The Ghost of George Washington
by Ernie Mannix“It’s says; ‘We The People’, Mr. Obama, – not ‘We the Government,’ nor ‘We the Bureaucrat,’ nor ‘We the Department of Everything Pleasant and Unpleasant,’” the rigidly regal legend declared just seconds after materializing in the bedroom. Then, turning towards the window, his eyes widened almost dis-pleasingly, as he surveyed the city given his name.
“Mr. Washington…. President Washington…” said a nervous Obama, “things are different now; I inherited a crisis… we need government to provide for the people, we need government for our banking system, and we need government to protect the quality of life for citizens all around the country.”
The elder tapped his chest with the lightest of touch, gripped his mouth and raised his chin slightly as if holding back an angry torrent of knowledge, his mind seemed to be sifting that knowledge as to politely address the younger man. Then, speaking slowly, he said softly:
“President Obama, I repeat this, not out of rudeness, deafness or ignorance; …it says: ‘We The People’.” He continued to stare away, then metering his words he added:
“Young man you can’t inherit what you yourself are worsening. You are feeding a beast that is and will be the worst of your problems. The Federal Government was not created to serve itself, nor was it created to fix every possible problem citizens and businesses shall encounter. You’re creating a massive bureaucracy, and in that state, how weak will the individual become? How will that national crop of free men grow when they are over tilled, over watered, and trampled by a gaggle of farmers with hands squeezing every young leaf? Individuals forged this nation, down to the my unheralded and blessed man. We created it for the people - that they be unshackled and free, responsible for themselves, so as to not have to give all to a beast that rules. You sir are building a massive beast that must be fed, and it’s very feedings will dismantle the true progress of the people.”
Obama answered; “Yes, but when you guys in Philly created the Articles Of Confederation, you had it all wrong. That was mighty close to anarchy there. Governments can’t run like that.” Then the smiling young president approached the noble apparition as if he were going to slap him on the shoulder.
With a quick turn towards Obama, and with his awesome presence and a piercing gaze, the founding father halted the young leader in his tracks. His eyes had raw power, battle hardened wisdom and true character behind them. He paused, softened - then began:
“And may I ask, where you are taking us now? Our experiment erred at first on the side of freedom. However, you and your brethren are getting mighty close to that failed experiment created by those misguided godless ones from the other side of the globe. The Articles of Confederation sir, were amended and superseded in kind by the incredible document that bears the words that bring me to haunt you on this very night. Our reluctance at seizing federal power illustrates how much we wanted to be unfettered by any notion of tyranny. Then,‘We the People’ led off a document so very carefully thought out, with a mechanism so brilliant, it anticipated even the incredible future that I see here. No crisis you speak of can ever be more caustic or important than the crisis of lost individualism and freedom. The ’we’ in the paper Mister Jefferson drew, was the word that shook kings and rulers the world over. Mr. Obama, this audacity of hope you speak of needn’t encompass the awful audacity of bureaucracy. This Republic serves the people, and your ‘hope’ is but a mere word if you don’t protect true freedom.”
Then for the first time, he raised his voice slightly, not in volume, but in the halting passionate timbre of true emotion;
“And may I add that I know something of crisis sir. Every day away from my wife – men bleeding, dieing, freezing, running and starving. It is not a fictional fuzzy event you just might have read about in a textbook. It was all too damned real. The blood, smell and horror was very real and quite sickening. Those men gave you their all to create what you and your congress seem to ignore here sir. I was rich, as were most of us. We could have laid back and been proper gentry. It could have been easy, …but we chose to be free.
You wondered before you slept why my portrait was haunting you. That crisis, and this nation dear sir were born out of the meaning in those three little words – the words that bring me here to see you.”
Obama was speechless. He was paralyzed with a religious witness to a hard truth in the presence of this living monument and statue.
“I will leave you now,” the great man said. “You have a choice; govern for the people, or govern for the bureaucrats. Feed your people the nourishing bounty of truth and freedom, and they will be given the dignity to learn how to prosper. Feed them the metered bureaucratic sugar of entitlement and you will at best be postponing their doom. Look to your children, look to your freedom, stave off the power mongers and the ones who are nibbling at your ears and pockets. Remember sir; not ‘We the Government’ – ‘We The People’.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
124 Comments
And, after the shade of our nation's first President faded into the darkness whence he came, President Obama knew what had to be done. He looked at the painting and thanked Washington for making it all clear.
He picked up the phone,
'Housekeeping, could someone come up here and get rid of this old painting?"
"We the people, not we the government." Sounds like a great rallying cry.
If only that could really happen, then President Obama might be a President I could be proud of.
Perhaps Obama would have answered, "You Sir, enslaved men. You stole their productive capacity by force of law, forcing them to live on subsistence while you, the controller of the means of production, lived in a great mansion. It is men like you, who speak of 'Freedom' as an ideal, yet blindly steal from and trample on the little man, the weak man, and the underpriviliged man, refusing to recognize the very humanity of another because of his skin color and class. Today, I confront enslavers who dwarf your agricultural age. Men who manipulate markets for their benefit, who control all the productive capacity, who leverage world currencies and gamble on usury, and refuse to recognize the right of the average man to the return of his own labor, honestly determined. All people, everywhere working together, a brotherhood of humanity is a goal greater than freedom."
http://www.alistz.net
Hmm I can't see Obama saying all that.. he wouldn't have the time to get his teleprompter ready for such reply. *wink*
"All people, everywhere working together, a brotherhood of humanity is a goal greater than freedom."
Obama would never have your courage to admit the outright communistic ideology you seem to espouse here. thank you for that, your revisionist interpretation of the founding fathers, and for linking to your blog (which no one is going to look at).
Shouldn't you be at a workers' rally or something?
"All people, everywhere working together, a brotherhood of humanity is a goal greater than freedom."
There is NO goal greater than freedom, none! For all other goals depend on freedom, as defined by our creator, not our government.
And who will "honestly determine" what the return of the average man's labor should be? Government? A private committee? Since the free market isn't a good determinant, what is? Who will control that method? How will it be kept pure so the average man get's his proper return instead of those that are "more average" getting a part of it? When has the economic system of "all people, everywhere working together, a brotherhood of humanity" been successful? Where has it worked where the average man didn't have to fear for his and his family's life if he spoke up against that system?
So many questions…
AWESOME! AWESOME! AWESOME! That was very well thought out and written. Of course, Obama would have been more arrogant than that, looking down his nose at Washington like he does everyone, but Washington's part was spot on.
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
AWESOME! AWESOME! AWESOME! That was very well thought out and written. Of course, Obama would have been more arrogant than that, looking down his nose at Washington like he does everyone, but Washington's part was spot on.
http://lonewolfarcher.blogspot.com
The chief of staff advised, "ghost patriots can go f*k themselves."
"You Sir, enslaved men. You stole their productive capacity by force of law, forcing them to live on subsistence while you, the controller of the means of production, lived in a great mansion."
Mr Obama himself is stealing our productivity by force of law and taxes (and our children and grandchildren will be born with a huge, menacing debt on their future productivity), he is forcing families in inner cities to live on subsistance and preparing to create a nation where everyone will do the same, while he, the controller of the means of production, coctail parties on weekends with the rich in a great mansion. And as this great Massa Obama and his cronies decide it is for 'our good' we are bled even drier and they wantonly waste even more – trillions and trillions of dollars of debt we are forced to work and pay for.
Here's the dirty little secret: When free men are allowed to work for what they, themselves need, they wind up serving each other and creating a greater and more glorious society than any false brotherhood enslaved to each other by force of government mandate. That's why the the USA is still here and the USSR is not.
The problem with Obama he’d probably have an exorcist, Ghostbusters, whatever come in and get rid of the evil slave owner. But, in keeping with the story line, when Washington showed up the ghost of Karl Marx was already there stinking up the oval office with cigars and vile dogma. The Magic “O” was bowing in his presence saying yes master. Washington then pulls his sword slaying that pig Marx, and quickly realizes the futility of the “We the people” talk and delivers a good spanking sending Barry to his room with the Federalist Papers, and The Constitution.
He would have chalked it up to too much wagyu at dinner.
This brings real tears to my eyes. Magnificent. Truly magnificent. All we need is a red haired hazel eyed apparition of Thomas Jefferson slouching in a chair in the Oval Office to take over the lesson…..President Obama, my dear sir, do you honestly understand what you are doing? What you are about to do? Do you realize you are what we of 1776 fought against? How does one come so full circle? From a liberal to, a, hmmm, what do they call you?A Liberal? You sir are no such thing. You are narrow minded, narrow in thought, and light of deed. A tyrant. You sir are a tyrant. Now explain to me how this has happened. We two shall talk of this. Though I doubt such an arrogant youth as you would admit how wrong you are,
In order to bond with others as brothers, you must be free. Trying to retroactively apply morals is an act of chronological snobbery, abusing history for your political ends.
*MissQuinn*
Mr Obama and Congress are also working on a bill that in its orignal form was set to enslave our young in forced 'service', forced 'volunteerism' forced 'education campuses' for college students – and elementary students– and Mr Rahm Emanuel has expressed interest in *everyone* being forced to "volunteer" (its only fair, after all). They would not have been permitted freedom of worship or expression while in 'service'. The ambiguity could have been taken to mean ALL Americans would be forced to serve at least 3 months.
Please look into the "GIVE Act" Now HR 1388, now in Committee. Who knows what its final form will be. At present it seems that 30 colleges will be required to send or train every student for forced volunteerism, and some elementary schools, and who knows where it will stop. No one knows for sure what this will end up becoming, although I have my suspicions. Yet it is making its merry way along.
Last time I checked, when someone forced you to 'volunteer' it was called SLAVERY.
While George and Tom are attempting to reason with young Obama, Patrick Henry has grabbed his musket and Paul Revere has galloped off into the night to raise the alarm. If our founding fathers were somehow time ported to today they would take one look at what our country has become and would be calling for open revolt.
Obama's honeymoon may be coming to an end. Platitudes and performances don't make a good leader. People are starting to see that.
Jimmy Carter started the Reagan Revolution. Obama has kicked off the next big Conservative rebellion through arrogance and mismanagement. By 2012, he will have thoroughly embarrassed most who voted for him.
He's been in office seventy days and what's he done? He did away with Gitmo, he's pulling out of Iraq, he embraced the axis of evil and is sending warm and fuzzy postcards, he increased the debt by 10 trill, he's going to have a kid draft, and force them to fight for the "one", annexed GM and Chrysler, and fired the CEO and merged with Fiat? Busy guy. If this is a harbinger of things to come, Washington is not turning over in the grave, he's tumbling on spin dry. And this is just the begining? What a guy!
I seem to remember Patrick Henry actually lobbied _against_ the Constitution being adopted, and Paul Revere got pinched by the Redcoats pretty quickly into his famous ride. Samuel Prescott is the guy who actually completed the ride.
Shall I raise my glass to the Tyranny we face under the headship of Dictator Obama? As disgusting as the prospect is to me, I see it coming. I can't believe out of the FREEDOM and LIBERTY we've lived for the past years, the best our people could come up with was a tyrant who proclaimed himself a liberal and spoke of unity prior to his election and now behaves with such insidious disrespect for the FREEDOM and Democracy that won his election.
Along with the unalienable right to be born equal comes the unalienable right to fail or succeed. As awful as it might be for auto-manufacturers to fail, the unending doom that shall come from their unholy and socialistic government-owned success shall haunt our children and grandchildren forever. "We the people" have not yet begun to experience the kind of recession, depression, and downright unrelenting hopelessness that we're saddling on our children in the future.
I'm not a particularly religious guy, but I'm starting to think that the only difference between Obama and the Antichrist is that the Antichrist will be able to speak compellingly without the aid of a teleprompter.
Seriously, if conservatives don't recover enough seats in Congress to create some nice gridlock after the 2010 election cycle, we'll have lost the country with no way back.
"When has the economic system of "all people, everywhere working together, a brotherhood of humanity" been successful? " Right here, in the United States that is where. Capitalism is the ultimate freedom. A completely voluntary participatory system. Government is its anathema. Although, shamefully, that appears to be exactly where we are headed. Somewhere, a fiddle is playing. AlistZ shows the shallowness and naivety of the left. They cloak themselves in an aura of pseudo intellectualism as they regurgitate what the leftist intelligensia has indoctrinated them with over the years. AlistZ is a perfect case study of how dangerously and belligerently vapid the left is. Emotion laden self righteous garbage passes for philosophy. I weep for our country.
Here, Here!!! AlistZ, your kleenex is in your corner. When you're done wiping your nose, try again.
Don't forget that they've now passed out of committee a bill that would impose total government wage controls on all employees in any business that has received government funds, applying retroactively. And, they['ve stopped banks from from paying back TARP funds which many have been trying to do. And, several of the banks didn't need TARP funds but were forced tot ake them because "they didn't want people to know which banks were in trouble."
And who will "honestly determine" what the return of the average man's labor should be? Government? A private committee?
Bernard Madoff, Jeffery Skilling and Jake Disantos.
Government is the opposite of Freedom. Governed means giving consent to someone else to create regulations.
Fun AND Educational !
This is what school and learning should ALWAYS be like, yet so seldom is….
Why? I ask…
Jim P, you simply seem to be 'regurgitating'. Capitalism is the ultimate freedom. No, its not. Its a system of allocating resources. If you were capable of more than uttering empy phrases, you might have more correctly said, 'Capitalism functioning in a free market is the most productive and fair way to allocate resources." Everything else you said is merely an ad-hominen attack against me. Nothing I said was 'belligerent', 'dangerous' or 'vapid'. I merely proposed a response that echoed (what I believe) are Mr. Obama's beliefs, in counter to Mr. Manning's proposed Washingtonian criticism. At the same time, I cleverly showed that Mr. Washington had no problem stealing the output of others via slaverly, just as the giant Statist Oligopolies (that most of you incorrectly beleive represent free markets) are able to steal resources.
But Denmark is still here, and it has a higher standard of living than the United States. I believe that Mr. Obama is more after a Denmark than a USSR.
Thank you for grandstanding. I have yet to see Mr. Obama make a serious issue of global slavery, but gosh was that a a great tactic to divert our attention away from the issues that this article raises. Well done Obamadrone.
The only thoughtful reply I see here. Although it is unfair to critique a slave-holder under the standards of today, is it more fair to use this agricultural era leader as the standard-bearer for the supposed 'right' of giant multi-national corporations to manipulate markets/financial systems for the personal gain of the clique who sit atop them?
It's funny because it's true, I can see him saying that.
You accurately identify the fact that 18th century ideals of freedom had limits we have subsequently removed. The original author noted the same sentiment with regard to the articles of confederation. Our freedom has been improved and has changed with our expanded understanding. But it is still freedom.
Why then do you close your post with something completely askew to human history? There is no record of any voluntary brotherhood. You get two historically-supported choices: a) individuals making their own choices or b) the shell of a feigned brotherhood that lasts a short while and either evaporates or turns into tyranny. Whole nations never have a true brotherhood, much less groups of nations. The only thing "all people, everywhere" do is contend with each other in more or less violent ways.
Unfortunately, your post, while well written, amounts to an ad hominem attack.
Denmark is still here because of the Great and Mighty HOLGER DANSKE !
Who sleeps with one eye open – ALWAYS WATCHING!
And don't you foooorget eeet!
Washington would puke if he saw what the fundamentalist right has done to America. Wars for slavery, mingling Church and State, wars of aggression in foreign lands, corporatist government policies. I am pretty sure the founding fathers did not envision a militaristic fascist empire when they laid out the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
As opposed to an individual? (George Soros, I'm looking at you.) But what I'm trying to figure out is how this diminishes our first President and his ideals.
*MissQuinn*
In other words, your defense of Obama is to point out the evils of other men, as a way to condone Obama's gross use and abuse of the government. Seems like your stupid ploy is not working however, since we see right through your airheaded approach. The subject is we the people and how much the government should do for us. Obama has done too much. And by too much I mean so much that it most likely will damage the USA for decades. Now, play you sophomoric games somewhere else where they will be more appreciated. Perhaps a nice liberal school fool of airheads that voted for Obama because he read the teleprompter as though he had decades of practice.
And the pendulum swings. When the people fear, they elect the candidate who offers Hope in response to their fear of the bogeyman who lives in the closet or across the sea. And who hasn't heard the Hypemeisters of Hope mouth the word 'crisis' less than a hundred times in the last hundred days? 200 years ago, men were confident and competitive and accepted that life was difficult and unfair. They wer cautious and prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. Risk was respected. 200 years later, apparently, a majority of the voters desire less freedom, less independence while Big Brother Barack, a confident and strong Barack protects them and provides 'the big government' security they so desperately need. Until that changes, Presidents like Barack Obama will be the best we can do. Government has never been a good substitute for faith in oneself and courage.
Hi G. Yeah, I know. I can see it too. That guy really worries me.
Obama is the kick in it's complacency this country needed, but I fear the price may be high.
I seem to remember Patrick Henry actually lobbied _against_ the Constitution being adopted
I think there was a pretty significant passage of time – like a decade – between the revolution and the actual adoption of the Constitution. So the two mental images are not necessarily contradictory.
Wars for slavery – why, whom do we own?
Mingling Church and State – the churchiest Statists among us are all on the hard Left, including the two nitwits who wanted to legislate the composition of Roman Catholic church boards to exclude their pastors and bishops.
Wars of aggression in foreign lands – Jefferson firing up the Navy and the Marines against the Barbary Pirates? Or maybe invading Nazi Europe, which hadn't done a little ol' thing to us?
Corporatist government policies – again, that is the Left. It is Dear Leader Obama who is dictating by fiat the policies and leadership of GM and Chrysler, and his pet Congress deliberating a Bill of Attainder (in defiance of the Constitution) against AIG. Of course, that's what happens when the State takes over the ownership of formerly-private companies.
If they pass the mandatory volunteerism and the paramilitary domestic force, then your dire predictions will have been made true entirely by the incoming administration in the past 75 days.
I'm not a particularly religious guy, but I'm starting to think that the only difference between Obama and the Antichrist is that the Antichrist will be able to speak compellingly without the aid of a teleprompter.
And the Antichrist would have fared better in the popular vote. Just sayin'.
Samuel Prescott? i thought it was Israel Bissel?
Oh wait.., that's right there were multiple riders
Note to the whitehouse staff: Scratch Bush as primary scapegoat and make it Washington. Note to past presidents of the afterlife: Send in president Lincoln to play a game of anal ring toss on Obama.
Today, I confront enslavers who dwarf your agricultural age. Men who manipulate markets for their benefit, who control all the productive capacity, who leverage world currencies and gamble on usury, and refuse to recognize the right of the average man to the return of his own labor, honestly determined.
That is true, except for the "confront" part. Obama EMPLOYS them, not CONFRONTS them. Everything on your list is his described domestic policy. But otherwise, yeah, excellent post.
of course… cause if they give the money back, then the grubber-mint can't control those institutions…
Really? How many US citizens worked for them "by choice' compared to being under the influence of our government? Surely you dont think they equate do you? You say such pathetically simplistic things.
Nice article Ernie, though sadly I don't see anything like this having a real effect on Obama. He just doesn't care about things like old dead white guys and their silly constitutions.
Sadly I think you're right. Remember to the left the Constitution is a "living document" that should be spindled, folded, and/or mutilated as opinion polls of the day dictate.
BO is on record as having said that the Constitution is a flawed document of negative liberties that tells the government what it can't do.
I thought that was the point.
What kind of world do we live in where a non-lawyer understands the founding document better than a so-called Constitutional Law schalr that we elected to the highest office in the land?
Call me a pessimist but I think Obama picked Constitutional Law as his specialty just as a way to learn how to poke holes in it. It also allows his followers to leap to his defense every time he says he wants to do things that are unconstitutional by letting them say,"But he studied the Constitution! He knows what it means more than you people do!" Shutting down debate through shouted "fact" is one of their tricks, plus we're all supposed to be in awe of Constitutional Scholars don't ya know?
Oh, and don't forget to look at bill HR 875 introduced by Rosa Delauro (d, Monsanto) which under the guise of ensuring "food safety" assaults anyone growing and/or selling food that isn't big Agriculture.
So long farmer's markets, so long organic growers, so long road side fruit stands, so long backyard gardens.
Nope, preznit karaoke ain't a lil' facist pr*ck. Not at all.
No you wouldn’t be a pessimist but a realist. Barry hates this country and everything that it stands for. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t take the original Constitution and shred it and declare okay lets start over, by order of me. The arrogance of these lefties are their Achilles heel, the American people usually don’t tolerate hubris from anyone for long. We need a 94 in 2010!
Well, you got that much right; if you read the Founders work, you will understand why the Constitution really, clearly lays out the job of the Federal Government as a very sharply limited body. This monstrosity we have now resembles nothing like the Founders envisioned because they knew that Government is a necessary evil, but still evil nonetheless. The Fed has taken too much upon itself and in all fairness that started decades ago way further back than just Bush or even Clinton, further back than Eisenhower or Truman.
The biggest expansion of government was honestly under FDR. Prior to that, you really have to point fingers at Lincoln of all people as a game changer.
The states should be the regulatory laboratories, not the Fed. That gives people the freedoms to move between the states to find the places that best suit them. But we don't have that today at all now do we?
Ah, but he continued renditions (via executive order), amped up the bombing in Pakistan, stretched the Iraqi pullout out to 18 months (as opposed to "immediately"), and committed 17,000 troops and at least 5,000 military trainers to Afghanistan.
I agree with these moves, it's just that in at least the first three he's flat out reneging on his campaign promises. But hey- lie big, lie little…. it's not like the supine MSM is going to say anything bad about this putz.
Also, keep in mind Barney Frank has introduced new legislation- the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009". This would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — as in ALL EMPLOYEES, not just C level of any company getting bailouts from the U.S. government.
Nope, no government moves to take over industry, finance, etc. None at all.
You think Amtrak will run on time after they get done?
And yet, you somehow miss the fact that some banks were forced to take government funds. And now a bill is being moved through Congress that will dictate the wages of the workers in those banks.
That was giving consent?
True. A case could also be made that a lot of FDR's policies were repackaged Wilsonian wartime measures put into action in peacetime as well though. FDR obviously turned the dial up to 11 as far as scale and scope went, but the seeds of the New Deal were already there during World War I with many of Wilson's "progressive" wartime policies.
Ick! I gotta love my typos.
At any rate, I think he studied it on purpose for those same reasons, myself. So, yeah, I agree totally. If you want to unravel a thing, you need to learn it. This Wage Control Bill is patently unconstitutional though, so I can't see how they expect it to stand if it passes unless they just assume that the banking industry is that cowed that no one will mount a legal challenge. Of course, they've been firing shots across Scalia and Robert's bows, so they have to figure that someone is going to start legal battles here at some point.
Washington was a true gentleman. He was also known for an explosive temper when the occasion called for it. I'm willing to bet old George would have listened to about two minutes of the Obamassiah, and said "Shut up you silly twit. Go join General Arnold where you belong. He betrayed his country out of hubris–just like you."
To arms. To arms. The Redcoats are coming. Of course today, it's just the Reds. No lantern in the Old North Church. Just a banner with a big O that looks a lot like a Pepsi commercial. Stirring, though, isn't it?
I protest. I am not dead.
Because Obama is being disingenuous. He just doesn't like the limits it puts on government, so he — like the rest of his ilk — has created a way to justify going around the document itself.
Like Sunday Drives, no anti-Government speech allowed … I forgot about Wilson. They talked quite a bit about his policies in Barry's book on the Spanish Flu pandemic. Pretty dry read, but it sends chills down your spine when you consider that it's an excellent blueprint for what an outbreak of avian flu would likely mean for us today.
You're probably right. Most activists (left and right) tend to go into constitutional law for the very reason of being able to use it for their purposes. I don't doubt for a minute that Obama chose con law with the idea that he was going to use it to shape government to his will.
I think BO's real belief might be: "these morons elected me, me who has NO experience doing anything of significance. Man, I must be the luckiest doofas on earth! "Good bless America.
Barney Frank, Ted Stephans, Randy Cunningham.Franklin Raines, Gov. Blago. Man, we could go all day with this.
He has no clue what he is AFTER.BTW-once you justify taking a man's money against his will via taxes, the rest is just a bunch of talk. What's yours is mine.
Thanks. Now go work for some more for me.
This is just another ad hominen attack.
And that is a true shame because our local Farmers' Market, the River Market, is one of the best examples of the true multi-culturalism this nation was meant to have – people of all ages, races, creeds, coming together with their best produce of all types to buy and sell. Everyone wins and no one cares who anyone else is beyond another American.
The Democrats are Comin! The Democrats are coming!
One if by House! Two if by Senate!
"ad hominen" attacke means you launch a personal attack against the person making an argument, instead of addressing the argument. I've not attacked Mr. Manning in any way. He deduced a dialogue between the First President and the second black President. I merely supposed how Mr. Obama would have responded.
Well Coke shilled for the hippies in the seventies wasn't it? I'd like to give the world a Coke …
Good point, Mr. Obama is not confronting them. He is attempting to build a Corporatist state along the lines of Mussolini.
"You're not foolin' anyone, get back on the cart."
Do you doubt that Mr. Obama believes that people are exploited around the world by Capitalism? Does he not believe in distributing wealth for this reason? Whether he terms it slavery seems to be semantics.
Careful. We loved coke, er, Coke.
Henry was considered a radical for his time. He did argue against the Constitution, and never liked it, but his complaints generated enough heat to produce the Bill of Rights (remember, those are Amendments, not part of the original document, although they were attached by the time of ratification).
I wondered why I don't cast an image in a mirror. I'm going to go lie down now.
Merely pointing out that as a Slaveholder (and since he freed his slaves upon his death, we can assume that he knew slavery was wrong), Washington had no problem taking the productiive output of other people and appropriating it for his own personal enrichment. Since we know that fact about him, how can we be certain what position he would have taken regarding an elite class of propertied people controlling massive finanial insitutions.
Although it is popular to attack Mr. Soros, on the scales we are talking here, he is actually a pauper.
On further reflection though I doubt he'd use the word "patriots" either though, probably something along the lines of "well meaning revolutionaries, who sold out to become establishment figures" or something close to that. Then he'd go buy George's ghost a fresh fish.
That's a side-effect of the law license.
Jim's right…you are defintiely vapid and you're worse than blind to history.
Jim's right…you are defintiely vapid and you're worse than blind to history.
No, not really, u freakin' idiot it's called "Sarcasm".
Wow, AlistZ, a weak answer for everything!
If you've read the constitution you know that "Commerce" is specifically enumerated as being a power of the Congress. Which to me opens a good point, as to whether Mr. Obama really has a legal basis for anything he is doing, unless he has been granted new powers hidden somewhere in the TARP provisions.
Whew! Thanks for the explanation I was pretty sure I was still breathing because the mirror fogs up when I blow on it. So how do you shave when you can't see your face? And don't reply "very carefully." Too easy.
A Flowbee maybe? I guess it would depend on how often you felt the need to shave and what your beard growth quotient would be.
THE NEW PREAMBLE (feel free to quote):
We the Sheeple of the United States, in Order to form more perfect Unions, pervert Justice, insure domestic pacification, disembowel the common defence, promote Welfare, and destroy the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do hereby ignore and subvert the Constitution for the United States of America.
I weep for America…
Ah, how true. I went in left, came out right. How come? I actually read the document—something that Obama and his fellow "living Constitutionalists" apparently have not. At least I left a paper trail. When do we get to see his?
When do we get to see his? I'm betting somewhere between the day world peace is actually achieved and when the sun finally explodes. Just a hunch.
I fear my BQ and my IQ are about the same–around 80. That means my intellect and my razor match. Dull normal.
Alexander Hamilton was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury and wanted all of these things. Thomas Jefferson was his Secretary of State and wanted none of these things. Hamilton was a Federalist party member like Washington, and Washington seemed split on which direction the country should take. The Jefferson vs. Hamilton ideological conflict is what we still fight to this day.
Washington was a battle hardened soldier and He may have struck him with the sword on the spot.
That's interstate commerce and international, not commerce. And the idea of what exactly constitutes true interstate commerce has been broadened in scope ridiculously over the decades. Essentially, it was originally intended only to keep the peace and moderate when it came to trade between the states not reuglate and dictate with an iron fist.
Jack hit the nail on the head with the first post!
You must be logged in to post a comment.