The American Spectator

Real American| 10.22.09 @ 3:06PM

some of that is bs. The Constitution explicitly permits the income tax. How is it then, that the income tax is unconstitutional? I don't like it, but it's constitutional.

And I really don't know what the Constitution has to do with "outsourcing American jobs overseas." Companies outsource jobs because it is cheaper, in most cases, than hiring Americans do the work (which is caused by many stupid govt regulations, such as the minimum wage) but it isn't necessarily bad for Americans if it makes products or services more affordable and brings in bigger profits for the shareholders of those companies. In any event, the Constitution limits the power of government and not of corporations and a strict interpretation and following of the Constitution would not address dissatisfaction with outsourcing.

S.L. Toddard| 10.22.09 @ 3:40PM

"but it isn't necessarily bad for Americans if it makes products or services more affordable and brings in bigger profits for the shareholders of those companies"

Yes, it is. What shareholders reap in profits and what consumers save in prices does not make up for the job loss. In the end it redistributes wealth from American workers to foreign workers and American execs.

Si Vis Pacem| 10.22.09 @ 8:31PM

Wrong, Toddard.

In the end the laid-off worker is responsible to find new work or apply different skills, exactly as I have done over the (many) changes in my career. Liberals live under the false adolescent assumption that employers "owe" jobs to employees. You also toss in the word "wealth", but have you any freaking clue what wealth is or how it is created? The money shareholders retain and what consumers save is vital to the wealth creation process. You wouldn't know that, of course... Have you never in your life met a payroll? Didn't think so.

About the only concept Liberals understand is Robin Hood. Back to the forest with your silly green tights and Mao's little red book. Ooooh, aren't you all so sexy!

Andy Horning| 11.2.09 @ 5:37PM

How about a Plan B?
Of course there are good signs everywhere. And as my public record demonstrates, I'd greatly prefer Rule of Law under existing constitutions as written. It's not impossible to achieve.
But I think it's wise to make a sober Plan B for what has always happened to nations that behave as we have behaved. So, I started writing a constitution for a new nation/state. Then I invited some others to join me in what I think is a good, timely idea - to hold a virtual constitutional convention to refine a new leash on political power.
I don't expect any large group of people, let alone a whole state like Texas, to adopt our constitution before we go through a lot more pain. But as I believe that pain is coming, I'm hoping we'll be ready for an alternative to the oppression, slavery, genocide and war that usually follows societal self-immolation.
There's a bit of introduction here http://wedeclare.wordpress.com.....s-needed/, and here http://wedeclare.wordpress.com.....-purpose/.
Maybe it'll bear fruit. Maybe not. But God knows I'm trying…
Liberty or Bust!
Andy Horning
Kingwood, TX

Tim| 10.22.09 @ 3:12PM

How many divisions does the Constitution have?

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.22.09 @ 6:54PM

Well, Tim...at 15,000 troops per division, help me with the math..... 100,000 million armed insurgent Americans???
Somewhere around 7,000 divisions.

PS: did you see my letter to Obamamaoists? here:

We Dare You To Silence Our Voices

President Obama and Czars, We DARE you to try to silence our voices. You guys do that and it is in quaint Texas lingo..."Katy, bar the door, there is gonna' be an arse whipping in here."

If we are not already on your list, then your gangsta boys are not on the ball. If we are on your list to silence...fool...you waited too long!

First of all, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, American Spectator, et al are our cheerleaders.
A football game is not won, or lost, due to cheerleaders, though, but to the TEAM you are playing against. We are suited up now and ready to play...and win. Silence Rush or any of the other voices of dissent with any ole' remedy you can think of, and you just killed the canary in the coal mine. Did you comprehend what I just told you? Do you comprehend those consequences?

You may not take the internet off line, or censor it, or you have just killed another canary.

Half the country will take note, and your half are a bunch of grasshoppers and ghetto squatters, living off of our sweat. Many of us out here in fly-over land, (uh, the ones who feed you, and provide you fuel to fly and party), will not accept it. If you are old enough to remember "Watergate" first hand, then you know what utter disgrace looks like. Mr. Nixon will not be remembered as a wart on your hiney in that regard. You will be the
modern Admiral Tojo who said "...we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."
OOPS!
Go ahead! Throw your best punch! I understand my life is forfeit if you are that stupid.

Do you and your so-called "Czars" understand that if you do manage to silence our voices, then Americans have no options left? Do you understand that your thug friends over seas cannot beat us? Do you recall that there are twenty times more veterans than there are active duty armed forces? Do you understand that many active duty troops, sailors, and officers of same, trust and admire their former comrades more than they trust you? Do you understand that most of them took their oaths seriously?

Who Ya Gonna' Call? .............Gangsta busters? Lots of luck with that!

http://judgeroy.wordpress.com Membership now free...except for your lives and honor.

Tim| 10.23.09 @ 9:07AM

Ken have you noticed a strange looking van parked up the street with antennas sticking out?

Rich Rostrom| 10.23.09 @ 4:19AM

Gad, what a pathetic farrago.

As Real American has noted, the Constitution was explicitly amended to permit Federal income taxes, and says nothing whatever about trade or employment policy.

The Constitution also explicitly permits deficit spending: that is, Congress may "borrow money on the credit of the United states."

American troops have been sent into battle without declarations of war for over 200 years; the U.S. Navy did battle with France in 1798, and the Navy and Marines fought the Barbary Pirate states in the 1800s.

The Constitution also explicitly permits the forcible acquisition of private property for public uses, with just compensation. (The abuse of this power for politically-favored private interests is another matter.)

Rev. Baldwin might also be surprised to learn that U.S. mail was delivered on Sundays in the first years of the republic; and when it was discontinued, many complained that was an unconstitutional recognition of religion.

And if he was any sort of constitutional scholar himself, he'd understand that the Constitution's explicit grants of power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, collect tariffs and excises, collect income tax, suppress slavery, and suppress counterfeiting include by implication the law enforcement authority required to exercise those powers.

It's this sort of ignorant babble that discredits genuine Constitutionalism, and makes it harder to resist the designs of the transnationalists and other liberals.

Red Phillips| 10.23.09 @ 9:06AM

Rich, you contradict yourself. You say in paragraph two that the Constitution says nothing about trade policy and then in paragraph seven you acknowledge that the Constitution explicitly grants control of foreign trade policy to Congress, one of the few explicit powers it does have. Your latter statement is the correct one.

Of course the Constitution allows for defense spending, but what was intended was actual defense, not crusades for democracy. The Constitutional Convention debated hotly whether we would even have a standing army. Clearly, they did not have in mind the US as world policeman in the guise of "defense."

I believe that Baldwin is probably of the opinion that the 16th Amendment was not intended and did not allow for the Federal Income Tax as we have it now. I am not sure I buy that, but there is an argument to be made for that. A more germane point would be that Baldwin would like to abolish the income tax, repeal the 16th Amendment, and replace the revenues with NOTHING. Would you?

Baldwin is a fine gentleman, an excellent writer, a true Christian statesman, and a true constitutionalist, regardless of how much you might want to nit pick. The broader point is that Baldwin actually wants to, unlike every national Republican with one honorable exception, to follow the Constitution as given and intended. Do you?

I am proud to say I voted for the man in this last election? Did you? Or did you vote for faux con McCain?