You Have the Right To Secede
Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise, says Tom Woods.
Buy Savings Bonds?
Bill Sardi on a professor’s nutty recommendation.
I Destroyed My Country With Hyperinflation
Gideo Gono, ex-head of the Zimbabwean central bank, on money printing.
Does Surveillance = Freedom?
Only on the American animal farm, says John Whitehead.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrestif Obama fails to secure a second term.
The story was subsequently picked up by innumerable media outlets. Highly respected economist and philosopher Thomas Sowell also voiced his concerns that race riotscould ensue if Obama is not re-elected.
Checking Twitter feeds this morning, we discovered that threats to riot on behalf of Obama supporters are still flooding in, with the users seemingly unaware of the fact that the media has now picked up on the buzz.
(Editor’s note: Colin Flahertyhas done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse.
WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abusesolely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)
|Thursday, August 2, 2012|
Highly produced music giving the beat, literally, to national mayhem
Colin Flaherty is an award-winning reporter and author of “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence to America and how the media ignore it.” Follow him on Twitter.More ↓
Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obamaa “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
The respected black commentator and philosopher Thomas Sowell has described the growing toll of black-on-white violence as a race war. I would take issue with that only because “war” implies a level of organization that supersedes that of the flash mobs.
Most of the riot organizers have moved on to cozier job titles, like Al Sharpton, who has gone from organizing riots and boycotts to holding down a desk at MSNBC and serving as the unofficial White House liaison to the black community. The old riots were usually a combination of organized protest and opportunistic violence. The organized riot is on the decline, but the opportunistic violence is still very much with us.
When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks – beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work – that might seem to have been news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t.”
The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News Channel was the first major television program to report this incident. Yet this story is not just a Norfolk story, either in what happened or in how the media and the authorities have tried to sweep it under the rug.Similar episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls or in other public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles and other places across the country.
Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes under the rug as well.In Milwaukee, for example, an attack on whites at a public park a few years ago left many of the victims battered to the ground and bloody. But, when the police arrived on the scene, it became clear that the authorities wanted to keep this quiet.One 22-year-old woman, who had been robbed of her cell phone and debit card, and had blood streaming down her face said:
The Ultimate Appeal to Persuade Fellow Blacks to Stop Voting Democrat
American Thinker ^ | 05/01/2012 | Lloyd MarcusPosted on Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:31:14 AM by SeekAndFind
Candidly, I have struggled with this for years — how best to explain why I am a black conservative and why fellow black Americans should join me.I served on a board with an extremely bright black mom. Both of her kids, a boy and a girl, are brilliant; her son received a full scholarship to Yale.This black mom is well-read on “whiny” black liberal authors and philosophers.
I am talking about the majority of black authors you see featured on mainstream TV. They sound extremely intellectual, explaining how white America is still systematically abusing blacks and why more heavily funded government programs are the answer. I feel like screaming at my TV, “Knock it off! Bottom line is you hate white people and are seeking more entitlement government freebies!” Such needy victim rhetoric has nothing to do with, nor does it achieve, real black empowerment. Frankly, these people turn my stomach.
As I said, the black mom is extremely well-read on victimhood-peddling black authors and has never heard of brilliant black conservatives Professor Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell.Professor Walter E. Williams is an American economist and academic.
He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist.Dr. Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author of 30 books. Dr. Sowell is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Both these guys are about “real” black empowerment, teaching personal responsibility, education, hard work, and morality — not the standard blacks-are-eternal-victims and white-America-owes-us garbage spouted by black pundits on TV. Thus, you never see Prof. Williams or Dr. Sowell on mainstream TV.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against George Zimmerman for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, what has happened already is enough to turn the stomach of anyone who believes in either truth or justice.
VIDEO AT LINK
Conservative economist Thomas Sowell is calling for the abolishment of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) after it revealed this week that Obamacare may cost American taxpayers nearly twice the $940 billion it originally estimated — $1.7 trillion over the next decade.
“I think occasionally the CBO does something that’s useful,” Sowell told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview. “But by and large, I think it should be abolished.”
In September 2009, President Obama estimated healthcare reform under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would cost an additional $900 billion over 10 years. The CBO initially projected the cost at $940 billion.
Adding insult to injury, the CBO’s latest projections also indicate that some 3 million Americans will lose their employer-based insurance coverage. This comes despite the repeatedly assurances of the president and others that they would be able to stay on their current employer-based policies, if they wished to do so.
In the interview, Sowell says it is time to seriously consider whether the CBO has outlived its usefulness.
THOMAS SOWELL‘S POSITION ON OCCUPY WALL STREET
Red State ^ | November 18, 2011 | Unknown
Posted on Monday, November 21, 2011 1:15:37 PM by yoe
Though incorrectly attributed to Dr. Thomas Sowell. This unknown author has made a brilliant assessment our nation at this hour in history:
The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama’s America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.
It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.
It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person’s guaranteed liberties.
Will the GOP Establishment Blow It by Picking Romney?
Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:36:41 PM by Halfmanhalfamazing
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for 50 years. One of the often-repeated catch phrases of our time — “It’s the economy, stupid!” — has already stopped thinking in some quarters for a couple of decades.
There is no question that the state of the economy can affect elections. But there is also no iron law that all elections will be decided by the state of the economy.
Sowell: The Real Scandal
gopusa.com ^ | November 10, 2011 | Thomas Sowell
Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:46:24 PM by Iam1ru1-2
The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media and politics.
Let’s start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Mr. Cain is incriminating.
Most of us are not going to part with 45 grand without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay “only” $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding a million dollars, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
The mindset of the left was recently displayed in a big, front-page story in the October 30th issue of the San Mateo County Times. It was an investigative reporter‘s exposé of the “payday loan” business and its lobbyists.
According to the reporter: “In California lenders charge up to $45 in fees on a maximum $300 loan. This amounts to an interest rate of 460 percent, trapping some borrowers into a never-ending cycle of debt.”
Let’s take this one step at a time. Whatever the merits or demerits of the rest of the argument, $45 is not going to trap anyone in a never-ending cycle of debt, even if they are making only the bare minimum wage. Personal irresponsibility in managing money can trap anyone, but that is regardless of whether or not they take out payday loans.
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Like so many people, in so many countries, who started out to “spread the wealth,” Barack Obama has ended up spreading poverty.
Have you ever heard anyone as incoherent as the people staging protests across the country? Taxpayers ought to be protesting against having their money spent to educate people who end up unable to say anything beyond repeating political catch phrases.
It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.
I hate getting bills that show a zero balance. If I don’t owe anything, why bother me with a bill? There is too much junk mail already.
Radical feminists seem to assume that men are hostile to women. But what would they say to the fact that most of the women on the Titanic were saved, and most of the men perished — due to rules written by men and enforced by men on the sinking ship?
If he were debating Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich could chew him up and spit him out.
Whether the particular issue is housing, medical care or anything in between, the agenda of the left is to take the decision out of the hands of those directly involved and transfer that decision to third parties, who pay no price for making decisions that turn out to be counterproductive.
It is truly the era of the New Math when a couple making $125,000 a year each are taxed at rates that are said to apply to “millionaires and billionaires.”
On many issues, the strongest argument of the left is that there is no argument. This has been the left’s party line on the issue of man-made global warming and the calamities they claim will follow. But there are many scientists — some with Nobel Prizes — who have repudiated the global warming hysteria.
With professional athletes earning megabucks incomes, it is a farce to punish their violations of rules with fines. When Serena Williams was fined $2,000 for misconduct during a tennis match, that was like fining you or me a nickel or a dime. Suspensions are something that even the highest-paid athletes can feel.
Most of us may lament the fact that so many more people are today dependent on food stamps and other government subsidies. But dependency usually translates into votes for whoever is handing out the benefits, so an economic disaster can be a political bonanza, as it was for Franklin D. Roosevelt. Don’t count Obama out in 2012.
Politicians can solve almost any problem — usually by creating a bigger problem. But, so long as the voters are aware of the problem that the politicians have solved, and unaware of the bigger problems they have created, political “solutions” are a political success.
Do people who advocate special government programs for blacks realize that the federal government has had special programs for American Indians, including affirmative action, since the early 19th century — and that American Indians remain one of the few groups worse off than blacks?
I hope the people who are challenging Obamacare in the Supreme Court point out that the equal application of the laws, mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is violated when the president can arbitrarily grant hundreds of waivers to the Obamacare law to his political favorites, while everyone else has to follow its costly provisions.
People who live within their means are increasingly being forced to pay for people who didn’t live within their means — whether individual home buyers here or whole nations in Europe.
Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised “debates” among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad — damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.
Have you noticed that we no longer seem to be hearing the old familiar argument that illegal aliens are just taking jobs that Americans won’t do?
Dan Rather opened a CBS Evening News broadcast in 1991 by declaring, “One in eight American children is going hungry tonight.” Newsweek, the Associated Press, and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.
When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients from one income level to another.
That should have been the end of that hysteria. But the same “hunger in America” theme reappeared years later, when Sen. John Edwards was running for vice president. And others have resurrected that same claim, right up to the present day.
Ironically, the one demonstrable nutritional difference between the poor and others is that low-income women tend to be overweight more often than others. That may not seem like much to make a political issue from, but politicians and the media have created hysteria over less.
The political Left has turned obesity among low-income individuals into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food, and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like, which are more fattening and less healthful. But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax collapses like a house of cards when you stop and think about it.
Burgers, pizzas, and the like cost more than food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself. If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food. An article in the New York Times of September 25 by Mark Bittman showed that you can cook a meal for four at half the cost of a meal from a burger restaurant. So far, so good. But then Mr. Bittman says that the problem is “to get people to see cooking as a joy.” For this, he says, “we need action both cultural and political.” In other words, the nanny state to the rescue!
Since when are adult human beings supposed to do only those things that are a joy? I don’t find any particular joy in putting on my shoes. But I do it rather than go barefoot. I don’t always find it a joy to drive a car, especially in bad weather, but I have to get from here to there.
An arrogant elite’s condescension toward the people — treating them as children who have to be jollied along — is one of the poisonous problems of our time. It is at the heart of the nanny state and the promotion of a debilitating dependency that wins votes for politicians while weakening society.
Those who see social problems as requiring high-minded people like themselves to come down from their Olympian heights to impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us, down in the valley, are behind such things as the hunger hoax, which is part of the larger poverty hoax.
We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and either cars or trucks.
Why are such people called “poor”? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality.
Those who believe in an expansive, nanny-state government need a large number of people in “poverty” to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.
Politicians, welfare-state bureaucrats, and others have incentives to create or perpetuate hoaxes, whether about poverty in general or hunger in particular. The high cost to taxpayers is exceeded by the even higher cost of lost opportunities for fulfillment by those who succumb to the lure of a stagnant life of dependency.
Ninety years ago — in 1921 — federal income-tax policies reached an absurdity that many people today seem to want to repeat. Those who believe in high taxes on “the rich” got their way. The tax rate on people in the top income bracket was 73 percent in 1921. On the other hand, the rich also got their way: They didn’t actually pay those taxes.
The number of people with taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more — equivalent to far more than $1 million in today’s money — declined from over 1,000 people in 1916 to fewer than 300 in 1921. Were the rich all going broke?
It might look that way. More than four-fifths of the total taxable income earned by people making $300,000 a year and up vanished into thin air. So did the tax revenues that the government hoped to collect with high tax rates on the top incomes.
What happened was no mystery……………………………
In the past year alone, First Lady Michelle Obama has spent 42 days on vacation, costing taxpayers upwards of $10 million.
$10 million. In taxpayer funds. For vacations.
Taking full advantage of Air Force Two (costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars), Michelle has criss-crossed the world to destinations from Spain to Hawaii and Vail, CO to Martha’s Vineyard. Indulging in lavish hotels, top-shelf alcohol, and Secret Service-arranged sight-seeing tours, Michelle has not been shy about putting her any and every whim on America’s tab.
When was the last time you took a six-figure vacation? Probably never, if you’re one of the millions of hard-working Americans worried about keeping food on the table, a roof over your head, and clothes on your children.
Can we really afford to keep up with our First Lady’s reckless spending in addition to our president’s?
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com …
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: michelle; michellevacations; obama; queenofthedeficit; where; world; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51 next last
1 posted on Monday, August 29, 2011 7:13:37 PM by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I thought Air Force Two was Biden’s plane.
2 posted on Monday, August 29, 2011 7:14:31 PM by 10thAmendmentGuy (“[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God.” -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; …
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Repeat after me, I need a vacation…
If there were a contest for the most misleading words used in politics, “poverty” should be one of the leading contenders for that title.
Each of us may have his own idea of what poverty means — especially those of us who grew up in poverty. But what poverty means politically and in the media is whatever the people who collect statistics choose to define as poverty.
This is not just a question of semantics. The whole future of the welfare state depends on how poverty is defined. “The poor” are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever bigger spending for ever bigger government advance toward their goal.
If poverty meant what most people think of as poverty — people “ill-clad, ill-housed, and ill-nourished,” in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase — there would not be nearly enough people in poverty today to justify the vastly expanded powers and runaway spending of the federal government.
Official data cited by Rector show that 80 percent of “poor” households have air conditioning today, which less than half the population of America had in 1970. Nearly three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle, and nearly one-third own more than one motor vehicle.
Virtually everyone living in “poverty,” as defined by the government, has color television, and most have cable or satellite TV. More than three-quarters have either a VCR or a DVD player, and nearly nine-tenths have a microwave oven.
As for being “ill-housed,” the average poor American has more living space than the general population — not just the poor population — of London, Paris, and other cities in Europe.
Various attempts have been made over the years to depict Americans in poverty as “ill-fed,” but the “hunger in America” campaigns that have enjoyed such political and media popularity have usually used some pretty creative methods and definitions.
Actual studies of “the poor” have found their intake of the necessary nutrients to be no less than that of others. In fact, obesity is slightly more prevalent among low-income people.
The real triumph of words over reality, however, is in expensive government programs for “the elderly,” including Medicare. The image often invoked is the person who is both ill and elderly, and who has to choose between food and medications.
It is great political theater. But, the most fundamental reality is that the average wealth of the elderly is some multiple of the average wealth owned by people in the other age brackets.
Why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing people who have much more wealth than they do?
If we are concerned about those particular elderly people who are in fact poor — as we are about other people who are genuinely poor, whatever their age might be — then we can simply confine our help to those who are poor by some reasonable means test. It would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.
But the political Left hates means tests. If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. The Left would lose its human shields.
It is certainly true that the elderly are more likely to have more medical problems and larger medical expenses. But old age is not some unforeseeable misfortune. It is not only foreseeable but inevitable for those who do not die young.
It is one thing to keep people from suffering from unforeseeable things beyond their control. But it is something else to simply subsidize their necessities so that they can spend their money on other things and leave a larger estate to be passed on to their heirs.
People who say they want a government program because “I don’t want to be a burden to my children” apparently think it is all right to be a burden to other people’s children.
Among the runaway spending behind our current national-debt problems is the extravagant luxury of buying political rhetoric.
You don’t just walk up to the local bully and slap him across the face. If you are determined to confront him, then you try to knock the living daylights out of him. Otherwise, you are better off to leave him alone.
Anyone who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem could have told you that. But Barack Obama didn’t grow up in my old neighborhood. He had a much more genteel upbringing, including a fancy private school, in Hawaii.
Maybe that is why he thinks he can launch military operations against Moammar Qaddafi, while promising not to kill him and promising that no American ground troops will be used.
It is the old liberal illusion that you can measure out force with a teaspoon, not only in military operations micro-managed by civilians in Washington, like the Vietnam war, but also in domestic confrontations when the police are trying to control a rioting mob, and are being restrained by politicians, while the mob is restrained by nobody.
We went that route in the 1960s, and the results were not inspiring, either domestically or internationally.
The old saying, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” is especially apt when it comes to attacking a widely recognized sponsor of international terrorism like Colonel Qaddafi. To attack him without destroying his regime is just asking for increased terrorism against Americans and America’s allies. So is replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism.
Browse · Search
|Pings · Mail||News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:39:53 PM by granite
My name is Betsy. I’m a wife and proud soccer mom, a writer, and a small business owner. I’m also a killer.
On the morning of January 8, 2011, I intentionally entered a gathering held by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and shot her at near-point-blank range. I injured fourteen others, killing six — among them a beautiful, curious, doe-eyed, nine-year-old girl. I didn’t actually pull the trigger, but I’m as guilty as the psychopath who did.
Here are just a few of the charges against me:
I am a conservative.
On occasion, I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News.
I believe that the federal government is too large, far too intrusive, and dangerously powerful.
I believe in personal responsibility and the amazing generosity of Americans to aid those in need rather than permanent entitlements.
I believe that the private, not the public, sector is the backbone of our economy.
I believe that our progressive tax system is punitive. We are over-taxed, over-regulated, and over-lectured.
I believe in the power of the free market to correct itself, without government (taxpayer) intervention.
I believe that the Constitution is intended to limit government and empower the individual.
I believe in holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire, be they Republican or Democrat (incendiary pun intended).
I believe that our sovereignty is at risk via unsecured borders, out-of-control spending, our crippling deficit, reckless abuses of the Constitution, and the moral decay of Washington.
In short, I’m a madman. Guilty as charged, and armed with the belief in my 1st-Amendment right to peaceably question those we elect to serve.
The only person who actually pulled the trigger on that terrible, fateful day was Jared Loughner — by every account, a deeply troubled young man. But the real guilty walk among us: senior citizens in red, white, and blue, armed with signs saying “Taxed Enough Already“; flag-wavers clinging to guns and religion; doctors; the wealthy; business owners; talk radio; and any citizen — particularly a conservative — who dares exercise his or her right to free speech.
We’re called greedy, stupid, and racist. We’re ridiculed with snide “slurpee” innuendos and called lewd and malicious names, such as “teabaggers.” Ordinary citizens are maligned by their own government while the pious, liberal elite get a free pass on reason and truth, while Islamists invoke their religious cloak, while the ideologue professes his moral superiority, while the media uses the power of spin, and while leftists, including Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama, employ their bully pulpit.
We defend conservatism by our very way of life: as self-reliant, taxpaying, moral citizens, and as faithful defenders of limited government and the power of the individual. We are violent inciters only insomuch as we threaten the current leftist, agenda-driven stranglehold on government. So alarming is our threat that the real inciters wasted no time in politicizing the tragic deaths of six innocent citizens, not to mention one revered congresswoman still fighting for her life. And they will waste no time in shamelessly exploiting a “crisis” at the hand of a lone psychopath to further enact gun control and squelch freedom of speech under cries of “civility.”
Does the left really believe that the “rhetoric” of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox is incendiary? Do they fail to understand that the language of conservative “talk” is the echo of ordinary citizens calling for limited government and individual freedoms? Or do they silence us because we know our current leaders don’t actually believe in their own limited power? Truth be told, even Jared Loughner undermines their agenda. And they know it. They know that their “transformation” of America is failing and that people like me are not afraid to say so.
My name is Betsy, and I’m a killer. They are determined to stop me before I kill again.
This went beyond the usual objections to particular policies. It was the fact that policies were crammed down our throats, whether we liked them or not. In fact, laws were passed so fast that nobody had time to read them.
Whether these policies were good, bad or indifferent, the way they were imposed represented a more fundamental threat to the very principles of a self-governing people established by the Constitution of the United States.
Arrogant politicians who do this are dismantling the Constitution piecemeal– which is to say, they are dismantling America.The voters struck back, as they had to, if we are to keep the freedoms that define this country. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by getting rid of those who circumvent it or disregard it.The same thing applies to judges.
The runaway arrogance that politicians get when they have huge majorities in Congress is a more or less common arrogance among federal judges with lifetime tenure or state judges who are seldom defeated in elections to confirm their appointments to the bench.
Excerpt Read more at jewishworldreview.com …
Last Tuesday, Dr. Thomas Sowell was interviewed on The Rush Limbaugh Show by Walter Williams, who was serving as guest host. During this interview, Williams inquired about Sowell’s opinion of direction that America is heading in .
“Are you optimistic or pessimistic?” Williams asked. “Pessimistic, and I am fighting off becoming despairing,” replied Sowell.
 Sowell’s words should not be taken lightly. As a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial about Sowell said, “Doomsters are a dime a dozen. But when a leading economist who’s been called “the nation’s greatest contemporary philosopher” sees serious trouble ahead, we’d better listen up.”
The editorial went on to explain: Sowell sees the national equivalent of a “perfect storm,” a gathering of “dangerous forces that have been building .. . for at least a half-century.” Yes, he says, our great nation has weathered many storms. But, he quickly notes, so did the Roman Empire before it collapsed.
“Is that where America is headed?” Sowell asks upfront. “I believe it is. Our only saving grace is that we are not there yet – and that nothing is inevitable until it happens.”……
The Obama administration “is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country at home and aboard,” Sowell says. But “it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago.
Moreover, it has escalated those dangers to what may be a point of no return.” Sowell has recognized the danger of Obama’s radicalism and has been sounding the alarm for over the past year.
Excerpt ~ Read On…
Influential economist Thomas Sowell tells Newsmax that voters must oust Democrats from their majorities in Congress to stop the Obama administration from continuing to take the country toward the “point of no return.”
Professor Sowell, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, also says it is “madness” to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of the, year as Obama and the Democrats appear intent on doing.Sowell is also a syndicated columnist and prolific author whose latest book is “Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Sowell says he is pessimistic about the future.Story continues below video.VIDEO 9:47 min.“Part of it is due to the continuation of a long set of trends. But much of it is also due to the fact that the current administration is really escalating these trends that are going in the wrong direction.
“One of those trends is the notion that there’s some elite out there who ought to be taking decisions out of our hands and concentrating them in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. That’s the big domestic problem.
“The huge international problem is our doing nothing while Iran is developing nuclear weapons, given that Iran is the largest sponsor of international terrorism in the world.”Another trend “is the notion that people have rights for which there is no basis in any law, in any constitution, or in any organized philosophical or religious tradition.
“I saw a photograph recently of someone sitting on a corner with a sign saying, ‘I have a right to a job.’ I have no idea where that right comes from, and it can only be sustained if other people don’t have a right…
How did we get to the point where many people feel that the America they have known is being replaced by a very different kind of country, with not only different kinds of policies but also very different values and ways of governing?Something of this magnitude does not happen all at once or in just one administration in Washington.
What we are seeing is the culmination of many trends in many aspects of American life that go back for years.Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the institutions set up by the Constitution are enough to ensure the continuance of a free, self-governing nation. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what members of the Constitutional Convention were creating, he replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”In other words, a constitutional government does not depend on the Constitution but on us.
To the extent that we allow clever people to circumvent the Constitution while dazzling us with rhetoric, the Constitution becomes just a meaningless piece of paper as our freedoms are stolen from us, much as a pick-pocket might steal our wallet while we were distracted by other things.It is not just evil people who would dismantle America.
Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have agendas of their own that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.Someone once said that a democratic society cannot survive for long after 51 percent of the people decide that they want to live off the other 49 percent. Yet that is the direction in which we are being pushed by those who are promoting envy under its more high-toned alias, “social justice.”
EXCERPT ~ CONTINUES…