Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time for War Against Democrats' Fiscal Sabotage
davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 03/10/11 | david limbaugh

Posted on 03/10/2011 5:47:51 PM PST by lancer256

It is amazing that the American people would continue to elect Democratic politicians to national office, considering Democrats' cynical disregard for the federal budget crisis. They aren't even slightly serious about becoming part of the solution.

Consider the Senate Democrats' most recent proposal for budget cuts to avert a government shutdown. Senate Republicans, following the House plan, proposed $61 billion in cuts for the current year, while Senate Democrats proposed a paltry $6.5 billion. (The Congressional Budget Office says it's actually only $4.7 billion.) Though Obama seems to be hiding in the bushes on this one, he is said to support the Democratic plan.

Did you hear that: $6.5/$4.7 billion? This is nothing. It's an outage. This from the clowns who say the Republican cuts, which themselves wouldn't be enough, are "Draconian." No, it's their attitude that is Draconian -- to the republic.

There's no hope from the left side of the aisle when these people are irreversibly tied to the fiction that the economy simply can't function without an ongoing federal spending explosion. And they always get their charlatan economists to enable their profligacy.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: davidlimbaugh; democrats; liberals

1 posted on 03/10/2011 5:48:00 PM PST by lancer256
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lancer256

Every time I see the words “the American people” I envision these infiltrators from other countries taking us over from within. What are the American people these days?

This is what King has to deal with. He has no choice. The Muslim radicals are radicalizing our kids and the democRATS are helping. They think they’ll be immune. HA!


2 posted on 03/10/2011 5:55:01 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U (They don't need to do another 911. They have BHO and the Fleebaggers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

There are about 30 percent of the people that are hopelessly lost. But I can’t help but think the Democrats have lost the trust and the votes of the independents in Wisconsin.


3 posted on 03/10/2011 5:58:10 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.

No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.

If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.

There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision

Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.

Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.

That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
381 U.S. 437

UNITED STATES v. BROWN.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 399.
Argued March 29, 1965.
Decided June 7, 1965.

Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.

(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.

(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.

(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.

(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.

334 F.2d 488, affirmed.

Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.

Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .

Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]


4 posted on 03/10/2011 5:59:17 PM PST by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

More info please?


5 posted on 03/10/2011 6:25:12 PM PST by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!(FR #1690))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lancer256
the link goes to a different article
6 posted on 03/10/2011 6:29:47 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

Leninists have never been known for their appreciation of applied economics. They don’t need to know how to maintain a functioning system. They just need to know how to destroy one, replace it with centrally-controlled horror, identify everyone who might point to their actions and say “Hey, you destroyed the previous system which, though not perfect, worked pretty well”, and kill them.


7 posted on 03/10/2011 6:35:51 PM PST by Dr. Sheldon Cooper (Incidentally, one can get beaten up in school simply by referring to oneself as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

This ^ is exactly correct. Excellent reminder, thank you.

8 posted on 03/10/2011 6:39:47 PM PST by Dr. Sheldon Cooper (Incidentally, one can get beaten up in school simply by referring to oneself as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

This is insane. Even the republican proposal is a poultry $61 billion in cuts for the current year is 1/20th of the same years deficit!

Basically chump change, 5 cents of a dollar. If that was not laughable enough the Democratic proposals are even worse something on the order of 0.5%.


9 posted on 03/10/2011 6:53:27 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

The Democrat Party needs to pay reparations.


10 posted on 03/10/2011 6:53:36 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

This is how piss poor the RATS are. They want to rule over illegal aliens and welfare recipients.

Think about it. They are purposely destroying this country to rule over downtrodden peoples. Which means that eventually only the haves will be able to buy things and that will have to come from the black market.

They are destroying our energy, food supply and bankrupting the middle class by forcing us to spend our retirement savings to survive.

We need to fight back.


11 posted on 03/10/2011 7:03:20 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (The way to beat a terrorist is to terrorize him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
This is insane. Even the republican proposal is a poultry $61 billion in cuts for the current year is 1/20th of the same years deficit!


So...I guess you're saying that the $61 billion in cuts is just chicken feed!


Chicken feed...poultry! Get it? Ha-ha! Ha-ha!

















I just crack myself up sometimes. :-)
12 posted on 03/10/2011 8:02:07 PM PST by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

The commie democrats are ruining this country by their profligate government spending and unchecked taxes.

Their feet need to be held to the fire by American voters.

The democrats are bankrupting America and turning it into a third world country and power.

Democrats must be driven from power by the American electorate in order to save this, our great country.


13 posted on 03/10/2011 9:23:37 PM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson