s Ed Henry.

Henry should have asked Gibbs to define monopsony: a market in which one buyer is so large that it can control suppliers and ruin competitors. Henry could then explain he’d rather pay too much for the sandwich he wanted than have to eat at a government chow line opened across the street to encourage “competition.”

Gibbs is so crabby because, incredibly, the administration blames the media for the president’s problems.

It tried blaming Republicans, but the GOP is too far out of power. When the leader of the free world is complaining about a posting on the former governor of Alaska’s Facebook page, he’s got problems.

Team Obama tried blaming special interests, but that was a bust too. The president’s deal with the pharmaceutical industry gets him $150 million worth of ads to boost his plan, whatever it is.

The same people who bombard us with ads for products that promise to prevent hardened arteries or encourage hardening elsewhere will soon be selling you Obamacare.

“If you experience doubts about the plan lasting more than four hours, seek immediate help from Organizing for America.”

Democrats tried blaming the “mobs” of “un-American” protesters and “evil mongers” who were giving raspberries to members of Congress at town halls.

That flopped too, leaving the administration to blame the messenger.

And one can understand why Gibbs would be a bit shocked by the slightly less accommodating tone of the media.

Reporters who traveled with the Obama campaign tell horror stories about the organization " dishonesty, rudeness and abysmal access. But those reporters still served up the glowing coverage.

Obama was the hottest news story of their generation. Rather than covering the long-shot freshman senator who would be crushed in February, Obama campaign reporters experienced the reflected glory of being along for a historic journey. There was plenty of motivation to keep that journey going.

Conversely, Obama making a hash out of health care provides plenty of good copy for the White House press corps. And because Obama fatigue has set in with the reading and viewing public, skeptical stories match the national mood.

Some are still in the tank for Obama. But many liberal reporters think the president is blowing the Left’s big chance.

In talking about how everything got so “wee-weed up,” Obama observed that in August of 2008 the media predicted doom because John McCain began to close the gap after picking Sarah Palin.

In trying to explain that the president was talking about media incontinence, Gibbs referred to August and September of 2007, when most predicted Hillary Clinton would roll to victory in Iowa.

So not only are Obama and his people still reliving the campaign, they’re drawing the wrong lessons from it.

At this point in 2007, Obama was coming up in the polls, making Iowa a three-way race with Clinton and John Edwards. Now, the president’s numbers are sinking.

And if the trend line in the late summer of 2008 had held, Obama would have lost. It took a tsunami of bad economic news and the McCain campaign’s mishandling of it to put Obama back on top.

But there is no opponent here other than public opinion and no finish line other than the end of his term.

With only the steady breeze of favorable coverage of a typical Democratic president instead of the gale of positive press that once helped drive Obama to victory, it’s going to be a very long journey.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-thrill-is-gone-for-Obama-and-the-media_08_24-54389032.html