<Grin>! Okay......A few good "talking" points Michael. I will give you that!
I am in Berlin by the way.....The Annointed One's old capital and stomping ground. There are a whole bunch of good lookin' Frau's here, and I have a couple of days before I have to work! I have also seen a couple of "FutureMrs.PlainOl's"; and one gal that could pick Travis up, love him, and not miss a beat at the all you can eat buffet bar! Tomorrow, it's a massive historical tour....Pictures coming soon! On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > And yet he ADDED "borrowing money from China to pay for it". > > You have apparently fallen into "Go Team" mode that is leading this > Country to its destruction. > > Constitutional, of course, is of or by the Constitution. That some Justice > OR President OR Legislator has "DECLARED" something to be Constitutional is > meaningless -- akin to you declaring a banana to be an automobile fender > ... does NOT make that banana something else. > That you would AFFIRM such nonsense AND resign yourself to it ... makes > you part of the problem. > > AGAIN, I would encourage you to LEARN about concepts before embarrassing > yourself with their misuse. > > Of course had Republicans ACTUALLY followed through with their rhetoric at > various 'crossroads' (ie. Bush II, Republican Revolution, Reagan, etc.) not > only would the US NOT find itself in its current woes, but the Republicans > would have enjoyed EVERY Presidential effort AND had HUGE majorities in the > Senate/House for decades. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much > is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have > had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to > exist." --L. Spooner > > > > > At 03:28 AM 10/5/2012, you wrote: > > Again, I ask you, who is spewing fallacy? > > At this point, ANY project, issue, manifestation, crapola, blugeoning > bureauacracy, whether you believe it to be constitutional or not, has > already been deemed to be constitutional. > > All Romney did was to make clear that if we as a Nation cannot afford it, > a Romney Administration will cut it from being funded. > > I take the man at his word. We'll see whether he does or doesn't. > > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now you are WISHING. > > As William Grigg noted ... INSTEAD of using the Constitution to determine > whether or not something should be funded ... Romney is going to fund > provided the Chinese loans money ... > > If Republican PAST efforts are a guideline ... Romney will continue/expand > Obama who continued/expanded Bush. > > You might familiarize yourself with concepts rather than misusing them. > > We need someone who is going to cut -- no gut -- spending, taxes and > regulation. Tinkering with the tax code to lower rates for SOME while > simultaneously RAISING their taxes by eliminating 'loopholes' and > deductions ... increasing spending and repeal and replace regulations is > not going to succeed. > > If Romney wins and does continue (as expected) we get the BONUS that > capitalism, free market, deregulation and the like will get BLAMED even > though they will not be employed. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "“Obama, Romney Clash on How to Rescue Middle Class” reads the headline on > the printed edition of USAToday. > "Which is rather like Moby Dick and Jaws debating how to rescue the > survivors of a shipwreck." -- Becky Akers > > > > At 04:00 PM 10/4/2012, you wrote: > > I believe Governor Romney, in no uncertain terms meant to convey that > unlike the current Administration, Governor Romney has no intention of > continuing the deficit spending which has required our Nation to become so > indebted to China, that our National Security is threatened. > > Again, who's spewing fallacy? > > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: Lay off > the Kool-Aid ... it is hindering your thinking. > > "Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay > for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it." > Is a DIRECT quote from Romney last night while he and the President -- in > agreement -- talked in circles. > What do you imagine THAT statement might imply? > Regard$, --MJ > "Romney had a brilliant strategy. Simply deny any controversial position > on the issues -- regulation, taxation, Social Security -- while praising > small business, accusing Obama of wanting to gut Medicare, and pointing out > the bad economy. That was all he could do and he did it perfectly." -- > Anthony Gregory > > > > At 01:58 PM 10/4/2012, you wrote: > > Huh? What was that about "spewing fallacy" that you were talking about > yesterday? > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: Romney's > New Constitution: FedGov Can Do Whatever Beijing is Willing to Subsidize > Posted > by William Grigg <[email protected]> on October 4, 2012 10:07 AM Mitt > Romney's budget-cutting model is to ask: "Is the program so critical it's > worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of > it." On this construction, the FedGov is authorized to do whatever China > is willing to subsidize, rather than being limited to what the U.S. > Constitution permits. (Yes, I know -- the Constitution is a snare and a > delusion <http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w268.html>, but it does > remain marginally useful as standard against which to measure the > government's hypocrisy.) xxx > > Obamacare and the Revenge of the 'Secret Constitution' by William Norman > Grigg "[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, > and to bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a > general sense the will of the majority of the people is absolute and > sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual." > -- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the > Constitution<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QO9ZMK?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B004QO9ZMK&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > III, 327, 330 "The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else > but this – Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by > no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules." -- Vladimir Lenin A > constitution merely prolongs the pretense that a political government can > be limited by laws that it will interpret. Eventually, every constitutional > government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula – "Power without limit, > resting directly on force." The function of the judiciary is liturgical: > It transmutes the restrictive language of the constitution into a mandate > for government action. This process is called "state-building" – and the > purpose of the judiciary, insists Professor Jack M. Balkin of Yale Law > School <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/bio.htm>, is to "ratify > significant revisions to the American social contract." > > According to > Balkin<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/>, > "the most important function of the federal courts is to legitimate state > building by the political branches." It does this by supplying the > appropriate scholarly conjurations every time those in charge of the State > seek to enrich their powers at the expense of individual liberty. In this > fashion, the relatively modest constitutional state of the early 19th > century – which, Balkin notes with palpable disapproval, "didn’t do very > much more than national defense and customs collection" – built itself into > the omnivorous monstrosity he calls the "National Surveillance State." This > is an entity that claims the authority to slaughter, torture, and imprison > anybody on the planet for any reason. From Balkin’s perspective, the role > of the courts is not to protect the rights of the individual, but to issue > the occasional theodicy justifying the inscrutable ways of the divine > State. "Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it > changes the nature of the social compact," writes Balkin in > <http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/> > The > Atlantic<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/the-court-affirms-our-social-contract/259186/>. > "Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the > civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts > are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent > with our ancient Constitution" – a procedure that frequently involves > subjecting language to treatment that even Dick Cheney would describe as > torture. In order for this to work, candor must be scrupulously avoided, > and the pretense of constitutionalism must be preserved. "Courts do not > simply rubber stamp what the political branches do," Balkin asserts. > "Rather, they set new ground rules. The government may do this as long as > it doesn’t do that. Legitimation is Janus-faced: it establishes what > government can do by establishing what the government cannot do" – at > least, for now, until those running it decide that the time has come to do > what was previously impermissible. That’s what happened in the Obamacare > ruling, Balkin concludes: "The political branches sought to build out the > American state and change the terms of the American social contract. The > Court legitimated this result, but set new ground rules for politics going > forward." As he points out, both branches of the Establishment party want > to continue building the Leviathan state, albeit in the service of > different constituencies: "Most Republican politicians don’t actually want > to strip the federal government of most of the powers to regulate, tax and > spend that came with the New Deal. This is because Republican politicians > want to use those powers to promote Republican policies…." Thus it was > exquisitely appropriate that the Supreme Court’s ratification of "the most > important piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s" came in a > majority opinion written by a Bush-appointed Republican conservative. After > all, we should expect adherents of the Party of Lincoln to be doing the > works of Abraham. In his book Our Secret > Constitution<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195156285?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0195156285&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>: > How Lincoln Redefined American > Democracy<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195156285?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0195156285&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > George P. Fletcher, a Marxist Columbia University School of Law professor, > describes how the mission of Abraham the Destroyer was not to preserve the > constitutional union, but rather to impose a new order – one created > through aggression by the central government against the states that > created it, and the people from whom it supposedly derived its powers. > "The new order inherits an operating Congress, Executive, and Judiciary," > writes Fletcher, and although federal institutions have been "recast in new > functions, the forms remained the same." Behind a change in federal > functions is a new ruling ideology, in which the central government elite > now acts on "the consciousness of setting forth a new framework of > government, a structure based on values fundamentally different from those > that went before." "The heart of the new consensus is that the federal > government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive > intervention in the lives of its citizens," writes Fletcher approvingly. > The Founders' Constitution was sold to the populace as an austere and > proscriptive document that defined the few and specific things the central > government would be permitted to do. This arrangement was changed through > Lincoln's war of aggression, according to Fletcher, since "the liberty that > comes to the fore in the intended postbellum constitutional order and under > the Secret Constitution requires the intervention of government. Liberty is > born in the state's assertion of responsibility to oversee and prevent > relationships of oppression." (Emphasis added.) That is to say that > "liberty" is a revocable and highly conditional gift of the State, and that > "oppression" exists anywhere there are limits placed on the exercise of > federal power. One is "free" only to the extent he supports, and is subject > to, the benevolent rule of the unfathomably noble beings who inhabit the > Imperial Capital. Questioning their edicts and actions on "constitutional" > grounds is intolerably impudent – nay, it is nothing less than blasphemy, > since everything our masters do is blessed with the "presumption of > constitutionality." In his recent book It Is Dangerous to be Right when > the Government is > Wrong<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595553509?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1595553509&linkCode=xm2&tag=lewrockwell>, > Judge Andrew Napolitano (one of the few jurists worthy of that honorific) > underscores the importance of the Supreme Court’s United States v. Carolene > Products ruling in 1938. The case dealt with a federal statute banning > the sale of a product called "filled milk." The measure, which was passed > as a favor to the dairy lobby, was devoid of constitutional authority – but > the Supreme Court upheld it in the interest of "state-building," and in > doing so it promulgated a new doctrine of "presumed constitutionality." "The > Court’s reasoning was that the statute should be presumed constitutional, > and thus the burden was on the defendant company to prove that Congress > could have no constitutional authority and no lawful basis for regulating > the sale of the product – a nearly impossible showing," recalls Judge > Napolitano. "By requiring a presumption of constitutionality instead of a > presumption of liberty, the Court permitted Congress to transgress economic > liberties for almost any reason it wished." That presumption invests the > federal government with something akin to constitutional infallibility: > Between 1937 and 1995, as Judge Napolitano observes, the Supreme Court > didn’t strike down a single piece of federal legislation on constitutional > grounds. > Many people blessed with sound, sober, and subtle minds believe that all > of this represents a "perversion" of the original constitution. Others, > such as the ever-perspicacious Butler Shaffer, > insist<http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114620.html/t_blank>that > the federal government has "never deviated" from the Constitution: The > document was written in a way that encouraged government expansion and > provided the means to accomplish it while sustaining the necessary illusion > that its powers were effectively limited by law and its administrators were > in some sense accountable to the people they rule. Any governmental > charter permitting seizure of property through "eminent domain" and the > suspension of habeas corpus (the irreducible due process guarantee) for any > reason is latently totalitarian at best; those provisions offer a glimpse > of the "secret constitution" described by Fletcher, in which federal power > is limited only by the ingenuity and brazenness of those who wield it. Many > conservatives reacted to Judge Roberts’ Obamacare ruling by giving voice to > the same pious outrage they express every time the Supreme Court redefines > the "social contract." A healthier reaction would be to ask: Why should any > individual be governed by a "contract" that he never signed, and that the > other party can unilaterally revise at its pleasure? -- Thanks for being > part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see > http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other > community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. > Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
