I've been following the campaign / tax-payer funded trip by Senator Barack Obama. First he insulted Jews and Christians by going to the Western Wall in Jerusalem to campaign, then he chose not to visit our injured troops in Landstuhl because he couldn't campaign, then he gave a speech in Berlin where he campaigned. It appears to me that all this campaigning is Mr. Obama's way of promoting his socialist views, his globalist views, all while he denounces communism? Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black - don't you think Mr. Obama?
I've read and watched the speech given by Senator Barack Obama in Berlin half a dozen times and I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Obama is a socialist, a globalist, and would bring the United States further into ruin. My vote is 'no' to Barack Obama.
Socialism is the means of producing and distributing goods by the State and that, Mr. Obama, defines you perfectly. In your globalist ways you would raise taxes for Americans and give our money to help foreign nations. Are you running for President of the United States or President of the United Nations?
In his speech Mr. Obama continued to comment on the ills of communism. But communism is the belief that all property is owned by the State. Mr. Obama, isn't that what you believe in? Don't you believe in the redistribution of wealth? Don't you believe government should tax the 'wealthy' to subsidize the 'poor'?
Mr. Obama, you are NOT the Messiah as some proclaim! And, Mr. Obama, you are NOT the President of the United States, yet!
We need to find a President that will limit their ambitions to the confines of the Constitution for the United States. We need to find a President that looks at the Constitution as a guide to follow, not a challenge to overcome. We need a President who believes in Statesmanship, not Politics. We need a President who will promote the Principles of Liberty and our Foundation.
These are the political opinions of a Grass Root. For further discussion on this article please go to the Statesman Society.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Social Engineering (The Control of Natural Resources)
I personally do not like discussing conspiracy theories. I believe that conspiracy theories serve no legitimate purpose but to cause anger, fear, and alarm. I define conspiracy theories as a belief presented as fact that major scadalous events in politics, economics, and in our society are the product of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public but somehow known to the conspiracy theorist.
With that said what the heck is going on with our current financial and oil crisis? I've been thinking of any logical reason why we are in this crisis and I can't help but wonder if something sinister is in the works. It appears to me our government leaders are socially engineering our nation deeper and deeper into communism and they've manufactured a crisis to do it. Here's how I came to this conclusion:
Some Democrats (whom I believe are Socialsts) say they don't want the 'big' oil companies to drill along the coastal regions and on American-soil for environmental reasons. I don't believe the environment is really an issue because the Democrats haven't had any problems with foreign oil companies drilling along our coastal regions.
Some Democrats say they want to lower the speed limit to 55 MPH on the highway to conserve what oil (fuel) we have. We have plenty of oil in our petroleum reserves so what's the problem? If the petroleum reserve is for a national crisis, and our nation is in a crisis, why not allow us access to the reserve?
Some Democrats say they are going to penalize (by imposing greater taxes on) the 'big' oil companies for making a profit on the sale of oil. This doesn't make sense to me. By raising taxes on profit won't this cause higher prices for the consumer? Wouldn't this cause the Democrats to want more oil production so they can get more tax money?
Some Democrats even say they want to socialize the refining of oil in the United States. I think this says a lot about what's really going on.
And, some Democrats say they don't want to invest in drilling for oil because it will take ten years or so before we can benefit from it. But, the Democrats are more than willing to invest in alternative energy sources even though it will take ten years or so before we can benefit from that. Why is our federal government investing in energy to begin with? Where is that Power in the Constitution for the United States?
When Al Gore, a Democrat, was a US Senator he openly promoted higher gas prices to wean Americans off of oil to save the environment from global warming. What global warming?
During the second term of the Clinton-Gore administration, both Democrats, environmental regulations were increased, causing oil prices to rise. The Clinton-Gore camp blaimed the higher prices on 'big' oil companies.
To regulate is to control and if the Democrats refuse to allow the oil companies to drill then this is still all about control. This continued control brings us more and more into socialism.
Now on to the Republicans (many of whom I also believe are Socialists):
Some Republicans are no better. President Bush, a Republican, allowed the Feds to increase the money supply, thereby inflating the dollar, and now oil prices have sky-rocketed. I don't hear any complaints from Republicans or Democrats about the inflated dollar, I only hear more calls to regulate (control).
If President Bush and the Republicans in Congress aren't going to fight the Democrats with every tool at their disposal then they are just as guilty as the Democrats. Again, this is all about control and both political parties are equally at fault, and accountable.
Here's how I believe we should resolve this 'crisis':
One, every single Democrat and Republican should be voted out of office. We the people need to get rid of all these politicians and start supporting real statesmen and stateswomen.
Two, our federal government should get back to a money-system that is stable. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and hold Congress accountable. Congress should be put on notice that they are not allowed to delegate their responsibilities to civilian agencies.
Three, our federal government should get out of the business of regulating the production, refining, and distribution of oil and start protecting the states according to the Constitution for the United States.
Four, the state governments should get out of the business of regulating the production, refining, and distribution of oil and start protecting the people according to their own constitutions.
Five, allow the people the liberty to invest in energy. Plain and simple. Allow the laws of supply and demand to fuction with no or very little regulation. Allow entrepreneurs the liberty of finding alternative energy sources and allow them the liberty to profit from them. Allow liberty to be the guiding principle throughout these United States. Allow us to be free!
These are the political opinions of a Grass Root. For further discussion on this article please go to the Statesman Society.
With that said what the heck is going on with our current financial and oil crisis? I've been thinking of any logical reason why we are in this crisis and I can't help but wonder if something sinister is in the works. It appears to me our government leaders are socially engineering our nation deeper and deeper into communism and they've manufactured a crisis to do it. Here's how I came to this conclusion:
Some Democrats (whom I believe are Socialsts) say they don't want the 'big' oil companies to drill along the coastal regions and on American-soil for environmental reasons. I don't believe the environment is really an issue because the Democrats haven't had any problems with foreign oil companies drilling along our coastal regions.
Some Democrats say they want to lower the speed limit to 55 MPH on the highway to conserve what oil (fuel) we have. We have plenty of oil in our petroleum reserves so what's the problem? If the petroleum reserve is for a national crisis, and our nation is in a crisis, why not allow us access to the reserve?
Some Democrats say they are going to penalize (by imposing greater taxes on) the 'big' oil companies for making a profit on the sale of oil. This doesn't make sense to me. By raising taxes on profit won't this cause higher prices for the consumer? Wouldn't this cause the Democrats to want more oil production so they can get more tax money?
Some Democrats even say they want to socialize the refining of oil in the United States. I think this says a lot about what's really going on.
And, some Democrats say they don't want to invest in drilling for oil because it will take ten years or so before we can benefit from it. But, the Democrats are more than willing to invest in alternative energy sources even though it will take ten years or so before we can benefit from that. Why is our federal government investing in energy to begin with? Where is that Power in the Constitution for the United States?
When Al Gore, a Democrat, was a US Senator he openly promoted higher gas prices to wean Americans off of oil to save the environment from global warming. What global warming?
During the second term of the Clinton-Gore administration, both Democrats, environmental regulations were increased, causing oil prices to rise. The Clinton-Gore camp blaimed the higher prices on 'big' oil companies.
To regulate is to control and if the Democrats refuse to allow the oil companies to drill then this is still all about control. This continued control brings us more and more into socialism.
Now on to the Republicans (many of whom I also believe are Socialists):
Some Republicans are no better. President Bush, a Republican, allowed the Feds to increase the money supply, thereby inflating the dollar, and now oil prices have sky-rocketed. I don't hear any complaints from Republicans or Democrats about the inflated dollar, I only hear more calls to regulate (control).
If President Bush and the Republicans in Congress aren't going to fight the Democrats with every tool at their disposal then they are just as guilty as the Democrats. Again, this is all about control and both political parties are equally at fault, and accountable.
Here's how I believe we should resolve this 'crisis':
One, every single Democrat and Republican should be voted out of office. We the people need to get rid of all these politicians and start supporting real statesmen and stateswomen.
Two, our federal government should get back to a money-system that is stable. We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve and hold Congress accountable. Congress should be put on notice that they are not allowed to delegate their responsibilities to civilian agencies.
Three, our federal government should get out of the business of regulating the production, refining, and distribution of oil and start protecting the states according to the Constitution for the United States.
Four, the state governments should get out of the business of regulating the production, refining, and distribution of oil and start protecting the people according to their own constitutions.
Five, allow the people the liberty to invest in energy. Plain and simple. Allow the laws of supply and demand to fuction with no or very little regulation. Allow entrepreneurs the liberty of finding alternative energy sources and allow them the liberty to profit from them. Allow liberty to be the guiding principle throughout these United States. Allow us to be free!
These are the political opinions of a Grass Root. For further discussion on this article please go to the Statesman Society.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Supreme Court versus the Constitution
Today the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the Constitution for the United States by overturning the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, and affirmed that an individual has the Right to own and bear arms.
I have a number of concerns with the Supreme Court's decision: One, I thought the Constitution for the United States was intended for the federal government, not state governments (they have their own constitutions), or even city governments (who should be under the jurisdiction of their state's constitution). Two, I thought somewhere in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution for the United States it says something about Congress having exclusive legislative authority within the ten square miles that makes up our national (federal) seat of government. Three, because of this decision how many pro-gun groups are we now going to have file law suits against states and cities arguing that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution for the United States now applies to them?
The Constitution for the United States, with the exception of Article IV, applies to the government of the United States, not the states. The states still have Rights whether the federal government likes it or not.
Why is the Supreme Court telling the government of the District of Columbia that it does not have the authority to restrict handguns? Wouldn't that be the responsibility of Congress? If Congress delegates that authority to city officials who then decide to ban handguns, what's the problem? If Congress, having authority under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, delegates their exclusive jurisdiction to a mayor and city council, who use that authority to ban handguns in their city, what's the problem?
Although I'm glad the US Supreme Court listened to a case actually dealing with the US Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment for that matter, I'm concerned with their decision.
The Right of an individual to own and bear arms can not be granted by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the President, or even the Constitution for the United States. Affirming that Right is appreciated but only so far as it means the government of the United States respects the Constitution for the United States and will not infringe of the Rights of the individual. State and city governments should be able to tell those who enter that they are not permitted to bring in certain handguns. If I don't like their restrictions on certain handguns then I have 49 other states to choose from. This Right to bear arms is founded through Nature's Law and it can not be taken away, only limited, or restricted. Not even the District of Columbia can take the Right away, hence all of the 'criminals' within the District of Columbia who own and bear arms.
These are the political opinions of a Grass Root. For further discussion on this article please go to the Statesman Society.
I have a number of concerns with the Supreme Court's decision: One, I thought the Constitution for the United States was intended for the federal government, not state governments (they have their own constitutions), or even city governments (who should be under the jurisdiction of their state's constitution). Two, I thought somewhere in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution for the United States it says something about Congress having exclusive legislative authority within the ten square miles that makes up our national (federal) seat of government. Three, because of this decision how many pro-gun groups are we now going to have file law suits against states and cities arguing that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution for the United States now applies to them?
The Constitution for the United States, with the exception of Article IV, applies to the government of the United States, not the states. The states still have Rights whether the federal government likes it or not.
Why is the Supreme Court telling the government of the District of Columbia that it does not have the authority to restrict handguns? Wouldn't that be the responsibility of Congress? If Congress delegates that authority to city officials who then decide to ban handguns, what's the problem? If Congress, having authority under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, delegates their exclusive jurisdiction to a mayor and city council, who use that authority to ban handguns in their city, what's the problem?
Although I'm glad the US Supreme Court listened to a case actually dealing with the US Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment for that matter, I'm concerned with their decision.
The Right of an individual to own and bear arms can not be granted by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the President, or even the Constitution for the United States. Affirming that Right is appreciated but only so far as it means the government of the United States respects the Constitution for the United States and will not infringe of the Rights of the individual. State and city governments should be able to tell those who enter that they are not permitted to bring in certain handguns. If I don't like their restrictions on certain handguns then I have 49 other states to choose from. This Right to bear arms is founded through Nature's Law and it can not be taken away, only limited, or restricted. Not even the District of Columbia can take the Right away, hence all of the 'criminals' within the District of Columbia who own and bear arms.
These are the political opinions of a Grass Root. For further discussion on this article please go to the Statesman Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)