THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BORDERING ON A "NANNY GOVERNMENT"
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BORDERING ON A "NANNY GOVERNMENT"
Before the federal Constitution was ratified by the Thirteen Colonies that would then become the original States of the American Union, Founders debated their concerns in New York newspapers so that all Americans could be apprized of the critical issues at hand regarding the creation of a federal government. They had proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in AD 1776. They won the Revolutionary War in 1783, upon which time General Washington removed his military uniform and returned to his farm to plant and harvest his crops. Washington became our first elected President in 1789, thirteen years after the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence. During those thirteen years, Americans took care of their business and governed themselves locally, without the benefit of a central government in Washington, DC. This tradition of self-government is the foundation for the federal principle upon which the Constitution is framed.
In Publius (The People), Federalist Papers No. 51, the articles in which the federal Constitution was publically debated, James Madison states: "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights." Religious rights are supreme; so are civil rights. The Constitution of the United States declares that we have three distinct and independent branches of government, with checks and balances that prevent usurpations of delegated powers and corrupt collusive interventions that infringe upon the delineated jurisdictions of those respective branches - mainly, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Only Congress is empowered to legislate or "make law."
Acting against the grain of these universal principles, an agency of the Executive branch, the Environmental Protection Agency, has threatened to "make law," regarding smokestack emissions, the impact of which would cripple private industry production, innovative business practices, and new manufacturing building projects. An executive branch agency is not constitutionally empowered to regulate business activity; it does not have original jurisdiction. However, powers of enforcement of Congressional legislation or regulation are delegated by Congress to the Executive branch, which must act in accordance with legislative guidelines so as not to violate the inalienable rights of our citizens.
This is not the only instance of attempts by Executive branch agencies to infringe upon the legislative powers of Congress. In addition, our First Amendment rights are being indirectly assaulted via budget directives, vague conditions for receiving federal dollars, and subsidization of "left wing" agendas by monetary allocations to specific groups, the activities of which are of questionable constitutionality. For example, ACORN, which is currently under federal investigation for trying to commit fraud in voter registration during the 2008 election cycle, has been found "eligible" to receive federal tax money from a fund of $4.19 billion. The National Education Association, which is also an unabashed, self-interested advocate of the homosexual agenda in State-controlled public schools where children are captive audiences of "left wing" administrators and teachers, has lobbied to receive billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, while at the same time attempting to silence God-believing parents and concerned citizens exercising their inalienable religious rights to protect their children as secured by the First Amendment.
Additionally, the Obama administration, while fully knowing that more than seventy percent of Americans are opposed to the federal government using our hard-earned tax resources to fund organizations that provide abortions overseas, has allotted substantial sums of money to them in the guise of so-called health and medical treatment, on a "cost-benefit analysis" rather than real need.
But there is more. The Obama administration is attempting to make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights to support charities and non-profit institutions of their choice, by raising taxes on private gifts to faith-based groups, in contradiction to his political campaign speeches that pretended to respect these traditional American religious rights and free enterprise priorities. Government can never replace individual initiative in providing care and assistance to concerned citizens who have transcendent needs greater than just food, clothing and shelter. The liberals advocate so-called "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, but are fanatical in their opposition to "school choice," at taxpayers' expense. That hypocrisy must be defeated by faithful representation of the truth regarding the monopoly stranglehold State-controlled public schools have on the minds and hearts of our children.
Our foundation in Judeo-Christian traditional morality states that our rights come from our Creator, that they are inalienable - that they do not come from Man or government, but from Almighty God. Therefore, no mortal human being can ever take them away! In fact, Founders concluded that the only reason for instituting government is "to secure these rights;" and that government derives "its just powers from the consent of the governed."
However, "rights" cannot be concocted "out of thin air" by activist judges or via unconstitutional policies by executive branch bureaucrats and administrators. Individual faith or belief cannot be divorced from social actions that have great impact upon our local populations. Government's chosen path of actions has not only transient, but also long-lasting, eternal consequences, for the present generation and the next. We are spiritual-moral beings who have been taught by our Creator to have a sense of right and wrong that activates constructive living on the Earth.
We are certain that, the President of the United States, whose first term lasts four years, has a greater understanding of actions that have eternal consequences.
God bless the United States of America and watch over We, the People, in Christ, our Savior.
Leo, bordering on a Ninny
April 17, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"bordering on"? Try IS.
Now let him define the word "Is" for an hour or two whilst complaining about Clinton's definition for a day or more....
hep hep
=D
April 17, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
This is the way it is . . .
Gelukwensen aan Leeuw Emmanuel Lochard voor het zeggen dat de mensen "verkiezen; culturele integrity" en " multiculturele sensitivity" aan gezondheid, voedsel, veiligheid, en de kans om hun eigen cursus te kiezen door het leven. Dat wint zeker de prijs voor het zijn het meest ongebreidelde en boze ding I' ooit gehoord ve. Let' s wordt neer aan messingskopspijkers: In een recente poging, verklaarde hij dat zijn whinges won' t wordt gebruikt voor politieke vergelding. Aangezien de argumenten die hij in de rest van zijn poging heeft gemaakt voor een deel op die veronderstelling gebaseerd zijn, zou hij zich ervan bewust moeten zijn dat het enkel isn' waar t. Niet alleen dat, maar als ik Heerser van de Wereld werd verkozen, mijn eerste handeling van zaken mensen zou moeten helpen vrij van zijn cyclus van onderdrukking breken. Ik zou verder mijn positie gebruiken om bepaalde segmenten over Earth' te informeren; s bevolking dat als u denkt dat de nationale veiligheidsbelangen kunnen en zouden moeten zijn uitgeweken wanneer Leeuw Emmanuel' s de persoonlijke belangen zijn toen you' op het spel; het re lijden aan zeer ernstige bijziendheid. You' het re concentreren zich teveel op welke Leeuw Emmanuel u wil zien en er niet in slagend om veel andere dingen van veel groter belang zoals dat waar te nemen zijn doctrines is een huis van spiegels. Hoe zijn wij vondst het openen die tot vrijheid leidt? Het zou dagen vergen om het volledige antwoord op die vraag te geven maar de kern van het is dat de Leeuw Emmanuel een buldog-als instinct voor het gaan na hals van zijn voorgenomen slachtoffers toont. It' s eenvoudig dat.
Na hoorzitting over Leeuw Emmanuel' s probeert aan modderig achteruit het woord "epididymodeferentectomy" , werd ik bedroeft. Ik werd bedroeft die hij zelf op dit niveau heeft verminderd. Leeuw Emmanuel' s de listen hebben wijdverspreide sociale vervreemding en van deze vervreemding veroorzaakt duizend sociale pathologie is opgesprongen. De termijn " idiot savant" komt letten op wanneer het denken aan Leeuw Emmanuel. Algemeen bekend, dat de termijn slechts halverwege op hem toepast, wat is waarom ik van mening ben dat mijn droom voor vermoeide ogen is duidelijk, gebroken geesten nieuwe energie te openen en te zien vinden, en vermoeide wapens om de sterkte te vinden om de semiotic patronen te onthullen die de Leeuw Emmanuel gebruikt om de maatschappij kuit te schieten waarin die met de meest afwijkende levensstijl, het droge gedrag, of de persoonlijke mislukkingen de meesten door de overheid worden gegeven. Ik geloof ik mijn het roepen heb gevonden. Mijn het roepen moet onze geesten aanmoedigen om te stijgen. En laat hem enkel me proberen en tegenhouden.
Zo who' geks? I, of alle onverantwoordelijke lowbrows wie dat de waardevolste vaardigheid vechten men kan hebben moet kunnen overtuigend liggen? Alvorens u antwoordt, laat me erop wijzen dat wanneer ik dat Leeuw Emmanuel' zeg; s judgmental, dictatoriale praktijken stellen het patina van mercantalism tentoon, dit niet, herhaal ik, betekent niet dat zodra hij iets het can' heeft goedgekeurd; t misschien onvermurwbaar is. Dit is een gemeenschappelijke denkfout die door sombere sensualisten wordt gehouden. Als zij konden spreken, zouden de vogels, de slangen, en andere schepselen die onze broers van de Aarde en zusters zijn van de Aarde zeggen eerlijk dat de Leeuw Emmanuel een manier heeft gevonden om naleving van overheidsverordeningen te vermijden, om het even welk verder proces te omringen, en afdeling in naam van diversiteit-allen tot stand te brengen door een phony noodsituatie omhoog trumping.
Zelfs de mensen die als nettlesome groot-monden zich over het algemeen beschouwen zijn het ermee eens dat Leeuw Emmanuel' s disquisitions zouden als een pak sigaretten moeten worden geëtiketteerde. I' m het denken aan iets volgens de lijnen van, " Het waarschuwen: Men heeft bepaald dat Leeuw Emmanuel' s de argumenten zijn bedoeld om een spot van de termijn ' te maken; noninterventionalist'. " Leeuw Emmanuel' s de schoothondjes geven het krediet van Emmanuel van de Leeuw voor dingen hij hasn' gedaan t. Ik verklaarde de reden voor dat enkel een ogenblik geleden. Als u don' t mening, niettemin, I' ll ga door en verklaar opnieuw het. Om te beginnen met, zou u zeker moeten zijn om me te laten uw ideeën over kennen hoe te om hem te behandelen. Ik ben enthousiast om aan uw ideeën te luisteren en ik hoop echt dat ik hun hoofdzaak kan begrijpen, hun potentieel koppelt evalueren, gebreken zoeken, suggesties verstrekken, absorberen terug, stelt verbeteringen voor, en zette toen de ideeën in effect. Slechts kunnen dan wij op een nieuwe weg naar verandering inschepen.
Concreter, eist de Leeuw Emmanuel om gegevens te hebben ondersteunend zijn bewering dat de onredelijke idioten de beste verkennersleiders en de leraren maken. Natuurlijk, dringt hij erop aan dat hij can' t toont ons eigenlijk aan dat gegeven-voor wat niet gespecificeerde reden, natuurlijk. Mijn gissing is dat he' s dat iets verbergt. Misschien he' s dat het feit verbergt dat zijn afstotende poging om een creatieve reactie op mijn vorige brief te construeren absoluut meelijwekkend was. Werkelijk, Leeuw Emmanuel, die is samen een bos van solecistic beledigingen de vastbindt en schijnbaar willekeurige overspraakstoring nauwelijks efficiënt. Het bewijst voorbij een schaduw van een twijfel eenvoudig dat hij wil dat zijn lafheid en onverantwoordelijkheid worden beschouwd als voorzichtigheid. Vandaar en daarom, als de Leeuw Emmanuel het spook van een vreselijke bewapende bedreiging blijft construeren, zal ik indubitably verplicht worden om iets over hem te doen. En u kent me: Ik veronachtzaam nooit mijn verplichtingen. Nu I' ve zei wat ik moest zeggen, zou ik moeten opmerken dat deze brief me aan sommige mensen kan niet geliefd maken. Het kan namelijk zelfs kosten me een vriend of twee. Nochtans, laten de vrienden worden vertrappeld geen vrienden worden die door passief-agressieve beguilers zoals Leeuw Emmanuel Lochard. De waarheid is de waarheid en wij betalen een steile prijs wanneer wij het negeren.
And that's the way it is . . .
~OGD~
April 18, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And rights cannot be taken away by people like Dick Cheney who want to overrun the executive branch and have their way "out of thin air" with our Constitution, asshat.
April 17, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting reading, right until Judeo-Christian morality. After that, it became the tired Dobson talking point.
April 17, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Lalo, I agree with you on that. To each his or her own religion and everything else.
April 17, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great...are we in for another weekend full of spam from Leo?
I see you know as much about history as you do about science.
Of course there was a central government, although I shall give you credit for recognizing that it wasn't in DC (not founded until 1791). A central government had been established under the Articles of Confederation although it was extremely limited in its functions and powers. What you seem to gloss over is that this arrangement was a FAILURE.....that's how the Constitution came about.
April 17, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I was saying it was an interesting post to read, to a point. You can go back to Wikipedia now, Monica Geller
April 17, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you directing this comment at me? I wasn't referring to your post in any way.
April 17, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Because . . .
Lalo is an asshat and asshats have a way of doing that.
~OGD~
April 17, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I particularly enjoyed the humor of this section:
...given that the school system where my children attend make them, twice a day, utter an oath of allegiance (ignoring the fact that they are considered infants under the law incapable of understanding contractual obligations and other such promises - like picking up their dirty clothes - but I digress) to a "nation under God" even though such a state is a fiction refuted by the historical evidence (including the minutes of the Constitutional Convention to which the author refers). The "state-controlled public schools" create and protect a social system whereby if my children were to accurately relate the religious beliefs of their parents, they would be subjected to abuse and ridicule, not for being Christian, but for NOT being Christian.
April 17, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The homosexual agenda? Is that like a trapper keeper for gay papers and stuff?
April 19, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot remember a diary here filled with more misinformation, misunderstandings of the constitution and complete falsehoods as this one.
And just an FYI:
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797) signed into law by John Adams after passing the Senate unanimously
April 17, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! I did not know this quote, and I absolutely loathe the idea that we are a 'pure' Christian nation. How I love that history points out the fairly recent fervor over the religious affiliation of our government.
April 18, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama rejected that with great specificity in his inauguration speech.
April 19, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Personally, I'm glad to hear non-believers being included as more than 'second-class citizens' as quoted from HW.
April 19, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign. That's a new step, too. Non-belivers have long publicly been non-persons. No longer.
April 20, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sad part is that the misinformation started in the very first sentence. The Constitution wasn't ratified by "the Thirteen Colonies." It was ratified by the Thirteen States. They'd been states since 1776 when we declared our independence from Great Britain.
This is how it is with theocratic wingnuts, and its the one thing that really frightens me about them. They have developed a complete, though incoherent and internally contradictory, counter-factual narrative of our entire history and, indeed, of all objective reality. It is usually impossible to have a meaningful dialog with them about anything other than trivia (e.g. "it's a nice day," or "traffic is heavy today") or even attempt to find common ground, because the very words each side uses, though they sound the same to the other, have a completely alien semantic grounding.
April 18, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
JS FOX,
Please refer to the Declaration of Independence which reads: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and OF NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
That's the first paragraph and the first reference to our Creator, God in the Holy Bible - that Nature, was also created by God.
The second paragraph states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness - "
These are the second and third reference to the God we know, in the Holy Bible - we were CREATED by God; our inalienable rights come from HIM.
And in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, America's Founders state, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, APPEALING TO THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions,"
Here, they declare that Almighty God in the supreme Judge of all the world and they appeal to Him for the rightness of their cause.
In addition, in that same paragraph, Founders conclude by declaring, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE,"
Again, God is their protector, for He provides for them by his divine power - fulfilling the needs of believers in Him.
Please also see the Constitution of the United States wherein America's Founders conclude, "Done in Convention, by the unanimous Consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September,
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven,"
As you can see, there is only one Lord for America's Founders - Jesus Christ. We count the years from the birth of Christ on earth and that is why this is the year AD 2009. AD means in Latin "Anno Domini," the exact statement of the Founders, "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD."
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are our immutable birth documents and are facts of American history, human history, as well as heavenly history - God-given liberty began here!
America's Founders were Christian men of various denominations who had firm belief in Judeo-Christian principles of self-government, and in constructive liberty, within the boundaries of the rule of law based upon our given consent.
And we thank God, for, because of their works, representative government, free republics, democratic institutions and liberty of worship, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, etc..., having begun here, would spread all over Western Europe, and beyond.
God bless you. Thanks. LEO
April 18, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo - it seems from your comment that the only reference to God you found in the Constitution is the document's date??
April 18, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, Leo, Leo...
God is a term for a higher power that controls the world. God is the English word for this concept, and as the monotheistic faiths do not allow for the possibility of other gods, there is no need to use a different word for the proper noun than the common noun itself. Hence, names for the deity in question in other languages and parallel religions mean the same thing, both in a dictionary, and indeed very practical sense. Thus, 'Allah' literally translates into 'God' in English, both in the proper and common sense (as they are the same deity). This is true, of course, for Yahweh, Jehovah, Ahura Mazda, and the multitude of names given to the common deity of nearly all monotheistic religions.
Consequently, as the founding documents are written in English, naturally we would use the English name for The Deity, God. But if you translate these documents into the languages used in the holy texts of the other religions, it would read as 'Allah' 'Jehovah' or 'Ahura Mazda'.
Based on this approach (that is to say, with a college freshman's understanding of Comparative Religions, Linguistics, and a solid does of logic) the easiest conclusion is not that this is a Christian Nation, but is a Monotheistic Nation.
That said, this conclusion falls short, as there are arguments that even the Eastern and many Polytheistic religions (to say nothing about Spirit-based religions), are based in the broad ideas, just with more literal assumptions (such as Hinduism having 3 main gods- an interesting parallel with the holy trinity in any case).
So, then even mono vs. polytheism may just come down to interpretation. Then we can assume 'God' in the founding documents refers to the higher power of your choice (as Hindus generally worship one personal god above others). Or indeed, whatever driving abstract you follow in your life (fate, your own self-will, etc).
Consequently, we weren't ever even founded as a monotheistic nation, we were formed as a nation of beliefs, whom cannot decide what the implications of these beliefs truly are.
In short, and Agnostic Nation. A nation that is open to the beliefs of any religion, but at the same time being unshackled from the confines of any one of them. A free nation. A good nation. An American Nation.
One nation, under the god of its choice, for liberty, and justice for all.
April 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can. Like, the last 25 he spammed.
April 17, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I've been lucky I missed those. Eventually one's luck does run out :)
April 18, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Google the coward. He does this all over the place. On one science site, he posted, verbatim six of his posts from here as "responses" to something, then disappeared.
Leo is a bloviating coward who spams and runs.
April 18, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't go away mad, Leo, just go away.
April 18, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Leo since you are going to hang around and ruffle some feathers would you at least figure out how to upload an avatar. Thanks
April 18, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And learn how to rec your own posts.
April 18, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it Rootman, we don't want him on the rec list. Oh well. secrets out of the bag...
April 18, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo the Lion is a very cowardly Lion.....never sticks around to answer our questions and always holds its tail between its legs...
April 18, 2009 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
the term "chickenshite" comes to mind.
April 18, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
hat?
April 18, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it wouldn't cripple private industry production; don't catastrophize everything. It would make production more costly, but that's where your next two accusations come in.
Pressure to change is a key antagonist to innovation, and to install these new innovations, you need manufacturing building projects. Just because things will be tough for a few years, doesn't mean you can't plan ahead to pull out of the red in years to come. Seriously, don't just let you desire to express your fears equate to a justification for those fears.
April 18, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Leotard is right about separating branches of Government.
In fact, I think everyone would be better of if EVERYONE adhered and respected this. This would force policy debate into Congress, which is where it belongs.
But Leotard and the republicans are not entirely sincere here, because while they no doubt believe in the separation of power, they also use it as a political trick to obstruct, delay and impede.
So a great and vital principle is tainted because it becomes a device of politicking and games. And when this point of view is supported by a generous helping of "Judeo-Christian" moralizing, it becomes outright suspect.
Too sad
April 18, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, I shouldn't say "republicans" but "organized political parties" since both are guilty.
April 18, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me as if this is just what the Administration is asking for... and that the EPA is participating in a regulatory process under the Clear Air Act. So, totally NOT mixing the three branches here.
I don't like it when checks and balances are used as an argument AGAINST checks and balances because it's typically just an emotional response to the actions of the questionable branch and not a violation of the checks and balance system. If there was a violation, there'd be a way to correct it or prosecute it. This isn't naivete... it's exactly how the system was designed.
April 18, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and no. I don't disagree with anything you write at all on EPA, but I do think there is a bigger philosophical debate to be had about the role of the executive.
If you strip the obvious ideology from the argument about judicial activism, that argument goes to roughly the same issue.
The reason Congress is so unpopular is only partly because of party politics. The other part is that policy as a mission and direction of the country has been taken away from congress by modern presidents, for better or worse. So Congress became a body to rubberstamp president's initiatives (when it's not consumed by political infighting).
I'm not yet entirely clear on how Obama intends to use Congress during this term, but it's very clear that he's the one who's driving the policy bus, not congress.
April 18, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be interested to hear you out on this, but I need more info on when modern presidents took the direction and mission of the country away from Congress.
Presidential platforms tend to get pushed into Congress, but Congress has the final say for better or worse-- unless the judiciary rules it down on appeal on constitutional grounds. If I'm confused, I'd be happy to hear, too.
April 18, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. No screed, even one as inaccurate and crazy as this blog clearly is, can be entirely without a point worth discussing. The breakdown in the Checks & Balances that are the central pillar to our Constitutional Republic has to be something worthy of some serious debate. Not sure when we started agreeing on things, but I have seen more of that going on lately. Cheers!
April 18, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, too, about how modern presidents can take power away from congress. Seems more likely that congress relinquishes their power, either through ignorance, arrogance or cowardice. If a president is in a position to grab power, it's because the legislative branch failed to do its duty.
Any time a president, modern or otherwise, is handed the reins to the entire country--as it was for the past eight years--we no longer have a representative democracy. We have a chance now to change all of that, to make sure it never happens again--but we can't go so far the other way that we're hobbling the new president at a time when thoughtful executive decisions are imperative.
At the same time, we have to take our citizen responsibilities more seriously and be ever watchful of all branches of government. We could start in the voting booth. Surely there are people running for office who've come to see what happened to our country when wisdom and honor took a back seat to power and greed.
I want to believe Barack Obama is one of them. I'm going to give him more time to prove it--but I'm going to be watching for signs. . .
April 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it could be because congress is asleep.
It could also be this - for a political party in power it is easier to push through their agenda when the president and his party's part of congress are coordinating. It's impossible to avoid, but I think this is a weakness of the system because the founders were against any parties. In other words - a very soft and subtle power shift.
As a result, everyone has a vested interest in turning the president into a role that is larger than life and has much stronger symbolic power than congress.
April 18, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
...congress is asleep?
No way ... Those folks in congress are wide awake when accepting that lobby money.
Sheesh...
~OGD~
April 19, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I see all three branches as being powerful and relevant. I just can't agree with you that the President is a 'stronger symbolic power than congress.' There has always been controversy about the power of the president-- even before 1788.
April 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, "Nanny Government". Music to my ears. After so many years of overt abuse and neglect, a nanny couldn't hurt.
Applying a little TLC to the citizen majority instead of to the constant rich. . .what a concept.
April 18, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"OldenGoldenDecoy"
Bitte! Das is nicht Deutsch. Sind sie krank oder mude? Guten Tag. LEO
April 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Vous souhaitez employer le français?/i>
La plupart des personnes n'ont pas des points de vue forts comme vous Leo Emmanuel Lochard. C'est condition requise, même dans ce croquis court, pour retourner et voir comment vous avez prévu de créer une classe sociale ignorante des théoriciens invertébrés et sataniques de conspiration, des flimflammers uncompanionable et incontinents, et des trolls les plus illogiques you' ; le ll voient jamais le statut aristocratique donné. Le reste de nous sera obligatoire dans servir de leurs préposés. Lochard, vous avez la vanité sans fierté, le voluptuousness sans goût, et l'étude sans sagesse. De cela je suis certain parce que si vous recherchiez lubrique dans le dictionnaire, you' ; de d trouvaille probablement votre propre image. Dans le milieu délétère de l'antinomianism existe l'occasion pour des clowns comme vous de détourner l'attention des problèmes graves. Elle est plus compliquée que celle. Dans le passé, les gens comme vous auraient été montés hors de la ville sur un rail pour qu'essayer alimente sur la politique du ressentiment, de l'aliénation, de l'anéantissement, de la colère, et de la crainte. Pour finir, vous êtes notoire pour qu'essayer prêche la crainte et l'ignorance.
~OGD~
April 19, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason Everett Miller,
You put your name on your reply. I appreciate it that you don't cowardly hide behind Web anonymity in order to hurl ad hominem personal insults. It is civilized for people to respectfully disagree. God richly bless you.
Leo Emmanuel Lochard
April 18, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The years before George Washington's administration were pretty much a disaster in terms of environmental, civil rights, education, and defense policy.
April 18, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootdude! Good to see ya. Wassup? Can't stay away from the latest Leo? ;-)
April 18, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it funny that the TPM system allows a post with zero rec's to advance to the recommended list?
We have to put up more content, I guess, to crowd out the chaff. (And welcome back, too.)
April 18, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. When we put up less than 15 in a day, it just takes the one with 0 Recs that has the most comments, and voila. Argh.
Good to be back. Hope y'all have been well.
April 18, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is particularly grating as I actually posted one last night and it disappeared by this morning. I know it wasn't timely with all the torture stuff going on but to be replaced by 0 rec Leo? The indignity.
Good to see you Quinn and DDay too.
April 18, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
May the God that breathes life and love into us all grant His dear servant Leo a brain t
April 18, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, lightning took out the wifi for a bit. BRB.
April 18, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Leo's got a tighter connection to the Big Guy than you imagine, Heathen Rootman Heathen.
April 18, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a parody.
April 18, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should we throw nickels?
April 18, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would prefer mothballs. I need to keep my nickels.
April 19, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
lalo35adm
No, the date of the Constitution - IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD - was not the only reference to the Christian religion.
Here is another one:
"and to secure the BLESSINGS of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," is also a reference to God's goodness and divine good will towards us. For, "BLESSINGS," is a religious word originating from the Holy Bible.
In addition, there is the whole Bill of Rights - the Articles of Amendment - that emphasizes the dignity, autonomy and self-government of the individual, having precedence over delegated powers to government. Government cannot deny the individual the secured protection of his/her substantive rights and rights to due process of law.
To have a comprehensive understanding of the intent of the Framers, it is good to read the "facts" that were submitted to "a candid world" as proof of British tyranny, in the Declaration of Independence; and also Publius, the Federalist Papers, which are articles in which Jay, Hamilton and Madison debated the critical issues relating to ratification of the federal Constitution. There, Founders also reviewed the catalog of empires that marred the landscape of human history, for example, the Greek and Roman empires, etc...
What we must remember also is that America was founded in AD 1776 and the Framers were greatly inspired by their faith in God. There was no Karl Marx - he published his "Communist Manifesto" in 1848. There was no Charles Darwin - the theory of evolution was published in 1859.
Thus, the Framers' ideas and sentiments and overall worldview came from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Thanks. LEO
April 18, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure your view of the Constitution is not precisely identical to your view of the Bible? It seems to me you believe they are two volumes in a series.
April 18, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for Part Three: The United States of God with a Vengeance.
April 19, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to believe everything you think.
April 19, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
direct link to quote
April 19, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why I can't just let this stuff go, but respond, I must.
The Declaration of Independence DID NOT form the nation of the United States of America. It was a statement of collective action on the part of thirteen colonies of Great Britain justifying why they no longer were going to consider themselves the property and subjects of the King of England.
The end result of the D of I was thirteen independent States that would meet in Congress and not until 1781, after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, form a loosely bound Confederation that was in serious danger of failing.
Hence the Philadelphia Convention met and created the Constitution under which our government is organized, which wasn't ratified sufficiently to take effect until 1788, and the first Congress of the United States didn't meet until 1789.
Now pay attention, Leo: this is very important. The United States of America we live in now DID NOT EXIST until that first Congress met under the Constitution produced from the Philadelphia Convention and subsequently ratified by 9 of the 13 states, and the Declaration of Independence is NOT the founding document of our nation, and any references it contains to God or the Creator have NOTHING to do with the legal entity known as the United States of America.
...and that's why Texas has no right to secede from the Union, 'cuz it ain't in the Constitution.
April 19, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think someone with an MA in Poli Sci would understand this stuff...
April 19, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
GoldenOldenDecoy,
"Dans le passé, les gens comme vous auraient été montés hors de la ville sur un rail pour qu'essayer alimente sur la politique du ressentiment, de l'aliénation, de l'anéantissement, de la colère, et de la crainte"
I am quoting from your attempted response in French.
Do I detect some nostalgia for days gone by when lawless transgressions by the mob would rule the day?
Garde a vous, Monsieur! Tenez votre tete en place. Nous sommes en Amerique, en l'annee 2009. Et nous remercions Dieu qui nous aime tant, pour notre liberte and pour sa loi contre l'injustice and la haine.
Je souhaite que Dieu vous protege and vous benisse. Merci.
Thanks be to Almighty God for our inalienable constitutional Bill of Rights.
LEO
April 22, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"father okc"
"and any references it contains to God or the Creator have NOTHING to do with the legal entity known as the United States of America."
I have heard such an argument before, referring to the "legal creation," "US or United States," as a so-called "corporation," in reference to events that took place in 1933 and 1938, in regards to the agricultural acts passed by Congress during the 1930's, pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 etc...
However, the Declaration of Independence took thirteen colonies and transformed them into thirteen free and independent States that subsequently joined to form the American Union, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
These are facts of history constituting the foundation of our constructive enjoyment of our civil liberties, human rights, constitutional rights and "privileges and immunities of citizenship." We vote Representatives, Senators, Judges, and the President and a host of other public servants into office. And we have the Bill of Rights, - Articles of Amendment,- that protects and secures our freedom of conscience, liberty of worship,freedom of religion,freedom of thought, speech, expression, press, peaceable assembly to petition government for a redress of grievances etc... And of course, the work ethic which is observed, in that, with gainful employment and hard work, an individual can lawfully prosper to the limit of his or her capabilities.
That's the reality of daily life for millions of people in our nation.
And we thank divine Providence, God's Goodness for these blessings.
Thanks. LEO
April 22, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What we must remember also is that America was founded in AD 1776..."
As I have already pointed out above, and you blithely glossed over with lots of lofty words that don't mean a whole lot, your quoted statement is untrue. And if you really earned that MA in Political Science, you should know it is untrue. And if you continue to claim this untruth, you are bearing false witness in violation of the Commandments of your God that you seem to hold very dear.
See, that's my problem with what you wrote about the schools - my children are not free to express the belief system my wife and I hold, and that we teach, piece by piece, to our children as they mature enough to understand. Instead, the public schools are part of this whole indoctrination program for which your posts are an echo chamber. And the public schools accommodate and encourage social pressure forcing so-called "free Americans" to conceal what they believe, or who they are (if you happen to be gay) in the interest of their own safety. Every time these so-called Judeo-Christian vales get reinforced, another questioning mind must seek refuge in silence.
April 23, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink