Years ago when I sometimes used unsavory language, I often used the expression "Bull Shit."
As I grew up a bit and learned not to use such crude language, that expression became "B.S."
What did I really mean when I used those expressions? I meant that something was ridiculous, or idiotic or a half truth or just stupid. It covered any number of negative formats.
The dictionary defines it as: nonsense; especially: foolish insolent talk...
I have decided that I no longer will use either of those expressions in the future.
When I have a need to express such feelings, I will use the word "Pelosi."
Let me use it in a sentence. "That's just a bunch of Pelosi.." I encourage you to do the same.
It is such a nasty sounding word, it really packs a punch, we are no longer being vulgar, and it clearly expresses our feelings.If enough of us use it, perhaps the word could be entered into the dictionary.
When on a ranch watch your step and don't step in Pelosi. It will get on the bottom of your boot and won't go away until next election.
What a fitting and descriptive legacy for the Speaker of the House!
Pass it on to at least 10,000,000 people. Do not break this chain or you will get more Pelosi than you can shake a stick at.
P.S. Betcha when this new word reaches D.C., the PELOSI WILL HIT THE FAN!
Obama Failure and Socialism
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Obama Signs Death Warrant For America
If any nation wants to attack the United States with chemical, biological, or electromagnetic pulse weapons, it need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non Proliferation Treaty, Obama has announced. So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas or dying in the streets of biological weapons, they will know that their government will not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against their murderers.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowded American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse
Obama's incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and [who are] meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.” He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their non proliferation treaty obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan, or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation. But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical, or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological, and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of Obama's policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity which has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry. He has made a big mistake and the Republicans must pounce on it.
In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowded American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse
Obama's incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.
The Nuclear Policy review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and [who are] meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.” He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their non proliferation treaty obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan, or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation. But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.
Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical, or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!
Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological, and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.
But think about the consequences of Obama's policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?
Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity which has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry. He has made a big mistake and the Republicans must pounce on it.
Obama Failure and Socialism | Obama And Holder Call Gun Owners Terrorists In Defiance Of The Second Amendment
The Obama Failure and Socialism Blog brings you this message from the National Association For Gun Rights before the criminals Eric Holder and Buttcrack Osammy take away your SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS. Read and Then Take Action To PROTECT the U.S. Constitution.
Dear Gun Owner or American Supporter Of The Second Ammendment,
Please forgive our bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.
And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”
We know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.
As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.
Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.
Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.
But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . .
Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.
We're talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”
We call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”
These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.
In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.
It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.
And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.
But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” of “terrorism.”
H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”
These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists!” Who cares what they “determine”?
Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you . . .
. . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!
They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence . . . legally!
You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.
And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.
As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.
And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.
To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.
If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.
We are committed to this fight. Are you?
We hope you realize how dangerous this bill is. And we hope that you will take action to stop this anti-American bill.
Let us give you an idea of what gun owners are up against.
With anti-gun Barack Obama in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi ruling the House of Representatives with an iron fist, our only hope to stop the Disarming American Citizens Act is in the Senate.
As We’ve told you before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Even as his re-election to the Senate from pro-gun Nevada is very much in doubt, anti-gunners like Sarah Brady and MoveOn.org are pressuring him to do their bidding in Washington.
To break a politician like Harry Reid, we need to stir up a hornet’s nest of discontent among gun owners across the country and especially in targeted states like Nevada.
The good news is concerned Americans in support of protecting our Second Amentdment Rights have the ability to contact hundreds of thousands of gun owners by phone, fax, email and traditional mail.
Unfortunately, reaching gun owners in a timely manner takes resources that most supporters simply don’t have.
Fighting for our right to keep and bear arms isn’t cheap.
For example, with the recent postage increases, it now costs Second Amendment rights Supporters well over $1000 to produce and mail a letter to 1000 gun owners.
But no matter what, we simply cannot let H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, become law.
That’s why it’s imperative you take a moment to send in your most generous donation possible to your chosen support group. The NRA, the National Association For Gun Rights or your pro second amendment congressman.
$50, $100, $150 or $200 will make a huge difference in our fight to stop H.R. 2159.
We know that times are tough in this economy, but your generous donation of $50, $100, $150 or even $200 could mean the difference between success and failure for this program.
This message of hope is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism
Dear Gun Owner or American Supporter Of The Second Ammendment,
Please forgive our bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.
And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”
We know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.
As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.
Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.
Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.
But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . .
Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.
We're talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”
We call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”
These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.
In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.
It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.
And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.
But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” of “terrorism.”
H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”
These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists!” Who cares what they “determine”?
Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you . . .
. . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!
They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence . . . legally!
You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.
And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.
As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.
And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.
To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.
If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.
We are committed to this fight. Are you?
We hope you realize how dangerous this bill is. And we hope that you will take action to stop this anti-American bill.
Let us give you an idea of what gun owners are up against.
With anti-gun Barack Obama in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi ruling the House of Representatives with an iron fist, our only hope to stop the Disarming American Citizens Act is in the Senate.
As We’ve told you before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Even as his re-election to the Senate from pro-gun Nevada is very much in doubt, anti-gunners like Sarah Brady and MoveOn.org are pressuring him to do their bidding in Washington.
To break a politician like Harry Reid, we need to stir up a hornet’s nest of discontent among gun owners across the country and especially in targeted states like Nevada.
The good news is concerned Americans in support of protecting our Second Amentdment Rights have the ability to contact hundreds of thousands of gun owners by phone, fax, email and traditional mail.
Unfortunately, reaching gun owners in a timely manner takes resources that most supporters simply don’t have.
Fighting for our right to keep and bear arms isn’t cheap.
For example, with the recent postage increases, it now costs Second Amendment rights Supporters well over $1000 to produce and mail a letter to 1000 gun owners.
But no matter what, we simply cannot let H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, become law.
That’s why it’s imperative you take a moment to send in your most generous donation possible to your chosen support group. The NRA, the National Association For Gun Rights or your pro second amendment congressman.
$50, $100, $150 or $200 will make a huge difference in our fight to stop H.R. 2159.
We know that times are tough in this economy, but your generous donation of $50, $100, $150 or even $200 could mean the difference between success and failure for this program.
This message of hope is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Davey Crockett Acted Unconstitutionally Is Your CongressMan Doing The Same?
The account below of a newspaper reporter's story who questioned Davey Crocket's character is brought to you by the Obama Failure and Socialism blog. After reading you will find that you will ask yourself, "Is my Congressman / Congresswoman acting in an unconstitutional manner?"
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Peliosi, Buttcrack Obama are all defying the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't they be tried as such?
Obama Failure and Socialsim
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Peliosi, Buttcrack Obama are all defying the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't they be tried as such?
Obama Failure and Socialsim
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Obama Failure and Socialism | Had Enough Of The Socialist Harry Reid Yet?
EMERGENCY - Have You Had ENOUGH Reid Yet?
ALERT: Senator Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader and is the Democrat's chief legislative strategist for the socialist agenda of expanding big government, raising your taxes and forcing America permanently to the extreme left.
Did you know that since Obama was elected President in 2009 Reid used his position in the Senate to:
ALERT: Senator Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader and is the Democrat's chief legislative strategist for the socialist agenda of expanding big government, raising your taxes and forcing America permanently to the extreme left.
Did you know that since Obama was elected President in 2009 Reid used his position in the Senate to:
Pass a bill putting government in charge of your doctor
Impose high taxes and insane regulations on our economy in the name of 'saving the environment'
Pass an $800 billion stimulus package which has hindered our economy and led to high unemployment and government waste
Confirm one of the most radical left wing judges in the country to the Supreme Court
Allow astronomical deficit spending to pay for these programs, expanding our national debt which your kids and grandkids will one day have to pay for.
President Reagan used to say, Ya Basta? Had Enough??
Have you had ENOUGH yet?
A Reid agenda In The Senate Session For 2010 Can Only Get Worse.
Here is a sneak preview of what Reid has in store as being part of his Socialist agenda.
Raising taxes, including a Value Added Tax, a hidden national sales tax, that most Americans will not even realize they are paying
More government stimulus programs, to increase the size of government and their control over the private and productive sector of the American economy
The confirmation of more radical left wing judges.
Reid's goal is to quickly Europenize America, to turn us into a European style socialist welfare state.He needs to do it quickly as he knows most Americans reject his ideas. But he believes that if he gets the bills passed and the taxes and agencies established before the November 2010 elections, it will be too late to turn back his efforts.
We Americans must stop Harry Reid and his agenda now. And we Americans must defeat him in his reelection bid this year.
Will you help do it? Are you with us fellow Americans?
We Americans must take the message, the truth about his policies and their impact to the voters in Nevada and the rest of America. Create a storm of public opinion that will slow Reid down and then defeat him.
Here Is The Political Impact Of Defeating Harry Reid.
Harry Reid is the leader for the liberal agenda in the Senate. His defeat would cause other liberals to have second thoughts about their political future. They would see that leading their agenda comes with a heavy political price - electoral defeat. It would serve as a lesson and a deterrent. It would set back their agenda far more than the loss of just one Senator.
Harry Reid has had a very liberal voting record for years, but as leader, it has come to the public's attention more now than ever. We Americans must intend to wrap that record around his neck like a piece of jewelry, so he can't escape, evade or explain it, so that it becomes an anchor that drags him down to defeat.
Now, we Americans know some of you Americans are probably saying, well, Reid is in Nevada, and I don't vote there, and he is their problem. I can't do anything about him.
Well as leader of the Majority party in the Senate and the one responsible for moving their agenda, Reid has an impact on every single American. Every one of you will pay more taxes, have your health care ruined, have your jobs put in jeopardy if Reid is allowed to continue pushing his liberal agenda.
TAKE ACTION: The November 2010 elections are national not just local. Republican Scott Brown's election in MA changed the entire balance of power in the Senate. So Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democrat majority used bribes, lies, tricks, threats and the new national policy of mass political destruction to pollute America with the foul stench of Obama's brand of political change. Obama you can keep that change we do not want it.
After Scott Brown's election many people said they wished they could have voted for him but they did not live in MA.
So what can we Americans do? It's really very simple. We Americans replace those big government politicians!
How do we do it?
By supporting conservative Republican candidates on a national scale with the support they need from Americans like you. You can vote in every state and every election by helping Conservative PAC organizations like AmeriPAC and send support where it is needed
A Conservative PAC organization's national effort to stop the destructive power grabs of ObamaCare must now be directed at the November elections.
You Americans sent millions of faxes to Congress and they refused to listen.
Now WE AMERICANS MUST NOT STOP - WE CANNOT STOP AND GIVE INTO THE CORRUPTION.
We need you Americans, every one of you, to donate regularly every week or month with the same commitment to candidates that are listening and help your chosen Conservative PAC Organization give the maximum support we can to every candidate that will pledge to take back America.
This is a fight for the very heart of America. We Americans can WIN this fight by keeping the Democrats from getting the votes they need to pass their socialist agenda... but we Americans can't do it without YOUR help!
BE ENCOURAGED -- remember that the majority of the American people are WITH US, here at the Obama Failure and Socialism Blog. With every passing day, more and more citizens -- left AND right -- are expressing their opposition and outrage at Obama and Reid. -- WE AMERICANS CAN'T GIVE UP NOW!
We CANNOT let the radical liberals in Congress -- and the White House -- force their extreme leftwing liberal plan on the American people! That's why all Americans must run or join a campaign to Retire Reid
This fight CAN BE WON! Please, take action right away to Retire Reid NOW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
