Quote of the Day: "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." -Harry Browne (1933-2006), Downsize DC co-founder
Ask a bad question, and you'll get a bad answer. Compare these two questions . . .
Should the "rich" pay more taxes? Should Congress spend less?
Those who say the rich should pay more are likely to get both higher taxes and higher spending. That's a bad result. On the other hand . . .
If Congress followed the Constitution spending would plummet.
There would be no need for tax hikes. EVERYONE would get a tax cut.
That's a good result. To seek this result . . .
I just wrote Congress using Downsize DC's "Obey the Constitution" campaign.
The hardwired message for that campaign says...
You swore an oath to obey the Constitution. Honor that oath. Abide by the Constitution's limits on federal power.
I added the following comments, which you may copy or edit...
The Constitution isn't perfect, but if you obeyed it...
* There would be no deficit or supposed fiscal cliff, because. . .
* The federal budget would be a fraction of its current size
So I want you to oppose any budget deal that increases taxes or spending. I don't want to fund criminal (unconstitutional) things like...
* medical marijuana raids
* prohibitions on medicines that are freely available elsewhere in the world
* bombings and invasions of countries that have never threatened us
* stationing troops in wealthy countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea
Nor do I want to fund ...
* bailouts for big banks and failed automakers
* TSA workers who molest and steal from travelers
* FBI and NSA agents who spy on us without warrants
* subsidies to wealthy farmers and corporations
* see my taxes sent up in flames, or . . .
* pay federal employees to do nothing, rather than . . .
* fund criminal activities that hurt people and violate the Constitution.
Which is to say...
I THINK YOU DO HARMFUL THINGS.
Just obey your Oath of Office.
That simple act would . . .
* end most of the criminality
* reduce the harm you do
* end deficits
* end the supposed justification for tax increases
* give everyone tax breaks, which would mean more funding for the beneficial Voluntary Sector.
So I'm telling you...
DO NOT RAISE TAXES.
DO NOT RAISE SPENDING.
OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!
- - -
You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.
Jim Babka President DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
I do NOT agree with the 23 Executive orders Obama did yesterday.
He should have gone to Congress first, presented it and opened it up for debate and discussion.
If that did not work, then go to the American people on TV like he did yesterday.
He did not even attempt a discussion. I know it would have been futile; but that is procedure.
He put the horse before the cart and that proves the dysfunction going on in D.C.
I know there is hatred for Obama from this Congress and the GOP party but to issue 23 EOs does not help the matter either.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Obama hasn't allowed "discussion" of anything! anymore than Bush did. Less in fact. He really does believe he is King.
But, I was hoping folks would take note of the content and reasoning of the letter above, and consider sending the same in their name.
More misinformation from fox news, Obama did not issue 23 Executive Orders; it was memo form only.
He knows this will not pass on a federal national level.
It has to go through the House.
I am sick and tired of false stories coming out and that is why the electorate is plain dumb and stupid.
That goes for both sides.
Ignorance and paranoia. What a great combo.
By the way, the Constitution was written in the late 1700s, before cars and airplanes were invented, before electricity was discovered, before women were allowed to vote, and when slavery was still in effect.
Time for a re-write.
This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 7:30
EO s are only written for the purpose of ignoring Congress and the Constitution. It matters not If his 23 wishes list is in a signed EO or in memo form, Sheila. It's in writing, it's been released to the public, and they reflect his desire and INTENTION. That is not "false" news. That is very real - and sickening.
Christian, there is nothing the federal government can do "for" the citizens of the United States that they (the citizens and their LOCALLY elected officials) couldn't do better and cheaper locally at the state, county, and city levels, except provide for national defense and to protect our liberties and freedom from so- called "do gooders" like you.
What you advocate is a dictatorship, which is UN AMERICAN. Do try to get that thru your thick skull. While you are at it, go study the US Constitution. Then you won't make stupid comments about Founders, and cars and planes. Anyone who has any inkling of understanding of the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution knows it's timeless because 1) it is written EXPRESSLY to PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE STATE/GOVERNMENT And 2) can be and has been Amended (the provision those carless/planeless Founders included for the very purpose of "changing times") when THE PEOPLE deemed necessary.
What do I advocate, exactly? I missed the part where I advocated.
What is "left:, what is "progressive" now what is "advocate"? Sounds like the Bill Clinton "defense":
You advocate anti- Constitutional bullshit every time you defend tryanny, which you do with every childish remark you make ridiculing everyone who doesn't agree with you even while you have no reasoned logic, historical data, statistics, studies, or anything but progressive propaganda Fed to you by the political elite (for you, your flavor of political elite is progressive) to back you up.
xtian, do try to think in terms of shutting the F up until you have something meaningful to say about the topic
Yes, pretty much, Jim
Christian is using specious arguments.
- Although the original body of the US Constitution was written in 1787, it has been modified a number of times since. The first Amendments of the US Constitution were the first ten that consist of the Bill of Rights. In point fact, three states refused to ratify the Constitution if they did not have a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be included shortly after the Constitution was ratified. This debunks the arguments of those that claim the Constitution is outmoded. Clearly the provisions for modifying the Constitution are within the document in Article V. Equally apparent is that those that choose to make the claims of obsolesce do not wish to use the Constitutional process. They favor more arbitrary methods which include the use of raw political power, the use of propaganda, coercion. or even things like executive orders all of which are dictatorial and authoritarian at their core.
- The concepts of the Bill of Rights is hardly something that was formulated on the spot by the authors of the Constitution. In fact those principles had their origins in political theory, human rights natural law that went back to John Locke and centuries before to the Magna Carta. That these principles have become outmoded is ridiculous.
- Yes, the writers of the Constitution got a number of things wrong, either through the political reality of the times or being the products of their own times. Still, the advance of the human condition is due to increases in liberty and a reduction of authoritarian rule not the reverse as many seem to think.
Statism is a cult. The most dangerous cult of all. It has resulted in the murders of over 250 million innocients in the last century. Endless violence and wars. Hundreds of millions tortured and/or imprisoned. The loss of liberty of billions. The empowerment of the corrupt. Theft of the worlds wealth by the elites.
So why can't all these statists just freakin' admit to everyone that they truly are in favor of "the murders of over 250 million innocients in the last century. Endless violence and wars. Hundreds of millions tortured and/or imprisoned. The loss of liberty of billions. The empowerment of the corrupt. Theft of the worlds wealth by the elites" and stop pretending like they aren't? Every single American who voted Dem or Rep in the past- who knows how many past prez. elections- has knowingly voted FOR all this crap. They need to own up to it. And apologize.
Everyone should check out the latest assault humanity. The USA sponsored sanctions on Iran are beginning to have the same effect on Iraq. Those that need medicine are already dying. Many are beginning to starve. In Iraq the UN estimated some 500,000 Iraqi children lost their lives because of sanctions. Those Clinton era sanctions continued long after UN weapons inspectors supervised and confirmed the last of the 1990 Iraqi stocks of WMD.
Iran has almost 3 times the population Iraq had. If this repeats itself, millions of children will die, and it's already started. Twenty children died at Sandy Hook. A terrible event. But what about the millions of children at risk in Iran? I see a huge effort underway by progressives to ban guns claiming that it is being done to save the lives of children. Where are those same people on the sanctions that are resulting in deaths of children in Iran every day? Are these children worth so much less than American children? Why? Because they are of a different race or culture?
And who opposed the sanctions on Iran? Almost universally libertarians did. Many paleo conservatives did........and some principled progressives....., who are the only ones I have any respect for.
This post was modified from its original form on 19 Jan, 11:42
Anti "Statists" basing all their positions on the Constitution - the founding document of "The State."
Makes you wonder what they're using for "brains....."
I guess you skipped right on over the historical data Jim hasprovided and that kills your alleged arguements, like xtian says he does, huh Chile? And you want to talk intelligence and brains. wow
LOL. Poor Archie doesn't understand what "Statism" is. Do you really want to get into political philosophy Archie? You didn't do so well in economics, statistics, history or even current events. How about using "everyone knows" again? That was pretty sad.
Yer the two funniest things on C2. Thanks for the entertainment.......
Katii, you are bat-ass crazy. Why are you asking me for questions in threads I haven't even posted in?
But, then agian, you think you are the only one capable of understanding The Constittution.
Yeah, that's healthy.
I'm so sorry, Chile - and Archie - for getting your names confused, but surely you can understand my confusion. You both sound just the same.
I guess you skipped right on over the historical data Jim hasprovided and that kills your alleged arguements, like xtian says he does, huh Archie? And you want to talk intelligence and brains. wow
There, all better now?
If someone doesn't know the difference between "statism" and "states' rights," then that person has no business discussing politics.
State's sovereignty is important but we cannot go back to 1776 or post Civil War either.
That is like me saying I want to stay young forever - times change, you cannot put this era into the past. We can learn from past but we cannot live the past. We adjust and make our own time.
You need the federal govt. also, look at how many states treated blacks, still like slaves until the Fed. Govt. did Civil Rights Acts.
In honor of MLK, I am glad the Federal Govt. did enact the Civil Rights Acts but you would never know as there are so many haters still in this country.
people who hate with that intensity are self-loathing and hate themselves most.
The Constitution,a document originating from the Iroquois Confederacy is a pretty good document as it stands.There are even provisions for amending it..a very slow process where deliberation wins out over snap decisions.
The problems we face as a nation are largely due to both Democrats and Republicans moving away from the original meanings and intent of the Constitution
"... but we cannot go back to 1776 or post Civil War either." - SL
What do you mean, Sheila? Go back to what that the Constitution doesn't permit or forbid?
You are aware of the Amendment process. This assures that in the extremely rare event the Constitution as written leaves an individual's right/s unprotected because of "changing times" the law can be amended to assure those right/s under the Constitution, and it has been. But it should never be Amended to strip us of any rights, and it has been.
What part of the Constitution do you disagree with that you believe it to be outdated because of changing times? What changes are you referring to?
Amazing how effective the propaganda is. The "We can't go back" argument for example. That has in it's premise that all progress, economic or social is do to the State. In fact, the State is usually one of the major barriers to economic and social advancement.
Sheila? Can you address my questions, please? We need explanation if we are to understand what it is you are concerned about, and why exactly.
Delphi at work, Jim.