US House of Reps read constitution for first time!

[Kenneth]

It's kinda funny the Dems are hating it, maybe they will follow the constitution now!

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/04/01/rep-phil-hare-d-il-i-dont-worry-about-the-constitution/

[Linda]

Well, like he said, they/he don't care about the Constitution....hmmmm.......God Bless....

[jimzprincess]

Thank you!!!

[BadCobra]

It's kinda funny the Dems are hating it, maybe they will follow the constitution now!

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/04/01/rep-phil-hare-d-il-i-dont-worry-about-the-constitution/

If only.... but sadly I doubt it is gonna happen.

And FWIW, I don't think it's really D's or R's that are the problem, both of those are nearly extinct species. The real issue is PROGRESSIVES who think our US constitution is about as meaningful as the first words spoken by an infant. They prefer to make it up as they go, each day a new day to define what anything means as in their eyes history is all but meaningless drivel...

OK, sorry, I got off on a rant.

Cheers!

[DarkShinobi76]

If only.... but sadly I doubt it is gonna happen.

And FWIW, I don't think it's really D's or R's that are the problem, both of those are nearly extinct species. The real issue is PROGRESSIVES who think our US constitution is about as meaningful as the first words spoken by an infant. They prefer to make it up as they go, each day a new day to define what anything means as in their eyes history is all but meaningless drivel...

OK, sorry, I got off on a rant.

Cheers!

Personally, I love this rant(don't find it to be one personally) BadCobra... The nation needs to wake up and realize this... It's not one party over the other, both need to be held accountable and to higher standards, or this country will continue down this self-destructive path...

Edited January 6, 2011 by DarkShinobi76

[Kenneth]

First outburst, when it came to the part about the president being born here.

[Jim1cor13]

The other day I read a part about I believe a statement

that came from a whitehouse aid, or someone within

it, that stated the constitution was very hard to understand

or read because it was over 100 years old??????

I thought to myself can this be a real thought? Are they actually being serious?

It then hit me just how far we have fallen, and then I can only imagine how

many times our founding fathers have rolled over in their graves

seeing how our constitution has been torn apart and totally ignored.

Shameful, and it is not an issue about repubs or dems, it is an issue of

both parties completely out of touch with reality. Neither can point the

finger at each other, as they are all guilty of trampling under foot our

constitution. They need to do more than the mere motion of reading it and playing

the game of feigned concern....they need to actually get back to it and be responsible!

Otherwise, we are only kidding ourselves. Both sides have their little agendas, and

so far it has done nothing but divide and confuse. Remember, we are talking about

an extremely corrupt institution, bought and paid for by corrupt parties on both sides

of the aisle. It is time for this insanity to stop, but it is all about the money and power

and who gets it. So far, it appears though they have the money and lust after the power,

neither party actually GETS it.

All my best!

Jim

---

[BadCobra]

Personally, I love this rant(don't find it to be one personally) BadCobra... The nation needs to wake up and realize this... It's not one party over the other, both need to be held accountable and to higher standards, or this country will continue down this self-destructive path...

Thanks...

You are so right that this nation needs to wake up and I think we need to smell the "entitlement society" program is an epic fail in the making coffee. If anyone wants/needs proof, just take a look over the pond at what socialism and social entitlement programs have done for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and France to name a few. Oh, did you see the mini-riot recently where British citizenry attacked Prince Charles and his lady, and there were audible chants for "Off with their heads!"??? Simply astonishing and frightening--when these folks say they want revolution, you better believe it right down to your shorts!!! They MEAN what they say. The EU is going down the tubes. ANY citizen that comes FROM over there is SCREAMING at us here to look at their disaster, the life they left in their country, and see the parallels; and they seem genuinely sad (indeed, hopeLESS) to find that what once was the last bastion of hope and freedom, the good ol' USA, is driving towards the same proverbial cliff to oblivion faster than Thelma and Louise.

I, for one among many, hope the Tea-Party continues to push for an agenda of fiscal conservatism and smaller government.

Cheers!

Edited January 6, 2011 by BadCobra

[Marquess]

The other day I read a part about I believe a statement

that came from a whitehouse aid, or someone within

it, that stated the constitution was very hard to understand

or read because it was over 100 years old??????

I thought to myself can this be a real thought? Are they actually being serious?

It then hit me just how far we have fallen, and then I can only imagine how

many times our founding fathers have rolled over in their graves

seeing how our constitution has been torn apart and totally ignored.

Shameful, and it is not an issue about repubs or dems, it is an issue of

both parties completely out of touch with reality. Neither can point the

finger at each other, as they are all guilty of trampling under foot our

constitution. They need to do more than the mere motion of reading it and playing

the game of feigned concern....they need to actually get back to it and be responsible!

Otherwise, we are only kidding ourselves. Both sides have their little agendas, and

so far it has done nothing but divide and confuse. Remember, we are talking about

an extremely corrupt institution, bought and paid for by corrupt parties on both sides

of the aisle. It is time for this insanity to stop, but it is all about the money and power

and who gets it. So far, it appears though they have the money and lust after the power,

neither party actually GETS it.

All my best!

Jim

---

I'd love to say this came from someone in the White House but it was actually said by a blogger that works for the Washington Post. His name is Ezra Klein. Graduated from some high-falutin college and because of that thinks he has some sort of credentials that make him important. This is what's scary, he's 26 years old and apparently was not taught to respect the importance of this document, either by his parents, teachers and professors. The constitution is NOT hard to read and understand what our fore fathers were thinking when it was written.

[Kenneth]

The other day I read a part about I believe a statement

that came from a whitehouse aid, or someone within

it, that stated the constitution was very hard to understand

or read because it was over 100 years old??????

I thought to myself can this be a real thought? Are they actually being serious?

It then hit me just how far we have fallen, and then I can only imagine how

many times our founding fathers have rolled over in their graves

seeing how our constitution has been torn apart and totally ignored.

Shameful, and it is not an issue about repubs or dems, it is an issue of

both parties completely out of touch with reality. Neither can point the

finger at each other, as they are all guilty of trampling under foot our

constitution. They need to do more than the mere motion of reading it and playing

the game of feigned concern....they need to actually get back to it and be responsible!

Otherwise, we are only kidding ourselves. Both sides have their little agendas, and

so far it has done nothing but divide and confuse. Remember, we are talking about

an extremely corrupt institution, bought and paid for by corrupt parties on both sides

of the aisle. It is time for this insanity to stop, but it is all about the money and power

and who gets it. So far, it appears though they have the money and lust after the power,

neither party actually GETS it.

All my best!

Jim

---

You are right, it's the progressives in both parties; a republican first started the progressive movement:

After walking out on the Republican Convention and forming the new Progressive Party, President Roosevelt, when suggested by reporters that he was no longer fit for the office, retorted "I'm as fit as a bull moose" (giving the new party its nickname), and he called his own convention and nominated a national ticket with California Governor Hiram Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate. State parties also nominated slates in most northern states. The platform echoed Roosevelt's 1907-08 proposals, calling for vigorous government intervention to protect the people from the selfish interests.

Prominently with President Theodore Roosevelt and through the 20th century's first years, the Progressive Movement came into view with its belief in “the perfectability of man, and in an open society where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or worse.”

The Socialist Party was included within the Progressive Movement. The party dealt with American problems in an American manner. Unlike the Communist Party, the Socialist Party at that time felt no obligation to adhere to an international party line. For example, socialists and other progressives campaigned at the local level for municipal ownership of waterworks, gas and electric plants, and made good progress in such endeavors. In 1911, there were 18 Socialist candidates for mayor, and they nearly won the Cleveland, Ohio, and Los Angeles, California, mayoral races.

In 1905, Upton Sinclair founded the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which soon had chapters in the leading universities. Lively young men and women discussed the “New Gospel according to St. Marx.” Universities were considered to be favorable ground for progressive thought.

Following the election of 1912, Socialist Party membership began to decline as some members cast their vote for Woodrow Wilson. Others were expelled, such as the Industrial Workers of the World, of which Debs and labor organizer "Mother" Mary Harris Jones had once been members. The IWW had been organized in 1905, grew into a radical, direct-action wing of American socialism by 1910, and had up to 100,000 workers by 1915.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

In his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," Woodrow Wilson explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader." "No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle," wrote Wilson, attacking the very individual rights that have made America great. He rejected the principles of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" that are the foundation of American government: "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand...."

Wilson too re-made Princeton, this time on the model of the German university. At a time in which German scholarship was in fashion, he was a champion of Hegelianism, helping to introduce a strain of thought into the American body politic that was fundamentally opposed to the natural rights philosophy of the Founders. Hegel's historicism--the belief that all thought is historically conditioned--was the intellectual foundation of Progressivism and of Wilson's belief that the Constitution was an antique absurdity. Wilson championed the idea of "the living Constitution" which enables activist judges to re-write the Constitution according to the Progressive notions of the day.

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism. There are several things to consider in answering this question.

First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible).

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.” Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing. He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness. He wrote:

“We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

Progressivism is moving beyond the Constitution. The Progressive dream is one of national, unlimited government and the re-distribution of wealth. Progressives detest the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because they put limits on the national government. The Declaration enshrines the idea of individual God-given rights as the end of government as Progressives want it. It's just the opposite. Here are the very words of Progressive Barack Obama regarding the US Constitution:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Progressives hate the Constitution because it puts limits on the national government which were designed (on purpose) to uphold those natural rights.

The principles of the founding Fathers stand in their way. They want to get beyond the bedrock principles of the American Founders. Progressives are conservative Socialists – not full blown Marxists. However, they have the same aims as Marxists. They want no boundaries that individual rights can place between the State and the individual. They want full control over YOU and every aspect of YOUR life.

"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." - 1912 Progressive Party Platform[1]

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/U.S._Progressive_Party_1912

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/#I

[DarkShinobi76]

Exactly Jim1cor13, jesusfreak and Kenneth... No problem BadCobra, I do find it disturbing when people who can't see the truth for what it really is...

Mind you, I'm not looking for popularity, but when I do tell people some of these things, they think I'm plumb crazy...

Then, they have the nerve to use their fractured version of history(and talk down to me, like I've never taken a class in history in my life) to put me in my place...

I usually walk away from them, I don't really get upset because the truth of the matter is, why bother, you just have to feel sorry for them...

Because they fail to see it's because of their lack of vision, the people are perishing, and these politricksters and policrooks are counting on(even banking on it literally) that blindness of the masses to further their unconstitutional goals...