HIS MOST IMPORTANT ROLE
Re: George Neumayr’s Obama’s Living-Will Constitution:
If, G-d help us, Obama is elected, the Constitution may as well be torn up and used for toilet paper! I realize that sounds crude, but, while Obama himself may not be so crude, many of his cohorts and minions are.
— Gretchen L. Chellson
The Constitution requires that prior to taking office, the President must solemnly swear to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States…” It is the first requirement of the President pro tempore enumerated by the Constitution. It can be concluded that this is the President’s most important role.
Preserve means to protect it from injury.
Protect means to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.
Defend means to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury.
Nowhere does the Constitution empower ‘contemporary interpretation.’ The Constitution does not grant citizen rights, rather it defines the very intentionally limited powers, and the balance of those powers, of a minimalist federal government intended to do only support the basic needs of citizen self-rule. It specifically directs that no powers exist save those specifically delineated or delegated by the sovereign citizen to the federal government in the Constitution.
Based on Obama’s statements from 2001 forward, I don’t believe that he can honestly take this pledge. If he does so, and fails to honor his pledge, he will be impeached.
Imagine a President Biden and VP Pelosi. If that doesn’t scare you, you are comatose.
— Frank D. Banta
LEFT OF HUGO
Re: Peter Ferrara’s The Hugo Chavez Democrats:
One has only to look at the most dependable block of always Democrat voters to see the vision that party has for America. I am speaking of Black Americans. This poor misguided group of people has achieved with its mass voting for Democrats exactly what Republicans freed them from in 1865. Let us compare 1861 to 2001.
In 1861 blacks lived in slum housing provided by their masters. Those hovels were hot in the summer, cold in the winter and disease was rampant. They ate cast off food their masters didn’t want. They had no education and they were diet poor.
In 2008 many blacks live in slave housing that today we call “projects.” Projects are usually decaying, substandard housing provided by their democrat owners. Today’s diseases are crime and murder. They eat food provided by their Democrat masters in the form of food stamps. They drop out of school, and thus have no education or prospects and are dirt poor being given a subsistence living by their Democrat owners.
So what has really changed? Black America is owned by Democrats. Black America is poor because they are owned by Democrats who want them to remain a block vote for their owners. People don’t bite the hand that feeds them no matter how meagerly. This is what is in store for the rest of us in future.
— Jay Molyneaux
When I was a student at the University of Missouri-St. Louis in the 1970s, one of my professors was an avowed and very public Communist. He would often stand near the school library passing out Marxist literature. This was when I first understood the sickness called Communism. While taking his “class,” really an indoctrination in the wit and wisdom of Karl Marx, a speech given by William Shockley (the father of the transistor) in which he was to speak about his belief that African Americans were inherently less intelligent than Caucasians was shut down by the misbehavior of many in the crowd.
In my opinion, it did not matter what Shockley’s subject matter was. He was an academic and a noted scholar albeit not in genetics, his views were entitled to the same respect accorded any idea expressed openly in the public forum. That is, if anyone disagreed with Shockley, prove him wrong by refuting his ideas. Don’t make a solid argument for his case by behaving like wild monkeys let loose on the banana boat, which is what his “audience” did that day. Not only the sanctity of scholarly debate, which the loony liberal academics trot out every time they are forced to defend that jackasses such as Bill Ayers belong to their College of Cardinals, but a minor detail known as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution suggests that no matter his subject, Dr. Shockley had every right to speak his mind. People in disagreement with his views were free to boycott the event or engage him in scholarly debate after his presentation. But to shut down the speech simply goes against the core of my being. When I attempted to defend my point in class, the “professor” stated that free speech did not apply in this instance because of the subject matter.
This is the same tactic employed by the Obamatized (Obama + lobotomized) when they attempt to silence dissenting view points. Obama already proved he is no constitutional scholar when he voted to deny born alive infants routine medical care. Evidently, not only the First and Second Amendments are incorrect, but so is the Fourteenth which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So by voting to allow these most helpless of us to die, Obama espoused the concept of the inconvenient life. And this is the communist dunderhead the Obamatized want to put in charge of a national health care plan? Imagine the thrill my 80+ in-laws will get when they are denied routine treatment by a medical program that is bankrupt financially and morally because all octogenarians are no longer convenient. But I live in Missouri where the Prosecuting Attorneys have become the Persecuting Attorneys for Obama.
— George Thompson
Obama’s commitment to “spread the wealth” is a promise to low wage earners (who pay no taxes) that they will receive a larger subsidy in the form of increases in the so-called “Earned Income Tax Credit” or some other so-called benefit. This “tax cut” is really an increased subsidy, paid for by those who gross more than a certain amount (an amount which appears to be shifting down from $250k per year to $150k per year, according to recent comments by Biden).
The real question — always avoided by the social engineers advocating such increased subsidies — is whether the policy actually improves the lives of those receiving such subsidies? The answer, unequivocally, is “No.” Any analysis of census data reveals the following for those populations receiving the highest subsidies per capita: higher death rates, lower life expectancies, higher rates of out of wedlock births, higher incidence of crime, drug abuse, and abortions. Obama’s promise of a “tax cut” for lower income wage earners is really a promise to deliver more dependence and more misery. Such policies have been tried, and failed, repeatedly, most recently, in the U.K. and France, where the majority of births are now out of wedlock. Why any thinking person would want the same for America is beyond understanding.
— Peter R. McGrath
ASK THE AUSTRIANS
Re: J.T. Young’s It’s Best Keynes Remain Forgotten:
Mr. Young wrote “Skidelsky is grudgingly forced to acknowledge this success (the “formula seemed to work”) but then tries to shift focus to say stable prices did not equate to stable markets. Yet there is no reason or monetarist claim the two should equate. Removing inflation certainly takes away a major source of instability, but hardly all.”
Friedman’s monetarism was a great improvement over Keynesian economics and Friedman was a great promoter of liberty, but he didn’t go quite far enough. Yes, increases in the money supply lead to price inflation and the Fed has tamed inflation over the past two decades. However, Friedman saw only the price effects of goosing the money supply and not the business cycle effects. As a result, he never had a sound theory of the business cycle.
The business cycle remains a mystery to Keynesian and Monetarist economists, for whom mysterious shocks appear suddenly from nowhere, wreak carnage and disappear like tornados on the plains. The Fed’s only job is to repair the damage afterwards by pumping money.
Anyone really interested in business cycles should read anything they can find on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. The ABCT encompasses all of the insights and none of the errors of the Keynesian and Monetarist schools while adding a theory of capital. What Keynesians and Monetarists missed, because they lack a theory of capital, is the destructive effect of monetary pumping on the structure of capital. In simplest form, we can divide capital into producer goods and consumer goods. Each depends upon the other existing in proper proportion. Monetary pumping destroys that relationship and results in business failures and recessions.
With their emphasis on price stability, Monetarists can’t see the destructive results because price stability can hide a great deal of monetary pumping if productivity increases keep prices down when money supply growth would have caused them to rise. This happened in the 1920’s and in the 1990’s.
— Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Re: The Prowler’s Post-Defeat Planners:
I hope this article is not true about the Romney supporters! I was a big Romney fan during the primary and thought he should have been the VP pick. However, sabotaging Gov. Sarah Palin by Romney insiders in McCain’s campaign would totally turn me off and would cost Mitt Romney his Republican support if ever found out. We need McCain-Palin to win this election – period.
Gov. Romney needs to be in Michigan campaigning with Gov. Palin to show his support for defeating Sen. Obama. He should have been there already trying to keep Michigan in the “red.” Where is he? If we lose the White House, it will not look good for Romney if he was not doing everything he could to help us win and save this country.
Please pass this message along to the Romney people and see if they can get the message to Mitt Romney. I know he was not treated fairly during the primary or over the VP pick, but it’s time for him to stand tough and fight for the American values we believe in and help us win this election! Maybe it just wasn’t his time in 2008. Forget 2012, if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid get total power you won’t be able to get the country back in 2012! All Republicans, conservatives, Reagan Democrats, independents, and we the Christians of this great nation, have got to stand up against this take over.
The rumor that Romney insiders could be stirring up the Palin negative stories is sooo disturbing.
— Karen Bates
EVEN McCAIN DOESN’T PUT UP WITH THIS KIND OF MEDIA BIAS
Re: Eric Peters’s The Camaro’s Last Ride:
I’m not saying you should fire this guy but don’t ever let him write a car review again unless you truly feel he is indicative of your readership. I was routed here by an auto enthusiast’s site full of people ready to lynch this guy. His opinion is one-sided, uninformed and dangerous to people who don’t know any better. Until he’s driven them both he should merely state the facts and keep his overbearingly one-sided opinion to himself.
— Teddy Watkins