THE BEGINNING OF THE END
Posted on 02/17/2009 11:57:53 PM PST by Scott Martin
“This does not mark the end of our economic problems” said Obama, “Today does mark the beginning of the end”.
Yup. Hung by his own petard.
One day, soon I hope, the media will have no alternative. The truth will be so obvious that they will have to report it, otherwise risking their own downfall at the hands of the public. That’s where the fight will begin. The public will demand truth from the media, the messengers. Not getting it there, the public will move up to the source.
It certainly is the beginning of the end of the economic and religious freedom and standard of living we have enjoyed until now. The end was assured when our Congress, on a blind feeding frenzy, voted for our economic destruction without even reading the "stimulus" bill. We saw raw greed and avarice in their actions, especially as the actual provisions come into light. The Neo Marxists no longer even pretend to care about economic responsibility; neither do the three RINOs who accepted "bribes" for their local constituencies at the expense of all of us. I am sure that each of them are very proud of the pork they brought home; they cannot return their "thirty pieces of silver" at this juncture, as the light of day exposes their greed and selfishness.
Freepers....as soon as one buys a NEW car, they are UPSIDE DOWN on the value of the car.....so WHY are we Bailing out people now because they are upside down on their mortgage...probab;y for just a short while???
Can Zero give just one speech without plagerized lines? just one?
********************************************************
Give him a break on that one ,, he doesn’t write his own lines and there really aren’t that many ways to say “FREE MONEY”.
Oh, there was resistance, all right—but Chuckie Schumer dismissed the calls and emails from the “chattering class” about “little tiny porky” amendments. Your government is IGNORING you and the politicians are serving themselves-witness Pelosi’s little provisions re: Starkist and American Samoa, where apparently she and her husband “own” the workers there...
Interesting coincidence that 22:10 is an anagram for 2012.
Curiously:
President Obama Press Conference, Feb 16 2009, pp 13.:
"Can I give just one speech without plagerized lines? Just one?"
True, but 7JS6 is a palindrome of 6SJ7.
no way! now that’s scary! lol :)
THE BEGINNING OF THE END
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We *want* them broken. You’d better get it straight That it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against– then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
— Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged , Ch. III, “White Blackmail”
“According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge’s bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.
One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. “You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defense,” he announced.
Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered: “I have no defense.”
“Do you-” The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. “Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?”
“I do not recognize this court’s right to try me.”
“What?”
“I do not recognize this court’s right to try me.”
“But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime.”
“I do not recognize my action as a crime.”
“But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal.”
“I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal.”
“Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?”
“No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly.”
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another’s benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
“Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?” asked the judge.
“No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice.”
“But Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself.”
“A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognized by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well, Do it.”
“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good.”
“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”
A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal’s muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, “Good God, now he’s done it! Now he’ll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!”
“Are we to understand,” asked the judge, “ that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”
“I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals.”
This has been my plan.....
And curiously (4x4)+8 = 20 and 3x5 = oh, nevermind.
I think youy opening comment just explained the whole crux of the matter. To a conservative American, NONE of it makes sense because socialism & the welfare nanny state has failed over & over again wherever it is tried.... Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, Detroit, Newark, New Orleans, Oakland, California, western NY, etc. In other words WTF is going on because none of it makes any sense.
However to the lib retard moonbat socialist zombies and the demoRAT socialists who are in power, ALL OF IT makes sense because no matter how many times it has failed in the past, they are SURE they will get it right this time if only we throw more & more massive amounts of money at the problem (which their policies & govt programs created in the first place).
We are in a battle in America, and the fight is not primarily against Islamic terrorists IMO. The real fight is against the self loathing socialists & demoRATs in this country, including usurper in chief Oboooombi, who want to destroy America in order to create THEIR version of socialist utopia.... ruled by an elitist few and the teeming masses of sheeple lined up for their handout pittances.
More from the original article:
The left likes to accuse others of doing the things that the left does most.
[snip]
No, rather I hope ARRA will fail because I don't believe government is good at meddling in the economy. I want it to fail because I believe that even if government was good at meddling in the economy that is not the role of government under the United States Constitution.
[snip]
I want to live in an America that is once again free and prosperous for those who best pursue prosperity. Where success is encouraged and failure is discouraged, not the other way around.
ooops
meant this for you:
READ:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis144.htm
and the quotes ref’d in my tagline.
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.