AP Spin edition
[link]
The Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown in this poll is 46/29/4, as AP assigned most of the leaners to the parties. That is a 17-point gap, more than twice what was seen in the 2008 actual popular vote that elected Obama. It only gets worse when independents are assigned properly. When taking out the leaners, the split becomes — I’m not kidding — 35/18/27. Oh, and another 20% “don’t know.” That’s significantly worse than the March poll, in which the proper D/R/I was 29/20/34, and far beyond their post-midterm sample of 31/28/26. It’s pretty easy to get Obama to 60% when Republicans are undersampled by almost half.
Frankly, this sample is so bad that no real insights can be gleaned from it.
See author page
Obama wants to renew sub-prime lending policies:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/irish-bombshell-government-raids-private-pensions-to-pay-for-jobs-program-2011-5#comment-4dca8e44cadcbb121d160000
Taking bets on how long it will be before liberals start praising Ireland’s idea here, and promoting it within the U.S. I mean, according to liberals like Michael Moore, those 401(k)s aren’t really full of your money, but the country’s money. And as liberals will tell you, everyone has to sacrifice something.
Darn it Curt. I was going to let one of the obama flunkies quote that poll then smack them upside the head with how bogus it is.
After seeing their reporting and how far left they lean, I’d say AP stands for Al-Qaeda Press…
I want a liberal to explain to us conservatives here at FA, just how is it that ‘Central Government Planning’ is a good thing. Show us one central, federal government program that has actually been a benefit to our country.
The fact is, that every time a federal edict, or directive, has come down, the negative consequences have far outweighed any benefits gained, and yet, the answer to the failures is always, “More central planning is needed”.
As Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results.”
And what do we have, I ask? The continued reliance upon a federal government, staffed with fallible men and women, and yet we grant them the title of the infallible. Is it any wonder that their ministrations to the populace end in failure, time and time again?
And what do we give up, in order that we allow these fallible humans to govern over us? Our freedoms and liberties, granted by either God, or the very fact of our existence, depending upon your religious disposition. Our forefathers saw this, and subsequently, when attempting to derive a just government, that would treat every man of this country as equal in the opportunities, as well as freedoms and liberties, they gave us our Constitution. And in that Constitution, the limits imposed upon the government were severe, so as to prevent the very inclinations towards ‘Central Government Planning’ that we see today.
I have been derided, and ridiculed, by some here, and elsewhere, for describing these general freedoms and liberties we were meant to be left with, by our forefathers. “You simplify the issues too much”; “Your ideas are unworkable in our present society”; “Those freedoms and liberties you describe as being lost are negligible”; “Modern society cannot handle nearly total freedom”; “My safety is more important than your freedoms”; “Our intentions are good, and therefore, are just”. Those are paraphrased, but accurate as to intent, and I hear, and see, them daily from the liberals.
Without freedom, what is the point? Are we to all become de facto slaves to one another, each relying upon the other for his daily bread? And yet, not all can be slaves. There must be masters as well. Who are they to be? Today, we elect them. Tomorrow, it may be they elect themselves, and this trend has already started. Witness the GOP “giving” us the choices of liberal, or more liberal, while the Democrats are further left still. Are we to become a society that the promise of safety, and cradle-to-grave benevolence of central government removes most, if not all, of our personal freedoms?
Not for me. If one wants the opportunity for success, they must also be willing to endure the hardship of failure. Yet that is not the prevailing thought in our society. We, as a country, demand success, and success only, even at the expense of freedom and liberty to all. We want, as a country, to be given success as our birthright, without the work and intelligence needed to acquire that success. We, as a country, want the unearned, claiming it as ‘earned’ simply by being born.
You, who are reading this, may want that kind of world, though I know many who will read it do not. When you read other articles, here, and elsewhere, about what our central planners are doing now, keep in mind their previous attempts. Look at even the smallest of freedom and liberty that is encroached upon. Then ask yourself if that those freedoms and liberties lost, when added to all the others lost through the generations of our country, amount to more, or less, safety, or equality.
My forefathers fought not one war, but many, to ensure that right. Most they won. One they lost. We would be remiss if we let those freedoms and liberties slip away, not from the results of a battlefield, but with cheering masses hailing the central planning that liberals claim will save us all.
Such are my thoughts today on reading about these;
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/10/obamas-eo-threat-nixonian/
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/10/great-news-govt-just-about-ready-to-push-alerts-to-cell-phones/
Not saying I believe the polls because actually it’s really too early to tell. Obama just had (one) and I stress ONE, ‘high light’ of his Presidential Career with Bin Laden… this is still Fresh in peoples minds, but a Leopard cannot change his spots…. Once reality again settles in – Jobs, Economy etc… the ‘tune’ will be different… Obama does not care about anyone but his career and himself (besides his family of course).
Speaking of bin laden I have noticed there have been several or more News accounts of (Middle East) crazies trying to make trouble on planes…. Thank goodness for the brave passengers who have the courage to subdue these wacko’s before they can accomplish their self induced craziness without pulling everyone else down (literally) with them… “I” say if they feel that bad just find the tallest, and nearest bridge and take a flying leap off and leave the rest of us alone.
I get the feeling there is going to be something SIGNIFICANT and horrendous that is going to happen because of the lax and ignorant policies of this Government – Our borders especially (I don’t believe a word of what Janet Napolitano has to say, I believe she is just placating to her boss) … Whatever happens may be the ” jolt ” that finally ‘ knocks the stupidity’ out of a lot of people in our Government… and in America… I think it may be just a matter of time …
In conclusion, I could not bear another 4 years with Obama and his ignorant leftist base, I think I would go clinically insane…
CIBOLA! Bumpty, Bumpty, BUMP!
First time I’ve ever seen a presidents ratings go up 17 points off a political stunt.
Not even a mention of the dismal economic showing since Obama stepped into the Oval office, but of course, according to his pundits, he inherited a mess created by George Bush’s. (Pure HS)
Keep yer eyes open, before the polls open next year, we will have been indoctrinated that the ‘Republican’ congress is responsible for the current dismal economy, never mind Pelosi and her krauts, and Obi wan Obama will have had nothing to do with it.
This country IS going down. Elect this cretin again, and it’s going to go down faster. Who cares about 14 trillion deficits, it’s what the ‘American people’ want.
I did not believe this feeling of disgust could get any worse, but I gotta run out and get some Pepto……
@Hard Right:
The problem is that it DOES NOT MATTER how bogus it is. The fools on the left and those whom they can snooker prefer it that way.
The left never shows any common sense, why expect them to start now?
Anything, ANYTHING to get their boy re-elected…..
The Wall on the Border Lies:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-10-27/news/17317505_1_border-security-canadian-border-border-patrol
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2011/05/11/obama-dishonest-divisive-speech-border/
Typical propaganda. AP has no credibility with this anymore as they are playing politics. There are a couple of other polls that are just as bad those being NYT/CBS and Wash Post/Pew. The point spreads between these three polls is +18% to +21%. All of the others are -4% to +12% according to Real Clear Politics. They are way out of line. So much for being honest. Shortly they’ll be declaring him winner for 2012. Just goes to show one more obstacle his challenger will have to overcome.
The AP poll has Obama’s approval rating hitting 60 percent!
And 53 percent say he deserves to be reelected.
It is a poll of adults.
But look at party ID:
46 percent identify as Democrat or leaning Democrat,
29 percent identify as Republican or leaning Republican,
4 percent identify as purely independent leaning towards neither party,
and 20 percent answered, “I don’t know.”
With a poll sample that has a 17-percentage-point margin in favor of the Democrats, is anyone surprised that these results look like a David Axelrod dream?
The Associated Press media department writes noting that they have added these two paragraphs:
I appreciate the AP noting the criticism.
They emphasize that their sample hasn’t changed significantly from the immediately preceding poll, where the sample split 45 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican.
The question isn’t really whether the sample changed too much from their poll in April; the question is whether the sample accurately reflects the American public at large, and whether we indeed have 1.63 Democrats in this country for every 1 Republican.
The Gallup sample tells a different story, with the parties at rough parity.
Rasmussen tells a different story, with the parties at rough parity.
The most recent Reuters poll puts the two major parties at rough parity.
The most recent Pew poll shows Democrats ahead by 7 percentage points.
Now, it is theoretically possible that AP has it right, that the country is nearly half Democrat and less than a third Republican.
NRO Campaign Spot
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/the-first-five-presidential-emergency-text-messagesThe first five Presidential Emergency Text Messages:
May 10, 2011, 7:35am:
“Dude yelled ‘ALLAH ACKBAR’ while trying to break into the cockpit on a flight to San Francisco. Nothing to worry about, though — he was just looking for the toilet and really had to take a leak bad. Everybody stay calm.”
May 10, 2011, 9:07am:
“Damn, that was a gutsy call I made on OBL. Don’t you agree? Gutsy.”
May 10, 2011, 10:46am:
“Three-pointer from half court! Oh yeah. Maybe I’ll have the Secret Service upload a vid of the shot later. Nothing but net!”
May 10, 2011, 12:14pm:
“DUCK AND COVER! Ha ha, just kidding. America is safe as long as the O-man is in charge!”
May 10, 2011, 1:28pm:
“Anybody seen my 8-iron? I coulda swore I put it in the bag before tee-off.”
If you are one of the cell phone users already signed up for the presidential emergency alert system, please report new O-lerts here.
*ive been working on my english / literature a bit and wrote this on mothers day. It is an “open thread” here, so just go ahead and read it:
I suppose most can’t tell their story of birth.
But for my mom it had 9 months of considerable girth.
My mother was sleeping in the comfort of bed.
When along came a spasm, so she woke up and said.
“Sweetey, I’m feeling some pain.
Get me to the hospital, your sleep must refrain.”
“Oh my dear” said dad “I don’t mean to be crass,
But with the strange things you’ve eaten, it may just be gas”
As usual, mom got the better.
After some arguing; to the ER we header
First; dad thought it might be PMS. (not to be improper)
But when we arrived he said to the doctor.
“My wife is quite pregnant and all in a tizzy,
Pull the sucker out; If your not to busy?”
The doctor looked at him and said with a smile.
“Its going to cost you to deliver that child.”
Dad took out his wallet and much to dismay.
Had to dig through moms purse for a credit card, to pay.
The nurse laid mom on a table and told her to breath.
Doc took a look and said, “now let’s make this brief.
I’ve got to get home or my wife says I’m dead,
You’ve give a push, while I pull on his head.”
Doc started yanking, but I guess I was fussin
Docs hand slipped, he fell and got a concussion.
“Oh that babe!” Doc said, “what a disaster..”
“Someone get over here and wrench out that bastard!”
Dad looked up and said he would “give it a try.”
Mom looked up and yelled, “don’t you dare or ill cry,
You’ll sleep on the couch for the rest of your life!
And ill divorce you and not be your wife!”
Dad assured her, and said “don’t worry its fine,
I’ve done it on cattle, a couple of time.”
Dad spit on his hands and rubbed em together
then he warned mom “now you may feel a slight pressure.”
Dad grabbed on the head and said with a shout
“You’ll be grounded for life if you don’t get your ass out!”
He pulled with a his might his feet firmly planted
He utilized leverage by keeping his body slanted
I popped out after a minute, mom gave a loud squeal.
Dad said “I refuse to pay for this crazy ordeal!
Honey its a boy, well just call him zac
I don’t know why.. Just get off my back!”
“You wanted a girl, I’m sure you’ll be angry
This kid is ugly, homely and gangly.”
“If you said this is my kid, I wouldn’t believe it,
If it were not for the fact; I just stuck my hand in to retrieve it!”
“I’ve delivered a babe, what else can I do?
Now I’m off to the bar to have me a brew.”
Mom looked a dad and being so kind hearted,
Gave a sigh, and said “I hope he’s not retarded.”
Mom was a bit of a very smart lady,
She could foresee a hard time raising this babe.
“I look in his eyes and feel I’ve made a mistake,
Should I put this one up for adoption, or would that be fake.”
“Perhaps if I keep him, we could put him to labor.
Imagine all the spare time I could savor.”
Mom soon lost the regret she had made-me,
Because she saw the benefit of child slavery.
Then mom being mom gave me a lesson.
“No matter what, your my son, oh what a blessin.”
Zac might there be a reason
writing lyrics so pleasin’
I look here and there
to see critique of Obama Care
TEPCO finally admits it is far worse than they have been saying….but the gov’t had a good reason to hold back the truth from the public….the government on Thursday also delayed the announcement of a plan to ensure that TEPCO fulfills its obligation to compensate tens of thousands of people affected by the crisis.
More-than-expected damage found at Japan reactor
By MARI YAMAGUCHI
Associated Press
…..new data, which also showed that the water level in the core of Unit 1 at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant is much lower than previously thought, leaving the portion of the fuel rods still intact is fully exposed.
….findings also indicate a greater-than-expected leak in that vessel. Radioactive water pouring from troubled reactors has pooled around the complex, hindering work to bring the plant under control.
…..radioactive water is apparently then leaking into and through the larger, beaker-shaped drywell, or containment vessel.
…..new data indicates that it is likely that partially melted fuel had fallen to the bottom of the pressurized vessel that holds the reactor core together and possibly leached down into the drywell soon after the March 11
…..acknowledged that the level of damage could complicate plans detailed in April to bring the plant to a cold shutdown within nine months.
…..the new findings became available as workers fixed a water meter Tuesday after entering the building for the first time since a March 12 hydrogen explosion at the unit.
The gauge showed that the water was at least three feet (one meter) below the 13-foot-long (four-meter-long) fuel rods, which are suspended in the pressure vessel. Some of the rods has melted away….
…..The low level of water indicates that the core of Unit 1 had a bigger breach than expected, said TEPCO spokesman Junichi Matsumoto.
I was going to post a story here, about a little girl who caught on fire, and of the burdens of the family, and most surprising, the outpouring of help, by not only my company, but of their contractors and suppliers, and illustrate the difference between ‘charity’ at the point of a gun, as liberals want to see, and true charity of the heart, by people who willingly give up their own time, energy, and wealth, and all by their own personal choice.
I am going to refrain from posting the full version, as it is my co-worker, and I do not wish to use his heartache and pain, in detail, to further a political message.
Suffice it to say, that his experience is not a lone occasion, and that many such similar stories are noted around the country, by people who willingly give their own precious time, energy and wealth, so that the burdens of others may be lessened. This is quite different than the liberal socialist’s desire, of forcing people to unwillingly give up their time, energy, and wealth, to ‘help’ someone in need. While the intentions may be good, the results are nothing short of enslavement, even if it is by the smallest margins, of one person to another.
And it doesn’t take disasters to strike, for people to willingly give of themselves, for the benefit of others. Many food kitchens, for the poor, and shelters, for the homeless, are there simply from the goodwill of others. The biggest difference, between the government’s benevolence, and cases like I’ve touched on, is the idea of ‘choice’. When one chooses to engage in charity to another, of their own freewill, it is exactly that. Charity. And that isn’t a bad thing, nor is it, like some might think, against the philosophies of one of my favorite writers(Ayn Rand).
When that ‘charity’ is forced, by a government edict, or directive, it changes from true charity, into robbery, because the free-will choice is absent, and someone is taking from you, that which you’ve earned, to give to someone who hasn’t, at their discretion, not yours. Such is the ideology of the liberal, though, that they feel that since ‘charity’ to one’s fellow man is a good moral, that they have the right to legislate it. Isn’t this one reason they discount one side of the gay marriage debate? That government cannot legislate morality? And yet, that is exactly what they are doing, when they take from one, and give to another, whom they claim as the ‘needy’.
A few years ago I came across an article on a blog entitled, “Not yours to give”. This was prior to my first reading of Atlas Shrugged, so I had little support from my own knowledge of just what it was that I read on that blog, although, it was as if a lightbulb went off in my head, and I recognized my own thoughts, on a computer screen, regarding the ‘charity’ of government. A particular passage comes to mind, regarding that excerpt from the story, and government benevolence;
The full story is from “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,” . You can view it here;
http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/
There is a monumental, and philosophical, difference in charity by choice, as evidenced most recently to me in my co-worker’s situation, and similar ones I’ve read, and that of ‘charity’ by force. We are supposed to be living within a nation, governed by law, with freedom and liberty to choose as we will. We are not. Since the early part of the last century, and indeed, in some ways prior to that even, we have morphed into a nation governed by the rule of men, and little by little our freedoms and liberties are being chipped away. Our forefathers did not envision this, yet this is where we stand.
Until a stand is made against the liberal rule by men, coming from both major parties, but predominantly the democrats, we cannot hope to ever turn away from the destructive path we are on. The money aspect has been discussed at length, here and elsewhere, but it is only one small part of the bigger issue. That of freedom, or life in servitude. As it stands, we, as a country, cannot hope to ever pay our bills, and instead, will pass on ever greater debt to our descendants, and from them, even greater debt to theirs, if we continue upon this path where we give, little by little, our own freedom and liberty, for a little security. Eventually, the system will implode, when there is no more wealth to be taken. I do not wish to see that day, nor have my children, or children’s children, see that day come to pass. A stand must be taken.
House GOP abandons pledge to force agency-by-agency budgeting
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/12/house-gop-abandons-pledge-to-force-agency-by-agency-budgeting/
Apparently the stand won’t be taken by Boehner. I actually liked the idea of going through, agency by agency, to approve their budgets, and cutting where it could be cut. Instead, it’s going to be the same old, same old, with money shifting around from agency to agency, to ensure that all the money we have, and don’t have, gets spent. Do these people have any idea, whatsoever, of the financial state our treasury?
Keep voting the liberals and liberal-lites out of office until someone of true fiscal sanity can lead us out of the mess.
Sunday Funnies will be delivered late, as my computer burnt out a couple of days ago. Slim chance I might get it back tomorrow….or decide to invest in a new laptop.
If Obama continues to bring up Bin Laden with a lot of “I” and “ME”, look for it to backfire as the American people do not like this in anyone, let alone someone who is supposed to be a leader.
@johngalt: #4.
“I want a liberal to explain to us conservatives here at FA, just how is it that ‘Central Government Planning’ is a good thing. Show us one central, federal government program that has actually been a benefit to our country.”
Here is a blatantly destructive example of a liberal-Obama-government intervention, desperate to inflict damage on BUSINESS.
Obama, Unions, and the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) are taking on the America’s biggest exporter, Boeing, drawing a line in the sands of free markets and liberty generally. The legal effort to prevent Boeing from building 787 Dreamliner airplanes at its South Carolina plant, is a direct attack on American business. South Carolina is a right-to-work-state. Boeing should be free to decide where it will build ANYTHING. It’s creating jobs, not only in SC, but it’s creating new jobs in Washington which is a non-right-to-work-state.
This highlights the fact that citizens should be free to choose, and companies should be free to decide where they wish to do business without interferences which fly in the face of “liberty.”
Obama is at war with right-to-work-states. Obama is at war with oil companies. Obama is stupidly at war with job creation. Obama is at war with, . . . freedom.
. . . But this genius is really into expanding government. Smart! Really smart.
Two recent headliners across the Net;
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/bill-clinton-hey-lets-have-a-ministry-of-truth-or-something/
So……………………….another government agency, this one directed at protecting the public from their own speech. Yeah, nothing could go wrong here with this. BTW, don’t they already have a non-official agency tasked with spreading the lies they want spread? The MSM perhaps.
And this;
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/indiana-supreme-court-rules-hoosiers-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-entry-of-their-homes-by-police/
It seems to me that we have an amendment to the Constitution, that is part of the original Bill of Rights, that makes that ruling by the ISC unConstitutional. I imagine that this ruling will be overturned by the USSC, but it really is amazing that our rights can be threatened by cases like this.
@John Galt
Ok John – Could you let me know what the benefit there is in having a UNITED States of America instead of 50 independent states?
@GaffaUK:
That question you asked shows your lack of understanding about our Constitution. The founding fathers of America set up our country, under the Constitution, to be a union of independent, sovereign states, with the federal government responsible for the protection of those states from foreign influence and aggression, and to protect the states from unjust actions against one another, and to prevent the citizens themselves, from unjust actions by the states themselves.
But please, answer my question. Or can you?
@ JohnGalt
Yes, they must either control or censor the free exchange of information or speech that does not meet their criteria. That is tyranny speaking. Listen well and you will hear the historic echoes of elite masters to their slaves.
I was born and raised in Southern Indiana, and this chills me to the bone. Every day it seems more and more of our freedoms are being stolen away. We are clearly headed in the same direction as Nazi Germany and the Bolsivik Revolution.
@johngalt
To those Republicans out there who doubt the resolve of the Tea Parties, conservative and independent voters who are fed up with business as usual: You are on the verge of destroying the Republican party by ignoring the voters and doing what the Washington crowd wants. The people gave you the House of Reps to stop the madness and follow the will of the people. You screw it up again this time, like you did when Newt was speaker and they will never trust you again. And you will have also succeeded in the destruction of America.
So for starters isn’t the US army – a central, federal government program?
Secondly – do you really believe the States are independent and sovereign??
@GaffaUK: All the States are United by a common purpose, bubt if you read the Constitution carefully, you will see Amendment #10- known briefly as State’s Rights- this amendment more than any other was responsible for the Civil War (not that slavery was a GOOD thing, it was just not central to the war, until Abe thought he could pull in more support this way).
Read carefully #10-
@GaffaUK:
I do not consider the U.S. Army as being a central government program. It is, in fact, one of the very few items that has been delineated to congress to raise money for, and pay for. Anything directly stated by the Constitution as being required by congress to raise money for, and pay for, is not a central government program.
As for the states, I do believe that they were once independent and sovereign unto themselves, however, progressive policies have destroyed much of the force behind the 10th amendment. As I am for a return to Constitutionally limited federal government, I therefore stand behind the assertion that all states within the United States are their own sovereign entities, united by a common purpose.
Are you being this obtuse by intention? Or is it merely a reflection of your lack of education regarding our Constitution?
@johngalt
IMO it’s simply another case of GaffaUK avoiding honestly answering the questions posed him.
The US Army and other US armed forces are not “social programs,” they are the only constitutionally mentioned government departments required (along with the unorganized citizen’s militia) to defend this nation, and they were not considered for the first 150+ years of the nation to be a continually full-time active agency. Note that the Federalist papers made it clear that a “standing army” was not required, which proves that the founders took into consideration the difference between a non-standing professional military guard/reserves and the citizen’s militia. It was not until after WWII that the National Security Act of 1947 was passed and created a full-time active duty U.S. military framework.
@John Galt
So all these programs provide no benefit and better to be either scrapped or done on a State by State basis?
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/
And here’s a list a blogger put about what they considered successful government programs.
So you don’t believe a Federal government is capable or suitable to organise a program but reckon it’s perfectly suitable to organise and maintain the defense of the nation?
Believing states are sovereign is laughable. They do not have independent total control of their territory. The Civil War is proof that States cannot choose to leave the Union. Because it’s in the constitution doesn’t make it so.
@GaffaUK:
For your first link, there are a few that I believe are of benefit, however, they fit within the purview granted to congress by the Constitution, under Article I, Section 8.
For your second link, the author supplies a list populated not so much by government programs, but rather, laws defining further the rights of citizens, such as the Civil Rights Act, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. Those aren’t programs. They define certain actions allowable, and not allowable, so as to prevent a citizen, or group of citizens, from infringing upon the rights of other citizens.
The closest that either of those lists comes to a central planned government program is the CDC, however, that can be argued that it falls within the discretion of the federal government, per the Constitution, as it relates to the general welfare of the United States.
On the states, not only is it not laughable, but it is specifically pointed out within the Constitution, as well as the Federalist Papers, that the states are meant to be sovereign entities, within a union of other sovereign entities, of which a federal government is provided to provide for such common items as listed within the Constitution. Regardless of the actions of our federal government over the last century and a half, the states have never amended the Constitution(the only ones allowed to do so, either directly through a Constitutional Convention, or by proxy with their congressional representation) to give up their sovereignty to one central government.
Believe it or not, the Civil War was an unConstitutional war by the federal government against several states. And although Lincoln had guts, essentially to prevent a fracturing of the Union by declaring the war, he went about it the wrong way. The slavery issue was front and center, however, the effects of it upon other issues precipitated the secession of SC, and the other southern states. The war, by the reckoning of the southern states, was fought to preserve the rights of states, which they felt the federal government was encroaching upon. As I said, Lincoln went about resolving the dispute the wrong way. Our constitution, as I stated, provides for the amending of it. The 13th Amendment could very well have been ratified without military action, or imposition by the northern states, acting via the federal government, to impose their will upon the south.
And that is where I have a fundamental difference with most liberals. The United States was formed to be a nation of rule by law, of which, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. By disregarding even the most minor of limitations upon the federal government, progressives essentially have shown a disregard for the Constitution entire, and as such, have pushed and pulled the country into one that is ruled by men, with directives and edicts put forth that are not based on just cause, but rather, who is in favor at the time.
Until the United States moves back to a union of sovereign states, as the Declaration, Constitutional conventions, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and numerous other writings, including Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, it will remain a nation ruled by men, where a central government imposes it’s will upon the populace of the country, unfairly, and unjustly.
@John Galt
Well I’m glad you agree there are federally funded programs which are of benefit. Not sure how whether they ‘fit within the purview granted to congress by the Constitution, under Article I, Section 8.’ or not is relevant. A program is still a program.
As for the second link – well depends how you define program – is there a universally accepted definition of this? A law such as the clean water act still requires federal funding http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html.
Indeed the EPA is a success thanks to Nixon:)
The US national parks program – thanks to Teddy Roosevelt:)
The Interstate highway system – thanks to Eisenhower:)
What bad Republicans they were! Surely it should of been left to the individual states to cobble together a better plan.
As for States – I’m talking that it laughable not in principal but in actuality. The States are simply not sovereign and independent entities. You may wish they were. They made have been. It might have been the purpose to keep that way. But in reality they are not.
So if you were Lincoln – and if all methods to persuade them had failed – if the States wanted to leave the Union – you would have let them?
As for the Constitition – it is impractical to live purely by documents that are centuries old. A living dynamic nation like the US has to evolve with modern times. People ‘interpret’ the Constitution in many ways. As a limey – it’s as practical as the laws of the UK being based purely on the Magna Carta.
Interestingly what is considered unconstitutional by some people
The Printing of paper money.
. The establishment of a government run healthcare system.
. The Supreme Court has given itself the power of ‘judicial review.”
. The presidents (both past and present) have signed “executive orders” that effect things outside of the executive branch of the government.
. Warrantless wiretapping.
. The establishment of the PATRIOT Act.
. Congress making laws that are outside of the 20 powers given to it by the Constitution.
. The president’s use of power not given to him in the Constitution.
. The federal government has taken power that should be reserved to the states, or the people, as stated in the 10th Amendment.
. Establishing a federal level Social Security program
http://ainformer.blogspot.com/2009/09/list-of-unconstitutional-things-our.html
+ the Louisana Purchase! (Just imagine what the US would be like if people like yourself keep strictly to the Constitution)
@GaffaUK:
You have misunderstood everything I have stated, as is evident by your comments.
I have stated nearly exactly what you said here. However, they still are sovereign independent entities, no matter how they are treated by the federal government.
I did not say that. I stated that there are Constitutional means that wouldn’t have led to such a war happening in the first place. And no matter how you spin it, the war was an unConstitutional act.
That is exactly the attitude towards the Constitution that progressive liberals hold. When one removes the standard that laws are held to, you live without standards, in a nation ruled by the whims of men, instead of a rule of law. The ideas held by the Constitution are timeless, and do not depend upon the ‘modern times’ in order to be functional. Many of those items of legislation, enacted into law, would be perfectly acceptable under the Constitution, if it weren’t for individual sections within them that have allowed the federal government to overstep it’s bounds.
And, as I have said, there are Constitutionally approved means to change the Constitution itself, that would be perfectly acceptable to those who believe as I do. However, that has not happened except for a handful of times. All other efforts at expanding the powers of the federal government, by using the court system, or by intentional legislative effort, should be shunned by everyone, as it leads to what we have today in America, which is a soft tyranny by our federal government.
That is exactly my point, Gaffa. The fact that a ‘program’, law, or Act, fits within the framework of powers granted by the Constitution, or not, is what makes it relevant. UnConstitutional acts by the federal government, no matter how they are viewed, as beneficial or not, by the populace, must be shunned by that populace, if they are to remain a free people, who live within a nation ruled by law.
@ JohnGalt
In regards to your alert about the Indiana Supreme Court:
The SCOTUS decided another case mere hours after the above decision, this time on a Kentucky Case. For the first time I can remember, I find myself agreeing whole heartily with the single dissenting Justice Gingsberg:
http://firearmprotector.com/wp-content/uploads/09-1272.pdf
@John Galt
If a State is unable to leave the Union then clearly it is not independent. If a slave considers themselves free that doesn’t make them free. The very Constitution ensures that States are not sovereign because, as I understand it, three-quarters of the other States can impose amendments on a minority of States. The Civil War maybe unconstitutional but proved that States are not free to leave. So if Georgia wanted to bring back slavery it couldn’t.
And I see you dodged my comment about the Louisiana purchase. So was Jefferson right in buying the Louisiana Purchase despite it being unconstitutional?
@GaffaUK:
Which proves my point, that the actions by Lincoln constituted an unConstitutional action by the federal government, as the original intent of the document, concerning the states, was that each was an independent, sovereign entity, but the federal government has been overreaching since the inception of the United States.
I never dodged your question, Gaffa. The Louisiana Purchase was an entirely Constitutional action by Jefferson, although I understand that some believe it was not.
Article II, Section 2 states;
Definition of Treaty;
The Louisiana Purchase was a treaty, signed on April 30th, 1803, and consented to by the Senate on Oct. 20th, 1803. The only question, constitutionally, regarding this was that the Constitution does not specifically allow the federal government to purchase land by treaty. It does give the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the power to make treaties, however, and as this land was not owned by a state, nor occupied by a territorial government, it is a perfectly legitimate function of the federal government. Some, as I stated, would consider this as the government overstepping it’s bounds. I do not. Nor did it impact State’s rights, nor citizens rights, nor constitute an aggressive action towards another sovereign entity, such as France, or Spain.
So, to answer your question, yes Jefferson was right to do it, and no, it was not an unConstitutional action.
@johngalt: The Civil War maybe unconstitutional but proved that States are not free to leave.
As a follow up to this, what the Civil War proved was that the North was able to beat the South militarily. It did not prove anything about secession. There are arguments both for and against. The first attempt at secession was the Nullification Crisis of 1832 which was over a tariff that the South, in particular South Carolina, viewed as favoring the North at the expense of the South (Kind of like penalizing one segment of society for the benefit of another. Sound familiar?). Had the South seceded at that time, there would have been a civil war because Andrew Jackson made it quite clear he would use military force to keep the country together and both sides were preparing for war. It is very likely the South would have defeated the North at that time because the North did not have the industrial and population advantage it had in 1861. Lincoln used Jackson as his model when dealing with secession in 1861. And remember, the North just barely won the Civil War. Notice there wasn’t a single leader in the South who was convicted of treason?
this is superly interesting to learn for those who haven’t study it’s history,
even more here at FA because of some minute details that are so important in any action,
specialy war and strugle decided by the people to have a correction on unjust leadership
arangment.
thank you all
GAFFA UK, I think that THE STATES have their own freedom, they dont necessary use all their power on it, but It doesn’t take the power out, and all that without having to want to separate from the other STATES, they realy don’t need that, but again it doesn’t thake their FREEDOM away,
beside why would they want to do that? when they have it already, meaning they can have the last word on their attribute powers from the CONSTITUTION, not from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
WHICH JOB IS TO BE AT THE SERVICE OF THE STATES, NOT EMPOWER THEM,
AS MUCH AS THEY TRY TO BE NOW
@GaffaUK: AS you are from the UK , I assume, perhaps you do not know that the states were to have soverignity over its citizens, except in the sense that the Federal government could, and would do no more than necessary to have a “commonality of commerce”- and even then, the Constitution was meant to restrict any overreach by the Federal government.
In your examples of “Republicans” who had contributed in a socialistic way, the only one i can see is Eisenhower, with the Interstate system, which, BTW- was made so the military would have an easy route from any direction- it was not made principally for us regular folks.
As for the EPA,kill it-it is full of eco- weenies that hold back progress, and as for the National Parks, well- they are in reality, just a federal land grab- if you look at the maps of federal lands, it becomes apparent, and the “emminent domain” the feds use has tossed many a good person off of what should still be THEIR land, not the government’s.
@GaffaUK: #34- Texas has, in it’s agreement to enter into the United States, the “Freedom” to secede- I use quotes, because, despite the agreement, the feds would not allow us to go- we have 1/3 of the refinery capacity, 1/2 of the strategic petroleum Reserve, and a bunch of military bases- so there would be war, despite the “agreement”- but that is no wonder, just ask the American Indians how often the Feds have broken their word-