Buy cialis online. Cheapest cialis. Cialis….

Animal sex….

Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Just wanted to say thanks and keep doing what you’re doing! Great website Enjoy!…

Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you.

Once again Doc you’ve hit it out of the park.

Forgive me if inappropriate, but I think we’d all be better off if someone like you – okay, actually you – would run for public office.

Please seriously consider it.

We a now convinced that congress will get us into a new civil war and it will not end well for the people now in power.The center and the libertarians will come to the fore and reestablish a new republic where the consent of the governed is prime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Looks like the Big Dogs are about to show up for the fight. Go, Col. Reed, Go; and Godspeed.

We a now convinced that congress will get us into a new civil war and it will not end well for the people now in power.The center and the libertarians will come to the fore and reestablish a new republic where the consent of the governed is prime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM

When people ask me who I’d like to see on a hypothetical Palin ticket with her, my answer is Col. West.

Perhaps if people see this video and those like it, they’ll understand why.

Throw you in jail for NOT doing something?
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM

It’s been done in the past.
MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 8:47 AM

Yes, the Statists can use the police power of government to do pretty much anything they want.

Which is why, as you stated in another posting, why the founding fathers wanted governmental powers to be limited.

It now appears they are simply ignoring the restraints placed on them, now what do we do?

Somewhere along the way, we went from the consent of the governed to the consent of the Government.

So what do we do now that the government thinks that they no longer need our consent to govern, only the revenue to buy votes?

Just a reminder that Obama ran as essentially a bipartisan candidate and that was his mandate. He was not elected to be a left wing dictator. He never asked for anything remotely resembling such an agenda. Quite the contrary, he campaigned, however disingenuously or unconvincingly to some, as a moderate, and won on that premise. To the extent that he has deferred unconditionally to Reid and Pelosi or otherwise abandoned his centrist rhetoric, he has violated that mandate.

Seth Halpern on November 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Yes, he won by deception. Fraud pays.

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?
ernesto on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Like so many others have already said, they should be repealed. ‘You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.’ Anyone remember that quote?

But beyond that, there needs to be a way to ascertain whether a proposal is even a right function of the government, and if so, what level of government which it should be proposed at, whether it be local, state, or Federal. Much like a grand jury saying that a case is worthy enough to proceed to trial, there needs to be a body–and not a rubber-stamp body either–that says that the proposed legislation is one that the government has authority to perform if enacted. Ideally, it would not be the same body responsible for deciding what the legislation should be. Equally ideally, this body should not be derived from the same electoral method as the Legislature it is attempting to hold loosely in check (though, naturally, it must have a democratic basis in the consent of the governed through some means, so that the people can keep it in check).

Horatius on November 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM

I understand your point, but I think you overlook the one ingredient that corrupts any system – man. Our republic works, it’s men that corrupt the system and it’s men who will always corrupt the system.

Eventually, righteous men have to stand up to tyranny with force. That’s the bottom line. You can reason about ways to prevent corruption, but you simply cannot ever prevent corruption, because it’s in our nature.

Look at Honduras. Their Constitution spelled out clearly that presidents only serve one term. And that a president could not try to alter that provision. But a man decided he was above that provision and went about trying to alter it. Only force prevented him.

The sooner we realize that the better. I’m not sure what force we Americans will have to use or what will work, but I am sure that force will be necessary if we want to stop this assault on our liberty.

It’s not hard to understand and it’s not hard to see. It’s happened again and again and will happen again in the future.

they’ll both go bankrupt in a few years.

MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM

“No problem” ?

The debtors come calling and take possession of collateral.

Don’t forget how Nixon rolled over for Charles de Gaulle, forfeiting our nation’s gold reserve upon his demand to redeem all of France’s American dollars, sending the dollar down the ruin river.

Dubai makes a current example of what might be in store for a bankrupt America.

The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation…

Agreed. Then is Obama’s attempt to re-make the country an impeachable offense?

Thanks for another fine essay, Doc Zero. I may frame that last paragraph and hang it on the wall somewhere.

Undoing ObamaCare, if passed, will be unlikely for years, if ever, and the longer it exists as law, the more entrenched in our economy it will be. The Democrats require a 60 vote super majority in the Senate to pass it. The Republicans will require a 60 vote super majority to repeal it. What do you think the chances are that a 60 vote Republican super majority will occur any time soon? The answer is: not a chance.

With that in mind, we must at all costs stop ObamaCare now to save our country from becoming a near irreversible socialist state.

stefano1 on November 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Agreed. Although, I understand what Jonah Goldberg is trying to say, that we need to put candidates on the record, the idea that we could simply “repeal” Obamacare is far fetched.

The whole problem with entitlements is that they take on a life of their own, controlling politicians rather than being controlled by them. If we couldn’t get 60 Senate votes before implementation of the program benefits, the likelihood that we’d get it afterwards grows smaller and smaller.

It’s imperative that Obamacare be stopped and stopped now.

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?

ernesto on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Miracles never cease. Meanwhile, first things first. Kill the wolf pack at the door before going out to deal with the ghost from Christmas Past.

Jonah Goldberg makes a good argument. For his point to get past rhetoric into the realm of a very REAL electoral threat, it requires a roaring unanimity amongst the opposition. Otherwise, financial ruin aside, prepare to be gutted, literally, by Big Brother possessing your DNA while doling-denying medical care according to favoritism.

I agree wholeheartedly.

btw, I argue with those who pretend that being obedient to the rule of law means “consent” to those governing while abusing/destroying rule of law.

Impeach Corruption

Throw you in jail for NOT doing something?

Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM

It’s been done in the past.

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?

ernesto on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

No need, they’ll both go bankrupt in a few years.

This list is pretty much limited to police powers and defense. And even the police powers themselves should be limited to only those things in which actual rights of citizens are being trampled on. No putting people in jail becuase their actions offend someone else.

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?

ernesto on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM

It should be. If I had it my way, we’d parcel Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid out to the states along with their revenues. Even if it took twenty years to straighten it all out, in the end, we’d have 50 innovative microcosms, each competing for citizens and businesses.

Doctor Zero is absolutely correct when he tells us that regardless of whatever “mandate” any given administration feels it has, it can’t just stuff the opposition “in the trunk and take America out for a joy ride”. By design, we citizens were supposed to have the choices and competition that local and state governance provide. There was no Constitutional authority to hold citizens as hostages to some great, tyrannical, central government.

It’s a weak mind which craves the uniformity of cookie-cutter government. And when we look closely at the policies of Democrats, we see that despite their rhetoric about “tolerance”, they really can’t tolerate the differences that Liberty demands.

To embrace true freedom is to embrace the chaotic nature of the world. The U.S. Constitution provides order to chaos by setting the simple parameter that even as we pursue our own happiness we draw the line at impeding our brethren from doing the same. We do this by holding the unalienable rights of each citizen as sacrosanct.

God, Himself, has graced us with Free Will. So… who are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama to say otherwise?
The policies of this administration will make economic SLAVES of our children and their children after them. We are on a course that will demand 799 Billion ANNUALLY just on the interest payments of our debt. And that is before we add Obamacare and whatever other additional spending these miscreants have in mind.

Democrats appear to believe that the only law is the Mob-Rule of Democracy, the majority “mandate”. But no stretching, pulling, or twisting of the U.S. Constitution will change the meaning, the very spirit, of our legal contract with Government.

Democracy is just “two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch”. That’s why our founders chose to design a Republican system, grounded in Law.

{^_^}

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?

Because stopping a firestorm has a somewhat higher priority that fixing a broken car.

The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual biennialvote for elected representatives.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Indeed.

With that in mind, we must at all costs stop ObamaCare now to save our country from becoming a near irreversible socialist state.

atheling on November 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Don’t mistake my correction on authorship as disagreement with the sentiment expressed in the quote, but rather an understanding that the strength of one’s argument is often built on the accuracy of its details.

And thank you for the direct sourcing on your first quote. Interestingly, the second can as easily be attributed to Benjamin Franklin, John Bradshaw (1602-1659), John Calvin (1509-1564), or perhaps even the Old Testament. But it is perhaps best said, as noted by Doctor Zero, as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

Just because you are a minority in the current electorate does not prevent you from enforcing the contract or give them the right to run roughshod over the contract.

With amnesty, it was our own party that needed to be reminded that we didn’t accept “We know what’s best for you. Hold still.”

Democracy = mob rule… which allows corrupt politicians to buy the votes of equally-corrupt, lazy and uneducated citizens using public funds that are forcefully taken from those who are productive.
Democracies ALWAYS fail… that is why our wise founding fathers intended for us to be a republic.
A nation of laws, not of men.
painesright on November 29, 2009 at 10:05 PM

“It is impossible to introduce into society a greater CHANGE and a greater EVIL than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”
Frédéric Bastiat

They can put you in prison for not paying your taxes, but if you don’t produce the revenue that justifies those taxes what are they going to do?
Throw you in jail for NOT doing something?
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM

I’m seeing shades of Atlas Shrugs in that statement. What if the producers stop producing? When the motor of the world stops, what will the looters loot?
As Ayn stipulated, only when the masses come to realize what they hath wrought with their counter-productive, collectivist policies, can sanity be restored.
As Dagny eventually had to accept, D’Anconia was right. There are only two choices, slavery or go Galt. Any other recourse is but a rear guard action, staving off the inevitable.
Archimedes on November 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM

I’m afraid that short of armed revolt, this might be our only alternative.

What happens if the Statists succeed in Rahming healthcare through and the resulting invasion of immigrants are given voting rights?

What do we have as a plan B?

Democracy = mob rule… which allows corrupt politicians to buy the votes of equally-corrupt, lazy and uneducated citizens using public funds that are forcefully taken from those who are productive.

Democracies ALWAYS fail… that is why our wise founding fathers intended for us to be a republic.

A nation of laws, not of men.

These bills, cap and tax, the stimulus package, and the health care legislation, have been drafted in private, built up to over a thousand pages, and then thrown out onto the floor with little time to read before the votes. What sort of power is that? If the republicans were doing that, the press would be all over it. Instead, we have the silence of the lambs, as far as the media is concerned.

I agree with Jonah Goldberg, if the Democrats are successful in passing this legislation, in spite of the overwhelming opinion of the electorate against it, run on it and vow to repeal it. However, repeal will not be enough unless they offer a vision of what alternatives they have to it. If they just try the repeal option, I don’t believe I could vote for them, although I wouldn’t want the Democrats to think they did anything good. Let’s put it this way, the correct way to run would be on repeal plus a viable alternative.

publiuspen on November 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Perhaps you are right. But he did say this:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

And this:

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” –Thomas Jefferson: his motto

Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?

It should be. These programs are bankrupting America. They’re not doing anything that can’t be done better and fairer with private insurance.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any kind of government-run social net; since we have birth control there is no reason for anyone to be born into poverty. Parents are responsible for their children. Adults are responsible for themselves.

Taking care of whoever gets left behind or falls through the cracks is the responsibility of the extended family and neighbors, not a faceless government.

Consent is ongoing, momentary. A young lady who consents to a feel-up can say no at any moment to “Russian fingers”.

Robert17 on November 29, 2009 at 6:58 AM

This is a very valid point that can expanded on. A date involves an implied contract. Either one can say ‘time to go home’ before or during the movie, the kissing, the foreplay, the undressing, and even after the start of coitus. At each subsequent stage though it takes more personal honor to value that contract. Sometimes the fear of being accused of rape will help enforce the contract when sufficient honor is lacking.

We start our implied contract with each politician using the Constitution as our guidepost. When they do not honor the contract and will not let us go, it is time to scream RAPE. Just because you are a minority in the current electorate does not prevent you from enforcing the contract or give them the right to run roughshod over the contract.

I feel as if I am being plowed by the entire combined teams of the NFL. Without even a kiss or dinner.

We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.

Thomas Jefferson, quotes about Charity:

Democrats have no authority for this. They may have the power, but they have no authority.