Posted on 08/30/2011 9:43:21 AM PDT by CA Conservative
Raleigh, N.C. – If there was any question that Rick Perry is the new Republican presidential frontrunner before now, PPP’s latest poll of South Carolina confirms it. A week ago, PPP showed Perry jumping to a narrow lead in first-caucus Iowa. Now, he has a double-digit lead in what will likely be the third-voting state. Perry tops with 36% to Mitt Romney’s 16%, Michele Bachmann’s 13%, Herman Cain’s 9%, Newt Gingrich’s 8%, Ron Paul’s 5%, Rick Santorum’s 4%, and Jon Huntsman’s 2%. This is a sea change from when PPP last polled the race in June, with Perry not included. Romney led with 30% to Cain’s and Gingrich’s 15%, Bachmann’s 13%, and Paul’s 10%.
If Sarah Palin joins the fray, it has no impact on Perry’s dominance but a lot on Bachmann’s standing. Palin would place third at 10% behind Perry still at 36%, Romney at 13%, followed by Cain’s 9%, and Bachmann and Gingrich tied at 7%.
(Excerpt) Read more at publicpolicypolling.com ...
Well hello, BlackElk. I see you have not given up on your quest to convince the unwashed that the 10th Amendment empowers our enemies and restrains the people, while hiding the fact that your enemies are the states and the people, and the federal government is your god.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2763204/posts?page=200#200
(3rd paragraph)
Yes, you are the first “conservative” in our great nation’s history with contempt for the 10 Amendment; except you are no conservative but merely another big government RINO in hiding, spouting Saul Alinsky rules against any candidate or person who threatens your big government agenda (note BlackElk’s constant marginalizing of Ron Paul with childish, slanderous nicknames—marginalization is a core Saul Alinski tactic).
>>>You wrote: ...what has [Ron Paul] DONE during this, his last term in office when the GOP caucus put him in a position to do something about the FED RESERVE. <<<
Earlier I inquired about his authority (or lack thereof) over the Federal Reserve, with the assumption that you are an expert on the Federal Reserve, of course, but you completely ignored my inquiry;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2770093/posts?page=38#38
(near the bottom)
Which leads me to believe you are hiding your true agenda. The same with your continuous fixation on Ron Paul’s earmarks, which, when taken in context, would reveal a desperate act of patriotism by Ron Paul, but which you spin as “Ron Paul is a big government liberal”, which is a flat-out lie. Using the earmark hoax as a weapon, like your buddies at MSNBC and CNN, is a natural tactic for radicals like you toward anyone you want to smear. I must admit you do, on occasion, point out that Ron Paul rarely, if ever votes YES on a budget. But even that virtue you turn into a smear.
Let me guess the number of times you have tried to educate the unwashed on the budget/earmark concept. How about, NONE, ZERO! And it is so simple. All you would have to do is post something like this:
The federal budget is set before any allocation is made. All money not allocated is turned over to the Executive Branch (e.g., Obama) to spend in any way it chooses. Or, as Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly pointed out:”
“...directing money to particular purposes [earmarking] is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch; there is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to Congress’s. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies.”
Frankly, I think Ron Paul explains it even better at:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/
“If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny. Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.”
Also at:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-16/more-earmarks-less-government/
“The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.”
I’ll bet you never hear anything like that from the loudmouth BlackElk. Why not? Because he is hiding his true agenda. His insane interpretation of the 10th Amendment is all you need to know. These are his exact words from the first link in this post,
“On the 10th, Paulie wants us restrained by it and our enemies empowered by it.”
Yep, those are his exact words. Thus, the states and the people are his enemies since they are empowered by the 10th. But who does the 10th Amendment restrain? The Federal government, and BlackElk does not want it restrained! Yep, BlackElk is a big government RINO. It is obvious if you read past his slurs, smears, childish nicknames, and, in general, incoherent and belligerent rants.
Don’t believe yet? Then how about this, also from the 1st link:
“I want a centralized government on foreign policy, trade, military policy and a bunch of other things. So did the Founders. “
That last sentence is deceitful. The Founding Fathers delegated to the federal government very limited powers, eighteen, in fact, all enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. Those eighteen enumerated powers explain what the Founding Fathers declared to be the “General Welfare, Common Defense, etc.”, which was written in the Preamble to the Constitution. An example of a General Welfare power is Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads. Another is Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
To ensure there was no misunderstanding regarding power delegation the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And, for some unfathomable reason, BlackElk despises it.
BUMP!!
>>>In your response you asked me why I relegated him to just the V.P. slot. That had already been covered in my comments to you, and those comments directly contradict what you were trying to imply.<<<
I apologize. I was trying to point out how easy it is to get hooked in the race trap, but I fumbled it.
>>>Reasonable sounding reasons, do not make an action that would be harmful to the U.S. right, if your wishes were carried out. It simply demonstrates that you fail to fully understand what you’re trying to push through.<<<
I did further research, and I now agree with you. I had previously thought that Reagan would have agreed with LOST if the deep sea bed mining provision was corrected. That was the dominant propaganda. But after your reply, I dug deeper and found this link at the Heritage Foundation, titled, “Why Reagan Would Still Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty”.
Thanks SJB. I appreciate it.
Please take me off your ping list. Thanks.
See if you can get it through your Paulistinian skull that so long as there is even ONE abortion mill left for people to take their unborn children to be murdered by slicing, dicing and hamburgerization, the task of CONSERVATIVES (not libertoonian bimbos and airheads) will not be done. Abortion will still occur in numbers so long as there is even one holdout state clinging to "legal" child murder as public policy.
Since you are having a love affair with the generally ignored 10th Amendment, you need to answer some questions as to its implications. Would it not abolish: Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, federal highways, lighthouses, the space program, any and all banking regulations other than regulating the value of money, all anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation, all forms of paper money, etc., etc., etc.??? Those are a few reasons for not suddenly enforcing the long unenforced 10th Amendment almighty.
Now since you are having an uninformed love affair with the 10th almighty, I don't suppose you are a lawyer but well-settled principles of legal interpretation would have it that later enactments prevail over earlier enactments. The 14th Amendment has the same standing as the 10th and, if there is a contradiction, the 14th prevails. Try the last two clauses of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which provide that no state shall deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process of law (which judicially created "rights" to abortion and homosexuality are not) or deprive any PERSON of equal protection of the laws. Lavenders have the same right to marry persons of the opposite sex as do straights so long as such a person will have them. The unborn babies are PERSONS but not yet citizens. They are neither born nor naturalized. Amendment XIV, Section 1, provides even greater rights for citizens than for persons but certainly does not allow deprivation of innocent life of even PERSONS without due process of law (like being convicted of a capital crime: see Bundy, Ted) or unequal treatment of babies compared to their mothers as to depriving the babies of their right to life for the convenience or social comfort of their mothers.
Persons or people who would mug me or rob me or assault me or murder me without justification ARE my enemies. States that purport to "legalize" mugging, robbery, assault and murder without meeting a very high standard as to justifying such behavior ARE my enemies and are enemies of the babies if they purport to "legalize" abortion.
I am a Roman Catholic and only God is my God (See Douay-Rheims Scriptures and Catholic Dogma). I am a wee bit eccentric in admiring the Anglican King James version as well which is magnificent literature as well as generally reliable Scriptures.
Now, buzz off and go write some 18th century poetry. Philip Freneau???? LDon't look now but their are ELKS under your bed!!! You are in waaaaaay over your head in matters political as evidenced by your absent resume and your support for the fraudulent paleolibertoonian airhead. After we have crushed the little pipsqueak and left his remains for the gutter cleaners, maybe you will find something useful to do with the rest of your life.
Maybe you can even build a respectable resume. If you had one, we would have seen it by now.
Don't you tire of imitating the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz??? You should play the lion since it certainly takes courage to jump on board the paleoPaulie express to oblivion. You can't play tin man because paulie has no heart and his zombies cannot allow themselves to show him up.
As usual, I was in too much of a hurry to note that #407 is directed at Philip Freneau only and the others were pinged only for informational purposes.
The only thing we know for sure is that he was a passionate supporter of Nancyboy Kirk to be elected as Illinois's curious behaving US Senator and nuisance in the GOP caucus. We already had Dickie "our military are Nazis" Durbin and had previously had Obozo followed by some non-entity appointed by Blago. The suspicion is that his #1 issue is the protection of trust funds for his little Muffy and Skipper down at the polo club.
Thanks for a magnificent post.
I try not to go completely south on people, but sometimes it just seems appropriate. :-)
Thanks BlackElk.
Please take me off your ping list.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
I am too technologically retarded to maintain a ping list. I ping people on the fly who I think may have an interest. I will certainly make every effort to remember not to ping you in the future. I do hold your posts in high regard. May God bless you and yours.
Sorry. I thought I had gotten on a Ron Paul, libertarian debate ping list. I can only take so much libertarianism during any given year. :)
Well, sure, he nailed the problem in those quotes. But the problem with Rick Perry cuts across his appreciation of the larger problem, because the problem I have with him is with his honesty and commitment to dealing with the problems, rather than using government as a slop-trough for moneyed private interests the way "Poppy" Bush and his men did in the 80's with the "pigs at the trough" politics that gave us, eventually, Phil Gramm's repealer of Glass-Steagall and the derivatives catastrophe.
If a man isn't fundamentally honest enough to entrust with public office, then it doesn't matter what he says about his politics, or about American politics. That's why the men who gave us the Credit Mobilier and the Whiskey Ring were objectively bad men irrespective of the ends in view of either scheme, or any "principle" of laissez-faire government and economic liberalism (19th-century variety), because they were all access-capitalist, crony-capitalist boodlers and grafters.
>>>When our enemies ignore the 10th Amendment which has been quite rarely noticed as part of the constitution these last 200+ years <<<
Is the 10th our enemy, or not? In earlier posts you implied it was.
>>>and enact such insane social revolutionary bullshit as Roe vs. Wade, Griswold vs. Connecticut and a burgeoning cornucopia of pro-faggot court decisions and Galveston Snoopy, <<<
No one in their right mind would argue with that. What do you recommend? What is your solution? I’ll bet you don’t have one.
>>>See if you can get it through your Paulistinian skull that so long as there is even ONE abortion mill left for people to take their unborn children to be murdered by slicing, dicing and hamburgerization, the task of CONSERVATIVES (not libertoonian bimbos and airheads) will not be done. Abortion will still occur in numbers so long as there is even one holdout state clinging to “legal” child murder as public policy.<<<
I don’t know where you got the notion that Ron Paul is opposed to constitutional amendments. He is pro-life, and I am certain he would support an amendment to ban abortions. Now all we have to do is convince 2/3rds of the congress, and 3/4’s of the state legislatures to propose and ratify.
>>>No, El Run, if you stick your head in the sand and have your ideological rump sticking up in the air, our enemies (domestic social revolutionaries or the likes of the Islamonazi states and movements) will NOT be nice to us and stop attacking our way of life.<<<
Listen, simpleton, I am as anti-Islamic as any on FR. I think we should bulldoze every mosque in the nation, smear that ground with pigs blood, and run ever muslim out of the country. Islam is incompatible with the western tradition, and therefore, has no place in western societies. But if you think our strategy in the middle east over the last 40-50 years has done anything but further radicalize those suicidal nutjobs, you have your pointed head in the sand.
My solution, for years, has been to destroy their so-called “holy” sites with pig’s blood soaked nukes and bombs, one at a time, starting with Mecca, each time we are attacked. If you read my posts on FR, far enough back, you will find posts to that effect.
But I can assure you, none of the RINO’s or NEOCON’s you endorse will do a damn thing about it other than continually waste our wealth and blood in a useless attempt to convert an authoritarian “religion” into a democratic one. If conversion is the answer, then Ann Coulter had it right: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” But this pretense that Islam is “a religion of peace” is insanity, and, in my opinion, has led to unnecessary slaughter of our servicemen.
Regarding domestic social revolutionaries, we have a similar problem, and Ann Coulter’s solution for muslims apply: get rid of their leaders and convert them all to Christianity. The main culprits is, and has always been, secular Jews. As a Jew whose family converted to Christianity, I follow their activities. With few exceptions, for example Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a great man who I have referenced in FR posts in the past, most Jews not only despise gentiles, but think it is okay to marginalize them and cheat them.
Who has been at war with our Christian heritage all these years? Secular Jews, namely the ACLU in the beginning, but now the MSM, Hollywood, George Soros,..., the leadership in nearly every power base in America and Europe. And who controls Wall Street and the Fed? With rare exceptions (e.g., John Corzine who is Christian), they are all secular Jews. I pay particular attention to Goldman Sachs because my GGG-Grandfather was a Goldman.
This came not without warning. Twice in the Revelation our Lord warned us about those who say they are Jews, but are not!
And what do you and your RINO and NEOCON buddies do? You insanely and viciously go after Ron Paul, who is perhaps the only politician on the planet who truly supports and defends the Constitution, and who truly understands the FED and its Wall Street cronies.
And how many of the candidates that you endorse have proposed anything to stop this onslaught of foreign influence? With exception of an occasional mention in a stump speech, none. In recent years, we had 8 years of George W Bush (4 with majorities in both houses of congress), 4 years of GHW Bush and 8 years of Ronald Reagan; and yet the Federal Reserve is more powerful than ever. Worse, some of the worst judges in our history were appointed by Reagan and GHW Bush. Time will tell on GW Bush’s appointments, but I have not heard much advocacy from them on the pressing social and economic issues of our time. They seem to be content to wait until a case comes before them, rather than using the soapbox.
>>>Now since you are having an uninformed love affair with the 10th almighty, I don’t suppose you are a lawyer but well-settled principles of legal interpretation would have it that later enactments prevail over earlier enactments. <<<
That is easy to change. Get congress to outlaw the use of precedent in interpretation of the Constitution. We have precedent for that in Marbury vs Madison, where Marshall wrote, “
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
Therefore, all congress has to do is pass a law that eliminates all judicial precedent. They have both the constitutional and precidential authority to do so. I have wrote about this several times in the past on FR, even explaining in a nutshell how the current legal system truly works by listing the two controlling Commandments:
1 Thou shalt fill the halls to the rafters with case law.
2 Thou shalt build more halls.
>>>Persons or people who would mug me or rob me or assault me or murder me without justification ARE my enemies. States that purport to “legalize” mugging, robbery, assault and murder without meeting a very high standard as to justifying such behavior ARE my enemies and are enemies of the babies if they purport to “legalize” abortion.<<<
Then how about an amendment to the constitution? Only a fool would leave it up to the whims of our current judicial system without radical structural changes. The congress can do that by a simple act, but it will never get support of your GOP establishment types.
What are your solutions, BlackElk? All I have heard you do is whine and smear. WHAT ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS?
"My solution, for years, has been to destroy their so-called “holy” sites with pig’s blood soaked nukes and bombs, one at a time, starting with Mecca, each time we are attacked. If you read my posts on FR, far enough back, you will find posts to that effect."
Wow, you Paulhriods are so smart. I would have never guessed that your solution would actually calm radical islamists versus our past solutions.
Let me help you Paulroids argue this a little better....
Claim that the Bildeburg conferences and meetings at the Boheimien Grove went back to the 7th Century and manufactured Islam, so that "neocons" can use it so support their industrial-military complex? That's a much more plausible explaination than what you, Ron Paul and his other drones propose. Yeah, don't kill terrorists, just destroy their holy sites. Brilliant Mr. Paulhroid!
Elkie not only LIES but is obsessed with my private history. Who would want a creep like that knowing anything? But he can't deal with the discussion so he prefers to talk about alleged activities decades ago which he may have been involved in for Reagan. Meanwhile, he completely craps on RR by gleefully voting Democrat. After RR became a Republican I don't recall him ever recommending a vote for a Democrat over a Republican or brag about voting for one.
Elkie’s predilection for class warfare almost deranges his reasoning and he confuses RR with Vladimir Lenin on occasion.
Uh, oh. Any effective argument against Elkie’s delusional crap will unleash his demand to know all about your political history. After all, one must meet Elkie’s standards for speaking on any subject.
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.