Who might be domestic enemies of our Constitution?

I have been saying this since I started this little blog.

January 11, 2013
K.E. Campbell

Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Accordingly, on January 3rd, members of the 113th U.S. Congress took the following oath

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Who might be domestic enemies of our Constitution?

In previous American Thinker posts, I have written about the wisdom of the late Henry Hazlitt. As to the question posed above, Hazlitt articulated well the answer in a 1956 article and other writings.

"The greatest threat to American liberty today," he wrote, "comes from within." Specifically, Hazlitt was referring to "a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology." Uncomfortable though it may be to say or express it, proponents of that ideology were then and are now the enemy referenced in the congressional oath. They are those who are hostile to our heritage.

"[It] isn't too difficult to recognize the totalitarian mind," and by implication the devotees of the doctrine of government control over the individual, "when we meet one." In short "Its outstanding mark is a contempt for liberty." Acknowledging the difficulty in precisely defining liberty, Hazlitt contrasted it with its antithesis, slavery.

The roots of totalitarianism lie in the "contemporary faith in the necessity and benevolence of a continually expanding government intervention." Totalitarians, according to Hazlitt, want total control, but not necessarily total suppression. They "suppress merely the ideas which they don't agree with, or of which they are suspicious, or of which they have never heard before; and they suppress only the actions that they don't like, or of which they cannot see the necessity. They leave the individual perfectly free to agree with them, and perfectly free to act in any way that serves their purposes..."

Hazlitt prophetically described "three main tendencies or tenets" toward the "road to totalitarianism" that we find ourselves on. First among them is "the tendency of the government to attempt more and more to intervene, and to control economic life," that is, the

...pressure for a constant increase in governmental powers, for a constant widening of the governmental sphere of intervention. It is the tendency toward more and more regulation of every sphere of economic life, toward more and more restriction of the liberties of the individual. The tendency toward more and more governmental spending is a part of this trend. It means in effect that the individual is able to spend less and less of the income he earns on the things he himself wants, while the government takes more and more of his income from him to spend it in the ways that it thinks wise. One of the basic assumptions of totalitarianism, in brief (and of such steps toward it as socialism, state paternalism, and Keynesianism), is that the citizen cannot be trusted to spend his own money. As government control becomes wider and wider, individual discretion, the individual's control of his own affairs in all directions, necessarily becomes narrower and narrower. In sum, liberty is constantly diminished.

The second main step to totalitarianism is, according to Hazlitt, "the tendency toward greater and greater concentration of power in the central government at the expense of local governments," that is,

...the growth of power in Washington at the expense of the states.

The concentration of power and the centralization of power...are merely two names for the same thing. This second tendency is a necessary consequence of the first. If the central government is to control more and more of our economic life, it cannot permit this to be done by the individual states. The pressure for uniformity, and the pressure for centralization of power, are two aspects of the same pressure.

...Planning from the center is possible only with centralization of governmental power...[The] federal government assumes more and more of the powers previously exercised by the states, or powers never exercised by any state; and the Supreme Court keeps steadily stretching the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize powers and federal interventions never dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. At the same time recent Supreme Court decisions treat the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution practically as if it did not exist.

The third step is "the tendency toward more and more concentration of power in the hands of the executive at the expense of the legislative and judiciary." According to Hazlitt,

In the United States this tendency is very marked today. To listen to our pro-totalitarians, the main duty of Congress is to follow the president's "leadership" in all things; to be a set of yes-men; to act as a mere rubber-stamp.

The dangers of one-man rule have been so emphasized and dramatized in recent years...that any warning of this danger to Americans may seem needless. Yet most Americans, like the citizens of the countries already victimized by their native [totalitarians], may prove incapable of recognizing this evil until it has grown beyond the point of control. One invariable accompaniment of the growth of Caesarism is the growing contempt expressed for legislative bodies, and impatience with their "dilatoriness" in enacting the "Leader's" program, or their actual "obstructionist tactics" or "crippling amendments." Yet in recent years derision of Congress has become in America almost a national pastime. And a substantial part of the press never tires of reviling Congress for "doing nothing" - that is, for not piling more mountains of legislation on the existing mountains of legislation - or for failing to enact in full "the President's program.

What invariably results is capitulation and an ambiguous law "setting forth a number of vague but high-sounding goals and [creation of another] agency or commission" that "proceeds to become a prosecutor, court, and legislative body all rolled into one" and "starts laying down a series of rulings and handing down a series of decisions, many of which surprise no one more than the congressional members who created the agency in the first place."

Hazlitt had much more to convey about the dictatorial trend, the enemy within, and their tactics and techniques. I recommend reading the entire article and other of his books and publications. We are far down the road Hazlitt warned us about -- due in large part to U.S. Senators' and Representatives' forsaking of their sworn duty to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

2010: The Year of the Republican Iraq Vet

Great informative piece on vets in the new Congress. Hopefully they can bring back some light to the struggles of our servicemen and women both doing the fighting halfway around the world and those that return home and need help. Clearly the media has forgotten that men and women are still in harm's way over there. But even worse, there is not even one story in the media about all of the good they are doing over there. Surely this week either of the top two dickheads will go overseas to photo op with the troops praise them to their faces and talk shit about them on the way back home to their inner circle of America hating douchebags. Hopefully these men will live up to their promises and our expectations. I congratulate them all and wish them the best of luck.

November 11, 2010
2010: The Year of the Republican Iraq Vet
By Kieran Michael Lalor

When the 112th Congress is sworn in, all eight Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans in the House will be Republicans.

This scenario was impossible to imagine just four years ago, when Patrick Murphy (PA-8), a JAG officer with the Army's 82nd Airborne, became the first Iraq vet in Congress. The so-called "Blue Dog" from the Philadelphia suburbs became the Left's point man for cut and run in Iraq and the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which bars openly gay military personnel.

In his first term, Murphy penned a book with the triumphant title Taking the Hill: From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress. After a convincing win in 2008, Murphy was being groomed for a Senate run. But last week he lost a rematch to Mike Fitzpatrick by 54% to 46%.

Also defeated was Democrat John Boccieri (OH-16), an Air Force Major elected in 2008 after serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Dogged by his flip-flop from opposing ObamaCare to supporting the health care overall, Boccieri didn't put up much of a fight losing to former Wadsworth, Ohio mayor Jim Renacci 52% to 40%.

Marine Corps infantry officer Duncan D. Hunter (CA-52), who joined the Marines the day after the attacks of 9/11, won the San Diego seat his father held in 2008. Hunter coasted to reelection with nearly two-thirds of the vote. Mike Coffman (CO-6), who resigned as Colorado State Treasurer in 2005 to serve in Iraq as a Marine officer, was also elected in 2008 and easily defended the central Colorado seat on November 2.

Joining the two Marines in the Iraq vet caucus will be five soldiers and an airman.

Allen West (FL-22) served in Iraq as a battalion commander for the Army's 4th Infantry Division. He also served in Afghanistan, where he trained Afghan officers. After putting up a tough fight in 2008 and earning 45% of the vote against Rep. Ron Klein, West kept campaigning into the 2010 cycle, becoming the top fundraising challenger in the country. With a big war chest, nearly four years of tireless campaigning, and an inspiring speaking style, West shellacked Klein, winning 54%-45%.

Another unsuccessful 2008 Iraq vet candidate who was able to accomplish the mission in 2010 is Steve Stivers (OH-15). Called to active duty in October 2004 while serving in the Ohio Senate, Stivers served in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Djibouti as a battalion commander.

Thought to be the winner on election night 2008, Stivers ultimately lost a recount to Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy. No recount was necessary after round two as Stivers rolled to victory 54%-46%.

In 2006, Army JAG officer Tim Griffin was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division. He served in Mosul, Iraq as a member of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team Brigade Operational Law Team, for which he was awarded the Combat Action Badge. From 2006-2007, he served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin won the seat vacated by Democrat Rick Snyder with 58% of the vote against Democrat nominee Joyce Elliot, the Majority Leader of the Arkansas Senate.

Dr. Joe Heck (NV-2), a tactical doctor with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department SWAT team and an osteopathic physician, serves as a colonel in the United States Army Reserve, where he commands a Medical Readiness Support Group. Heck served as a combat surgeon in Iraq.

A state senator from 2004 to 2008, Heck was originally a gubernatorial candidate but shifted his sites to a congressional race against incumbent Rep. Dana Titus. In a closely watched race for the Las Vegas-based seat, Heck defeated the freshman Democrat 48% to 47%, with 2,000 of the 267,000 votes cast separating the two candidates.

In New York's Hudson Valley, retired Army Col. Chris Gibson (NY-20) challenged Rep. Scott Murphy, who won the seat in a 2009 special election after Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat of Hillary Clinton, who was appointed Secretary of State.

Gibson is a veteran of 24 years of active military service, including four combat tours in Iraq. He recently commanded the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team during humanitarian efforts in Haiti. The former West Point instructor didn't announce his candidacy until April but managed to win 55%-45% in the district where there are nearly 70,000 more Democrats than Republicans.

Finally, in Illinois' 11th District, Air Force pilot Adam Kinzinger took on freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson. When not flying for Uncle Sam, Kinzinger is something of an amateur crime fighter, who saved the life of a young woman violently attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. The 32-year-old former Mclean County board member saw the woman being assaulted, wrested the knife away from the perpetrator, and pinned him to the ground until the police arrived.

Kinzinger won a decisive 57%-to-43% victory and was just named to the GOP's transition team.

The historic election of these six remarkable men doubles the number of Iraq vets in the House. The presence of this critical mass combined with the fact that they are all of the same party will no doubt have a significant impact on the conduct of the Global War on Terror and shape all areas of Department of Defense policy.

Kieran Michael Lalor is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the founder of the conservative political action committee Iraq Veterans for Congress. He is also the author of the newly released book This Recruit: A First Hand Account of Marine Corps Boot Camp Written While Knee Deep in the Mayhem of Parris Island (www.thisrecruit.com).

Faith vs Politicians

Now we all know that I do not have any faith in our elected officials and even less faith in their staffers and yes men. So how in the fuck are the United States Congressmen and Senators going to repeal ObamaCare? Do I think it is a good idea? Hell, yeah! Do I think it needs to be done? Hell yeah! Do I know it HAS to be done? Hell Fuckin' yeah!! Is it going to get done? Sadly, no. The Capitol Building is a den of thieves and thievettes. Sure the TEA Party candidates talked a good game on the campaign trail but let's face they do not have the moral fortitude to stand up to backroom deals of favors of money and power. I hope they do but I will admit not only skepticism but total and utter lack of faith in the Congress of the United States of America. This I can honestly say is my saddest post. What took our founding fathers years to plan, build and perfect is now totally unrecognizable. They have squandered the Founder's gift to all of us and shame on us for letting them. This piece, from American Thinker, thinks it can be done. Maybe you have more faith than I.

November 09, 2010
Yes We Can Repeal
By Christopher Chantrill

Last week, the MSM Tingle Brigade all of a sudden discovered, in President Obama's post-election news conference, that Obama just didn't get it, didn't understand the message from the voters. "That Tin Ear," wrote the London Economist.

What did the brainiacs expect? President Obama is not going to tell the world that yes, he's sorry that he and Nancy Pelosi sacrificed a whole generation of Democratic moderates on the altar of universal health care. He's not sorry at all. It was all worth it because he and she got ObamaCare passed.

Real liberals agree with the president. A liberal acquaintance told me she heartily approved of Nancy Pelosi's achievements, just like Susan Estrich, who applauded: "Nancy Pelosi, Superhero."

We should all congratulate Obama and Pelosi. They used their Liberal Hour just as FDR and LBJ did before them. They passed historic progressive legislation in the teeth of opposition from the reactionaries. Admittedly, Democrats suffered a nasty reverse in the midterms, but so did FDR in 1938 and so did LBJ in 1966. Admittedly, the American people are still opposed to ObamaCare, but Democrats think the American people will soon change their minds. After all, the American people love Social Security and Medicare. Republicans wouldn't dare repeal them.

Whatever Obama and the Democrats say, their strategy from here is to ambush, feint, and delay all attempts to repeal ObamaCare. They will pull all the plays out of their old reliable playbook: the compromise play, the bipartisan play, the for-the-children play, the extremist play, the mean-spirited play. Will it work? Nobody knows. President Obama doesn't know; the Republican leadership doesn't know. But the strategy has always worked in the past, so it stands to reason that the president will use it now. No doubt he feels pretty confident about the outcome.

I talked to a rank-and-file Democrat, a union carpenter. He doesn't think ObamaCare will be repealed, either.

For Republicans and conservatives, this is the Conservative Moment. This is the opportunity to take a big government program and repeal it. We want to send a message to the ruling class that never again should they dare to push a comprehensive and mandatory progressive government program through on a partisan vote in the teeth of the opposition of the American people, not even in a once-in-a-generation Liberal Hour.

When we repeal ObamaCare, it must be on a bipartisan vote. In both the House and Senate we need a credible group of Democrats joining with Republicans to repeal it. It doesn't matter whether they vote for repeal out of conviction or out of the fear of defeat. There must be a bipartisan vote to repeal. Then the ObamaCare repeal will echo down the years as a terrible warning to all progressives. Then progressives will remember not the successes of FDR and LBJ, but the dreadful memory of the Obama overreach extinguishing the millennial hope for comprehensive cradle-to-grave administrative health care forever. The best outcome would be repeal in 2013 after another six Democratic senators and 30-40 Democratic representatives bite the dust.

Will the American people support repeal when push comes to shove? There's a good chance they will. That's because of Irving Kristol's Rule of Social Programs. When you want to help the poor, Kristol wrote back in the 1980s, you must deal in the middle class.

The trouble with ObamaCare is that it cannot deal in the middle class. The middle class already has health insurance. Just like HillaryCare, the fundamental fact about ObamaCare is that the middle class is going to get stuck with the bill for the 30 million without health insurance. If you don't understand that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Leaving aside peace and justice and compassion and caring, the fact on the ground is that the 30 million don't need health insurance because they don't have any assets. You can't lose your home to medical bills if you don't own a home.

One of the under-appreciated weaknesses of liberalism is that there's a huge disconnect between the official liberal narrative and the facts on the ground. Liberals talk about issues and peace and justice and sweetness and light, but politicians understand that the game is about getting reelected. Democratic voters understand that it's all about My Benefits. Republican voters understand it's all about My Taxes. Ordinary Americans know it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs.

Right now, nobody is much interested in the liberal narrative or the needs of elected politicians. That's because it's pretty obvious to ordinary Americans that ObamaCare isn't good for jobs, jobs, jobs. It's pretty obvious to Republicans that ObamaCare isn't good for My Taxes. And there's a chance that the odd Democrat may soon tumble to the notion that another big entitlement might be a threat to My Benefits.

If we can repeal ObamaCare, it changes welfare-state politics forever.

Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his usgovernmentspending.com and also usgovernmentdebt.us. At americanmanifesto.org he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism.

de Tocqueville and Tyranny of the Majority

Now I have thought long and hard about this topic and how it applies to the America in which we live. Friends and I have debated this for years as de Tocqueville is one of the most forward thinking of men in history. I never thought of a scenario where it would apply to us. To me it was always about the stupidity of the American voter because I always thought of Congress as shysters and thieves. Fred Barnes looks at the topic from how de Tocqueville would see it. A novel idea and a very good article well worth the read. Usually Barnes is too liberal for me but this article is right on.

The Tyranny of the Majority Party

If Democrats insist on passing unpopular laws, they won't control Congress for long...By FRED BARNES

Alexis de Tocqueville never met Harry Reid. Had he encountered the Senate Democratic leader—or President Barack Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—de Tocqueville might have learned about a new twist on his concept of the "tyranny of the majority."

The Frenchman toured America in the 1830s and published his conclusions in the classic "Democracy in America." He noted the powerful impact of public opinion. "That is what forms the majority," he wrote. Congress merely "represents the majority and obeys it blindly" and so does the president. They are free to brush aside minority opinion, creating a threat de Tocqueville described as the "tyranny of the majority."

Democrats in Washington do have large majorities in Congress. But instead of reflecting popular opinion, they are pursuing wide-ranging initiatives in defiance of the views of the majority of Americans. This stands de Tocqueville's concept on its head.

The most striking example is health-care reform. It is intensely unpopular but was approved by the House in November and the Senate on Christmas Eve. Asked in a Rasmussen poll in mid-December if they'd prefer no bill to ObamaCare, 57% said they would. Only 34% said they'd rather ObamaCare be enacted.

Yet Democrats are forging ahead as if the public actually approves of their health-care reform. Why, when Republicans are preparing to hammer them on the issue in next year's elections, would they do that?

Democrats offer different explanations—besides their obsessive attachment to national health care—which suggests that they aren't quite sure of the political fallout.

After Senate Democrats locked up the 60th vote to assure Senate passage of ObamaCare, Mr. Obama sounded worry-free. Risk? What risk? The bill "is a major step forward for the American people," he said. The president didn't mention the public's disapproval as expressed in countless polls. Vice President Joe Biden, in an op-ed in the New York Times, didn't either.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, is more realistic. While acknowledging bad poll numbers, he suggested recently on ABC's "This Week" that enactment of sweeping health-care legislation will melt public misgivings. "The reality, I think, will trump poll numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on," Mr. Axelrod said.

Ms. Pelosi, too, is brimming with wishful thinking. "Now we will have the attention placed on the truly great things that are in the bill that we have in common," she declared recently. And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) told Politico, "When people see what is in this bill and when people see what it does, they will come around."

Then there are the martyrs. Doing a reverse de Tocqueville, willingly endangering one's political career by voting for ObamaCare, hasn't fazed Democrat Michael Bennet, the appointed senator from Colorado. He was asked by CNN's John King whether he'd vote for ObamaCare "if every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you'll lose your job." Mr. Bennet said "yes."

Mr. Bennet isn't the only potential martyr. A Democratic strategist told Byron York of the Washington Examiner that Mrs. Pelosi "believes losing 20 or even 40 Democratic seats in the House would be an acceptable price for achieving a goal the party has pursued since Franklin Roosevelt." Now that Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith has bolted the Democratic Party, Republicans need 40 seats to capture control of the House.

With large congressional majorities, Democrats decided to forget about Mr. Obama's campaign theme of bipartisanship. They brook no compromise with Republicans and forge ahead on issue after issue—health care, cap and trade, Guantanamo, spending, the deficit—despite the public's mounting disapproval.

That arrogance shaped the economic stimulus passed in February. Republicans wanted tax cuts to spur investment and create jobs. Democrats rejected that idea and enacted a huge increase in spending. As unemployment continued to rise, public opinion turned against the stimulus. Nonetheless, House Democrats passed a new, smaller stimulus bill last week with the same emphasis on spending.

Large majorities create what de Tocqueville called a sense of "omnipotence." This leads to overreaching and spawns dubious ideas. Since Democrats believe they will benefit from passing any sort of health-care bill regardless of public opinion, they're committed to passing anything they can call a "historic" achievement. That makes little sense.

With history in mind, cutting procedural corners becomes acceptable. Thus Democrats have set arbitrary deadlines, scheduled post-midnight votes and put limits on debate, all in the name of achieving a breakthrough.

Not that such behavior is anomalous. To pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, Republicans kept the House vote open for three hours to round up votes. Unlike ObamaCare, however, the drug benefit had popular support.

This is not the first time in recent memory when a sizable congressional majority, feeling self-sufficient, ignored popular opinion at its peril. In 1995, Republicans, led by newly installed House Speaker Newt Gingrich, shut down the federal government in their fight over spending with President Bill Clinton. The public sided with Mr. Clinton, and the clash spurred his re-election in 1996.

William Daley, who was Mr. Clinton's Commerce secretary and is the brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, worries that Democrats are doing now what Republicans did then: provoking a public backlash. Democrats must "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans," he wrote last week in the Washington Post. "Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come."

"I regard as impious and detestable the maxim that in matters of government the majority of a people has the right to do everything," de Tocqueville wrote roughly 175 years ago. But what about a congressional majority—which lacks a mandate from a majority of Americans—seeking to do everything? The Frenchman might have dubbed that the "tyranny of the minority."

Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.

December 7th

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941


Three days later, December 11, Japan's allies, Germany and Italy, both declared war on the United States. The U.S. Congress responded immediately by declaring war on them. Thus the European and Southeast Asian wars had become a global conflict with the Axis Powers; Japan, Germany, Italy and others, aligned against the Allied Powers; America, Britain, the Soviet Union and others.

America still in the depths of the Great Depression stood up to the aggressors and buried them by any means necessary. Firing bombing of Dresden which killed 90,000 civilians and dropping the only nuclear weapons used in war. By any means necessary we defeated our enemies, victory was paramount back then no one wanted to learn how to speak German or Japanese. All is fair in love and war, not any more, got to limit enemy casualties and no collateral damage these days. How many soldiers have paid with their lives because of this policy? Try not to kill civilians that is what all soldiers do but circumstances put them in front of the enemy or sometimes you cannot tell one from the other. You fight to win the war not limit the enemy's casualties.

The Vietnam era hippie pinko faggots are in charge now and all they have tried to do is lose this war. They have fought hard for defeat but the American military learned from that bygone era (Thank God) and will maneuver around Congress to win. These assholes will try to take credit for the win after they tried to lose it and all credit and praise be for Barack. No one in history will record how these un-American congressmen and women prolonged this war trying to secure defeat in the face of victory. "Absolute Victory" is what FDR called it how many democrats in Congress are looking for that now. Here is a question; how many of the were looking for that in Vietnam? America will overcome, have faith fellow conservatives and be vigilant not just for external threats, but for the internal ones also.

Great Bailout

Let me see every democrat in America hates George W. Bush with a passion. They have not agreed with him on anything that he has ever proposed or done. Yet they were on the same side of the table for the "bailout" plan. WTF!! Seriously, if there is one thing I cannot stand it is a hypocrite and a bullshit artist. Dammit George the democrats are wrong on EVERYTHING they propose you agreeing with them here only reinforces the image of you as a dumbass. Do you think they will give you any credit on the hill on in the media? Hell Obama says you finally jumped on his plan. Why are you backing this plan? Henry Paulson is a democrat who just wants to bailout his old buddies. Warren Buffet has invested $8 billion dollars of Berkshire Hathaway money to buy stock but only at discounted prices can we all get on that plan? What little portfolio I have left is down can I get a bailout? I do not need $700 billion I am not greedy I will take only $1 billion.

What is going on here is simple the more the government owns and controls the less "We the People" have. This is the way those who are in charge want it apparently. Congress cannot wait to get into our wallets and bank accounts and give, yes give it to the "poor," who cannot pay their mortgages. Those that have the ability to live within their means and pay their mortgages just got another mouth to feed. You make a bad deal trying to keep up with the Jones' fuck you lose your house tough shit. Did you get a house you cannot afford because the government says everyone must get funding fuck you should have seen it coming. Now these people are entitled to live in these houses, according to Barney Frank, are you shitting me no one in this country is entitled to anything. Hey, faggot it is not your place to dictate how the owners of that property choose to do with the occupants of said property you are just a communist dumbass. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was endowed by the Creator not Congress or the President or a well connected former wall st. executive who is now Treasury Secretary. So basically what we have here is more welfare so just add this to food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security just more for the working men and women of America to pay for. The only people who deserve this are veterans and their families not the lazy unemployed sorry assed mutherfuckers that are getting it. It is time for real cuts in this shit not just a decline in the increase that democrats call cuts.

Yes this is a rant I have just had it with the shit that life-long politicians get away with. They steal from hard working Americans and take it for themselves or give it the lazy and the shiftless. When is America going to wake up and smell the shit these monkeys have been throwing at us. I would call for armed revolution but we all know the most Americans are way too lazy for that. So how about a ballot box revolution and get rid of all the assholes who voted for this plan. It is time to make our votes count spread the word on these anti-American politicians and their anti-American policies. Vote the bastards out republican and democrats alike we must do something to save our country.

No Bailout For Wall Street

This is coming from someone who has his money deposited in Washington Mutual or whatever it is now. Yes I was too lazy to take it out and move it, and too cheap to buy new checks. I have thought about this for a long time now and have watched the markets climb every time the democrats lie and say they have a deal. If Wall St. likes it the only reason is becuase it will be good for them. Let's talk Paulson: Worked at Goldman Sachs has a lot vested there in money and relationships and do not forget he is a big democrat. Jon Corzine: Why him you ask? Same shit used to work at Goldman also he sent $170 million of the State of New Jersey pension fund in Lehman Brother's stock back in August. AIG was a great company until Eliot Spitzer forced out, in a witch hunt, the man who used to run it. Now look where it is. People it is called investing and there is an assumption of risk each stock has a Beta value this is its riskiness as compared to the rest of the stocks in its category. Unless you are doing something illegal stocks are going to fluctuate up and down. If you are not paying attention to your portfolio tough shit, you lose.

Thank God for Senator Bunning for calling this what it is "un-American socialism" which is why Obama and McCain love it. Also Senator Shelby pointed out that the democrats only want help in passing this "plan" so they are not the only ones on the hook for such treasonous ideas. Ever since this this market drop started my portfolio is down 5% hey Paulson can I get a bailout can you get me a rescue plan? Moving on to these mortgages that might default and democrats want to bail out homeowners; are you shitting me? People lie on the applications, then companies approve them because if they don't the government will prosecute them for being discriminatory. It is a big shit sandwich but this guy ain't taking a bite no bailout for anyone that sounds equitable and equal for all. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; NOT A mortgage I can't afford, College loans I can't afford, Car loans I can't afford, in a neighborhood I can't afford, that are guaranteed by the constitution. Bad investments or bad loans same shit tough shit for loaner and loanee. I can only hope that the Republicans in the house will stand firm and not give in to this socialism.

What about the millions of Americans who pay their mortgage every month or their home equity loans what do the good Americans get. I will tell you they get scoffed at by douchebag senator Harry Reid when the House Republicans put in a stipulation on lowering capital gains taxes. America is becoming the place where you can lie cheat and steal i.e (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama) and you will not get prosecuted and they will make sure you get more money. It just does not pay to be a honest citizen anymore in this country. What to do about it is a topic for another post and it is coming soon. Right now we have to do what we can to stand firm in our principles and not let this happen without some type of protest. Granted I know this "plan" will pass sometime this weekend and we will hate it but we will carry on with conservative principles and torch whoever votes for it. I really hate most of this Constitution hating Congress.