AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@joefromchicago,

Hooray! You are correct! The 21st Amendment was adopted by state conventions not by state legislatures. However, none of the 27 Amendments were approved by Supreme Court judges.

Which definitions of the words in the Constitution in 1788 are different from the definitions of those same words in the 2009 online version of Merriam-Webster?
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

CORRECTION
BUDDHISTS not Buffhists.

Sorry, I didn't catch that typo before I posted it.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If a Republican President had said such a thing in the way that Obama said this with his Chief of Staff backing him up, most Republicans would be demanding he retract the statement or clarify it or otherwise would be looking for a way to oust him. And so would you. You can deny it all you want, but you know it is true.

I'm more concerned about actions than I am about words. Bush didn't announce that he was he deploying a privately owned military to Iraq, and that said military would not be subject to the sames laws, regulations, and accountability as our soldiers were, yet would be paid many times more. Or that they would return to be deployed by Homeland Security. No words required. He just did it. What has Obama actually done with respect to this "civilian national security force"?

Perhaps had you been more concerned about words and intentions before the actions, you might not have so much to despise about Obama's predecessors. I would prefer to pay attention to words and intentions now rather than sustain the consequences of actions that I deem detrimental to the people of the USA. I would think Obama worshippers would want him to get it right in the first place rather than attempt to defend him after bad deeds are done.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie would prefer to believe all of Bush lies about Iraq than look at the consequences of all those lies.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The 19 al-Qaeda that perpetrated 9/11/2001 came into the USA before 9/11 without having to carrying ordinance of any kind. But they did come in carrying money. They subsequently bought box cutters and took them on the airplanes they hijacked on 9/11.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone imposter would prefer to believe all of Obama lies about his administration than look at the current and probable future consequences of all those lies.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What lies are those? Can you list them for us, and tell us how they have hurt our country and the world?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps had you been more concerned about words and intentions before the actions, you might not have so much to despise about Obama's predecessors. I would prefer to pay attention to words and intentions now rather than sustain the consequences of actions that I deem detrimental to the people of the USA. I would think Obama worshippers would want him to get it right in the first place rather than attempt to defend him after bad deeds are done.

Well, when you find some Obama worshipers you should ask them. The point is that people with nefarious intentions don't usually telegraph them in the way you think that Obama is doing. You run the risk of sounding like the boy who cried wolf by preemptively freaking out.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I would think Obama worshippers would want him to get it right in the first place rather than attempt to defend him after bad deeds are done.

gotta love how you like to mix religion and politics

very Republican of you

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Really? All Democrats are Atheists? I didn't know that.

I wonder what rationale is used to determine that one must be religious in order to worship? However you may be right. Obamamania very much looks and is treated as a religion complete with the language and imagery in some quarters. I'm just respecting that by acknowledging it.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The Japanese people in 1941 consisted of Buffhists, Confucianists, Hinduists, Taoists, and Shintoists. The leaders of Japan in 1941 were Shintoists.

The German people in 1941 consisted of Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Nazis. The leaders of Germany in 1941 were Nazis.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=shinto&x=30&y=10
Main Entry: 1shin·to
...
: the indigenous religion and former ethnic cult of Japan characterized by the reverence of kami, deified nature spirits, and spirits of ancestors and its great antiquity but lack of an historical founder or organized teachings

Your reasoning here is very inconsistent.

Your argument is that Germany was composed of three different main religions, and then a political movement that is in no way exclusive from 2 of them.

Your argument is that Japan was composed of five religions, yet fail to mention any political dichotomy as you did with Germany.

The Japanese were Imperialists. The Germans were Nazis. There were catholic and protestant Nazis, much like there were buddhist, hindu, shinto, taoist, and confusian Imperialists.

If you can call the Japanese Shintoists because of state run spiritual ethnical propaganda, then you can call the Germans Christians by the same standard because they often used Christianity to advance their agenda.

Before you attempt to to say what poor examples the Nazi's were of Christians, the Imperialists were just as bad examples of Shintoism. Both countries added ethnic superiority as a tenant to both.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Really? All Democrats are Atheists? I didn't know that.

Nah. Plenty of Christian dems. They just have the integrity not to force it on the non-chrisitans.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The Constitution of the USA does not grant explicitly and does not grant implicitly to the Congress or to the President or to the Supreme Court, the power to transfer federal tax revenues to anyone other than employees or contractors of the federal government.

When either Congress or the President or the Supreme Court transfers federal tax revenues to anyone other than employees or contractors of the federal government, they are violating the Constitution; they are violating "the supreme law of the land."

Any American who violates the supreme law of the land is guilty of "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort."

Therefore, any American who violates the supreme law of the land is guilty of treason.

Article III.
Section 3.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

Article II.
Section 4.
states:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not employees or contractors of the federal government, and therefore violated the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Therefore, President Obama is guilty of transferring tax revenues to persons not employees or contractors of the federal government, and therefore violated the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and should be impeached.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I would think Obama worshippers would want him to get it right in the first place rather than attempt to defend him after bad deeds are done.

gotta love how you like to mix religion and politics

very Republican of you

mention Ronald Reagan and watch the eyes go glassy and a blissed out smile appears on the lips.

<wall street bell - ding,ding,ding,ding....>

<chanting>

"oh money pad my home, oh money pad my home, oh money pad my home"

<wall street bell - ding,ding,ding,ding....>

"government can't fix the problem, government is the problem. government can't fix the problem, government is the problem. government can't fix the problem, government is the problem." (repeat this chant until you feel satisfied. but true Reaganites never are, so they keep chanting...incessantly...)

Smile

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Hooray! You are correct!

Thanks. You should try it some time.

ican711nm wrote:

The 21st Amendment was adopted by state conventions not by state legislatures. However, none of the 27 Amendments were approved by Supreme Court judges.

Then you should be intrepreting the constitution according to the views of the thousands of state legislators who, over the centuries, voted to ratify the constitution and its amendments, shouldn't you?

ican711nm wrote:

Which definitions of the words in the Constitution in 1788 are different from the definitions of those same words in the 2009 online version of Merriam-Webster?
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

You mean you don't know? Why not?

I can tell you of at least one word that has changed its meaning over time. At the time the constitution was drafted, "securities" meant "obligations of the federal government." In other words, bonds or IOUs. Today, apparently, it means the same thing as a federal reserve note. I don't know when that change occurred, although I'm pretty sure it was fairly recently.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The German people in 1941 consisted of Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Nazis. The leaders of Germany in 1941 were Nazis.

Quote:

In 1941, the only political party in Germany was the NSDAP. So it's correct that the government members were members of the NSDAP as well - besides the Finance Minister (Graf Schwerin von Krosigk).

The ministers were mostly (or all, but I couldn't find a reference for such) of none of the above mentioned religions but belonged to the German Faith Movement , like all other leading NSDAP-members.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I can tell you of at least one word that has changed its meaning over time. At the time the constitution was drafted, "securities" meant "obligations of the federal government." In other words, bonds or IOUs. Today, apparently, it means the same thing as a federal reserve note. I don't know when that change occurred, although I'm pretty sure it was fairly recently.

Printed money are obligations of the federal government to accept as payment of federal taxes and fees, and to make payment for services, commodities, and products.

So you should have stated at least:
In other words, bonds or IOUs or PRINTED MONEY.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=obligations&x=26&y=9
Main Entry: ob·li·ga·tion
...
2 a : an obligating factor or instrument : something (as a promise, vow, or demand of ideals or conscience) that binds or constrains to a course of action : the obligating power inherent in such a factor or instrument <the obligations of conscience> b : a bond with a condition annexed and a penalty for nonfulfillment; broadly : a formal and binding agreement or acknowledgment of a liability to pay a specified sum or do a specified thing c : an investment security <corporate bonds and other obligations>
3 a : something that one is bound to do or forbear : an imperative duty (as imposed by promise, religion, conscience, ideals, or social standards) b : a duty arising by contract : a legal liability
...
5 : money committed to a particular purpose : LIABILITY, ENCUMBRANCE
...

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=dollars&x=32&y=10
Main Entry: dol·lar
...
3 a : the basic monetary unit of the United States serving as a medium, standard, or basis of foreign exchange
...
b : any of various basic monetary units
...
4 a : a currency bill representing one dollar b : a token representing one dollar
...

1 Reply

Just in case this turns out to be true--do not expect any mainstream media sources to carry it at least just yet--the public outcry against the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has apparently prompted Congress to back off that. So now we have a "Diversity" czar, Mark Lloyd, who may be arranging for another process to better control the media:

And you wonder why the Obama administration might have a motive to assign attack dogs to go after Glenn Beck?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to pay, give, or loan money to people who are not employees of the federal government and are not contractors to the federal government. This is true regardless of whether or not PRINTED MONEY is constitutional, and regardless of whether or not loaning money to employees or contractors of the federal government is constitutional.

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not employees of the federal government and are not contractors of the federal government, and therefore violates the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Therefore, President Obama is guilty of transferring tax revenues to persons not employees of the federal government and not contractors of the federal government, and therefore he is guilty of violating the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

A president who violates the Constituion is adhering to those enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, who seek to replace the constitutional republic of the United States with a collectivist, statist, socialist, communist, fascist, or a nazist dictatorship.

3 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know