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.
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.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
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.