Saturday, April 17, 2010

If Youre Not Hyped Up For November Yet, You Will Be After This Video.

Gives me goose bumps.
Hat tip Donna.


  1. This is a well-done video.

    A point on the Constitution could be made here. The original document is either all valid, or it's not--and any part of it can be discarded or ignored. It would seem to me that possibly the majority of the anti-health care protesters have no trouble with accepting many other violations of the Constitution: Congress authorizing paper money (Article I Section 8 says "To coin money..."), the progressive income tax, and most importantly, undeclared war. Why did the Founders think declaration of war by Congress was important? Because that kept the decision to commit vast amounts of the nation's wealth (and of that wealth, the combatant's lives are surely the most important) close to the representation in government. And only 2 years' worth of appropriation for war could be passed at a time--exactly the same as a House term. The people have so much at stake when war-making is underway! So I am concerned greatly when I see the tea party movement, which I am actively involved in, get ideologically sidetracked by what I guess you could call "war patriotism."

    I am 50 years old. My country has been at war somewhere or other my whole life. Is this the way it has to be? Can't we stop the financially ruinous (DOD budget around $500 billion, I think) foreign interventionism juggernaut? Generations of Americans have had their lives horribly disrupted, their comrades in arms killed, and they are being psychologically manipulated to think that it was all good, all noble. These veterans are really good people, honorable and selfless people, but they are really being used, I believe, for big government's purposes, and constantly kept "rattled" by this or that threat abroad.

    We need to use our extremely limited national resources (hey, we're $12.4 trillion in the hole, already) at home. War is ruinously expensive, and when you hear on the news that the SUV's used in Iraq are going to be given away, and that the acres of humvees need yet more armor before they go to Afghanistan, it makes a person too tired to lift up their checkbook again.

    I am not a pacifist. I would put my life on the line any time for my home and family. And though it would tear me apart with grief and worry, I would support my sons' going to fight in a declared war.

  2. I believe you mistake pride in our fighting men and women, for "war patriotism".
    I have seen this mistake all over the place.
    Contradictions to support of the constitution, are violations we are all about correcting.
    The situation we are in, in this country today,
    has been simmering for decades.
    I hope to see the heart of our founding fathers restored...then we can start to fight to keep it all over again. And I don't mean with military might, but with God's "Good Orderly Direction".
    I would be surprised, yet blessed, to see us just get halfway there.

  3. The actions of this president and this congress are unprecedented and have opened the eyes of the American people. The health care bill is not the only action that is unconstitutional, but it is where we must start.

    The job of the next congress will be to put the brake on anymore of this type of legislation and stall the implementation of the legislation that has been passed.

    The job of the American people in 2010 is to elect people who will do just as stated in the previous paragraph. In 2012, they must elect a men and women as president, representatives and senators who will adhere to the Constitution. Their job will be to push the "undo" button for years of legislation and regulation that is either unconstitutional and/or burdensome.

  4. H.C.,

    I have never seen a "Down with Undeclared War" sign, or anything similar, at a tea party event, have you? I am far from convinced that the vast majority of the tea party movement realizes there is a difference between honoring members of the military and acknowledging the need for/true purpose of the military, and getting behind every variety of foreign entanglement. My concern is that there is quite a bit of manipulation of national sentiment going on, since the vast military-industrial complex needs this for their perpetuation. Frankly, this is where my philosophy and that of Rush and Sean have the biggest separation. When someone calls in and has the temerity to question the justification for war, and Sean Hannity attacks them as un-American, my radio goes OFF.

  5. Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Great piece, and you are right, we are fired up and we have to Take Back Our Country. You can start by Taking Back Your Children and Their Schools and Control Them Locally. To hell with the U.S.D.O.Education and the National Teacher Unions, who, for the most part, are subversives and are indoctrinating our children as they, at the same time, are dumbing them down. Take Back America. Take Back Your Communities. Take Back Your Children and Their Schools. Do not wait for permission. Just Do It!!!!

  7. Reply to Anonymous. So, turn off your radio, and bury your head in the sand. You sound like a Ron Paul isolationist or a Liberal Troll who comes on to sites to try and sway the conversation and discussion in a negative or leftist way. If you understand Radical Islam, you will understand the need for our presence in the middle east. Whether you know it or not, Sadam Hussein was partly behind and funded Al Quieda and the Attack on America on September 11, 2001. That is why we went after this scoundrel and had his own people hang him on the public square. He was a tryant and the majority of the Iraqui people are grateful that the only Honorable Super Power left, came to their rescue.

  8. ROFLMAO!!! Yeah, come on Teabaggers...defeat us! What a bunch of losers you people are. I understand that you all like to give the 2nd and 10th amendments more weight than the others, but it's time you faced the glaring fact that this country IS NOT and WILL NOT ever be a confederacy of states. We ARE and WILL REMAIN the UNITED STATES of America with a strong central government OF THE PEOPLE. Read the supremacy clause you morons. And if the majority of the people in America want to declare something a right that we do not currently have we can do says so the the 9th amendment...

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Now suck on that you LOSERS!!!!

  9. What a LOSER! Why won't you let me comment, chickenshit?

  10. OK, are you one of those wingnuts who takes down and then posts comments randomly to be squirrely? If so it only makes you look more like a jackass, if bad...

  11. Very nice. I remember when Rick Santelli first sent out the call. It's funny how the media never reports on the fact that the tea party movement was started by those horrible right wing racists at...CNBC? :) So great to see conservatives in St. Louis. I thought I was the only one.

  12. "P" is probably a Kokesh wanna-be,
    and Elmo is just plain lost.
    I wonder what color they are.
    ..............................................................................................yellow I suppose.

  13. Looks like some people don't follow the "be nice" rule.

    A rational discussion without name calling needs to be held. The endless money printing-foreign borrowing-spending must stop. The country is on the brink of default: our debt as a percent of GDP is absolutely gargantuan. All spending must be on the table, and I really have misgivings when I hear the pundits say, "Of course, defense spending is excepted." Should that be? Is there any reason we cannot have a discussion about all the spending?

    There is a tendency not to brook any dissent with regard to foreign military intervention. Does the United States have the resources to provide 100% of the world's peacekeeping needs (since other countries' financial situations loom as bad as ours)? 90%? 80%? Just what can we afford? Can anyone answer this? Without using pejorative terms like "isolationist" "wingnut" "moron" etc.?

    I am pro-small government and pro-Constitution. Hopefully someone can respond in a reasoned way, and the discussion that the mainstream media cannot seem to have, can ensue.

  14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Hey H.C., why don't you comment on my comment? I'm "lost"? How so? Do you truly believe that state's rights trump federal law because of the 10th amendment?

    If yes, then tell me you - great connoisseur of the Constitution - what this line in the 10th amendment means to you..."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 "P", stop being so G-damned P.C.

  15. Think I'm a coward, H.C.? We can put that to the test if you have big enough balls...

  16. P said "Is there any reason we cannot have a discussion about all the spending?"

    Regarding defense spending, spending can't be the focus of the issue. It isn't about spending, it's about effective strategy and actions first - of course affordability is a reality that affects the strategy, but it's not the driver of the discussion. Govt has very few legitimate functions, and Defense is at the top of the list - when there's nothing else to reduce, nothing else to eliminate... but we're nowhere near that point.

    When Washington made is speech about 'no entangling alliances' he was speaking of a time when the issues of Europe, or anywhere else, really didn't have any direct affect on us, we had no reason to be involved with other countries. Jefferson had little more than islambie's attacking ships, which could be dealt with, resolved, and moved on from. In a world where a business in Missouri can have direct interests, property and people involved in nearly every country around the world, and where a few loons with box cutters can kill thousands of Americans on our own soil and damage the economy of the entire nation... to say nothing of actual nation states... it's no longer the case that we can avoid involvement with other countries.

    Am I please with our current relationships? Not particularly... but again, strategy first - what best upholds the interests of the United States of America - then consider the spending within those parameters.

  17. tickle me elmo said "Read the supremacy clause you morons."

    Right back at you... best to read it in context with the entire constitution though... otherwise you might end up looking foolish.

    Here's the full clause (but remember, don't forget the rest of them - it's not like a happy meal that you can mix and match from),

    And here, from under one of the links there, is part of what early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said in his commentaries on the constitution:

    "§ 1831. The propriety of this clause would seem to result from the very nature of the constitution. If it was to establish a national government, that government ought, to the extent of its powers and rights, to be supreme. It would be a perfect solecism to affirm, that a national government should exist with certain powers; and yet, that in the exercise of those powers it should not be supreme. What other inference could have been drawn, than of their supremacy, if the constitution had been totally silent?... It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent upon the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another name for political power and supremacy. But it will not follow, that acts of the larger society, which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. They will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive, that the above clause only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a national government. It will be observed, that the supremacy of the laws is attached to those only, which are made in pursuance of the constitution; a caution very proper in itself, but in fact the limitation would have arisen by irresistible implication, if it had not been expressed."

    Where the constitution gives the Fed Govt the powers to make law, it may - where it hasn't, it can't. There is no power in the constitution which gives obamao the power to mandate that individuals buy his healthcontrol insurance.

  18. tickle me elmo said "... then tell me you - great connoisseur of the Constitution - what this line in the 10th amendment means to you..."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.""

    Not a big reader, eh? That means that those powers not enumerated within the constitution, to the Fed Govt, nor prohibited by the constitution to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. Here's Story again, on the 10th amendment,

    "§ 1900. This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty. ... "

    The word 'constitution' is the keyword there, not your ego... put more eloquently by Story as,

    "What is to become of constitutions of government, if they are to rest, not upon the plain import of their words, but upon conjectural enlargements and restrictions, to suit the temporary passions and interests of the day? Let us never forget, that our constitutions of government are solemn instruments, addressed to the common sense of the people and designed to fix, and perpetuate their rights and their liberties. They are not to be frittered away to please the demagogues of the day. They are not to be violated to gratify the ambition of political leaders. They are to speak in the same voice now, and for ever. They are of no man's private interpretation. They are ordained by the will of the people; and can be changed only by the sovereign command of the people. "

  19. baby elmo said "And if the majority of the people in America want to declare something a right that we do not currently have we can do says so the the 9th amendment..."

    No, actually a majority of the people can't declare whatever they want under the 9th amendment... that's what "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" means, a majority can't just pass a law and trample on the rights of the people.

    Guess who again (there's lots of other links to choose from there, but I don't want to confuse you),

    "This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and é converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others. The maxim, rightly understood, is perfectly sound and safe; but it has often been strangely forced from its natural meaning into the support of the most dangerous political heresies. The amendment was undoubtedly suggested by the reasoning of the Federalist on the subject of a general bill of rights. "

    But wait... before you get your fingers all tangled up in your keyboard, yes the law can be changed the sovereign command of the people... through constitutional amendments, see Article 5, amendments which are ratified by two thirds of the States - not by Pealowsee or Reed or Obamao - only by constitutional amendment.

    Take a look at the constitution, there's a bunch of them thar amendments, and guess what - a bunch of people really wanted to pass each of those laws... income tax... prohibition... etc... but no matter how wonderful they felt such things would be for the people, they had to pass an amendment before it would be constitutional, and if those comparatively small issues required amendments, your idiotic healthcontrol bill probably requires at least a hundred of them to pass muster.

  20. Great video! Added it to my post today. Added your blog to my blogroll, too! Keep up the great work!

    Talk Wisdom

  21. There is no wisdom in an elected body, who seek to destroy a Constitution which has served us well for over two hundred years. I'm 65, and probably won't see the worst of what may be yet to comel if this nation of free people do not destroy those who are running this government at the present time. It's your duty to your children and grandchildren to remove this bunch from D.C. and that includes republicans who have proved that they are so far removed from the real republic. I a have seen and observed all this coming for most of my life. Many have, but too many have not.

  22. We the people are to blame because we the people trusted our government and for far too long! I know these are the two main reasons why we the people have failed our country and our children!
    Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction Thomas Jefferson
    There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. Henry David Thoreau

    Now we the people must get over ourselves and unite in the names of truth and freedom! Only then will be free from the elitists and their evil they have planned for us! We are late to the elitists game but I believe freedom is never late and always right on time! I am extremely honored that I live in America because I know my fellow Americans will fight this global one world dominance until the end and so will I!

  23. Right back at you... best to read it in context with the entire constitution though... otherwise you might end up looking foolish.

    Ohhhh baby THIS is going to be fun!!!

    I love how the jackass Van just described in about a thousand words how our country is actually a confederacy!!! TOO FUCKING RICH!!!!

    But, simple logic tells us that Van is a retard. And we proved it in a war that killed any kind of notion that a confederacy is related to being American. But nice try...jackass...

    If you want to REALLY a man and come over to my little Tory bitch...

  24. diaper wearing elmo said " a man and come over to my little Tory b..."

    Well now, that is a fine and tempting invitation, for I can see by your adult demeanor and fine command of the English language, and such impressive use of the Caps Lock key too... I'm sure it would have so much 'simple logic' to offer... but as scintillating as the thought may be, I just don't know.

    You see, it's been a decade since I've had to wash anyone's mouth out with soap, and I may be a wee bit too rusty to keep up with you.

    And then there's the issue of the point... such as, what would be the point? Since you haven't succeeded in making a single worthwhile one here... why bother going there? What you 'wrote' is right there on the page next to what I wrote, anyone coming across this page can easily compare and draw their own opinions, and your opinion, which does such a bang up job of expressing 'simple logic', isn't of any interest in itself, I don't see the no point in pursuing it further... you seem sort of like graffiti; a simple glance and a shake of the head will do before moving on.

    But thanks though.

  25. So, you are a confederate...I knew it...stupid ass 10th'rs...

  26. All you Patriotic Americans - God Bless You ALL! And YES WE WILL!!! Take back our country! Every one of them needs to be put on the unemployment lines starting with the liar-in-chief!!!


Be Nice!