Navigation

Tag Archives | Bush

Understanding The 10th Amendment

By on April 26, 2013 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, History, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 5

The “winners” write the history, and always in favor of their side of the “argument”.

Government’s job is to “control” the people. Control takes power and power comes at a price: the people’s liberty. In a nutshell, government power  stands as the enemy of liberty. And when it comes to the war between power and liberty, power generally triumphs.

Government wins.

And government writes our history.

Most people allow the government to educate their children and that means they learn the approved government version of history. Sadly, it is totally corrupt. Few Americans realize it and can’t, or wont, correct the mistake.

I will try to help correct a piece of the disinformation surrounding the 10th Amendment and put it all into the correct perspective for you.

We’ve  watched government trample on the  Constitution throughout most of our recent history. We do not have to look very far to see examples. President Bush’s Administration created the The Patriot Act, anything but patriotic. Throughout his terms in office, Bush completely disregarded what the Constitution said and wielded the arms of war with wanton disregard.

President Obama continues in the same vein with more anti-constitutional measures. When Congress does not do what Obama wants he creates Executive Orders with the force of law. Effectively legislating from the White House and overstepping his constitutional boundaries without any regard to the laws our country.

Our Constitution is a document designed to LIMIT the power of the federal government. It enumerates the exact duties, responsibilities and powers of each branch of the federal government. In other words, the federal government ONLY has the powers over things that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution. ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved for the states and people. This is succinctly spelled out in the 10th Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

What If This Were Bush?

By on September 30, 2010 in Republocrats, The Opposition 1

cross-posted from The Beacon

It goes without saying that if Bush had presided over a phony end to the Iraq war, expanded the Afghanistan war, extended its reach into Pakistan, solidified the state secrets doctrine and claimed in no uncertain terms the right to assassinate American citizens without due process, the left would be up in arms. The partisan hypocrisy concerning war-related issues is clear.

But what about economic and domestic policy? What if the Bush administration had sunk the country another trillion dollars into debt with the explicit promise that his plan was all that could prevent a 9% unemployment rate – only to then stumble for a year with an unemployment rate closer to 10%? What if the Bush administration had imposed a mandate forcing Americans to patronize the health insurance industry? What if the Bush administration had been in place for these two years since the financial collapse, overseeing an obviously sheepish economy whose only signs of recovery are transparently superficial and temporary bumps in consumption and the employment for census workers? And speaking of “transparency,” what if Bush had vowed to have his deliberations with the medical industry out in the open, to put every major bill on the web before it was voted on, and to have the health care debate on C-Span for all the world to see, only to renege totally on these assurances and every other promise of transparency? What if the Bush administration had simultaneously designated carbon to be a “pollutant” while proposing to create a market in the right to pollute, with credits given to big firms to be bought and sold on Wall Street? What if the Bush administration had overseen the BP oil spill, with regulatory agents asleep at the wheel and had decided, unilaterally, to cap the company’s liability? What if the Bush administration had won an election on one major domestic promise – to take the corruption and chaos out of the financial markets and steady the economy back on track – only to preside over an expansion of the power of the very same agencies that led the markets astray, all the while those markets showed little sign of improving? What if the Bush administration had established such a flurry of ad hoc interventions as to frighten investors away from wanting to invest in the private economy? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Obama Has Solidified the Bush Police State

By on August 20, 2010 in Big Brother, Big Government 1

On virtually all the major civil liberties issues of the Bush era, the Obama administration has followed its predecessor’s example. Detention without trial has continued. Torturers will not be investigated. Warrantless surveillance of the citizenry goes on uninterrupted. What’s more, by vindicating these policies as a left-liberal Democrat, Obama has solidified them in American political culture, making them a bipartisan, regular feature of the U.S. national-security landscape. Under Bush, many of these policies were controversial. Now they are simply to be taken for granted. You don’t have to take my word for it. The ACLU seems to agree emphatically, with a worthwhile paper “Establishing a New Normal,” looking at the first year and a half of Obama’s reign and concluding that “[t]here is a real danger. . . that the Obama administration will preside over the creation of a ‘new normal.’”

This was mostly predictable, of course. When the party in power changes, one of the most reliable consequences is the entrenchment of the other party’s policies into the mainstream. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and the Republicans who followed made the New Deal and Great Society permanent. So too do the excesses of Republican rule become as bipartisan as apple pie once a Democrat has presided over the same excesses for a year or so.

cross-posted from The Beacon

Continue Reading

The Typical NeoCon Response?

By on September 8, 2009 in Reader Feedback, Republocrats 1

In response to Michael Rozeff’s article on the Obama school address, we had a few angry emailers.  Not many.  But, Drew’s response here was pretty typical (spelling errors and typos have been preserved):

You guys are republican bungholes with no brains.Typical neocon response.Did’nt hear you sqealing when hHabeas Corpus was abolished by Bush.did’nt hear you squealing when 1st amendment rights were squashed by NAS and bush admin. Don’t send me any of your crap again.Gov read the constitution,knuckleheads.

Typical neocon response?  I guess Drew missed out on Newt Gingrich:

“I believe this is going to be posted. People are going to see it in advance. It is going be a totally positive speech. If that is what it is, it is good to have the president of the United States saying to young people across America stay in school and do your homework. It’s good for America.”

Or, maybe he missed Laura Bush too:

“it is really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States.”

Neocons, like their counterparts in the Democratic Party – let’s call them Neoprogs – have no interest in the Constitution.  Their sole interest is in maintaining their power, and thus, the status quo.  People like Drew are little more than partisan hacks.

Continue Reading

The Real Lesson of Obama’s Address?

By on September 8, 2009 in Republocrats 3

What are we supposed to be “learning” from all the controversy about Obama’s presentation to public school students?   Well, it’s quite easy, kids and parents.

As always, when there’s a real challenge to the imperial presence of the executive branch, the so-called opponents will always defend each other.  While left and right may fight on the surface, the reality is that they’ll both do anything to preserve the status quo that is their elevated power.

Take Laura Bush, for example, in this CNN report:

Former first lady Laura Bush is defending President Obama’s decision to address the nation’s school children, telling CNN Monday that it is “really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States.”

But wait, there’s more:

Does she think it’s fair to criticize Obama, as some have, by labeling him a socialist? “I’d have no idea whether it’s fair, do you think I thought it was fair when President Bush was criticized — not really. So, I guess not,” she responded.

The lesson?  If you don’t see it already, I recommend you go back to your CNN.  Everything’s going to be just fine.

Continue Reading