AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Furthermore, neither the TARP Bill or the Stimulus Bill are included in the budget Bush signed.

Neither were included in the budget Bush submitted to Congress. Costs for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were also not in the budget.

Budgets are based on 2 things, income and expenditures. Bush's budget underestimated the Federal Revenues and ignored needed expenditures. To blame Obama for fixing Bush's unrealistic budget is silly and will always be silly. The war didn't occur because Obama took office. The recession didn't occur because Obama took office. They are both unaccounted for in Bush's original budget but are the result of policies of Bush. Only an IDIOT (acronym defined in earlier post) would blame Obama for everything in the 2009 budget that Bush failed to account for.

1 Reply

@parados,

They (ican et al) keep tripping themselves up without basic understanding of most things, and they still come back for more! Amazing.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ican's comments are in blue

cicerone imposter wrote:

Who are the "plaintiffs?" Why hasn't there been any challenge?

The plaintiffs will be those Americans who decide to sue the federal government for how much they have been damaged by the invalid Supreme Court decision that the words in the Constitution Article I. Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States" mean that the federal government has been granted the power to lawfully transfer wealth from those who have lawfully earned it, to those who have not lawfully earned it.

The Supreme Court has not been granted the power by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution any way they want. It has not been granted the power to legislate the content of the Constitution. It has not been granted the power to amend the Constitution.

How can you speak for Madison and Hamilton? Also, times have changed since they were alive, and the interpretation of the Constitution has been working without challenge in terms of presidential budgets. Why is that?

I've posted excerpts from the Federalist Papers, authored by Madison and Hamilton that agree with my interpretation of the words in the Constitution that say "The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." If you wish, I'll post those excerpts again.

The current interpretation of those words is currently being challenged by a rapidly increasing number of Americans.

If your interpretation is superior, why hasn't there been any challenge?

Too many Americans have been seduced by the federal government giving them money in return for their support of the theft of money from some Americans and redistributed to other Americans. Attend a TEA PARTY and learn from the other attendees how a rapidly growing number of Americans have figured out that it is not good for Americans to let the federal government take (i.e., steal) what some Americans lawfully earned, and give it to some other American who did not lawfully earn it.

[have your head examined] To overcome your belief that you are superior in interpreting the Constitution of the US. There are many Constitutional scholars in this country, and those who are republicans would have surely challenged Obama and the congress if they had a case.

There are now many American Constitutional scholars who interpret "The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States" the same way I do. They have concluded that clause does not grant the federal government the power to steal from some Americans for other Americans

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

What, exactly, are you waiting for then, Ican?

If you feel you have standing to bring a case forward, do so. Otherwise, it's just empty talk from ya on a message board.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Evidence that the Wealth REDistributionist Obama administration are incompetent:
(a) http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Obama Administration has transfered wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it, but the Constitution of the USA does not grant power to the federal government to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

(b) ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total USA employment increased millions of people, 1980 through 2008, in each of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, but decreased almost 6 million people in the first 8 months of the Obama administration.

(c) http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Total USA GDP increased trillions of dollars, 1980 through 2008, in each of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, but decreased almost a 100 billion dollars in the first 8 months of the Obama administration.

(d) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-speech-text-to-congress.html
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
Obama's September 9, 2009 speech to the Congress contained 12 significant falsities.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, Who are those "increasing number of Americans" that you spoke of? Can you provide sources or links?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What are some examples of "wealth transfers" that you are speaking about?

1 Reply

THE CHANGE THAT IS TRULY REQUIRED

Too many Americans have discovered how to vote themselves money from federal government tax revenues. They do this by electing candidates who ignore our Constitution and promise to vote and do vote these Americans money from federal government tax revenues. As a result we are losing our freedom and abundance to our envy and resentment, and ultimately to our dependency and bondage.

To stop and reverse this damnable trend, we must find and support candidates who shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom; for the politics of securing our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are secured when we support our Constitution. Who among the future candidates will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support our Constitution? Indeed, who among all of us Americans will shun the politics of envy and resentment for the politics of freedom and support of our Constitution?

For us to be true Americans, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do. We are all made better off when any among us lawfully make themselves better off. We are all made worse off when any among us unlawfully make others worse off.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, here are only a few of the links you requested:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.lp.org/platform
National Platform of the Libertarian Party

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Constitution Party National Platform

[email protected]
www.hillsdale.edu
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, here are some examples of "wealth transfers:"

TARP Bill

Stimulus Bill

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What part of the TARP and stimulus bills are wealth transfers?

You do understand the questions, don't you?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, read the TARP and Stimulus bills yourself now. I've got a TEA PARTY event to go to now. I'll be back tomorrow.

The first parts of the TARP and Stimulus bills specify wealth transfers.
The middle parts of the TARP and Stimulus bills specify wealth transfers.
The last parts of the TARP and Stimulus bills specify wealth transfers.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

No. You made the claim; now show us where the TARP and stimulus bills are wealth transfers. It's not up to me to prove your claim; that's your responsibility.

Quit making claims you are unable to back up.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, I am again continuing to back up my claims. Here's the evidence that the TARP Bill and the Stimulus Bill are wealth transfers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092800900.html
TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM
http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

Shall I copy and post here the entire contents of these links, or are you capable of reading and understanding these contents without my help?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

All you've done is post a Washington Post article. Show me where it says it's "wealth transfer?" Your definition is suspect until you provide proof.

1 Reply

Wealth REDistribution is theft. Those who REDistribute wealth are thieves. Those who accept wealth that has been REDistributed to them are receivers of stolen wealth.

For us to be true Americans, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do. We are all made better off when any among us lawfully make themselves better off. We are all made worse off when any among us unlawfully make others worse off.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican, you never responded to my post here -

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-876#post-3791772

So I'll ask again: what are you waiting for? If you think you have such a rock-solid case, then bring it. Don't hesitate.

Quote:

Wealth REDistribution is theft.

Unfortunately for your opinion, our society and the Supreme Court have clearly decided that it is not theft.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Since merely posting something proves an opinion in ican's world. ...

I would like to post evidence that ican is a pedophile.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html

The definition of pedophilia proves you are a pedophile ican as well as posting the transcript of the constitution proves that Obama is transferring wealth illegally.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican - you've defined thief in such a way to include yourself. Congrats.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Yes, ican is taking money from the Federal government without providing a service.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know