Thursday January 29, 2015
Jump to content
Uh ... Suzanne? Are you, like so very many low-information voters, assuming that the purpose of a legislator in the State government is to hold your hand, create jobs out of nothing, create free health care staffed by medical professionals willing to work without pay, and deprive you of your fundamental God-given right to self-defense against criminals and, en extremis, against tyrants in government? If so, you must be a Democrat, a socialist, or you must have been suckered in by one of these liars.
Here's a newsflash, Suzanne: Brenda Barton, Sylvia Allen, and Bob Thorpe ain't your momma and dada. It's not their job to bail you out from your ill-advised life decisions or the ill-advised economic decisions of others once your hurt has been experienced. It IS their job to protect, expand, and enhance your rights to make your own way in this world and be responsible for the consequences.
Or would you rather be fed, clothed, sheltered, transported, educated, medicated, and even entertained at the expense of taxpayers? If so, be careful what you wish for: All those things are available to the inmates of Florence Correctional Institute.
As for me, I'll take liberty and the responsibility for myself that goes with it. How 'bout you?
For what it's worth, Mr. Neal, it's not just your bank. Every bank and every credit union will do the same thing. It's been that way ever since banks bribed government into throwing our our money of intrinsic value and replacing it with I.O.U.'s representing units of the national debt.
I would certainly expect a Doctor of Education (is that anything like "Ph.D."; i.e., "Piled Higher and Deeper"?) to have a better grasp of the left-right paradigm, and substantive issues versus social issues, than is indicated by your letter.
I recommend you go read my response to Noble Collins' LTE titled "Candidate Supports Schools." What you are requesting in your letter is the same thing that got us into this fiscal mess vis-a-vis schools in the first place: Democratic socialist Janet Napolitano spent us into the poorhouse before she bailed out to go spend more of our money for Obama and help him figure out how to bring our nation to its knees economically and philosophically.
We don't need politicians in the State legislature devoted to "social issues," doc. We need politicians in the State legislature devoted to the rights of citizens to be left the heck alone by government so they can deal effectively with their own social issues -- mainly the economy, their ability to make a living, support their children, support the community, and support the schools. Money doesn't grow on trees dotting the capitol campus; we have to have an economy to generate it. We need to get out land back from the federal government so we can derive revenue from it.
You have a doctorate in education? Did that include any classes on the U. S. Constitution and the fact that the federal government has no authority to do ninety percent of what it currently spends our money on? If we can stand up to the feds we'd have plenty of money to support our schools.
Unfortunately, Noble, as you well know, the money is not just sitting there "in limbo" waiting for politicians to make up their mind. It isn't there at all. It wasn't there originally, thanks to our previous DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST APPARATCHIK governor Janet Napolitano, who spent us into the poorhouse until we had nothing to fall back on when the recession hit. Unfortunately that is what Democrat politicians always do when they manage to sucker enough voters -- or rig the polls or prevent legislation requiring proof of citizenship -- to get themselves elected.
If the Courts rule that the State must pay to the schools what the State doesn't have, I suggest they pay it out of the judicial budget -- or better yet, out of Napolitano's retirement fund, if she hasn't squirreled it away or spent it already.
The last sentence in the fourth paragraph has a typo: "The income tax is designed to hide the inflation caused by printing worthless fat currency." It should be "fiat currency." It must have been introduced in the transcription process; my copy of the text has it correct.
I'm trying to find a single thing Wendy is crowing about here that is supported by data derived from reality and not pie in the sky liberal-style cooking the books. I also haven't found a single thing she is crowing about that the federal government is authorized by the Constitution to do anything about.
But that doesn't matter to a dyed-in-the-wool liberal: Let's just have a king to take pity on all the poor folks who can't cut it in the marketplace; never mind personal responsibility and the rule of law.
She seems excited about the deficit being cut in half (a factoid seriously in doubt) and ignores the 17.7 trillion dollar national debt. THANK HEAVENS we have the most obstructive Congress in history fighting against the most destructive administration in history! If it weren't for the Tea Party element in Congress we'd have a national debt around fifty trillion and that twerp infesting our White House would be gleefully filing for national bankruptcy. As it is we already have Chinese officials with calculators rummaging through America totaling up how much collateral we have left, which isn't much.
Wendy is right about one thing: She is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. No wonder she hates capitalism: Capitalism rewards doers instead of complainers.
If Eric Holder opens a civil rights investigation into the Ferguson, Missouri police department because a white police officer shot a 300-lb. black gang member who had attacked him and was coming to attack him again, and Eric Holder has NOT opened any civil rights investigation into any of a myriad of cases in which black thugs attacked, murdered, maimed, raped, assaulted white folks of both sexes who merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is that racism?
Thank you, Jim Gier. Well said.
It all boils down to a fundamental principle taught in (legitimate) ethic studies classes: "If you allow government to do it to 'them,' you are giving government the power to do it to you."
A fundamental principle of liberty is that if you don't fight for the liberty of others whether you agree with them or not, you don't have it.
Cheap shot, Don. The whole purpose of the legal system is to protect the citizen from victimization by the criminal and from victimization by the system, because the average citizen is too busy making a living and living a life to devote the time and energy to developing warrior skills and the warrior mindset. All Meria wants, all most citizens want, is for the rough men to stand on the ramparts ready to do violence on their behalf, and not suffer victimization by those rough men. That's why we have a Constitution, and why you had a career. I really regret your experience made you bitter.
The Supreme Court ruling under discussion by the editor of the Roundup, in which the Court ruled police officers have no grounds to arrest someone for merely being in possession of a firearm in the absence of knowledge or probable cause to believe the holder of the gun is a prohibited possessor, was named "Serna" and he was a violent gang member felon. Ever notice, Meria, that Supreme Court rulings protecting our fundamental rights from the police, nearly ALWAYS are brought to the Court by CRIMINALS? Why? Well, it's in their self-interest of course, but that raises a very important question: If a law-abiding citizen is exercising his/her rights legally and properly (according to the plain English language of the U.S. Constitution) and he (or she) is accosted and mistreated by a law enforcement officer and a prosecutor and a Court for doing something he (or she) had a RIGHT to do, why doesn't that law-abiding citizen take the case to the Supreme Court?
THAT'S what happened to your right to privacy. The backbone of this country, the law-abiding hard-working middle class, GAVE OUR RIGHTS AWAY by default!
If you are not willing to fight tooth and nail to preserve your rights, you don't have any. Period.
I suggest a new perspective: In 1803, the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison a law not pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is not defective merely from the moment of its discovery, but is null and void from the moment of its inception. Until about 1921, most Supreme Court cases were decided based on the U.S. Constitution, or existing law if they could be decided without reaching the Constitution. Along about 1920, under the leadership of Progressive (read "Marxist") President Woodrow Wilson, the Courts began ruling based on "case law," basing their decisions on prior rulings about the Constitution instead of the Constitution itself. I propose we, the people, start using Marbury v. Madison to strike down those defective court rulings (such as Wickard v. Filburn, for example) that violate the plain English language of the U.S, Constitution in the interest of some authoritarian legal system.
Last login: Tuesday, January 27, 2015