gadgetlady

As the article pointed out, this has nothing to do with Bush. It has everything to do with Obama and his disregard for the American Constitution. I didn't write it. I just read it and posted it. My children are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern.

I think it's a failure of education, of a true understanding of what our Founding Fathers fought for. Many people just don't see socialism as the freedom-killing disease that it is.

Brilliant article at Laura Hollis : A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never. - Townhall.com (emphasis mine): Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution. Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it. The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society. But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. I have written elsewhere of Obama’s potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, “He’d never do that; the Constitution prevents it.” At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named “Fairness Doctrine” has already put the First Amendment in Obama’s sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as “political and economic justice”? These views are why Obama’s acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite “by any means necessary” philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency. The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, “negative liberties.” But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.” Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.) Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “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.” Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have. This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.” This is no “bill of rights,” it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found “guilty” would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American’s private property. I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, “Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too.” Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle won’t be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What – you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office? The second group consists of disgruntled so-called “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. I’m not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that there’s no such thing as evolution. Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.

I grew up in Southern California where the weather is, IMO, almost perfect. I'm totally spoiled. Every time I go anywhere else I'm always inconvenienced by the weather (too hot, too humid, too dry, too cold, I have to pack too much, I sweat too much, I get bloody noses because it's too dry, etc.). Add to that the fact that I'm allergic to mosquito bites (I swell up like no tomorrow) and there aren't a lot of places I'd be very happy to move to. Every time we travel, we try to figure out if it's a potential alternative to Southern California (the operative factors being: weather, politics, taxation, and existence [or lack] of socialized medicine). So far no places hit the mark on the last 3 factors, and on the weather one we tend to like Gibraltar and maybe Portugal, Spain, or Italy (depending on where in those countries).

Truer words were never spoken.

Well said and WOO HOO! I agree wholeheartedly!

It's a he, and he has now finished the radiation. He said it was so awful that if he had to do it again he might choose the alternative instead (death). :w00t: He did end up in the hospital several times during the chemo. But now he's starting to grow back his hair and his spirits have lifted. What a horrible thing cancer is :w00t:

I agree with him.

Sadly, I agree. I wish it were not the case.

Humidity, mosquitoes, and large bugs.

I don't think I would. Weather and politics are almost at a tie for me in terms of where I could live. But I must say, Victoria is one of our favorite places to visit (in the summer) and the people are always very nice.:w00t:

I think the lunatic fringe on both sides would be happy to see the other side's leader assassinated. To attribute fringe lunacy to Republicans only is, well, lunacy. When I say I'm to the right of the Republicans, I consider myself a Classical Liberal or a Libertarian. I align myself with the Founding Fathers and their positions on freedom and taxes. There is nothing -- nothing whatsoever -- "hateful" or "anti-Christian" about that.

Sadly, you're not alone. Having lived in LA during the Rodney King riots, and finding all of my 20-something friends holed up in my house for a few days because I was the only one who had guns, my mind has gone often to where our family will be safest on election night. I posted this on another thread but it bears repeating. I just got a call from a friend of mine who lives in Ohio, where they have early voting. A woman he knows went to the courthouse to vote and was told, "Sorry, ma'am, you've already voted." She had not. Someone voted in her place. When she complained, they handed her a provisional ballot and told her that if the vote were tied, they'd count her provisional ballot. This is scary stuff.

Did you watch it? I suspect not, because there are clips in there from CNN, C-Span, MSNBC, NBC, and Fox as well. The screen-shot shows Fox, but that's not all there is in there. It's actually a montage of clips of politicians saying various things that led up to the current economic crisis, with commentary from the person who put it together. It's very well done. You should watch it.

I don't have anyone on ignore "officially" -- although I do ignore most of the things some people say I was away from my computer for most of the day yesterday, so I didn't see the thread until late. You didn't offend me; I was just surprised to see my name there. Especially after someone posted in a recent thread that I had a bad "rep, past, and credibility" and suggested that I believe in a Flat Earth theory -- of course, it was a hit-and-run post; they haven't been back. I guess I just expect to be attacked so I didn't know what I would see when I opened up the thread. Yeah. I wish they would leave. Being a parent, though, I long ago learned the you shouldn't make statements that you can't or won't back up. I just read a great article at Newsmax.com , a few excerpts of which are (emphasis mine): In such political transfers of money, government always rakes off for itself a huge shipping and handling fee — 81 cents of every tax dollar in the case of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s "war on poverty," which let only pennies of each taxed dollar trickle down to those whose poverty continues to justify the government’s theft. Under President John F. Kennedy, 52 cents of every tax dollar went for national defense. Today, more than half of every tax dollar goes for “transfer payments,” taking money out of your pocket to put it into somebody else's. . . . We have already greatly weakened our society by the degree of “progressive” taxation (oddly named because it thwarts progress) we already pay. The top 10 percent of earners now pay 70 percent of all individual income taxes. But Barack Obama brays that the rich are not paying “their fair share” of taxes? The bottom 50 percent pay only 2.9 percent of the total and see government merely as a big machine to dispense them goodies, e.g., Obama plans to give $2,000 welfare payments as “tax cuts” each year to those who now pay no income tax. Why? To buy their votes for the Democratic Party. Truth be told, nothing violates the ideal of equality before the law more than our progressive income tax system. When Mr. Obama discriminates against productive citizens by making their tax burden heavier than what others pay, how can this be justified in the name of equality — especially when the result is a redistributive society that turns some citizens into accomplices to theft, and others into resentful victims of this theft? Mr. Obama, of course, claims that he will tax only the wealthy and leave those earning less than $250,000 a year, or $200,000, or $150,000 — his slippery promises keep shifting — with no tax increase. This same kind of rhetoric was used to impose the income tax, that supposedly would hit only the wealthy and never go above 3 percent of income, but today robs more than half of us. I disagree; I think they are the issue. I think they speak to the bigger question asked on this thread, which is how to bring unity -- and I don't think you can bring unity when the ideology behind two divergent groups is so at odds with each other. Bottom line, I will never be able to see eye-to-eye with someone who wants to tear down the country that I love. I believe in freedom and am willing to sit next to them on a park bench or share a restaurant with them, but I would never invite them to a BBQ, and I will not silence my objections to their cause. I believe socialism tears at (or shreds) the fabric of our dearly-held and preciously fought-for freedoms. My beliefs are much more in line with the Founding Fathers of this country. Their beliefs are much more in life with Karl Marx. It's just a basic fact. Do I believe I'm right? Yes. Do they believe they're right? Yes. I think the question is which one of us more closely adheres with the values represented in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, if there's a place for socialism and communism in the world, it not here. If you want that sort of government, there are plenty of places in the world that can offer it to you.

I thought the same thing when I saw it. Canada isn't on my short list for potential places to go LOL!

I just got a call from a friend of mine who lives in Ohio, where they have early voting. A woman he knows went to the courthouse to vote and was told, "Sorry, ma'am, you've already voted." She had not. Someone voted in her place. When she complained, they handed her a provisional ballot and told her that if the vote were tied, they'd count her provisional ballot. This is scary stuff.

BTW, as I understand it, there is a difference between a Birth Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth. A Certificate of Live Birth, according to the State of Hawaii's own Department of Health, can be given to a person who was born in a foreign country. I find it very interesting that Obama provided this document, not to the Board of Elections, not to the DNC, not to the Federal Elections Commission, and not to any of the judges before which cases have been brought, but rather to factcheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation. If I were a public figure and people were filing lawsuits left and right in an attempt to prove something that I had documentation to show was patently false, I would simply supply the documentation to the courts.

HA HA! I didn't read through everyone's responses before I posted mine! LOL! I sincerely hope it never comes to that. I must say I've traveled much of the world and haven't ever found an (insert locale here) that I like as much as the place I live right now.

Wow. I don't know how I feel about being in the title of a thread . . . Not much I will be able to do, except, through voting, try to reverse things again in 2 and 4 years. The problem is once entitlement programs are established, they rarely get reversed. If things get as terrible as they could with potentially all 3 branches of government being extremely liberal, sadly, my family might consider moving out of the country. I don't know all that expatriation involves, but it is something we are toying (currently lightly) with. Unfortunately, we have such divergent values that I think there is very little common ground. Please know that when I use the terms "right" and "left" below, I mean the "true believers" in each party. Those on the left truly believe in socialism and the redistribution of wealth; those on the right truly believe in capitalism and the right to keep what you earn. I don't think there's any "middle ground" in the two extremes. We are not fighting a "common enemy" as we have in past generations (whether it be England, Russia, Germany, etc.); what we are fighting is each other. Our ideological beliefs are so far apart that it will be difficult for either side to truly stand behind the other. I wish there were a solution, but I just don't see one. Politics has become so corrupt, so dirty, and so underhanded it's just plain scary.

Oh, unless by impeached you mean challenged? As in impeaching someone's credibility or validity?

Do you mean impeached? Obama couldn't legally be impeached unless he were elected, unless you mean impeached from his position as a Senator. Is that what you mean? I'm sorry; I'm confused. If you can clarify, I will try to answer.

1981 - 1961 = 20 years. If he renewed his Indonesian passport in 1981 he was 20 at the time. We shall see where these nine lawsuits go. You may be right -- it may be nothing.

Not that I recall. I tend to be to the right of Republicans, so it's unlikely. I'm surprised that you've voted Republican, though. I thought you worked for a Democrat politician (although I might be wrong -- my memory isn't what it used to be and I don't have the energy to go back and search through posts) and, from your position on the issues, it seemed like you aligned pretty strongly towards the left side of the Democrat party. So when you said you're not buying "Republican rhetoric" any longer (making it seem like you had once been a Republican but had switched over to the Democrat party because Obama had such a good take on the issues), it surprised me. I can't imagine you ever supported Bush or, going back further, Reagan, but then again maybe you have.

Have you ever voted Republican? Because I had the impression that you were a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and didn't ever "buy" "Republican rhetoric".