Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Austin Hill :: Townhall.com Columnist
This "American Freedom Thing" Makes People Uncomfortable
by Austin Hill
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


American freedom is spiraling out of control, and it needs to be reigned-in.

Right?

I don’t know any American who would actually say such a thing - at least not in so many words. But far too many Americans have succumbed to a certain “sickness” these days. It’s the perverse notion that their lives will be improved, and that they will be made to “feel better,” when the freedom of other American individuals and groups is diminished.

This nonsense not only makes for some nasty politics, but is also shaping the ways in which many Americans view the world around them.

Ever since the release of my first book “White House Confidential - The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History,” I frequently get asked if our modern-day politics are the nastiest in American history. The answer is clearly “no.” In terms of nasty behavior among politicians and candidates, things have been far uglier in previous generations.

For example, most Americans would be shocked to learn that a former U.S. Vice President (Aaron Burr) once got in such a heated argument with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (Alexander Hamilton), that the V.P. ended up shooting and murdering the Treasury Secretary. And it may be “news” to some that while campaigning for re-election in 1828, President John Quincy Adams was so ugly in his attacks on his opponent‘s wife, Rachel Jackson became emotionally debilitated during the campaign, and died from a heart attack days after Andrew Jackson won the election (she was, quite literally, buried in the dress that she intended to wear at her husband’s inauguration).

But those are examples of politicians and candidates beating-up on each other. Today, private American citizens want to do damage to other private American citizens, and politicians are all-too- happy to “play” us for all we’re worth.

Our current President ran an incredibly successful campaign, driven in no small part by his promises of punishing certain groups of Americans. “Rich people,” “overpaid corporate executives,” “the oil companies,” and “pharmaceutical manufacturers” were all targets of Barack Obama’s vicious attacks.

And his message to the rest of us about these select groups of Americans was clear: I’ll make your life better, by constraining their freedom - - making “rich people” less free to create and possess wealth, making companies less free to produce a profit, limiting how much an individual can earn at their job, and so forth. These ideas make for absurd economic policy, in that no President, not even dear leader Barack, can simply re-distribute the nation into prosperity - at some point, somebody has to actually “produce wealth.”

But as political rhetoric, it resonates, which means that at least some Americans really like the idea of taking away other people’s freedom.

In my current hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, there is further evidence of this sickness. After the irrational run-up in Phoenix area real estate prices earlier this decade, followed by the devastating foreclosure crash over the past 18 months, homes in Phoenix are finally starting to sell again. But one of the challenges facing realtors and buyers is what to do with the “damaged” foreclosures.

It’s a bit of an epidemic. Americans, living in Arizona, who, upon losing their otherwise nice, suburban house, on their way out the door go about breaking all the windows, stealing hardware and appliances, and in some instances - - just to “get even,” I suppose - - urinating and defecating on carpets, and burning walls and cabinetry with matches and lighters. Once again, evidence of “the sickness” presents itself - -“I’ll feel better by restricting somebody else’s freedom” - in this case, the next owner’s freedom to enjoy the house.

The sickness also impacts the ways in which some Americans view the world. While hosting talk radio at Phoenix, Arizona’s Newstalk 92-3 KTAR, I spoke last Friday about Recording Artist Tyrese Gibson’s absurd performance of “The Star Spangled Banner” at the Los Angeles Lakers’ NBA playoff game the night before. Where the lyric reads “the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there..,” Gibson sang “..that our Lakers were still there..” It was disrespectful, it was nonsensical, and I said as much on the show.

But talk show caller Darren, an Army veteran, declared that he fought for “everything that flag represents” - and then explained that Gibson should be “imprisoned for six months” for his stupidity.

“When you were in the Army, were you protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution?” I asked.

“Of course I was” Darren explained.

“Did that include the First Amendment, or did you leave that one out?” I asked. After a few more seconds of discussion, I thanked Darren for his service in the Army, and assured him that constraining somebody else’s First Amendment rights - - even if that person is “an idiot” - - does NOT make his life any better.

Americans need to become “okay” with freedom again - - not only their own freedom, but that of their fellow Americans.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Austin Hill is a Talk Show Host At Boise, Idaho's 580 KIDO Radio, and a frequent Guest Host on the Fox Newstalk Radio Network. He is the Author of "White House Confidential: The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History," And Co-Author of the forthcoming title "The Virtues Of Capitalism: A Moral Case For Free Markets" (Northfield/Moody Press, 2010).
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
News to whom?
People from other civilizations know how 'ugly things can get' when western civilization crimes are documented.

Whose freedom was diminished?
People who can neither manage their money or don't care to use ethics when running stock holder's companies.

Why was the freedom diminished?

Because they failed to live to their adult responsiblity that comes with being free. Freedom means a person/company needs to prove it can handle it's freedom. Collapsing a company means the leaders and the company need to be limited in how they express their freedoms until they can 'grow up' again.

When was the freedom diminished?

AFTER they failed to succeed and needed to borrow money from tax payers. BUSH not Obama started this 'freedom limiting' thing because even he realized - there are no adults running these companies anymore. And those who were running them make Madoff seem like an honest guy.

Thought provoking article

I think people are kinder and more compassionate to other people when there are fewer of them around. It has been my observation that when living in a large metropolitan area, there is less compassion or consideration for one's neighbors.

Sad, really - but maybe it's just the sociological law of supply and demand kicking in. When there are many people around (as found in large urban areas) you don't have any reason to be kind or considerate to any single person or group because you can just freely skip them and go on to the next relationship. If you did damage to someone or some thing in a small community, you would quickly experience the effects of community scorn.

So, maybe it's not a freedom thing as much as it is tribal instincts. Sociology - not politics.

Note that in the 2008 presidential elections, it was the urban voters that elected Obama. The urban area voters are the ones who want to take or 'redistribute' the wealth of the rich. The rural and less populated states are quite happy letting each other person alone to enjoy his own individual freedom and happiness.

Ah, the joys and pressures of human population growth. The Earth is at 6+ billion now. I wonder what Earth will be like at 8 billion? Which nation-state will execute the first shot at another country in order to capture the neighbor's food or energy resources?

Anyone know the answer to that question?

There's a word missing from this column
...and that word is ENVY.

Envy is powerful. It proceeds from multiple sources. It founds itself on a fallacious notion of justice. It overtly demands "equality," but in truth is satisfied with nothing but the destruction of the envied person. It cannot be appeased by any degree of redistribution.

Envy gave rise to both Communism and Nazism.

Unless we become accustomed to recognizing and condemning manifestations of envy -- the most malignant of all emotions, the only emotion forbidden by the Ten Commandments -- we will remain unable to oppose its march.

Learn this phrase. Perhaps repeat it before a mirror"

"That sounds to me like ENVY."

Say it loud.

Francis W. Porretto NY 6:16 AM EST

I agree. We are a divided nation because we have been taught class envy by our union controlled government school systems. Class envy is one of the important tools in the bag of communist tricks.

Too bad for America. Good for the commies among us.

May 2008 during an ABC-GMA interview,
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4881883

Obozo "ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic "low class" and "detestable," and said, "But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable."

1. No one seemed to pick up on Obozo's intimidating statement... "... they should be careful..."

2. Michelle was obviously campaigning, and therefore her comments were open to criticism.

3. Within 24hrs. of the famous "Joe the Plumber" question, the demos went ballistic making "Joe the Plumber" a BIG FAT ISSUE... and not to mention, ILLEGALLY delving into "Joe the Plumber's" PRIVATE LIFE.

*** BTW, anyone notice that we actually KNOW MORE about Joe the Plumber's background and life than we actually KNOW about Obozo's? ***

4. And again, within 24hrs. of McCain naming Palin as his VP there were teams of reporters and lawyers headed for Alaska to DIG OUT EVERYTHING on Palin AND HER ENTIRE FAMILY...


I guess it's not "low class" and "detestable," or "unacceptable" when the dems do it....


About Freedom of Speech… 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The 1st Amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL SPEECH.



Joel NV May 31, 2009 - 7:25 AM EST

Our elected government is quite lawless right now. There are not many Oath Keepers in any branch of government that I am aware of. I wish there were, and that they would make themselves known. We need their presence now.

The Constitution is dead to our elected representatives because they are having too much success robbing and pillaging our treasury and our future.

I think every elected representative needs to be asked to publicly re-affirm their oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, and if they don't willingly do so, they're gone. Send them home.

President Jive-Talking....
President "Cool Jazz" is just that: a smooth talker with roughly 85% of the media not only on his side but actively cheerleading him. How can he fail? Doesn't matter that he has virtually no experience and many of his core views are pseudo-intellectual, university Marxism, if you sound and act like you know what you're doing and the media report it as such, well, perception is reality.

The economy will probably improve slightly in the second half of the year and of course Barry and the media will credit his porkulus bill but of course most of that bill is waste and transfer payments to union retirement funds and such. Plus to date only about 5% of it has been spent. The economy should improve a little on it's own, government has little to do with it but of course politicians must look like they are doing something in order to later take credit.

But next year, many leading economists predict a worsening economy again. Then there's Barry disasterous, wimpy foriegn policy, his affinity for Islam, his disarming of our country, his regular insults to our country......shall I go on?

Jimmy Carter II, only he's worse than Carter. At least Carter was a patriotic American (at the time).


Hey Austin
"..I’ll make your life better, by constraining their freedom - - making “rich people” less free to create and possess wealth, making companies less free to produce a profit, limiting how much an individual can earn at their job, and so forth..."

Growing up here in hard coal country you get a different perspective and the knowledge that wealth is fine as long as ALL the costs are paid. In the "good old days" of your fantasies, workers were discarded like ash from fires. Read about Teddy Roosevelt and the coal strikes. Read about railroads that found it was far cheaper to replace brakemen injured or killed on the job than buy safer brakes. There is ALL the difference on HOW you accumulate your wealth. Paying such low salaries that workers wind up being supported by public health and social programs is simply stealing from tax payers. You can have as much freedom as you like as long as I am not forced to pay for it which is what happens FAR too often.

doofass-the-Marxist whines: "Growing up

here in hard coal country you get a different perspective and the knowledge that wealth is fine as long as ALL the costs are paid..."

Obviously Francis W. Porretto, Reply #3, hit the nail on the head...

"There's a word missing from this column
...and that word is ENVY."

"Envy [jealousy?] is powerful. It proceeds from multiple sources. It founds itself on a fallacious notion of justice. It overtly demands "equality," but in truth is satisfied with nothing but the destruction of the envied person. It cannot be appeased by any degree of redistribution.

"Envy [jealousy?] gave rise to both Communism and Nazism."




Francis W. Porretto, EXCELLENT POINT!!!

doofass-the-Marxist, PERFECTLY DEMONSTRATED!!!


Joel NV May 31, 2009 - 7:36 AM EST

Thanks Joel. Maybe you're right. I was trying to look at the problem from a sociological and from an economic perspective. The number 8b is not mine, but comes from the UN. The UN, for what it's worth, estimates the world population at 8.97b in 2300 (http://tinyurl.com/m8vhrb).

This Dell Erickson article discusses nations that meet or exceed their sustainable populations: http://tinyurl.com/nbv6yc

There are also theories that nation's population rates will diminish as their populations exceed their sustainable numbers. I'm not so sure about that theory, but it would be great if true.

Personally, I have no idea what this rampant growth in humanity will result in. I just know that, as in all systems, there is a limit for earth, and we're closer to it now than we have been in the past. So I think about the problem.

I can imagine a day when we might have to defend ourselves from the problems of an overpopulated Mexico, or China, or India merely because we are an underpopulated nation with a large land mass and a lot of resources.

Thank God for our military.

Can the shiek enumerate any of the irres
Can the shiek enumerate any of the irresponsibilities supposedly committed by any company? Bailed out or otherwise?
Try actual data not feelings shiek.

There ought to be a law
Which is a phrase we hear far too often, and reflects what Mr. Hill writes. Laws restrict freedom. We need to be careful what laws we allow government to pass. We need to draw the line where people initiate force against others or their property, and not allow other laws such as those prohibiting trade of one sort or another (e.g., the ability to purchase goods on Sunday, restriciting who I can fire for whatever reason, restricting who I can buy a product from, restricting my ability to purchase vitamins, requiring that I tag an animal and keep info about it in a database, requiring that I save for retirement).

Not only is envy a problem, but so is trading off security for freedom.

FREEDOM
The loss of our freedom should make us all,uncomfortable!

Dan CO May 31, 2009 - 8:34 AM EST

Dan, freedom is the absence of legislation. In our nation with over 2 million laws on the books, do you think we are a free people anymore? I don't.

There was (maybe still is) a really well written book by Rose Wilder Lane, entitled "The Discovery of Freedom" that discusses the fact that one of the great sources of America's thriving success was our western expansion, where there were always places for our people to go without government laws and controls, and that freedom of legislation alone allowed our people to thrive.

It's time to consider putting sundown clauses on many of our laws because these many federal, state, and local laws really do hold our people back.

Forcing our legislatures back to part time legislation would be another important move - what to we need a full-time legislature for?

These costs to our freedom are just too high.

francis and envy
You have hit the nail on the head. So many think and are told that to be denied something for which they cannot justly compensate another, that a great wrong is being done. We have vile, base, power hungry politicians who appeal to the lowest instincts of man to achieve their political goals.
Take medicaid and medicare for example. We have treatments available now that were not even imagined 100 yrs. ago, but these treatments, the technology to develop them, the hard work, the yrs. of learning are not taken into account. People act like health care has fallen out of the sky and that a certain group got there first and is hoarding it.
Why is it that one person who has labored so hard, i.e. long hours studying, many years training, to achieve a skill level, looked down upon when he does not provide for someone who hasn't made the effort, spent his time having fun, hanging with his friends, and then started a family that he can't even provide for?
As the D of I said government is formed to PROTECT life, liberty and property/fruit of labor, not provide.

Food for thought...
God's instructions to man were not to limit population but to increase it. He confounded the world's population at Babel because man was ignoring his instructions to spread over the world and populate it.

I know--there were not very many people alive then because most had died in the Great Flood, but there is NO PLACE in the Bible that God tells man to limit population. In fact he had laws that required men to sire children for his brother's wife if the brother died childless.

If man followed God's law IN ALL ASPECTS the world population and the world food supply would be in balance.

Quibble
Just one quibble in an otherwise admirable essay.

You said, "For example, most Americans would be shocked to learn that a former U.S. Vice President (Aaron Burr) once got in such a heated argument with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (Alexander Hamilton), that the V.P. ended up shooting and murdering the Treasury Secretary."

It was a duel, not a murder. Hamilton had an equal chance to shoot Burr.

And, though historical legend has it that Hamilton decamped (deliberately missed) there is some evidence he was trying to cheat and got hoist on his own petard, as it were.

Well done, Austin
Excellent column. Unfortunately, some of the commenters here (like csl fan's call for unbridled population growth), seem to have missed your point.

I said the other day that Stossel was the only reason I still read Townhall. I guess I'll have to add Mr. Hill now. Good job. And thank you for some common sense.

Austin Hill
I am 65 years old. There was never a time in
my life when "absolute freedom" was appealing at
all to me. So when you go down from absolute to
something other than absolute, it is simply a
matter of degree. Without having to think
about every possibility, I will settle for
"as long as I have a vote that counts, I feel
pretty good." It certainly isn't going to
always go my way. They are many things that
irritate the heck out of me. But I am hopeful
with the way things are going now. If I
hadn't wanted anyone to help take care of me,
I wouldn't have married, I wouldn't have had
kids, I wouldn't have joined a church, I wouldn't have joined other organizations. I
like being part of a giving community - both
as the giver and the receiver.

Lenard:
Why is it that one person who has labored so hard, i.e. long hours studying, many years training, to achieve a skill level, looked down upon when he does not provide for someone who hasn't made the effort, spent his time having fun, hanging with his friends, and then started a family that he can't even provide for?"

****
I wish someone would invent a word like racist
that would describe people who think that other people are less worthy because they
don't have the same "work ethics" as he does.
And I use the word ethics advisably because
this is virtually always a guess and an
assumption of the person who is looking down
upon the other person. When that word is invented I will be able to use it at least a dozen times a day here on Town Hall.

That said, I am assuming that the reason you
work is for the money alone. Is there no
joy in your work? Do you never feel that
what you do is what you are meant to do?

And again, that said, why do you assume that
researchers won't be amply rewarded for their
time and efforts of they are successful, or
even perhaps if they are not?

Why is there 'Free Speech'?

Free speech in simple terms, is the ability to speak an opinion that others do NOT like, without fear of repercussion.

If one only stated what everyone else agreed with - there would be NO NEED of the 1st amendment.

The law that allows Barack Obama's 'Mentor', Jeremiah Wright to say "God Damn America", is the same law that allows me to strenuously disagree with that statement and state that 'Mentor Wright' is a Black Separatist Racist.

The law that allows Barack Obama's 'Spiritual Adviser' Louis Farrakhan to say "The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him", allows me to say that Barack Obama chose to be taught by 'Racists'.

The same law that allowed Michelle Obama to say, "There is no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost", allows me to say that our President and his wife, should NOT be racists.

Personally, I do NOT want either side silenced.

Liberals disagree with me on these subjects here on Town Hall and we have had spirited debates.

Personally, I do NOT want either side silenced.

Liberals can defend 'Racism' and I will speak out against the evils of 'Racism'.

Free debate is essential to 'Freedom' in my view.

Retired Geek
Is there at some point that you felt someone was
trying to take away your freedom to speak.

Just because we think you are an idiot for saying it and believing it, doesn't mean we are
taking any steps other than peer pressure to
stop you.

for Joel-De Oppresso Liber
Joel claims: "The Rights of Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition all combine to guarantee the Citizen’s ability to criticize the govt, and ONLY the govt. There is NO right to protest a business, or a religion, to slander another Citizen, or to interfere with the activities of other Citizens."

ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

Go ask any legal expert on the Constitution.

Incidentally, your position is coming close to the Islamists, who get angry whenever anyone questions stuff in Islam like honor killings and jihad. Damn right we Americans have a right to speak out against those aspects of that religion--or any aspects of any religion.


for Joel-De Oppresso Liber
Joel sez: "There are more than enough resources, and enough land on this world to support 20 Billion or more people."

Don't worry about it.

We learned an interesting sociological lesson in the 20th century: Affluence decreases the rate of population growth.

I remember the 1960s and early 1970s, when some misguided folks were worrying that the population of the United States would double soon, and then double again, and so on. It didn't. Because affluence spread down to even rural areas of America. And affluent people care about material wealth and their careers more than having babies.

In Europe, whose socialist systems spread the wealth, the population growth rate has gone to zero (and in the case of Germany, has actually gone negative). The only thing increasing the numbers in Europe is Muslim immigration.

Once affluence spreads throughout China and India and Bangladesh, the same thing will happen. Population growth rates will slow. And that's already happening, as India and China have discovered the joys of market economies.

SteveL
"Date: May 31, 2009 - 10:11 AM EST
for Joel...Incidentally, your position is coming close to the Islamists, who get angry whenever anyone questions stuff in Islam like honor killings and jihad. Damn right we Americans have a right to speak out against those aspects of that religion--or any aspects of any religion."

Joel is little different at all from the Islamists they worship the same god only thank goodness here his ilk don't control the government. The founders abhorred religious involvement in politics except for ritual.

If Barack Obama didn't Have Free Speech

The United States of America would have never heard these words:

"...true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good..."
Barack Obama July 6, 2008

The 'Thinking' American Citizen would NOT have been forewarned, that Barack Obama's 'Hope and Change' was the same battle against 'Individual Rights', that caused World Wide strife before Obama.

"The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."
Adolph Hitler - Socialist

"...we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."
Adolf Hitler, Socialist 10-7-33

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."
Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, National Socialist German Workers' ("Nazi") Party

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev
addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56

"We need to spread the wealth." Barack Obama

Personally, I want Barack Obama and his followers to have 'Freedom of Speech' - I do not want them silenced.

When Barack Obama speaks, it should remind us of the 'Individual Rights' granted by 'God the Creator' and our founding Fathers.

When Barack Obama speaks, it should remind us of what his vision of 'Sacrifice for the Common Good' brings - over 100,000,000 humans murdered, tortured to death and starved to death, so FAR!

Tammy
Have you ever been to a university where a conservative was not allowed to speak. They were shouted down.

Obama wants a "freeze" on internet speech.

Black Panther thugs were preventing freedom of speech(voting) at polling places.
They committed a felony and was set free by the Socialist Ruler,Obama.

Liberals Crush 'Freedom of Speech

Liberals Want to Crush 'Freedom of Speech'

The more powerful Liberalism becomes, the less it will tolerate 'Individual Rights'.

The first 'Line of Defense' against the 'Totalitarian Dream' of Barack Obama and his Liberal followers, is 'Freedom of Speech'.

'Politically Correct Speech' was designed by Liberals to narrow thought and 'Scope' of 'Free Speech'.

'Hate Speech' was designed by Liberals to 'Silence' any criticism of 'Special Rights' for some, while eliminating 'Rights' for others.

'The Fairness Doctrine' was designed by Liberals to 'Eliminate' any and all Speech that would question the 'Rise' of the Liberal Totalitarian government.

Joel the loon
"Date: May 31, 2009 - 10:41 AM EST
SteveL
"we Americans have a right to speak out against those aspects of that religion--or any aspects of any religion."...True. I used the word 'protest' in my post deliberately, and specificly. In the past few months there have been 'protesters' standing just barely off of the grounds of many Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They block entrances and sidewalks. They are lewd and profane, even in front of children. They spit on patrons of the Temples."

Don't you folks and other christians do the same at planned parenthood sites etc? Didn't you all get involved with vast sums of money in the gay marriage debate in CA? Why should you not expect to be exempt from push back? The spitting is assault the rest is legal

"...If you think the Founding Fathers intended for the First Amendment to cover that kind of behavior, then you are ignorant of history..."

Really? Those were pretty rough and tumble times...

".."Protests" should NOT be tolerated in front of ANY PRIVATE institution, be it a church, a business, or what have you..."

Why not? That is indeed free speech

"... If you or a group want to buy airtime for a commercial, or place an ad in a newspaper, go right ahead. You DON'T have any God-given Right to interfere in the activities of any other Citizen."

Oh yes we do in a public arena which a street/passage way is



Barack Obama and 'True Patriotism'

"...true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good..."
Barack Obama July 6, 2008

The True American 'Patriot' is someone who is achieving their potential, looks at others and prays, helps and hopes that others can achieve their potential.

The American 'Hater' who has wasted away their opportunities to succeed, looks at those who are achieving their potential, as objects of hate and derision.

The 'American 'Hater' demands 'Equal Outcomes' in spite of their indolence, poor decisions and partying instead of working hard, with those who have lived a life of hard work, frugality and good decisions.

Barack Obama describes 'Equal Outcomes' as a 'Sacrifice for the Common Good'.

Tammy from IL et al

'Politically Correct Speech' was designed by Liberals to narrow thought and 'Scope' of 'Free Speech'.

'Hate Speech' was designed by Liberals to 'Silence' any criticism of 'Special Rights' for some, while eliminating 'Rights' for others.

'The Fairness Doctrine' was designed by Liberals to 'Eliminate' any and all Speech that would question the 'Rise' of the Liberal Totalitarian government.

How Liberals are Trapped

African hunters know how to trap 'Monkeys', which is a staple in many communities in Africa.

The Hunters first 'Find or Make' a hollow log.

The Hunters then drill holes in the log just big enough for the monkeys hand.

The Hunters then drop food through each hole.

When the monkeys who are looking for a 'Free Meal' discover the log, they insert their hands grabbing a handful of free food, which makes a fist, which is now larger than the hole.

When the Hunters arrive at the log, the monkeys are terrified - but refuse to let go of the free meal.

Thus, the monkeys sell their freedom and lives for a 'Free Meal'.

This analogizes the methodology of Liberals and their captors.

NOTE: It is important to notice that the 'Log' which holds the 'Free Meal' is hollow.

The "cult of personality" . . .
is ALIVE AND WELL with the coronation (oops, I mean inoguration) of the "messiah". obama joins the likes of mao zedong, kim il jung, "uncle joe" stalin and vladimir lenin (not the beatle) in his personality being "larger than life". The "dumbed down electorate", the cheating and political manipulation by the communists (oops, I mean acorn and democRATs), and the "love affair" that (most of) the "news media" has with the "messiah" can only portend bad things for our country. The racial polarization that is being used by this administration is an "in your face" affront to ALL white citizens. The election of the "messiah" only emboldens those who USE THEIR OWN RACE CARD. For the obama administration to summarily drop charges against the black panther harassment of white voters at some polling stations PROVES their intent.
It will be interesting how the "messiah" reacts when the "news media" breaks any important news story that is critical of the "messiah".
It's funny how the "messiah" is still running a campaign against the bush administration.
EVERYONE I have talked to about this KNOWS that there is something seriously wrong with the country; they cannot put their finger on the problem, but they KNOW something is not right.

Tammy from IL = The Monkey

African hunters know how to trap 'Monkeys', which is a staple in many communities in Africa.

The Hunters first 'Find or Make' a hollow log.

The Hunters then drill holes in the log just big enough for the monkeys hand.

The Hunters then drop food through each hole.

When the monkeys who are looking for a 'Free Meal' discover the log, they insert their hands grabbing a handful of free food, which makes a fist, which is now larger than the hole.

When the Hunters arrive at the log, the monkeys are terrified - but refuse to let go of the free meal.

Thus, the monkeys sell their freedom and lives for a 'Free Meal'.

This analogizes the methodology of Liberals and their captors.

NOTE: It is important to notice that the 'Log' which holds the 'Free Meal' is hollow.

Undesirable speech
How to eliminate "undesirable" speech:

1. Turn the Constitution into a living (dead) document.
2. Turn our republic (Article 4, Section 4) into a "wonderful" democracy.
3. Let the left and right wings of Control Freaks Unanimous fight.

Whichever side buys, steals, and fabricates a majority can say, "We won, so everyone march in lockstep with our vision of America." All speech and actions will then be desirable (to the majority). Just shoot anyone who wants to mention the individual rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. The majority of "we, the people" have spoken.

God save our republic from democracy and control freaks!

Liberals Against Individual Rights

Individualism NOT Collectivism

America was founded on the concept of 'Individual Freedom'.

The individual citizen is the smallest minority in any society.

A primary element of individualism is individual responsibility for self-determination, decisions, actions, deeds and accepting responsibility for everything one does or fails to do.

An integral part of that responsibility is productivity.

The individualist realizes that little nature gives one is suited for survival and must be transformed to meet their needs and the needs of those they are responsible for i.e. family.

The individualist must be pro-active and seek to enhance skills, knowledge and implements to ensure the survival and well being of self and family.

The individualist reasons that their identity is based on individual actions and pursuits and not on a group whether that group is race, gender, sexual preference or industry.

The individualist does not seek a life apart from others but understands that others are only a part of reality whereas ‘collectivists see the group as reality’.

This important distinction allows individuals to interact with other individuals instead of the mediator of the collectivist group.

Reason and thought are individualistic by definition, as no one can think or reason for another.

Individuals can start with the ideas of other individuals and build upon those ideas or create new ideas and thought but every step is individualistic based on other individuals not on a collectivist group.

The individualist believes in a Constitutional Republic that is ruled by law and NOT in a Democracy that is mob rule.

The individualist believes that the government should be limited and its power and should be constrained on the individual citizen.

The demarcation line between 'Modern Day Liberals' and 'Individualists', is simply 'Individual Rights' versus 'Collective Rights'.

Tammy
I have been on this earth a little longer than you.Many men and women work at jobs they get no joy from simply to provide for their families.Luckily I was not one of them

Tammy

"Austin Hill
I am 65 years old. There was never a time in
my life when "absolute freedom" was appealing at
all to me. So when you go down from absolute to
something other than absolute, it is simply a
matter of degree. Without having to think
about every possibility, I will settle for
"as long as I have a vote that counts, I feel
pretty good." It certainly isn't going to
always go my way. They are many things that
irritate the heck out of me. But I am hopeful
with the way things are going now. If I
hadn't wanted anyone to help take care of me,
I wouldn't have married, I wouldn't have had
kids, I wouldn't have joined a church, I wouldn't have joined other organizations. I
like being part of a giving community - both
as the giver and the receiver."


As always your posts lack any serious logic or intelligent thought, but this one of your may tirades on this thread today jumped out. You are a little Hitler in the making. Just because 'absolute freedom' doesn't appeal to you, doesn't then therefore give you the right to limit the freedoms of others that 'absolute freedom' does appeal to.

Your post says many things about you, none of which are very good. The first word that comes to mind to describe you is 'weak'.

tammy ..huh?
You have no argument justifying one person's right to benefit from another's labor without compensation. BTW, I see people every day, grew up with people that are more interested in having and not working hard, then complain when others have more.
It's very simple, one works for what one gets or one doesn't get it. It's also more than a work ethic, it's called being responsible, if one can't afford a family, it's extremely irresponsible to start one. Again you can make no argument, nor have you even attempted to make one that an individual is responsible for another.
Yes Tammy the truth is most, not all, but most are not well off because of their choices. If you are truly so concerned sell all that you have, devote you're to helping those who need it, and get all the others who are so willing to decide what to with other peoples money to do the same. Why don't you start with Mayor Bloomberg, Bill and Hillary, John Edwards. All these 3 digit millionaires who supposedly espouse helping the needy.
OH, and that word you're looking for, it's called an adult.

loved the monkey analogy!!!!!!!!!!!!
this "hunter" is sick of the free meal monkeys.

if you don't pay taxes you should NOT b allowed to vote as you obviosly have no stake in the game.

you're just a monkey looking for a free meal
let the monkey king feed you from his table!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Freedom and Hypocrisy
Have any of you given any thought how we and our political parties seem to talk out of both sides of our mouth at the same time? For instance is it an issue of individual freedom to allow a woman to decide whether to have an abortion or not to have an abortion (while one could make a good argument that is also a moral quesiton)and at the same time support "forcing" people to buy health insurance, which to work, taking away a persons freedom to choose not to hae insurance. These are just two examples, but if you just ask yourself, what impact does some movement have or some goverment policy have on our individual freedom, the list of "lost" feedoms will get larger and larger by each passing day....and it will NEVER get smaller. Just about everytime government gives one group of people more freedom, there is a good chance that they have accomplished that goal by taking away someone elses freedom.

Thank-you, Retired Geek!!
That was a great and clarifying post about Obama's speech content being identical to Hitler, Goebbels and the rest. Our America-loving intuition and discernment are enlightened and affirmed when references such as yours are posted. They serve as a warning against tyranny and a reminder of why we labor here with our voices and our wills.

My criticism of the article is just this: the concept of Freedom must also imply an opposite to being free or abiding by something that restrains us. With Freedom comes the responsibility to abide by the laws of this land. No one is totally and absolutely free. You are free to burn your hand off in a fire. But you are not free to randomly cut off someone elses's hand to replace the one you have burned.

I see Obama and his much touted "brilliancy" ( that gags me!) as the person fooling us by telling us that the fire will not burn us. He tells us that the laws of common sense and nature have been suspended and we must only look into his "eyes"--- all the while he is talking, we are being consumed by the fire.


Join the online Anerican Grand Jury movement. Remove the Usurper aka Obama and denounce his doctrine of death!!

http://americangrandjury.org


We are moving at this instant to stop Obama and his thugs!!


None HI May 31, 2009 - 1:25 PM EST

Good point about the abortion situation. If I read the Constitution accurately, there is no justification at all for the federal government to be involved in the subject of abortion in any manner whatsoever.

This appears to be another example of runaway and lawless government.

The list of 'lost freedoms' will get smaller when we, the people, resume control of our own selves and our own government. Being irresponsible and childish, as we have been, invites tyranny in the name of 'helping' us.

Freedom is the absence of legislation, but with freedom comes individual responsibility, and that's what's been missing in our lives.

Thanks for calling us out Burt,
Most Americans suck pretty hard-core. I have seen some of these foreclosed properties. Freaking animals.

It's important for these animals to realize that freedom is conditional on society being able to handle it. If it proves otherwise, then the government will lock it down for good.

tammy
"I wish someone would invent a word like racist that would describe people who think that other people are less worthy because they don't have the same "work ethics" as he does." There are actually two words, Tammy-- 'responsible citizen.' The word for the person with no work ethic is parasite. I was fortunate enough most of my life to do work I loved, even though it paid less than jobs I could have chosen. How I got to choose that wasn't luck or white privilege. I got to choose because I first chose to work for more than a decade in jobs I didn't care for at all and go to school in what otherwise would have been my spare time. When I was working I chose not to run up credit, but to pay cash for everything and rigorously save 20% of my income. As a result, I have been able to retire early modestly and comfortably and only do work I delight in as a volunteer.

People who envy me say that I was lucky, or that I had a head start, or that it was because I was white. Nonsense. I worked hard, usually made wise choices, and always remembered that poverty was only a few call-in-sick-every-Monday type behaviors away.

Offer one of the street people who has a sign "will work for food" a job. I've done that little experiment a number of times. It makes them very indignant-- work for money? What do you think I am? If someone truly can't work at anything, I pity them and will help them all I can. If they won't, let them starve. Incidentally, where does the quote "If they will not work, they shall not eat." come from?

Wait till you see . . .
what the "messiah's" new "internet czar has in store. You may not see wholsale shutdown of websites, but there will be engineered "slowdowns" or "disruptions of service", "message traffic overloads" and the like that will affect (conservative) websites and users who do not "toe the line" and adore the "messiah".
It will take some creative redirection by us "freedom fighters" to minimize the damage that this "administration" will create.

Brother, Can You Spare A Doubloon?
God, you Libs will be living in Obamaville.

Marxism=Socialism=Communism=Totalitism=Progressivism=Death.

Hitler started out as a Socialist.

Mao was a Communist.

Pol Pot was a Communist.

Castro is a Communist.

Chavez is a Totalitarian.

What do the five have in common?

Death.

Obama has his own 5 year plan for GM.

Tiller, the baby killer, was shot and killed.

Run for your FREEDOM.

Gas prices
I'm getting a little uncomfortable with these gas prices going up!

Remember When the POTUS didn't bow

Remember when, America had Presidents that would NOT 'Bow and Scrape' to the Enemies of America?

Remember when, America had Presidents that thought America was a 'Great Nation' and did NOT apologize to the World and our Enemies for being a 'Great Nation'?

Remember when, America had Presidents that were willing to do whatever it took to protect our Military and save Soldiers lives - like Harry Truman, who stopped a War with Nuclear Weapons, instead of placing Soldiers in jeopardy by exposing their methods to the Enemy?

Remember when, America had Presidents that demanded that our enemies NOT arm Cuba with missiles, instead of sending $90 million to the enemies of America like HAMAS?

Remember when, America had Presidents that Demanded to our enemies, 'Mr Gorbachev Tear Down that Wall', instead of arming Lebanon with tanks and arms?

Remember when, America had Presidents that put their lives and fortunes at risk for the Freedom of Citizens, instead of putting the Citizens lives and fortunes at risk, in order to implement the 'Bondage of Socialism?

Remember when, America had Presidents that were Statesmen, instead of a 'Punk'?

Remember When?

stan
supply and demand. happens every year, due to the fact more people drive during the summer months.

nah, it's really a vast conspiracy by old white guys collaborating to screw the little man. they're really smart to pick the same time of year. good thing we've got a dear leader to show them that government is the only good and noble organization in the world.

Gasoline
Gas prices are going up, and it's almost a crisis (everyone wring your hands in terror at this point), so I'm sure we need to take even more freedom from those who drill for oil and produce gas. At least, that is what is taught in our socialist (government owned) schools.

Highlander Juan . . .
although I do respect your opinion, I cannot agree with you on the abortion issue and freedom being diminished if it is more tightly controlled. Along with you I agree with None HI about freedoms being diminished by inappropriate government usurpation of power. However, by your rationale of "freedom" concerning abortion, one could argue that the state should have no interest in murder or rape because the acts are between TWO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and not against the "interests" of the state.
Best regards,

Gas prices . . .
are volatile due to meddling by the epa and other government agencies.
In the old days, you had two formulations of gasoline, one for winter (lower vapor pressure) and one for summer (higher vapor pressure). The winter gasoline was refined to ease cold weather starting. The summer formulation was refined to minimize vapor loss (evaporation).
Today, each epa region requires a special "blend" of gasoline; this increases costs due to different formulation requirements mandated by the epa.

folks
WICHITA, Kansas (AP) - Media reports say that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church.

Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades.

From Huffington Post front page

Hal
Since you like to spend time here, let me be the first to say that I can't believe that anyone here would condone such a despicable action as killing Tiller. I'm against killing, whether it be unborn children or the doctor who kills them. I lived in Wichita in the recent past and this gentleman had a pretty nasty reputation, but I don't know anyone who would have killed him . . . except maybe BTK.

tj MI May 31, 2009 - 2:33 PM EST

tj, thanks for your thoughts. I, like others I expect, are frustrated with the effects of having too much state and federal government involvement in our daily lives.

My position is simple: I want all government bodies to live within the constraints placed on them by the two constitutions under which they are allowed to govern (namely the U.S. Constitution and the appropriate state constitution).

I doubt there is any state constitution that provides for government control of an abortion by a woman, and I know there is nothing in the federal constitution.

If someone wants the government to get involved in the abortion topic (or any other topic for that matter), then let's have a constitutional convention and ask the question. If the states agree thus, then abortion can be controlled by government. If they don't, then government needs to stay the hell out of the topic.

It really galls me that many courts in the land will assume jurisdiction in any matter they choose, rather than rule according to law. The courts are NOT empowered to make law - that is the domain of the legislature. The courts are required to interpret the laws for us.

And I don't care if Sonia Maria Sotomayor disagrees with me on the matter - she is wrong if she does.

Your reference to murder and rape are state matters - not federal, and there are state criminal statutes regarding these matters already.

I believe the subject of abortion should be left to the woman and/or her doctor. If she's religious and believes abortion is wrong, good for her. If she believes that abortion is acceptable to her, good for her.

I personally believe abortion is almost always the wrong decision to make, but that's my own personal belief, and I don't want anyone in government forcing my belief system on you or anyone else.

We are either a nation based on law or we are not. This is NOT a topic for government to control. It's that simple.

Remember when
Can't add much to Retired Geek but

Remember when a president spoke from the heart not from the teleprompters?

Remember when "investment in education" meant something other than "big pay increases for teacher unions?"

Remember when "healing our planet" meant something other than increasing everybody's utility bills by untold sums?

Remember when a president saying "I don't believe in bigger government" had an ounce of credibility?

Remember when a president claiming that "America has lost its moral compass" might have had some type of moral compass to start with?

Remember when a president actually lived in the white house and was not in constant campaign mode jetting around the country and the world?

Regulations
Some of you in the left or right wing of Control Freaks Unanimous are not doing your fair share. I know it is a big job, but there are still some areas of our lives that are not regulated by government, and our bureaucrats need the makework.

There are still some children not being "educated" in socialist (government owned) schools. There are still some people saying hateful things about others. There are still some homosexuals who have formed unions comparable to marriages. There are still some teachers who mention the creator of the universe. There are still some people who negotiate the compensation for their work. There are still some people who manufacture a few items for us to buy or reject.

Freedom is far too messy to be left alone. Stomp it out quickly before it creates peace and wealth.

Joel, Highlander . . .
thank you for the clarification. You are absolutely correct about murder and rape being state matters. You are also correct in stating that abortion should not be a federal matter.
It seems that "crimes" become a federal matter when "hate crime" (civil rights statute violations) are attached to them. It would seem that in the strictest sense, this amounts to a "loophole" which borders on the fringes of "double jeopardy". This same tactic was used against Al Capone who was never convicted of murder, only of "tax evasion".
Best regards,

Joel NV May 31, 2009 - 3:42 PM EST

Joel,

The answer to our disagreement is determined by the definition of the beginning of life, not about the control of abortion.

We have danced around the topic the beginning of life for years. Some folks believe a human being exists when the egg and the sperm combine. Sounds good to me. Having granted that position, there is nothing in the law to support that concept.

But also to ask and to consider, where is the definition of the beginning of life found in the law dictionaries, the statutes, the constitutions? Nowhere. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is.

And when we get around to defining the beginning of life legally, we better be careful how we do it because of the many questions that will immediately follow.

For example, what if a doctor is faced with the choice of saving the mother or the yet unborn baby (now legally considered a live, and therefore legal, person)? If the doctor decides to save the mother, is he guilty of killing the baby? Does he go to jail? Is he executed because it was a premeditated act on his part?

The subject of the beginning of life, life's continued existence, and it's premature termination is a really difficult area to try and resolve with morality, ethics, and with the law, and that's why, at this time in our evolution, I would rather let the woman, her doctor, and her God decide the matter.

This is a topic for the wisdom of Solomon to resolve, not you or me. I don't think any of us mortals are that good just yet.

But as I mentioned above, I also don't believe abortion is a topic for government to control. I think of it as kind of like having the government run car companies. You get my drift, I'm sure.

Let's keep the subject of abortion medical, religious, and personal for now.

Deal?

THIS AMERICAN FREEDOM THING
Austin Hill is right, politics has always been an ugly venue.
He mentions the way Andrew Jackson's wife was treated by his critics. Andrew Jackson was officialy the first Democratic President. He was a firm believer in the rights of the people, maintained fiscal responsibility for the Federal government's budget, vetoed several spending bills passed by congress and worked with all parties to keep the Union intact. His opposition so hated him that he was publicly called a Jackass. He agreed with that name, so political cartoons were drawn depicting Jackson as a Jackass, thus the donkey symbol for the Democratic Party was born.

Well, we have another Jackass elected as POTUS. But he is no Andrew Jackson.


Robert
Good to see a post by you again. Been missing your more-clearheaded-than-most comments--but I probably just wasn't looking where you were posting. I can take only so much contemporary troll-speak before turning off TH and watching an old movie or reading an old book.

My father, during the Great Depression, had a standard answer for the many, many beggars in the Chicago area who told him they were hungry. He offered to buy them a meal. Only one, if I recall correctly, ever took him up on the offer.

Which, he used to tell me before I ever had to encounter beggars myself, explained why they had become beggars in the first place, even in so depressed an economy. "The content of their character"--MLK's second most famous phrase--meant everything to my father, and I suspect that we are approaching a time of testing when it's going to mean everything to a lot of us.

Some Ams. have fallen into *prisoner
mentality* where someone who has been imprisoned and had his/her life entirely regulated for years and then when he/she is offered *freedom* can either not accept it and/or have great difficulty living in an open world where all is not proscribed and directed for them.

There is a creepy video of King Elect O campaigned (See HamNation Obama on Your Shoulder) where the Big O shouts and you won't be able to all the foods you want, and you won't be able to drive just any car your want, and you won't be able to set your home temperature to 72 degrees.

His college audience cheered more loudly with every dictatorial item the then candidate listed.

These people might get *het up* about someone telling them a late-term abortion is really not a choice but murder, yet they were perfectly willing to sacrifice ordinary Am. freedoms for O's royal edicts and applaud him on.


Producers and destroyers
One comment on producers of wealth that fit our current economic crisis.
I worked in private health insurance and investments recently, and it was the easist non working employment I've ever had in my entire life. I made more money doing near nothing than I ever have.
I think it's safe to assume most Americans realize that. What was the biggest hilarity was the "Million Dollar PRODUCER !" award on the wall.
Yes, that's what INVESTMENT BROKERS call themsevles, PRODUCERS.
It's a really, really sick joke, and the Orwellian nature of it should be clear to all.
Our production tools were the internet, a pen, paper, and a vehicle - and all the finer things in life - restaurants, golf courses, fine dining in reserved areas of ball parks - you name it. Filling out a paper form was the immense effort required.
See, that isn't producing, and neither is swapping a gazillion dollars on an exchange.

Producers and destroyers
A hardcore fellow conservative business startup friend of mine is sick of the government as well - but he hates them all - not just the democrats. He fought the unions trying to block his business he eventually sold at a young age for a pretty penny. Now he PRODUCES on a farm he later bought. Cattle and corn. Was milk at first, already morphed with a good local farmer to farmer deal. We're both young yet.
He related how some homeowner put 5 hogs in the home before he abandoned it to the creditors, and he just loved it. SCREW THE RIPOFF LOAN SHARKS AND THEIR TRILLION DOLLAR GOVERNMENT...
You see, even conservatives that actually RUN BUSINESSES AFTER CREATING THEM THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING - NOT JUST FIAT NUMBERS ON PAPER SWAPPED AROUND WHILE FOREIGN FACTORIES DO SOME WORK... don't side with "the big government wall street jerks (save Tea Party starter) and their arms the banks and mortgage companies".
You dumb big shot republicans need to figure that out real quickly.
People are pissed off out here like you cannot imagine - same people hate the welfaring leeches - and if you want to keep your support you had better start thinking about every person who ever lifted AN ACTUAL PRODUCT OVER THEIR HEAD AND PLACED IT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANOTHER AMERICAN TO ENJOY.
Bush used to tell us 80% of America is small business. So you smart republicans defend the 20% corporate and wallstreet - that the Democrats pumped trillions into, while we hear crap like "the jobs that Americans won't do".
You people are so far out of touch you're aliens already. HARDCORE conservatives that are BACKBONE frontiersmen type are PISSED OFF.

Producers and Destroyers
We see 2,9, or 15 TRILLION down the hole, and we hear all about this or that - as "we can't make it in America anymore" is the refrain, and "jobs that Americans won't do" is the other chorus.
----
You're getting destruction between American citizens because the CRIMINALS AT THE VERY TOP ARE EXPOSED.
It's a boiling - a pre-revolutionary frustration.
Guess what isn't going to solve it ?
Kissing the democrats butts while claiming "you'll show them more respect than they showed your guys".
You won't be as bad the terrorists...you really are getting slapped around like fools.
---
As far as the GONZO law enforcement attitude against freedom - it's about time some republicans applied it TO THEIR DEMO ENEMIES SCREAMING BUSH AND CHENEY NEED TO BE EXECUTED AT EVERY LEVEL OF THEIR STUPID PARTY.
You "can't play hardball because it's not nice" - yet you have the public perception of being the evil and mean party.
If you finally do get evil and mean by actually fighting back, the people will notice when you're not a raving barking killer dog, then claiming you're evil or mean for a policy won't work anymore. Start biting their heads off, immediately.
The mega trillion dollar seizures should be a great START, AND YOU'RE BLOWING IT BY SOFTLY KISSING THEIR BACKSIDES.
You aren't angered by the corruption, you're "hoping Obama is successful".
Conservatives here, real people who are honest and don't put up with liars, criminals, or leeches - HAVE THROWN YOU FOOLS AWAY for that.

renny
it also seems that the college brats who overwhelmingly voted for the fraud from chicago and told themselves they could support his vision of socialism and they still would get those high paying jobs with all the perks they told themselves they were entitled to.

Funny thing about payback, but the "yutes" that still think the messiah really can walk on water are waking up to find out that those jobs delivering pizza don't finance the beamer and the luxurious apartment and vacations in hawaii.

But the other problem is the more successful flap ears is at destroying capitalism the more it affects all of us.

And still the dims in congress who should be at least saying slow down continue to march in goose step with flap ears and his vision of installing marxism on america

And last week, flap ears again warned the country, you ain't seen nothing yet. And still the trolls cheer him on

Think Offensive not Defensive
Let’s face it we are being work like marionettes in a side show. Who works for whom? Who is paying for the room? Then let’s stop getting slapped around by the concepts of Saul Alinsky. His Rules for Radicals is the play book being used by this administration. The Clintons used this also in his administration. For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting what is wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a bad situation, they stop thinking about it.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. PROJECT LEADING POINTS EVEN IF THEY ARE FULL OF AIR.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. THEY ARE THE EXPERT TALK DOWN TO THEM. SEE 5

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. FAST PACE OF PROGRAMS 14 TRILLION IN 4 MONTHS

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. TO MANY TO EXAMPLES LIST

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. THEY BEAT BUSH SILLY WITH THIS

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. DID ANY OF YOU GO TO NEW YORK TO BRAUDWAY?

We are being manipulated this is not leadership or empowerment it is dishonest, Fascist And wrong

Wow
You are a good man, Austin. I appreciate your intellectual integrity in setting this man straight. I imagine that it is not easy for you to be in the unthankful position of having to speak truth to power to people who *should* know better already.

This rot is the result of social conservatism, which holds that the government should force morals on people. The socons do not distinguish between moral actions and proper laws; to them, if a behavior is unseemly or immoral, then there should be a law against it. Some of them are extremely hate-filled; they seek control for the sake of control, and they would absolutely be willing to take down the country rather than ceding freedom for things they don't like. Their mentality needs to be eradicated, because it is a virus, a worldview that necessitates an evil choice in every policy issue.

Bush's social conservatism was not unconnected to, but was the fundamental cause of, his support for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Medicare Part D, the devastating tariffs on lumber and steel, the farm subsidies, the faith-based initiatives, the Iraq War, his tacit support for the mark-to-market rule, etc.

Wendy the Totalitarian
"Their mentality needs to be eradicated, because it is a virus, a worldview that necessitates an evil choice in every policy issue." Sounds like Hitler talking about Jews. Since conservatives represent about a third of the country and liberals about one fifth, how exactly is this eradication going to be carried out, Wendy?

KENNETH - FL @ 7:28 pm

Having read Saul Alinsky's book on "Rules for Radicals", I agree totally with your post. I believe many of these tactics are being used by Obama and crew.

The big question now is, how do we the people counteract the concepts of Alinsky's rules? Tea Parties won't be enough and it's another year and half until a congressional election.
At the speed Obama is going he will put this country in a deep depression with Socialism.
I listen to one economist today who projected that we could be in a worst depression by 2012 than the one in the 1930's.

I believe it is time for a million American citizens to march on Washington.

Time to 'Fess up everybody!
Anne, post 13, what have you got against Hal. You make it sound like YOU'RE the Socialist! You make it sound as if you envious.

According toe the March 31, 2009 survey, the world-wide population is 6,483,421,727

Steve #28; you are half right. You are free to say anything you want to say about about or to the government, You are free to say anything to or about everyone else ,,, but you might have to take responsibility for your actions in the case of defamation in the form of libel or slander.

Finally, Robert, pertaining to your question about who it was who basically made the statement "if they don't work, they don't eat." I believe it was dear Rav Shaul (Rabbi Saul) or in English ... the Apostle Paul!


Taxation Does Not Negate Freedom
Mr. Hill,

We have had some form of taxation for the entire history of our country. Raising slightly the taxes on our wealthiest citizens is not a loss of freedom. Otherwise, none of us are free as we all pay some level of taxation.

Robert
Punishing the productive is not an example of freedom.
Taxation should be fair, not equal, because the labor and risk to produce wealth was not equal, was it?
You libs are so ignorant as to be tedious.
If you want to pay taxes to support dead beats, by all means, add several grand a year to your tax payment and pat yourself on the back.
But people have a right to their own earned income, and stealing from the rich to give to anyone else - including the govt - is still stealing.

Joel NV Jun 1, 2009 - 5:53 AM EST
Joel,

I am afraid we are arguing on two different levels. My POV is influenced by my earlier life experiences, as is yours.

Once we get government involved, everything becomes de-personalized, especially in the areas of law (unless you pi$$ off a DA as I have done more than once, then everything becomes very personal and not at all legal).

The law looks at persons and determines what their position is in a legal matter in order to make its decision. An individual is a legal person. A business is a legal person.

How do you identify a zygote or diploid cell, or unborn child? Is it now George Smith who lives at xx Main Street? Is it a minor child of Mrs. Smith? Who is representing the zygote? Is it the mother? Is it the court? What is the zygote's position - i.e. what does the zygote want out of this case?

I would suggest that in the eyes of the law that the unborn child has no legal identity until it is born and can be identified as a unique person.

And that is part, maybe all, of the problem of how courts have difficulty representing a zygote or unborn child.

And what if the unborn child does not survive childbirth and there has been a legal decision made on the unborn child's behalf? What then? Does the court then address the matter of the child's estate?

I think what I am trying to get to is the question of how a court will treat a 'person' who is not quite a person in the eyes of the law.

As I suggested, I am not smart enough to answer these legal questions or provide cogent arguments one way or the other. Worse, I don't know anyone who is competent to answer these questions at this time in our lives.

So, until there is magic, I suggest leaving things legally as they are.

Regarding your back - yes, I have your 6's. You are rapidly becoming one of my favorite people.

I hope this answers your questions regarding my thinking process.

Highlander Juan . . .
Just one question,
Reasoning on what constitutes a person (and life), why would there be a need for "partial birth abortion? Why not just deliver the "fetus" and THEN terminate it? The abortionist leaves the head in the birth canal to avoid being charged with MURDER. To them, the difference between a person and a non-person is a few inches. "Partial birth abortion" is merely a technicality for the medical profession to avoid prosecution.
It would seem that the one way to define human life would be viability (the ability to survive outside the womb (even with medical assistance).
As always, best regards,

tj MI Jun 1, 2009 - 8:02 AM EST

tj,

You have just screwed with my head and shown me how little I know about the subject of abortion.

It would seem to me that your summation regarding partial birth abortion and the doctor's legal concerns, are dead on accurate.

If what you say is correct, then my definition of what the courts think as the beginning of life is valid, i.e. there has to be a living 'person' separate from the mother.

That would make legal sense to me.

I think if you read my earlier response to Joel, you will see what I believe is a legal challenge regarding defining the beginning of life.

It would seem the courts have taken the safest and least challenging definition of the beginning of life. Having said that, I'll still bet there is no written legal definition of the beginning of life or 'person.'

I know not more.

Joel NV Jun 1, 2009 - 8:10 AM EST

Joel, I have to be honest with you - I have no idea why there is any life at all, except from a religious POV. We humans are so primitive and evolutionary in our thinking, I believe it will be several generations before we even start to 'get it' and maybe understand a bit more about why we are all here in the first place.

I have five children and think every birth was a miracle. The whole subject of life is so wondrous and complex to me I have given up trying to understand it and just accept it as real. And I'm a techy by trade, so I should probably 'get it' but I just don't.

So, in my own defense, I back off and work with those safe subjects I do understand, including business, law, computers, psychology, economics, etc.

I think, as you suggest, that we will have to see culture evolve a bit further before we can define the beginning of life legally. Right now, and as tj comments above, the doctors understand the beginning of life to be when the baby is born, and I suspect the law uses this definition as its own.

Having said that, I think things may be changing. In California, I've heard pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the prosecutors often charge the defendant with multiple murders.

But, also from my own personal background of dealing with the courts as a pro se litigant - I don't trust the courts to do the right thing for anybody unless that anybody knows the law and tells the court to do the right thing or the anybody will raise hell in the appellate courts.

In a nation of 2 million laws, we citizens just have to learn more about the law and become comfortable with it. Right now the law is being used as a tool against us, and that has to stop.

Have a good one.

Sins of the Tea Pot and Kettel
Let’s compare the two...

Sins of the Tea Kettle:

1. Received authority from Congress to start a pre-emptive war on a foreign nation based on the threat of WMD's. The war was incompetently planned with no exit strategy and Iraq was years away from getting the bomb. Yet chemical shells and 550 tons of Yellow cake uranium were discovered to be valid.

2. The Kettle conducted warrantless wiretaps on suspect citizens during calls made from outside of the U.S.

3. The Kettle suspended habeas corpus rights to un-uniformed foreign fighters captured on the field of battle.

4. The Kettle performed torture on captured terrorists, using the same water boarding techniques that are provided as training to special military forces.

Sins of the Pot:

1. The Pot poured Trillions of tax paid dollars into Democratic campaign support groups and failing private industries. Sometimes forcing said industries to take the money and denying the right to pay back loaned money in full.

2. After owning said industries the Pot violated written law by paying off working union groups before company share holders, as well as firing corporate CEO’s and replacing them with government Czar’s.

3. The Pot decrees Mandatory volunteerism of children into a built up "Youth Corps" as specified in the new GIVE Bill.

4. The Pot pushes identity politics into Supreme Court Decisions. "Justice is no longer blind."

5. The Pot promises to increase energy costs via the Cap and Trade system by relying on politicized fictional computer data and unproven science. (Possibly a valid case of Fraud by the government and fertile ground for a lawsuit).


Sins of the Tea Pot and Kettle
Let’s compare the two...

Sins of the Tea Kettle:
1. Received authority from Congress to start a pre-emptive war on a foreign nation based on the threat of WMD's. The war was incompetently planned with no exit strategy and Iraq was years away from getting the bomb. Yet chemical shells and 550 tons of Yellow cake uranium were discovered to be valid.
2. The Kettle conducted warrantless wiretaps on suspect citizens during calls made from outside of the U.S.
3. The Kettle suspended habeas corpus rights to un-uniformed foreign fighters captured on the field of battle.
4. The Kettle performed torture on captured terrorists, using the same water boarding techniques that are provided as training to special military forces.

Sins of the Pot:
1. The Pot poured Trillions of tax paid dollars into Democratic campaign support groups and failing private industries. Sometimes forcing said industries to take the money and denying the right to pay back loaned money in full.
2. After owning said industries the Pot violated written law by paying off working union groups before company share holders, as well as firing corporate CEO’s and replacing them with government Czar’s.
3. The Pot decrees Mandatory volunteerism of children into a built up "Youth Corps" as specified in the new GIVE Bill.
4. The Pot pushes identity politics into Supreme Court Decisions. "Justice is no longer blind."
5. The Pot declares groups of citizen's who partake in active protests against tax's, abortion or conservative ideology to be potential domestic threats against the nation.
6. The Pot promises to increase energy costs via the Cap and Trade system by relying on politicized fictional computer data and unproven science. (Possibly a valid case of Fraud by the government and fertile ground for a lawsuit).

Hate What They Say, but Defend Right to
say it. Voltaire got that right. Unfortunately, by the time Obama gets through another expansion of executive authority, and on top of what Bush, Clinton, Bush and a host of other presidents did for the past 90 years, we'll be living in a dictatorship.

Reba
"Tea Parties won't be enough "

****
Wow, what an understatement. Unless you like
big get togethers and that is enough to make
you happy, tea parties were a big flop.

tammy the turd
so again this loser pipes in with something she knows nothing about.

Funny how your god and messiah needed to pay people to be bused in to attend his rallies but with little publicity the tea parties still brought together thousands.

But what tammy the turd can't understand is that unlike her and the other idiots who need someone to worship, the tea parties have identified their enemy and are taking steps to change the last election results.

While flap ears will have 2 more years to try and destroy the cpouintry after the 2010 elections, the dims will have to defend him and his actions.

And since the economy will still be in shambles due to his bungling. The messiah only hope and change is that the citizens will be hoping their is still a country after your messiah has brought about a marxist state

Lolo1
"As always your posts lack any serious logic or intelligent thought, but this one of your may tirades on this thread today jumped out. You are a little Hitler in the making. Just because 'absolute freedom' doesn't appeal to you, doesn't then therefore give you the right to limit the freedoms of others that 'absolute freedom' does appeal to.

***
Well, I beg to differ. My posts, particularly this one, does not lack either
logic or intelligent thought. I do admit
to occasionally writing sarcastically, depending who the recipient is, but this was
not one of those cases.

I want you to think real hard about what
"absolute freedom" means. I can't believe
anyone would try to defend it, but I guess
if anyone would do it, it would be someone
who says I never use logic.

Absolute freedom means in essence - no govt.
And what does no govt. mean. It means you
build your own roads, you are your own policeman, your own military, you have no
protection against dirty water, dirty air,
inedible food except what you are a capable of
cleaning yourself. The medical profession
will be completely unregulated. You will
have no protection in the workplace. You
can fight your own battles with sexual abuse
on the job, dangerous workplaces, slavery
wages. Children would have no official
protection against abusive parents, beyond
what neighbors might be willing to give. Ditto for wives against abusive husbands.

Sounds like a great world, doesn't it. And I have only written about a few of those things we now take for granted.

lolo,
seems like tammy the troll has decided to lecture the wrong person.

You have a long history of staying on point but tammy is little more than a troll who can't stop worshipping the messiah and his efforts to destroy america

John Quincy Adams Slandered
"President John Quincy Adams was so ugly in his attacks on his opponent‘s wife, Rachel Jackson became emotionally debilitated during the campaign, and died from a heart attack days after Andrew Jackson won the election"

No, he didn't. Candidates in those days did not campaign -- others campaigned for them. Yes, JQA should have repudiated the attacks, although he didn't make them. Perhaps he was too angered and hurt by the attacks of the Jacksonians, who among other charges claimed that he had pimped a pretty American girl to the Czar of Russia when he was Minister to St. Petersburg.

The campaign of 1828 was brutal, but then as now the candidates could not be held personally responsible for every attack made by their supporters.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.