About Me

Name: The Blue Eye...
Location: blue eye, MO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
Life vs. Abortion

The 545 People most responsible for America’s Problems

 

The 545 People most responsible for America’s Problems

Let’s start off with some eternal truths. 1. Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Then they either make them worse or find a way to make sure the cure is worse than the original problem so that the cure also becomes a problem. That way, they can lie about what they’ve been doing to stave off the original problem.

2. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? If the government were run like most businesses, we would have declared bankruptcy long ago and restructured to prevent further deficits. Governments should always break even every year, regardless of its level. To do anything else suggest incompetence on the part of the politicians in charge.

3. Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? Because inflation means you have to spend more money for anything thereby requiring politicians to spend more monies on everything to keep the same level of services. This way, they can legitimately ask for more and more of your money.

4. You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. And congress authorizes the expenditures and the taxes to pay for them. Remember this always. Governments have no monies nor wealth that they don’t first take from their subjects.

5. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. Then the Senate is supposed to discuss and adjust those appropriations, not rubber stamp them. Of course, Senators are no longer beholden to the State Governments because they’re popularly elected just like their Representative neighbors so they’ve become just another spending body. That’s how elections are won. Buy the votes with their own monies collected through taxes they have no voice in controlling.

6. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. Them with the money makes the rules.

7. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. (occasionally, if the Federal Bank isn’t looking.)

8. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. (Well, until Obama was elected, anyway.)

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I exclude the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. It’s a good job if you can get it.

I also exclude all special interests and lobbyists for the very simple reason they have no legal authority, no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing (except with money, of course.). I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. Politicians have the power to accept or reject. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine his votes.

Those 545 human beings spend a lot of their energy (we call it campaigning after they’ve been elected.) convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. And some of the media cooperates as well, particularly if they like the politician in question, like Barry Barrack Soetoro Hussein Obama. He is the first near black president, you know…

That separating politicians from normal human beings is an excessive amount of gall. No (intelligent) normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker of the House to stand up and criticize a President for creating deficits.   The president only proposes a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it and he doesn’t appropriate monies.

The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they can manage to agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million has not yet replaced a mere 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.   I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not directly traceable to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. It would seem self evident.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ and Afghanistan, it's because they want them there. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan and HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PLAN not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems except those Congress wishes to ignore and perpetuate.

Don’t let those 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take that power.   Above all, don’t let them con you into the belief that there exists such disembodied ephemeral, mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing the things they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Never vote for an incumbent. Throw’em all out. The very few honest ones will have no trouble finding honest work. The rest can go on welfare.

PL Booth, www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 07/18/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCOTUS

The Souter Replacement Battle

Here's the oath Supreme Court justices must take: "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. He hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job since he is not looking for someone to fulfill that vow but someone whom he knows willfully violates it. That is what Liberalism requires, judicial activism, not justice.

It is easy to contrast the above oath with BO's insistence that the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles" is the key qualification for a Supreme Court Justice. According to his White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor's "American story" of humble origins -- she was raised in the South Bronx, along with several million other people -- best prepares her for the high court because it shows "she understands upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts." In other words, her rulings should be tainted with her personal feelings rather than actual legal precedent.

Mr. Obama says law and precedent should only determine rulings in "95 percent of the cases" but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. "In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

Please keep in mind that Supreme Court cases just happen to constitute that 5% and nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For those hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule, not law. I think that is because liberal Socialists wish to change our country in ways that normal law will not allow but judicial activism can accomplish without legislation. Examples: Homosexual marriage, Equal Opportunity laws that emphasize not equality but favor for minorities, Abortion on demand, Social Security and Healthcare monies spent in non-citizens, etc.



So, what's so wrong with empathy vs. legal precedent? Not much, really. Empathy is fine and good for all decent people to employ, including Supreme Court justices. But it shouldn’t be the basis of all decisions, certainly not the law of the land.

Mr. Obama has something very specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants not just the justice's oath to be rewritten but that judges to administer their justice with direct respect to persons. They must be partial, not impartial to whomever they choose and so on.

This is not really open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation, he said that Roberts didn't have the "heart" to vote the right way in those 5 percent cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, "we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges." Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The assumed reasoning here is dubious at best. Obama and Sotomayor assume firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or African-Americans or gays or whatever automatically require justices voting a certain (liberal) way. "I would hope," Sotomayor said in 2001, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense elevated to astronomic heights. Surely Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any other justice currently on the bench. How's that working out for liberals? Why don’t they love him?

Naturally, liberals say anytime you disagree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas, abortion, or anything else, it's because you just don't care as much as they do about - minorities or women or ... That is why they've aggressively demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor which is an arrogantly stupid assumption. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Policy preferences are the province of Legislatures despite Ms. Sotomayor's insistence that courts are "where policy is made." That is where Socialist WANT policy made since they cannot control all the legislatures in any republic.

Just as importantly, who keeps saying conservatives are against judicial empathy? I think we are all for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution.

When the law (Constitution) means siding with a poor black man, great. If it means siding with a rich white one, that's great too. The same holds for gays, gun owners, single mothers, and immigrants. We should all rejoice when justices actually fulfill their oaths giving everyone fair hearings, even if that's not how Obama and his minions see it.

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, 05/27/09
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »