Stimulus Plan

[belgareth]

It will come as a

terrible shock to some of you that I don't support the stimulus plan. I didn't support either of the previous

bailouts either. Perhaps I'm cynical but any time a politician starts using words like catastrophe and urgent I get

paranoid. A package this large, spending this much money needs to be carefully reviewed, not rammed down our throats

with all these threats of imminent disaster.

So far, from what I have heard and read of the stimulus plan, I

don't see it as anything but a new tax and spend bill of huge proportions. Get the government of our backs, stop

spending money we don't have and let those that made foolish mistakes suffer the consequences of their actions. It

will be painful but, in my opinion, less painful in the long term than adding still more debt resulting in still

higher taxes which can only lead to still more burden on an already stressed economy. In my mind it is more a

question of crash and burn now or crash and burn later, which will be the more painful is the queestion and I think

the later will be many times more painful.

All that aside, I have always opposed universal healthcare, the

foundations of which are being laid as a part of the stimulus package. Universal healthcare is pretty much a

universal disaster in almost every place it has been tried as evidenced by the fact that anybody who can afford to

go elsewhere and pay for medical care does. On top of that, our government is broke! We are up to our eyeballs in

debt, they say Social Security is bankrupt and now they want to take over (mis)management of healthcare? I see

another white elephant where we the people are going to get less than we pay for, we will end up paying more over

time and getting less for our money.

Below is an article that was sent to me today. I do not vouch for the

acuracy of the data but I believe he makes some valid points.

Bel
*************************


Tuesday,

February 10, 2009

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary Bauer


If You Are Elderly

– Be

Afraid, Very Afraid

President Obama’s press conference last night was long on fear
and short on facts. Once

again, he warned the country that our "crisis"
will become a "catastrophe" if we don’t immediately pass his

spending
bill. I always get suspicious when a politician wants everyone to shut
up and vote on a 700-page bill.

You can bet there are a lot of
"surprises" hidden in the fine print.

In the last 24 hours, one of those

surprises has been discovered
and analyzed by conservative researchers. It is now being exposed by
conservative

talk radio

–[SIZE=2

] the same folks the Left wants to force off the
air in the name of "fairness." Who would have

guessed that our president
would hide in a "must pass" piece of legislation a provision that
"rations" health care

and makes it more likely that your Granny will be
left to suffer or die?

The legislation sets up a new

bureaucracy, the National
Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This office will monitor
the medical

treatments your doctor is providing you to make sure that
Washington agrees that those treatments are appropriate

and
cost-effective. Another office, the Federal Coordinating Council of
Comparative Effectiveness Research, will

slow down the use of new
medications and technologies because new treatments drive up costs.

It sounds

complicated, but don’t be confused. Europe already has
those offices and former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle

wrote about
them in a book last year. It was this "expertise" that led President
Obama to nominate Daschle as

Secretary of Health and Human Services, so
he could serve as the architect of the planned nationalized health

care
scheme. But here’s the bottom line of how it works in Europe and what
Daschle and others want to implement

here: The federal government will
decide your medical treatment with COST being the main consideration.
Daschle

argues in his book that instead of treating seniors, they will
have to become more accepting of the conditions that

come with age!

Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and a
health care analyst, points out

that this socialized medicine approach
would be disastrous. In 2006, in England, the health care board ruled
that

elderly citizens with macular degeneration could not receive
treatment with a new drug until they were blind in one

eye! It took
three years of public protests to reverse the policy. But that was just
the tip of the iceberg.



Last year, one thousand British doctors were fighting hard to
reform Britain’s health care system because that

"progressive" nation
also has one of the highest cancer mortality rates in Europe. Why?
Because some bean counting

bureaucrats in the basement of the British
Health Department decided it isn’t "cost effective" to treat

cancer
patients. Like Nancy Pelosi trying to justify birth control in the
stimulus bill, the Left sees people as a

burden to Big Government’s
bottom line.

Consider this irony. A powerful politician who has long
championed

government health care had a seizure last year. In Canada or
Great Britain, "average Joes" might have to wait

months for an MRI. Not
this politician. Twenty-four hours later, he was diagnosed with a rare
form of malignant

brain cancer. Unlike "average Joes" in Canada and
Great Britain, this politician didn’t have to wait months to see

a
specialist. Within two weeks he was treated by some of the world’s
foremost experts on brain cancer.

Ted

Kennedy is alive today probably because we don’t have
socialized medicine. The free market, while flawed, is still

the best
system man has devised. I’m sure there is room for improvement, but I’m
equally sure that government

isn’t the solution. The Europeans and
Canadians flocking here to get health care denied them by their
socialist

governments obviously agree. But where will Americans flee
under the new socialist order?

Here’s the danger

inherent in government-run health care. Just
like a child living in a parent’s house has to abide by the

parent’s
rules, you will be treated like a child. If you expect Uncle Sam to pay
for your health care, then

Washington bureaucrats will dictate whether
saving your health is too costly. The elderly always suffer under such

a
system. By the way, what the heck is this doing in a "stimulus bill"?
And does it help explain why our new

president is so intent on spending
a trillion dollars after only one week of congressional debate?



* * * *

*
American Values
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 950
Arlington, VA 22206

Phone: 703-671-9700
Fax:

703-671-1680

EMAIL GARY BAUER

<[/SIZE][COLOR=#0000ff][FON

T=Arial]mailto:gary.bauer@amvalues.org?subject=End[/CO

LOR][/FONT]

of
Day 2-10-09>
VISIT AMERICAN VALUES

<[FONT=Arial]http://www.ouramericanvalues.org/[/

FONT]>

[Mtnjim]

My only argument with this

is:

Gary Bauer campaigns as a hard-right moralist,a major figure of the Christian Right and former presidential

candidate, has been a key organizer of campaigns linking rightist pro-Israel Christian groups and conservative

Christian evangelicals

I would have exactly the same problem with a hard

left author.

They both have their agendas to push.

[belgareth]

Despite their distastefully

extreme points of view, both ends of the spectrum have some valid points that are worth listening too so long as you

are sure to filter the garbage out first. As I said, he makes some valid points.

[kgk4569]

I don't support the stimulus

plan either. I'm too lazy this morning to type my reasons.

[belgareth]

Perhaps just a little tongue in

cheek but not all that much. Quite a lot more sense in it.



When a company falls on difficult times, one of the

things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to

continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally

congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gave him a big bonus.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]
[FONT=Verdana][/

FONT]


Our government should not be immune from

similar risks.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Therefore: Reduce the House of

Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50(one per State). Also

reduce remaining staff by 25&#37;.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Accomplish this over the next 8 years.

(two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay

for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$97,175,000 for elimination of the above

people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each

member of the Senate every year)

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$240,294 for the reduction in remaining

staff by 25%.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel

ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at

$15 Billion / yr)

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


The remaining representatives would need

to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together

for the good of our country?

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


We may also expect that smaller

committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of

what your representative is doing.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Congress has more tools available to do

their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone,

computers, cell phones to name a few)

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Note: Congress did not hesitate to head

home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.

Also, we have had 3

senators that were not been doing their jobs for 18+ months (they were on the campaign trail) and still they all had

been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Summary of opportunity:

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress

members.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$282,100, 000 for elimination of the

reduced house member staff.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced

senate member staff.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff

for remaining house members.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff

for remaining senate members.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added

to bills by the reduction of congress members.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total

savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


Big business does these types of cuts

all the time.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[SIZE=2][/SIZ

E]


If Congresspersons were required to

serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much

we would save. Now

they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]


[FONT=Verdana][/

FONT]







IF you are happy how the Congress spends our

taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.

[COLOR=black][/

COLOR]

[Rbt]

"IF you are

happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just ignore this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume

you know what to do."



Run for political office! Right???

[belgareth]

Run for

political office! Right???

Ok, so some don't know.

How about un-elect the thieving bastards? Or

maybe lynch them? I've always liked the idea of public floggings for dishonest or incompetent elected officials.

[Rbt]

Ok, so some

don't know.

How about un-elect the thieving bastards? Or maybe lynch them? I've always liked the idea

of public floggings for dishonest or incompetent elected officials.

Hey, I live near Chicago... you want

politicians in action, it's probably the next best thing to Washington DC.

I've sometimes wonder about

bringing back things like "tar and feathers" and "riding out of town on a rail."

In the meantime I do what I can

to avoid any contact with politicians or their antics. When greeted with any "we're from the Government and we're

here to help" I will cheerfully run the other way and cover my own ass.

[belgareth]

I lived in California for more

than 30 years and can tell you all about political stupidity. You are talking the seventh largest economy in the

world, with the highest corporate taxes, some of the highest sales taxes and an income tax and the damned fools have

driven the state to bankruptcy. They used to have budget surpluses, some of the best public schools in the nation

and wonderful state parks. Now they cannot support any of those that they've already allowed to deteriorate beyond

belief and are cutting further.

[idesign]

Well, Obama is going on TV to

"explain us" one more time how much we need him and his plan. And apparently Bill Clinton burned his ear about his

incessant negativity, so we can look forward to another round of Hope and Change. Obama will try his best to be

sincere of course, but an elected Democrat is genetically to prone to fear-based rhetoric. It appeals to "victims",

and there's nothing a Liberal likes more than a victim.

Obama has been using fear and urgency as his primary

tactics, fitting in perfectly with what's has come to be known as the "Rahm Doctrine". Coined from statements made

by Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, it goes something like this: Never waste a crisis. It gives us the chance to

do what we've always wanted to do but couldn't.

The result from this is what we've seen happen. The

Dems closeted themselves in smoky (incense) rooms, locked out the Reps, disallowed Rep amendments, rushed out a

plan, got criticism, went back to their committees, came back with an even bigger bill, then rushed it through at

midnight to be voted on the next day. Unread by anyone.

I won't even start on how contradictory this is to

Obama's campaign rhetoric. Its just not worth the time, and we'll be seeing a lot more.

The spend-ulus plan is

just what Bel said, the largest federal spending bill in our history, almost exclusively devoted to the public

sector. In essence, Obama and his Merry Band of Thieves are more than doubling the US deficit. I scanned through

this thing one night and really could not believe what I was reading.

Healthcare: "(3)Strategic Plan, (A)(ii)

The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014." That, under direction

of the "National Coordinator for Health Information Technology".

As Bel stated, nat'l healthcare would be bad

enough, but now we have the Feds purposefully gathering under their control the personal and private health

information of "every person in the United States". The bulk of the reasons stated for the creation and

implementation of this new bureaucracy is "reducing costs". Sounds good, until you blend cost control with the

coming nationalized health industry. To understand the mindset of these people, you need only listen to N.Pelosi as

she justified Federal funding of abortion as a way to "reduce costs" in the system, since children are a burden.

That section was yanked as soon as it became public knowledge. Too bad more of it didn't.

The States: Billions

are being transferred to the States, bailing out failed local budgets in which the Federal Gov't has no role or

responsibility. This is a very dangerous precedent. The US Constitution places the primary power to make laws and

regulate in the States. When the Feds begin to pour money into State budgets in such a general way there is an

automatic transfer of power to Washington.

All of this comes naturally to a President (and Congress) who

believes in the transfer of both power and wealth. The first Bill will pull money in to increase Federal spending

on itself. "Grow the Gov't and its Reach", pure and simple. The next bill, which he's hawking tonight, will

concentrate more on how the Feds spend on other programs designed to regulate and manipulate markets. All of this

is designed to centralize power.

Oh, and watch for tax increases, they're coming. Now that Obama has doubled

the deficit, he's promised to cut it in half!

[belgareth]

A nice summation, ID. It seems

that many people cannot add one and one effectively, perhaps a large chunk of the stimulus money should go towards

education with a focus on critical thinking. It is only a little less obvious than being hit in the face with a

brick that the huge programs and massive money being spent has to be paid sooner or later. More government programs

and higher wages are paid for from tax money and that comes straight from our pockets, no matter how much smoke or

how many mirrors you use. Unless there is an improbably fast and huge increase in productivity taces have to go up

very soon. Higher taxes will result in a greater burden on the economy. allowing less money to circulate through

it.

Yes, I do beat on taxes a lot. Taxes themselves are neither good nor evil. They are a symptom of a problem

though. And the higher the taxes the more government manipulation and control we have. That always equates to

reduced freedom and a lower standard of living for everybody.

Here you go, your first of many tax increases. Do

you know how much $63,000,000,000 per year in new taxes really is?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget

[idesign]

I read the article you linked,

and listened to the president last night, and saw that the latest "whatever" bill was passed today with no less than

8600 earmarks with no public or Congressional debate, again.

Its no longer a creeping subversion of personal

economic freedom, its in our face, and nobody is seems to care. The Reps are scratching their balls and wondering

what to do, unwilling to take principle by the nuts and squeeze out some rational check on this runaway madness.

Not that they have any power to do so. The Dems are in control everywhere and they're using it to full advantage.

The DIHL electorate which swept this guy into office are sitting around their TVs just blinking their eyes at the

news, not having the slightest capacity to understand what they've unleashed.

[belgareth]

In college we did a class

project where we took a transcript of a political speech, redacted the fluff, hyperbole and nonsense statements,

then we cross referenced all the contradictory stuff and looked at what remained. There was virtually nothing. I

haven't listened to a political speech since then. Every time I hear about this politician or that one said

something it gives me a quiet chuckle because it is unlikely they really said anything.

To set the record

straight, had it not been for the structure of the electoral college, Obama would not now be president. He did not

get the majority of the vote. To be honest, I do not believe that Obama and his ilk are the problem. Rather, they

are a symptom of a much deeper problem. Not that it helps in the long run, we are still screwed, hoist on our own

petard, as it were. We want it all and are not willing to get out and work for it. Instead, we want it all hand

delivered on a gold platter just because we think we deserve it. Now that some high and mighty figure has promised

to give it to us in xchange for a few paltry concession like liberty and just taxation, we are going to follow him

like a pack of starving puppies after the scent of meat. That we do not see the snares laid in our paths, or the

cages placed at the end is not our fault. We are going to willingly follow the scent of free food and song until we

are locked into the cages built on a foundation of sand.

No, I'm not disgusted and angry. Why do you ask?

[belgareth]

New addition to the stimulus package announced…




Washington , DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation

that
will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With

No
Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative

goal
by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real

skills
or ambition.




'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and


drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves

in
society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no

longer
stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and

passed
over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able

to
grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply

because
they have some idea of what they are

doing.'


In a Capitol Hill press

conference, House Majority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D) and Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid (D) pointed to the
success of the U.S . Postal Service, which has a

long-standing policy
of providing opportunity without regard to performance.

Approximately
74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making

this
agency the single largest U.S employer of Persons of

Inability.


Private-sector industries with

good records of non-discrimination
against the Inept include retail sales (72%),

the airline industry
(68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At

the state
government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has

an
excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability

(63%).


Under The Americans With No

Abilities Act, more than 25 million
'middle man' positions will be created,

with important sounding
titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an

illusory
sense of purpose and performance.




Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be

given
so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most

unremarkable
employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks

to
corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of

Inability
into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small

and
medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker

for
every two talented hires.




Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it

more
difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for

example,
discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any

skills
or experience that relate to this

job?'


'As a Non-abled person, I can't

be expected to keep up with people
who have something going for them,' said Mary

Lou Gertz, who lost her
position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint,

Michigan, due
to her inability to remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.'

'This
new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added.

With
the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other

untalented
citizens will finally see a light at the end of the

tunnel.


Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):

'As a Senator with no abilities,
I believe the same privileges that elected

officials enjoy ought
to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is

our duty
as lawmakers to provide each and every American

citizen,
regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up

in this
great nation and a good salary for doing so.'

[kgk4569]

tee hee, It's been awhile

since I've seen that thar posted up.

[belgareth]

The rebellion has

begun.

(google the author if you doubt) (or ck sources at end of this message)


Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s

Action


by A..W.R.

Hawkins


02/23/2009


[FONT

=Helvetica][/FONT]


State

governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are

saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and

the states unlike any in our

time.







In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so

rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the

federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana,

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and

resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the

people, by limiting the power of the federal government.. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from

his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of

the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the

states.







When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th

Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment 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."












The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification

garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them

disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun

resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an “ordinance of nullification,”

which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations

now being made.







Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state’s

right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his

efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the “nullification crisis,” which witnessed everything from

threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs.

state’s rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional

limits on federal power.







This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based

on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama’s “stimulus bill,” federal mandates on abortion that

violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other

things.







For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri’s “House

Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama’s stated intention to sign into

law a federal ‘Freedom of Choice Act’, [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or

state law ‘enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment’ and would effectively

prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the

future.”







The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on

the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, “An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce

Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And

Retained In Montana.”







New

Hampshire’s resolution actually references certain

federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama’s administration, according to

americandaily.com. Among these are “Any act regarding

religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and

any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or

ammunition.







Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in

the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to “cease and desist” in its reckless violation of state’s

rights. In this way, South Carolina’s resolution is typical of the others issued to

date:







“The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this

resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States

Constitution…







Be it…resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to

the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates…beyond the scope of

the federal government's constitutionally delegated

powers.”







What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key

to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution

limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by

limiting the government..







Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government

to “cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers.” In this

way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that

are neither enumerated nor denied in the

document.







Liberals don’t respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress

don’t hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it. The current push to give Washington, D.C. a

voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a

Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional. But they press on with

it.







Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of

as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds.

But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function. It is to them this burden now

falls. The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they

accept the stimulus money, or to reject

it.







These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And

they must.







There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop

unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our

hands.

[DrSmellThis]

To

set the record straight, had it not been for the structure of the electoral college, Obama would not now be

president. He did not get the majority of the vote.

Could you clarify what you mean by this, Bel? For

reference, here are the election results which state Obama won 53% of the vote, as compared to 46% for McCain:



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

And here is an article that notes,

"U.S.

President-elect Barack Obama has won the highest proportion of popular vote since Republican George H. W. Bush

defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988, according to figures released Wednesday.

The 52 percent of the

popular vote that Obama won -- 63.4 million ballots -- is the highest of any Democratic candidate since 1964.



Obama is the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote.



Bill Clinton was twice elected president without getting half of the popular

vote."

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...2/6528641.html

Here is a more detailed

account:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...ent/index.html

[belgareth]

INTERESTING

FACTS ----- NOTICE LINK AT BOTTOM


Some unreported stats about the

2008 election
Professor Joseph

Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota

,
points out some interesting facts concerning the

2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans:

30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won

was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory

mostly
encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements

and
living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United

States is now somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition

of democracy, with some forty
percent of the nation's population already having reached the

"governmental
dependency" phase.

*******************************

Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won

by McCain/Palin.

The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at

this link:

h

ttp://www.newsweek.com/id/163337.

[belgareth]

Corrections found since I posted that

comment:

• President-elect Barack Obama
  
  actually carried
  
  28 states (and the District of Columbia), not 20 as claimed in the
  
  message. Sen. John McCain carried only 22 states, not 30.
  
  
• The total area of
  
  states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail.
  
  McCain's states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000
  
  claimed.
  
  
• The population of counties carried by Obama is just under 183
  
  million, not the 127 million claimed. McCain carried counties with a total population of just under 119 million, far
  
  fewer than claimed in this message.
  
  
• The murder rate for counties carried by
  
  Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties
  
  carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than claimed in the
  
  message.

[DrSmellThis]

Thank you for providing the

corrections.

So to clarify, there was no truth to the claim that McCain won the popular vote, right?

And

regarding the states comparison, I counted 29 states for Obama, just looking at the final CNN data, rather than 28.

That is a sizable margin in favor of Obama as well.

The other data posted are misleading if interpreted to

discredit Obama's victory in any way, in that Obama won all major urban areas without exception (even in Texas),

while McCain did better in most rural areas. Pretty much everything noted can be explained by that one fact, such as

comparitive murder rates, or amounts of land "won" (Whatever that means. Sounds like a Monopoly game) especially.



Reading anything into all that would be like me talking about how much better educated Obama's voters were,

since that could be attributed to the fact that more educated people live in cities, and may well also have

different concerns than country folk. Here is one comparison along those lines, though not the most recent numbers.

But you get the

idea:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Ob...-Election.aspx

So I

really couldn't take that fact, in isolation, as an indictment of McCain or republicans in general.

I could not

find the original source of that original "article" by following the provided link. Maybe my browser is ill

equipped. But it's obviously a collection of blatant falsehoods, so no big deal.

[belgareth]

Doesn't make me think Obama's

going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am quite well educated, thank you. Personally, I think Obama is

a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only getting worse.

[DrSmellThis]

Doesn't make me think Obama's going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am

quite well educated, thank you. Personally, I think Obama is a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only

getting worse.

It is already quite clear that you and the other recent major posters on politics here, to put

it mildly, do not approve of Obama (or "liberals" for that matter). But one would think a correction of facts would

be welcomed in any case.

[Mtnjim]

The rebellion

has

begun.

(google the author if you doubt) (or ck sources at end of this message)


Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s

Action


by A..W.R.

Hawkins

So, I did Google him. Solder of Fortune Magazine??

Geeze!
Alpinesurvivor, Americanthinker, usapartisan, Ya think he may have an ultra right wing (to the point of

whack job) agenda to push?

Professor Joseph Olson of

Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota

,
points out some interesting facts concerning the

2008 Presidential election:

Try Googling this and you'll find.

I

thought I smelled a rat when I noticed that Professor Olsen (a real person) taught at Hemline University School of

Law. Hemline? It turns out that Professor Olson did not do the research, there are inaccuracies in the research, and

Alexander Tyler is not the correct person. Read the Snopes.com article for a fuller explanation.

While it is

probable that the facts regarding a democratic state are true or plausible, the cause being heralded is done no good

through shoddy journalism (or whatever you want to call it).

And

So by now you've realized I

looked into this. First off, (kinda funny) since they all copy/pasted, they all have the same typo. I'm not talking

a teh or an adn, but rather the school Prof. Olson teaches from. It's Hamline, not Hemline. Perhaps the original

writer was a woman or one of those log cabin republicans and had fashion on

the mind or maybe one of those "moral" types who was thinking about the deplorable height current dresses and skirts

are permitted to climb to. Who knows?

Well it seems the guy who just posted this last Thursday might have been

unaware (as was I) that this is an old, hard turd and not a fresh steamy log.

How about some commentary

from some more "mainstream" sources??


When you pick articles from the "fringes", either left or right, you

weaken your argument.

[belgareth]

It is

already quite clear that you and the other recent major posters on politics here, to put it mildly, do not approve

of Obama (or "liberals" for that matter). But one would think a correction of facts would be welcomed in any

case.

You are absolutely right, my opinion of liberals gets worse all the time. And I obviously was quite

willing to post a correction as soon as it was brought to my attention. That does not mean that the liberal

mentality or direction is a good one or a sound one. The radical rants are really no different from one election to

the next, only the names change.

You might also note that I am open minded enough, unlike the rabid anti-Bush

posters here not long ago, to both admit errors and to agree with some of the things Obama has done. Come to think

of it, I disagreed with Bush on a number of things and agreed with Clinton on some.

The bottom line is that I

believe the course we are on is, and I've said this before, socialist. And, despite the fantasies of so many

people, socialism does not work in the long term. The only demonstratably functional long term plan is to keep

government out of our lives as much as possible. Keep in mind that it also means I do not agree with the

conservatives controlling mindset either. Both are equally wrong

[belgareth]

How about

some commentary from some more "mainstream" sources??


When you pick articles from the "fringes", either left

or right, you weaken your argument.

How is it any different from the radical stuff posted against

Bush not so long ago? By the way, I am not supporting, only posting. By now you should know that while slightly

conservative I am utterly opposed to big government in general. If I had to take a stand it would be against Obama

and even more so with Hillary. But, since he is president, I can pick on him and since he is, in my mind, a

disaster, expect me to continue to post against him. Had McCain won I'd probably be doing the same against him as

he is close to as bad in another direction.

[idesign]

IMO, there really isn't much of

a "maistream" media anymore. The same media that relentlessly attacked Bush at every turn is now in the bag for

Obama, to its shame. If ever we've needed a responsible - even cynical - press its now. Where are the

investigative reporters delving into this particular set of corrupt characters? It shouldn't matter whether you

have a "D" or an "R" by your name, but apparently it does matter.

The Obama administration is engaged in deceit,

upon an either ignorant or blind population. State's rights are only part of authoritarian power-grab. The

tentacles of the Federal Gov't are reaching further and further into every corner: health, economics, education and

even the census.

Oversight of the next census has been transferred from the Dept. of Commerce to the White

House. The "Rahm Doctrine" will now include manipulation of census data for the purpose of re-districting in favor

of the Dems. Vote grabbing by Federal tampering.

Do I seem too cynical? Not really if you look at the scope and

breadth of Obama's actions already. Every single line of every bill serves to centralize power in the Federal

Gov't. This is being sold as "Stimulus", which of course its not.

The more details the seep out between the

cracks in the media, the more people we'll have actually reporting on what's really going on. That's why you're

hearing more about the return of the "Fairness Doctrine". Muzzle the opposition in true authoritarian style.

[belgareth]

yeah, I noticed quite a few

times how the 'Liberal' democrats prefer to suppress any opposition to their decisions, opinions, goals etc.

Liberal is rapidly becoming equated to authoritarian and suppression. I am afraid that by time the public wakes up

and can smell the stink, we are going to be too close to socialist to reverse it and return to what the writers of

the constitution intended.

Another Workers' Paradise in the making. I'm thrilled to be a part of it.

[Rbt]

Doesn't

make me think Obama's going to be good for the country, in any case. And I am quite well educated, thank you.

Personally, I think Obama is a bad symptom of a deep problem and the problem is only getting worse.

IMO

none of the current crop of politicians from ANY party is going to do any real "good" for the country.

Bush,

Clinton (either one), McCain, Obama, Nader, Perot, etc etc... doesn't matter. The names may change but the

underlying crap remains the same.

Politics are just like one big TV soap opera to me, with a dash of American

Idol, Survivor, Dancing witht he Facts, and most assuredly "Lost" (and I wish many of them would get lost...).



They seem to have their own fanatsy worlds. Oh, I keep an eye on them, as what they do can bite me, but otherwise

I just do what I can to live my life and cover my ass in spite of them. I can't see getting too wound up in their

antics, and as far as teh "media" is concerned, I get most all the news I need on the weather report. The rest is

poo.

About the only "news" source I have been using is US News and World Report magazine as they seem the least

biased (on average) over others like Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc. But I keep a large container of salt

nearby as I'm taking a lot of "grains of salt" with no matter what story I read.

[idesign]

I pretty much agree Rbt, the "R"

and the "D" don't mean so much any more, only in the manner of degree. They'll both take us to the same place,

just that one wants to go faster than the other. However, there are some key differences in social

policies.

BTW, what do the small letters below MENSA say? Your image didn't blow up, apparently unlike the

model's breasts.

[DrSmellThis]

You

might also note that I am open minded enough, unlike the rabid anti-Bush posters here not long ago, to both admit

errors and to agree with some of the things Obama has done.

Since I was the main anti Bush poster back in

the day, it's difficult not to take this as directed at me. If it wasn't, let me know. Or are you baiting as you

sometimes say you do? If so, I wish you'd not do that please, because the spirit of things is thrown off course

into something that to me feels like a macho power struggle. Then conversing becomes painful for everyone (not

speaking for you), as writing this post admittedly is a little bit.

So although I don't want to get into an

argument, I will respond to the specific points, assuming they were directed at me, for the sake of the forum

record.

* Are you really suggesting I posted falsehoods and wouldn't admit errors?? I challenge you to find a

single post of mine that contained plainly false matters of fact, in this forum. I have 6000 posts, so have at it.

I'm not saying there couldn't be one, but I'd actually be suprised just because I have tried to be careful at all

times about what I post. I am confused as to why you would suggest this.

Incidentally, you never did admit your

claim about McCain winning the vote was false, which is why I asked again for clarification. Reread the above posts.

You admitted several things about the spam you posted were mistakes, but not that. I assumed you probably ommitted

the correction accidentally. But that was a huge and strong claim that was worth clarifying.

* When I have argued

society, philosophy or politics; I tried very, very hard to be careful and disciplined in my arguments, and provide

legitimate sources where appropriate. For years I have been doing this, no matter the topic, and all my posts are a

matter of public record. I hope you and others have benefitted from this effort in some way. I have certainly been

trained in grad school to do as much, and have tried to keep all those habits, even here. That is the standard I

have sought to maintain in every case, such as in my debates with Kohl. An independent observer, a professor

familiar with Kohl's work, noticed just that quality about my posts in that case.

When I disagreed about McCain

winning the popular vote above, for example, I posted as good a source as I could find.

When I was arguing about

Bush's policies, I typically used the mainstream news services, and typically used multiple sources of information

for each point or argument, when appropriate. In the election corruption thread, I must have sited hundreds of

sources to make one argument that there appeared to be corruption, including official government documents. Same

with several other threads.

*You know that I have apologised frequently in this forum whenever I said something

that warranted it. I've never minded looking a bit foolish "for the team", as it were.

* I don't recall a

single post where you agreed with something Obama has done, by the way. I do forget whether you stated you liked him

closing Guantanamo. But it doesn't matter. Your opinion is your opinion. He'll never reduce the size of government

to 3&#37; of what it is, like you want him to (I believe that was the percentage you have mentioned, but I could be

mistaken.), so I know in advance there will never come a day when you do not strongly reject pretty much everything

he does, since almost everything a president does is related in some way to some government entity. But I'm glad

you speak your mind, and am thankful you have got me to think about various issues over the years.