Posted on 08/30/2011 9:43:21 AM PDT by CA Conservative
There are no conservatives acceptable to you that much is clear, not one....Unless they have NO chance of winning then you might relent.
“Every person running on our side has the ability to beat Obama.” I have every confidence that you can find one who CANNOT beat him and THAT will be the only one acceptable to you.
Since you seem to like endearing nicknames should I start referring to you as “snookiepoo”?
If you are older than I your brain is clearly turning into mush, tragic.
Where is the “conservative” candidate that I am opposing? Give us your boy.
You are (not surprisingly) having difficulty on this 10th Amendment business. That amendment has been ignored almost since its enactment. Its soulmate, the 9th amendment, was similarly ignored except when Herod Blackmun pulled the dusty old thing off the discard pile to justify the murder of innocent babies as a reserved right of the individual mother which was not, by mere omission from constitutional text, to be regarded as excluded from her "rights" and those of the paid medical assassin. Check out Black's Law Dictionary to understand the principle of "expressio unius, exclusio alterius." The 9th was the Founders' way of saying "we might have forgotten to list some obvious right" so we enact this escape hatch to prevent harm inadvertently. I don't really imagine the Founders meaning to include mass annihilation of the unborn to be a reserved right under 10th or something not excluded as a right by omission by the 9th.
Galveston Snoopy, in any event, poses no threat whatever to "abortion rights" nor does he intend to. Talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than words. So my grandmother (and probably yours too) used to say and she was right.
Your expressed remedies for Islam abroad echo my own. I have not usually combined nukes with pig blood, but I can keep an open mind on the combo. Pig blood by itself spread heavily enough will guarantee that we can rescue any hostage, render any nuclear facility of theirs unusable by them (unless they have available some gentiles willing to serve Islam as the equivalent of Shabbas Goyim). In that event, we will know why God invented nukes with some able assistance of the Manhattan Project. Again, your remedies are completely at odds with Galveston Snoopy's idea of letters of marque and reprisal (and perhaps allowing blunderbusses as a substitute for such as USS Ohio and its payload). He wants to trade with them and love them to death. Then they will love us. Don'tcha know!
The 1st Amendment freedom of worship does not make Muslims a separate category within our nation. It does not allow us to bulldoze their mosques or expel them from the country simply because they are Muslims. We still have to use due process of law. Hindus and Sikhs and Jains are not of Western Civilization but they ARE PERSONS protected by the plain language of the 14th. Few of those three groups' members are inclined to attack the US by comparison with Muslims but the constitution does not allow a federal, state or local holy war against Muslims legally present here except by due process of law. Ron Paul wants to gently, affectionately and respectfully smooch Islamopatoot (and trade, trade, trade with them!!!) and you want to nuke them but somehow Paul is your guy! Truly remarkable!
Now, you may or may not object to the persistent ignoring of Amendments 9 and 10. They are used only to justify the mass slaughter of unborn children. OTOH, the solution to this problem lies not in enforcing 9 and 10 but in recognizing that (at least as to abortion) each has been superseded and rendered obsolete by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which grants greater rights in some non-relevant respects to those "born or naturalized" as citizens of the United States but bedrock rights including the right to life to all "persons." Manifestly, the 14th is the later enactment compared to 9 and 10 and where anyone claims a conflict between the earlier and later enactment (Blackmun's reliance on the 9th vs. the plain text of Section 1 of the 14th as to the right of persons to life), the later enactment controls by the well-settled principles of interpretation and conflict of laws. BTW, the need for such basic rules of interpretation and for resolving conflicts of laws is made manifest by such issues and refutes the anarcho-nonsense which you placed at the end of your post about scrapping precedents as a reflex action. Conservatives are not anarchists whatever the paleopipsqueak and his libertarian love slaves and cult members may imagine. Free nations depend, in the context of many other principles, on the idea that law should be a reasonably settled thing so that people may order their lives and business affairs accordingly without having to fear each innovative exercise by SCOTUS divorced from the context of judicial history.
Now, what to do when SCOTUS itself has engaged in judicial revolution??? Do we recognize the constitution as a "living constitution" malleable enough to walk the land as a literary zombie twistable as necessary to encompass the imposition of radical social revolutionary remedies like mass babykilling or sexual perversion posing as "marriage" upon our nation??? I think not. If SCOTUS has made manifest errors (as so often in recent times it has), ahistorical errors, legal doctrinal errors, insane anticonstitutional errors designed to destroy sensible and conventional traditions in American law, SCOTUS (over a concededly lengthy period of time by appointing only worthy nominees as justices and as judges of inferior courts) can be made to undo the damage its predecessors have inflicted. Plessy vs. Ferguson (approving segregation so long as there could be alleged to be equal treatment of the freed slaves and their descendants) was one of the great SCOTUS embarrassments. Whatever its demerits, the Warren Court was able to erase and overturn Plessy in Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS.
What has paleopaulie DONE about constitutional amendments while wasting so much time seeing to it that America understands his overriding commitment to laying our nation naked before its Islamonazi enemies? As a Congressman, he has accomplished zero, zip, nada other than shooting off his infernal and fraudulent mouth as a philosopher king wannabe. It does not matter if he poses for holy pictures as though he were pro-life when he proves otherwise by his total track record of inaction. Likewise as to marriage, sexual normality, and most conservative agenda items. All he does is pose and yak and make a fool of himself and of anyone gullible enough to support him. As a former Libertoonian nominee for POTUS, how does Paulie deal with recreational drugs? Has he even changed his posturing from pro-drug to anti? Much less DOING anything?
Rabbi Daniel Lapin is indeed a great man, cooperating with Michael Medved, founding Toward Tradition, supporting generously the effort to make clear that pope Pius XII was a hero AGAINST the Holocaust and raising his voice against the likes of Abraham Foxman in defense of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, sagely observing that Foxman could only be satisfied by Christians who repudiate their own religion. He also, apparently, referenced Bush the Younger as better exemplifying loyalty to the God of Abraham than any other politico. Bush had his drawbacks but that suggests to me that Lapin is no admirer of the Galveston malcontent.
Chief "Justice" John Marshall, the dead hand of the quite discredited and despised (by his contemporaries) Federalist past who effectively approved his own behavior in Marbury vs. Madison (can you spell CONFLICT OF INTEREST?) while inventing the infamous claim that the SCOTUS may declare behavior and statutes "unconstitutional" (another principle only selectively applied to perpetuate leftist goals against democracy or even republicanism), is no beacon of conservatism. Don't go there.
A note on vocabulary: Who is a RINO? Would a RINO be a "Republican" Congresscritter who runs as a pro-drug, anti-American, effectively pro-abort nominee of the eccentric Libertarian Party, "pro-abort" by faux "constitutional" strangulation, ditto for perversions posing as "marriage, etc., against GHWB (concededly a very flawed candidate but duly nominated by the GOP) or those who aggressively and consistently support gun rights, American devastation of this nation's enemies, weapons development second to none and far ahead of whatever comes second and a willingness to use those weapons, the lives of the babies and not as a mere talking point, the continued viability of conventional marriage only and not just as a talking point AND have the sense to reject paleoPaulie. I am going with the obvious: Galveston Snoopy is the RINO. If the Federal Reserve is so vastly important (I happen to think it is near the end of its viability in any event because the laws of economics and natural law will not be mocked permanently), Paleopaulie should audit it and move to abolish it.
What is a NEOCON? A Neocon is not just anyone who sensibly recognizes Ron Paul to be the crackpot tha he clearly is and has long been. Neocons are a distinct group of intellectuals, mostly Jews and mostly former socialists and mostly NYC folks. When George McGovern and his communist followers seized apparently permanent control of the Democrat Party that they had long loved and served, they pondered the situation, made the trek to the GOP and became a powerful force for good as most abandoned socialism for the sake of a new party affiliation and the opportunity to crush the McGovernites. Most are now dead or extremely elderly since they were college students in the 1930s at City College. Walt Whitman Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Daniel Bell, Alexander Bickel, Martin Diamond, Donald Kagan and many other modern heroes. The paleobimbos (still smarting over their collective rejection by actual conservatives under Reagan) have joined with the Nation, the New Republic, Ron Paul and his love slaves, to perpetuate the designation neoconservative to somehow mean the 98% of those claiming conservatism who despise all of those eccentrics who want to perpetuate the term "neoconservative" and thus prop up their permanent condition of being utterly uncontrollably enraged Daffy Ducks spluttering in rage over what they imagine is the unfairness of actual history which does not favor their dizzy notions. No matter how many times the lie is repeated it will no more become true than will calling your artistically talented teenager an "Old Master" make him or her one.
Now, as to the real question posed by your post: eliminating the use of precedent is anarchy and political and legal suicide. However much the Galveston pipsqueak may be excited by the idea of national suicide, grownups must resist. OTOH, the very history of the SCOTUS and fedcourts show that they are quite capable of getting rid of terrible precedents by overruling them selectively.
When SCOTUS or Congress make decisions or enact Congressional laws governing navigation of the Potomac or of the Mississippi, no problem. This was one of the very explicit reasons why some Founders wanted to scrap the Articles of Confederation. Likewise the need for a central foreign policy and for sound currency were among the major purposes of the convention. The 14th Amendment is a treasure trove for Congress and the courts to let their respective efforts play in the park on relevant subjects.
The soft underbelly of anticonstitutionalism is the SCOTUS itself and appointments thereto and to other inferior courts. Let Obozo understand that the GOP will not allow him any more SCOTUS appointments now or forever (and preferably no more circuit court of appeals appointments or even trial court appointments either). Children's hour has now concluded. Investigate (quietly until productive) Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (and lesser judges of their anticonstitutional persuasion) with an eye toward anything justifying impeachment.
When presidential order has been restored, the new POTUS must be committed to nominating only those people who are stainless steel-spined young nominees who are totally committed on the issues that matter: overturning Roe vs. Wade and recognizing the constitutional personhood of each fetus from the moment of conception, marriage only between one man and one woman (no space aliens or twelvesomes or household pets), the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms must be established in law and precedent as a fundamental right with any violation subject to strict scrutiny standards of review, same standard for Freedom of Worship (with all accompanying rights for strange cults), same standard on arrest and search and seizure, a commitment to capital punishment (executing Charles Manson by whatever means necessary could NOT be regarded as "cruel and unusual" in any sane society (ditto Jeffrey Dahlmer, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck and others of their ilk). If you want to tack on serious study or commitment against the Federal Reserve and whether printing money is or ever could be the constitutional equivalent of "coining" money (see Founder Roger Sherman of Connecticut on this subject and Irwin Schiff's brief history of the outrages perpetrated in Rhode Island, NY and Massachusetts via paper "money." Feel free to add any conservative agenda item held broadly within the New Right.
If the Demonrats still have enough senators to block lifetime appointments, then appoint recess appointments immediately upon recess to each and every vacancy in the courts and have a backup list for when the recess appointments expire in one year. Make recess appointments across the board, as necessary to every bureaucratic position as well. Keep Congress busy repealing the works of Slick Willy and Obozo.
Reverse each and every executive order of Slick Willy and of Obozo, restoring the status quo ante (and then some where possible). Ask Heritage and other actually conservative institutions and, more skeptically, even Reason and Cato, to recommend and draft bills repealing as much existing federal legislative and regulatory dreck as possible. Make Congress work overtime on the repeals. Remove the ability of regulatory agencies to regulate by fiat.
Move GRADUALLY back to sound money/no sudden shocks causing a depression. Conservatives should move cautiously on such matters. Exterminate federal debt. Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment with strict limits on balancing by tax increases. In war, government agencies should bear the brunt. Abolish unnecessary cabinet departments (Energy, Education, Transportation, Labor, Commerce, State, Health and Human Services, much of Justice, Veteran's Affairs for starters). Veterans' Affairs can survive as a subcabinet agency. Eliminate other nuisances: EPA, NLRB, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum AND their budgets. Take the money saved and apply 75% to paying off the debt and the remainder to new and necessary weapons systems and a few desirable projects. Sell off unnecessary federal assets and apply proceeds to the debt. Shut down the Federal Reserve for the same fine reasons that motivated Andrew Jackson in destroying Biddle's corrupt politician buying national bank.
Of course, when on FR, we mention other FReepers, etiquette requires that we ping them and not go as cowards behind their backs. In response to your nonsense, what is relevant is your and Philip Freneau's actual resume of political ACCOMPLISHMENTS which both of you curiously resist revealing. Whyever would that be? Not good enough at creative fiction in your case. I am not as sure with Freneau. Not only that but he displays some knowledge of actual conservative figures like Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Mercer Island, Washington State. He and I are far too early in our tussle for firm conclusions. You were obvious from the outset. He may still prove to be a solid guy making the mistake of supporting Ron Paul. Time will tell. As to you, time has already told and was none too flattering. Say hello to Muffy and Skipper and their trust fund managers.
Will you be joining Freneau in supporting the Galveston Snoopy (Ron Paul) or are you working on a resurrection of Tiny Tim or John Vliet Lindsay, maybe trying to interest Lowell Weicker or holding out for Nancyboy Kirk, any or all in the name of "electability." Oh, wait, you seem to be verrrry much like Upchuck Percy, including the Alzheimer's. Maybe, you are holding out for YOU!!!
OMG, how OLD are you?
LYING???? Had you not been a passionate supporter of Nancyboy Kirk, there would be no reason to remember you other than as an occasional pestilence posing as a conservative without portfolio of actual achievement. Are they giving you nasty pills with your pablum at Happy Acres, UpChuck?
I also would NOT have voted for that outstanding "Republican" Illinois Governor Jailbird George Ryan. If Illinois must see its governors being guests of the federal hoosegow, better it should be Demonrats in the hoosegow: Blago, Walkin' Dan Walker, Otto Kerner and (I hope) the incumbent brain-damaged Pat Quinn. I thought, before moving here, that it would have been nice if the feds had nailed Big Jim Thompson and Bob Edgar as well even though they were, superficially, Republican. In Connecticut, after he stabbed the babies, I did not vote for Jailbird John Rowland either. There was no point in voting for anyone there in gubernatorial elections other than an Independent (former GOP State Senator) Tom Scott who got 15%. Rowland got elected, indicted and jailed and was replaced by the vaguely acceptable Mother Rell.
"The Greek" was no doubt a corruptocrat in good standing with the Chicago Machine. Let him be next to go to jail and maybe room with Pat Quinn but nooooo you wanted Nancyboy to sully the reputation of the GOP. You wanted to reward the allegedly "Republican" wing of the Chicago machine by electing its spineless quisling posing as "Republican" while voting like Obozo. You supported queenie as a "fiscal conservative" and he has already proved that a lie by voting to raise Obozo's election year allowance by $2.4 trillion.
Your problem and you know it is that you don't HAVE a private history (at least not of political achievement) and so you are understandably jealous of those who do have one.
Ronald Reagan did not lift a finger for Ford nor should he have done so. Had Carter not been elected in 1976, there would never have been a Reagan presidency (infinitely more valuable than Feckless Ford). Reagan brought the Reagan Democrats into the party and your G-G-G-Grandpappy's GOP has not been and never will be the pathetic thing it was under Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Feckless Ford.
"Class warfare" as you call it is merely the response of ordinary folks to the relentless and actual class warfare waged against them by the trust funders of BOTH parties for at least 40 years. Abolishing taxes primarily paid by the wealthy and shifting the burden to middle and working class folks IS class warfare. Shifting American jobs of those of modest means to Bangladesh to hire industrial slaves at virtually non-existent wages and benefits, making American workers compete with Bangladeshi children, sifting work to literal slave labor in Red China, improving always that investor bottom line and turning the US into an economic wasteland except for the trust fund class calls for some response by the victims of that class warfare. Let Muffy and Skipper fight the wars from now on and let them take the jobs as cops to protect the family oodles or leave the oodles exposed to burglary and larceny. America should be defended by those few who own it (unless there is a favorable social contract). Working folks will be too busy from now on growing that turnip patch in the backyard to protect the polo ponies. After all, they gotta eat while Nancyboy is off at one of those, ummmm, nightclubs.
Your idea of a Republican excludes what you call the "Lunatic Fringe of the Lunatic Fringe" i. e. folks who are pro-life and favor legal recognition of actual marriage only, between one man and one woman only. Your idea of a Republican is a money obsessive creature who is an enthusiast for abortion and lavender hoopla posing as somehow legitimate. Muffy, Skipper, their trust fund manager, heirs of Margaret Sanger, Planned Barrenhood, the Junior League, the polo players, AND Nancyboy and Lowell Weicker, et al., ought not to be accused of being actually Republican, much less actually conservative, and neither ought you to be so accused.
If effective arguments had anything to do with it, why on earth would I demand your resume?
I am assuming that you don’t want to be pinged. If I am wrong, let me know.
“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.”
And that’s what they SHOULD be doing. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be advocates, appear political or partial in any way. It could be grounds for impeachment, and at the very least, warrants that they recuse themselves from related cases. One example is the upcoming Obamacare lawsuit - not only are there calls for Kagan to recuse herself (which she should) because of her past position and stance while in it, but even some calls for Clarence Thomas to do the same - just because his WIFE’s with an advocacy group (which I think is wrong, but Kagan’s example is so clear-cut that the Left is determined to keep the “votes” even).
No, those justices are only to judge/rule on the Constitutionality of laws and lower court decisions - NOT get involved in politics - although unfortunately, BHO’s judges are so radical (and Ginsberg as well) that they believe in legislating from the bench and are all ABOUT politics.
I just hope to God that Thomas doesn’t do the “gentlemanly” thing, err on the side of caution and recuse himself, because there’s already talk that Kagan, who SHOULD bow out, will not. And this is far too important a case for conservatives to wuss out and play nice yet again.
I don’t know BlackElk all that well, but he’s been around these parts for a long time, and I’ve never known him to lie. Over the years I’ve enjoyed his comments and have found him to have his head glued on squarely whenever we did cross paths.
If he says something, it’s my take that he has a fairly good reason for saying it.
You know, it would help if you had acted like more of a reasoned person when you dealt with me. BlackElk has never behaved like I see some other folks behaving here. And that being the case, he has quite a bit more credibility with me than you do.
That is subject to change, but you’ve got to want the change.
Humble thanks! God bless you and yours.
You’ll never have to thank me for supporting good people, and if you’re good people you’ll never have to ask for my support, you’ll already have it.
God bless you and yours too.
I have no idea why you are obsessed with my “resume” other than an inability to stand on the logic of your reasoning. Are you laboring under the delusion that I am applying for a job?
BlackElk is indeed a LIAR. I spoke up for voting for Kirk rather than the Democrat only as the best of two bad choices and that po’ed him so much he immediately started this “show me your resume” idiocy. And talking about my “passionate” support for Kirk whom he also consistently slanders by calling him a homo.
That is not the approach of an honorable man but a liar.
As to your inherent “reasonableness” which I provoked, bah, humbug.
Being a RINO keyboard blowhard is not a resume of actual accomplishment, Upchuck.
Do the staff members at the rest home know you have gotten loose from the Alzheimer's ward and that you are playing with the computer again?
ROFLMAO! (Like a hot knife through room temperature Butter my FRiend!)
Got your editorial as to claiming I lie but apparently your proof got lost in the laundry.
Your politics may be summarized as: Let's Make a Deal! Let's Make a Deal! Let's Make a Deal!!! And: Leave Muffy's trust fund alone!
Did you catch Sarah's attacks on crony capitalism over the weekend? Mark Levin seconded her motion tonight on his program.
If you would vote to infest the GOP Senate caucus with the likes of Nancyboy, what could you possibly know about honor? Reference your answer in your resume or not, as you see fit. It really won't be likely to matter much at this late stage, Upchuck.
There is one later post.
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.