Archive for the ‘amendment’ Category

Let President Obama say, “We don’t need more studies; we don’t need a balanced budget amendment.” If ever any unfolding drama proved the need for such an amendment, the drama of the past week has been it. Leave cuts to Congress and what do you get? CBO-certified gimmicks on both sides — even on the side of one sincerely trying to garner savings, one who says he also “wanted more.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Balance the Budget, posted with vodpod

Advertisements

Downwards

Quantitative Easing II (or QEII), the pumping of $600,000,000,000 into the economy without any wealth creation, was, I think intended to get companies to spend the cash they are sitting on while they wait to see what the rules (taxes) will be before making any projections or planning how to use it. I’m quite sure that the knowledge their money will depreciate in purchasing power by 20% in the next few months will cause them to at least rethink their positions. Whether it will actually stimulate spending is less certain.

One thing is sure. It is going to infuriate anyone we owe, bondholders, those holding dollars, or that we have promised money. And as it trickles down to the general population and they notice everything is 20% higher there is going to be a lot of finger pointing going on in the political class. Hopefully it will cause that “screwy idea”/sarc of auditing the Federal Reserve to come to fruition. You do notice that the official announcement was held until after the election?

Time to review that Cloward-Piven strategy again.

Here are some links to “enjoy”/sarc:

Dollar at Risk of Crashing, Triggering Inflation

Brazil Ready to Retaliate for US Move in Currency War

U.S. dollar printing is huge risk -China

Germany Concerned About US Currency Moves

Fed bond move spurs backlash from Asia to Europe

Vote for the Witch! You would think that would endear her to all those moonbeam atheist Dhimmicretins, wouldn’t you? I guess their worship of the omnipotent state takes precedence. She actually understands that the “separation of church and state” is not in the First Amendment to our Constitution. To them that’s a bigger heresy than witchcraft that they would under all other circumstances they would approve.

Also:

Palin, O’Donnell Speak, Dhimmicretins Expose Ignorance

Mark Levin Rips A New One On Moron Caller About Separation Of Church And State

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Nick Popaditch running for Representative for CA51 opens his debate with the incumbent Pelosi-bot Bob Filner by expressing his four qualifications for legislation.

1.What does his constituancy want?
2. Is it Constitutional?
3. Is it moral?
4. Is it ethical?

Now normally when a politician says anything remotely resembling this, I feel it is time to grab your wallet and jump into a bomb shelter. However Gunny Pop is a retired (not ex) Marine Gunnery Sergeant with a Silver Star, so I’m prepared to take him at his word (officers are occasionally political weasels but senior non-coms usually say exactly what they mean). And it is possibly the best concise statement of what a Representative should be doing that I’ve ever heard actually proposed.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Sarah Palin told supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773” until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives. Intellectually “superior” leftards from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas to PBS moderator Obama cheerleader Gwen Ifill took to Twitter to snicker about Palin’s historical illiteracy never taking the time to google “party+1773” and find the 4,240,000 results referencing the Boston Tea Party.

Christine O’Donnell is getting a massive amount of attention today because during a debate with Chris Coons, she asked: “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” He replied fairly well quoting the non-establishment phrase which is not the question she asked. When pressed further the “bearded Marxist” could not list the freedoms contained in the First Amendment. The religion clause reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “separation of church and state” is a doctrine first referenced by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. In Jefferson’s letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected – a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a smaller church. The worst part of this was the students at Widener University Law School laughed at her question. How can you be in Law School and quite obviously not have read the constitution? Or is their reading comprehension so horribly low that they can’t understand that simple phrase? As a PSA for them is this link, Boston College 3L Asks for His Money Back; Hilarity Ensues.

Sharron Angle covered the same ground when Jon Ralston confronted her over her 1995 statement that excluding religious schools from Federal funding is un-American and that the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine. Then this exchange ensued:

RALSTON: The separation of church and state arises out of the Constitution.

ANGLE: No it doesn’t, John.

RALSTON: Oh, it doesn’t? The Founding Fathers didn’t believe in the separation of church and state?

ANGLE: Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted, like I’ve been misquoted, out of context. Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up between the church and the state precisely to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion. That’s what they meant by that. They didn’t mean we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum.

Now you may quibble over the use of the word “arises”, and if you mean that the constitution raises the point, you might be right, but the actual meaning is almost exactly opposite of the leftists’ use of the term.

1st Amendment

Posted: September 9, 2010 in amendment, burning, fire, flag, free, patriotic, speech
If we must respect flag burning, crucifixes in urine, dung covered religious icons, and burning bibles, why would the AP decide not to show images of a burning Koran?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st Amendment, posted with vodpod