The Patriot Post Brief 8-23-2010

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 8-23-2010
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Foundation

"It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson

Political Futures

"On Nov. 2, the American people will give their consent to the candidates whose legislative agenda they support. Based on the discontent throughout the country, both sides of the aisle think the upcoming midterm elections will reduce the size of the current Democratic congressional majority. A widespread loss of Democratic seats would be an unmistakable condemnation of the far-Left legislative agenda being pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration. Incredibly, this forecasted repudiation of big government could be greeted by ousted politicians with a repudiation of voter intent. After the election, but before the newly elected Congress is sworn in in January, the current Congress may call a lame-duck session in November and December. During this session, congressmen and senators removed from power may still vote to enact new legislation. Some Democrats already are talking about their plans to exploit this session to address unpopular issues. ... Such boundless arrogance from legislators who think their personal opinion reigns is exactly why there is such bipartisan outrage directed at the political class. ... [Sen. John] Kerry, doesn't even offer the caveat about the awkwardness of exploiting the session: 'If it is after the election, it may well be that some members are free and liberated and feeling that they can take a risk or do something.' Mr. Kerry is celebrating the fact that lawmakers will have a chance to be liberated from the restraints of the people, an elitist sentiment that is repulsive to American ideals. This is the exact opposite of how our elected representatives should respond to election results that tell them we dislike their agenda. Rather than hope his colleagues take 'risks' they refused to take while still accountable to the people, he should hope they would gracefully accept the message." --columnist Matt Kibbe1

Government

"It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call 'the needs of the times.' Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed. The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting 'the needs of the times' -- as they choose to define those needs. The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but 'interpret' it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet 'the needs of the times,' were made by Woodrow Wilson. It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people? To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America." --economist Thomas Sowell2

The Gipper

"Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as 'the masses.' This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, 'the full power of centralized government' -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." --Ronald Reagan3

Liberty

"During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our health care system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn't make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong. If Republicans win the House of Representatives, there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the Democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don't win a veto-proof Senate, they can't undo Obamacare but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it. There are numerous blocking tactics that a Republican-controlled House can take against those hell-bent on trampling on our Constitution. The question is whether they will have guts and principle to do it. After all, many Americans, including those who are Republicans, have a stake in big government control, special privileges and handouts. Ultimately, we Americans must act to ensure that our liberty does not depend on personalities in Washington. Our founders tried to do that with our Constitution." --economist Walter E. Williams4

Culture

"President Obama couldn't bring himself to observe the National Day of Prayer or spend time with the Boy Scouts of America, but God forbid, he couldn't miss the Muslim Iftar Ramadan dinner, or pass up a chance to praise an Islamic center a stone's throw away from Ground Zero. ... One has to wonder exactly who is this Barack Obama? Is he the Muslim-educated student who has repeatedly proclaimed his Christian beliefs while finding himself unable to put a foot in a Christian church in Washington he can call his own, or is he an adult still motivated by the Muslim faith he learned and practiced as a young man? This is a serious question, especially since Obama has gone out of his way to befriend a community, many of whom bear a deep hatred for the United States and a fanatical belief in the inevitability of supremacy of Islam over the United States. ... Unfortunately, it appears that Islam is also imposing its will and casting a shadow over the Obama White House." --radio talk-show host Michael Reagan5

[nChrist]

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 8-23-2010
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Faith and Family

"Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions -- even incidental expressions? ... One very recent example is the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that memorial crosses erected and displayed along Utah public roads to honor fallen state highway troopers must be removed as unconstitutional. In case you are wondering how highway crosses could remotely be considered to have violated any constitutional provision, the court tells us: 'We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion.' So here we go again. Our politically correct-intoxicated culture is so allergic to expressions and symbols of Christianity that our courts leap to absurd conclusions to cordon off the chief allergen: Christianity. To fully appreciate the outrageousness of the court's decision, you must understand that the memorial crosses were placed along Utah public roads by a private -- not public -- organization, the Utah Highway Patrol Association, which also maintains the crosses. The egregious constitutional infraction here is not that the government put up the signs, which it didn't, but that the memorials were placed along public roads. Thus, 'reasonable' passing motorists -- as opposed, I guess, to those afflicted with anti-Christian road rage -- might well assume that the government is endorsing the Christian religion. Horror of horrors." --columnist David Limbaugh6

Opinion in Brief

"According to Obama, monetary donations should be funneled into Democratic Party bank accounts. It's a point Obama hammered home while visiting Los Angeles this week to do a fundraiser at the home of John Wells, the producer of 'ER,' 'Southland' and 'The West Wing.' At that $30,400 per couple dinner, Obama shamelessly told his patrons: 'I hope you understand why we're here tonight. It's not to take a picture with the president. We're here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.' Why not reward those Americans who are out of work and hurting, rather than the legislators who live on cushy salaries and have full medical and dental? Because those Americans are pawns, that's why. Democrats cite to the poor to tug at the heartstrings of the limousine liberal class, but Democrats rarely encourage those limousine liberals to give their money directly to those in need. When's the last time you heard an active liberal politician tell a rich potential donor to send cash to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army without a major natural disaster to spur that politician along? Has it ever happened? No, because that would show that the private sector charities can do a better job than the government. It would demonstrate that the poor could be given care by the private sector in an efficient way. In other words, it would put the lie to the Democratic notion that government is always the solution to social inequalities." --columnist Ben Shapiro7

Reader Comments

"Mark Alexander's essay, Obama and the Socialist Bourgeoisie8, provides a telling description of where our country is headed. This administration and its leaders will, if allowed, take us down the sorry path that all socialist regimes have followed. As many have noted, the real problem for the United States is as much a clueless electorate as a totally incompetent president. The results of the midterm elections in November will truly be a 'window' on where we're headed. EVERY concerned patriot MUST go to the polls and put an end to the idiocy that is overwhelming our freedoms and once great country! Fortunately, it finally appears people are starting to understand the Marxist mindset of Barack Hussein Obama." --Bill
"Congrats Mark, you hit all the Fox News talking points in this opinion. Now for the facts: The reason people are poor and the poverty rate rises is from the so called free market and Capitalism that you speak of. Providing tax breaks and further incentives for only the ones at the top just continues to make the top richer all while the middle class suffer. We saw this during Reagan's term and also under Bush II. Taking care of the poor while they need help allows them time to find work and better themselves. Cutting them off and allowing them to fend for themselves will only cause the crime rate to increase because people will do anything when there is no hope left. This constant preach of Capitalism has failed over and over. During the Clinton administration taxes were raised, which in turn balanced the budget and did NOT, I repeat, did NOT create job losses. Unemployment was low and the economy was in full force, which had nothing to do with Reagan or supply side economics. Bush came in and immediately gave tax cuts which turned the surplus into a deficit. If your theory is correct, these tax cuts should have created massive job growth. They did NOT. They only lined the rich with more money who did not invest to expand the economy." --Karl Rove

    Editor's Reply: Karl, just got a message from Robert Gibbs and he asked that we extend his heartfelt gratitude for your "obfuscation of the facts and devotion to the great Socialist cause"! He did wonder why you signed your message "Rove" instead of "Marx"?

"Muslims should NOT be considered merely a religion and treated as if that's what Islam is. Islam is a political system wrapped in the trappings of a religion. Islam is every bit as much a political threat as was communism - and every bit as much a religion. To the degree that a religion desires to take over the government, it fails the religion test. Islam is a political party whose goal is the destruction of civilization." --Manfred

The Last Word

"Every so often, one of my readers who has apparently dipped once too often into the cooking sherry wonders why I don't run for Congress. The short answer is that I don't want to ever again wear a necktie. I also don't wish to spend my life going hat-in-hand begging for campaign contributions. Worse yet, what if I actually won the election and then had to listen to Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank mouth off endlessly? Between her nursery school delivery and his lisping, I'm sure I'd soon be popping Excedrin like peanuts. Instead, I prefer staying home and telling everybody in Washington how to do their jobs better." --columnist Burt Prelutsky9

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Links

   1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/18/lame-duck-plans-thwart-voters-will/
   2. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2010/08/17/dismantling-america-part-i/
   3. http://reagan2020.us/
   4. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/08/18/will-republicans-save-us/
   5. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michael-reagan/2010/08/19/obamas-choice-boy-scouts-or-islam/
   6. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/david-limbaugh/2010/08/20/the-judiciarys-culturally-sanctioned-allergy-to-christianity-flourishes/
   7. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2010/08/19/liberal-claims-to-altruism-are-horsepucky/
   8. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/08/19/obama-and-the-socialist-bourgeoisie/
   9. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/burt-prelutsky/2010/08/21/mr-prelutsky-doesnt-go-to-washington/