Now he tells us.
The biggest public spender in world history now says…
“True economic recovery will only come from the private sector”
And that is why his next jobs plan will only cost $300 billion.
Obama and Democrats tripled the national deficit in less than one year.
They’ve increased the national debt to $12 Trillion.
And they’ve nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years.
It only took a trillion plus dollars for Obama to see that they were wrong.
At his “jobs summit,” Obama discovered: “Ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.” Mon dieu! You mean lambasting business, hiking taxes, imposing a flurry of mandates, and regulating carbon emissions aren’t the way to go? No, no. The Obami still want to do all that. They just expect the private sector to grow and hire workers in spite of all that. I guess.
Canada Free Press
By Dennis Jones Sunday, December 6, 2009
In the business world most executives get an annual performance evaluation that reviews the past year’s accomplishments or shortcomings and compares them to previously agreed upon goals and accountabilities. As 2009 draws to a close, the following is a recap and review that President Obama might receive for his performance over the past year starting with his previous experience:
Prior Relevant Experience
- 3 years in the US Senate (two spent running for President) – no major legislation authored, only credit taken for legislation introduced by others.
- 7 years in the Illinois state senate, a part-time calling that allowed him to serve as a part-time law professor.
- Three years as a “community organizer”.
Selected Domestic Policy Accomplishments
- Tripled the budget deficit to $1.4 Trillion (daily interest on the national debt is now over a billion dollars a day).
- Pushed for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the pork-laden Stimulus of $787 billion that he personally promised would keep unemployment from rising over 8%. In fact, unemployment been over 8% since the ARRA was passed in February and in the 10% range every month since August.
- Championed ill-conceived Cap and Trade legislation based on faulty and fraudulent science.¬† If passed, this legislation would amount to a substantial tax on every American and severely crimp the economy.
- Made health care the number one issue in America and socialized medicine the country’s priority when polls reflect that it is not the first priority of Americans.¬† Meanwhile 8 million jobs have been lost in the worst economic slump since the great depression, Iran and North Korea are accelerating their nuclear programs uncontested and both federal and many state budget deficits are unsustainable.
- Agreed to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, found by the 9/11 Commission Report to be the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks, and four other terrorists legal protection and potential not guilty verdicts via a civil trial nearby the site of the attacks.
Selected Foreign Policy Accomplishments
- Failed to get Russia to agree to sanction Iran for its nuclear programs at a cost of selling out Eastern Europe and giving up the anti-ballistic US missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic
- Apologized for America and expressed solidarity with Muslims in his Cairo speech during his four nation trip to the Middle East and Europe. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace,” he said.
- Schmoozed with dictators Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the 34-country Summit of the Americas and again apologized for America: “We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations.”
- Accomplished absolutely nothing on his recent trip to Asia widely panned by the media of both the US and Asia.
- Pondered what to do in Afghanistan for 100 days and then committed more troops. General McChrystal advised him to commit more troops in his one five-minute meeting with Obama three months ago.
Miscellaneous Selected Accomplishments in Random Order:
- Ceded the most power to unelected officials in history creating he largest number of Czars, not elected and not confirmed by Congress, ever.¬† Their qualifications will be another column.
- Changed the image of the US from strength to weakness by his high profile bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, to Vladimir Putin and to the Japanese Emperor.
- Scolded CEO’s for travel expenses then took Mrs. Obama to a Broadway show via presidential jet.
- Failed to bring the Olympics to Chicago after a very public personal effort.¬† Both he and Mrs. Obama jetted off to Copenhagen, on separate jets, in a highly visible lobbying trip that was unconvincing to the Olympic committee.
- Won the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing precisely nothing.
- Sold a flight on Air Force One that over-flew Manhattan and panicked the city.
- Gave high-profile thoughtless gifts, an Ipod to the Queen of England and to Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of 25 DVD’s of classic American movies.¬† In contrast, the Prime Minister gave Mr. Obama a very thoughtful and symbolic gift—an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet that complemented the oak from the Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute, carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880.
- Achieved a record number of cabinet picks that subsequently withdrew due to tax other ethics problems.
- Building a cabinet with the least amount of private sector experience since 1900. Less than 10% of the cabinet members have private sector experience.
- Met with Andy Stern, President of Big Labor’s SEIU 7 times in a record 22 visits (the most frequent visitor according to white house logs) after pledging to keep lobbyists out of the White House.
Summary of Performance:
- Performance generally unsatisfactory.
- Ineffective, lacks leadership skills and experience.
- Has difficulty focusing on agreed-upon priorities.
- Not fiscally responsible or able to adhere to a budget.
- Exhibits poor judgment when dealing with peers and colleagues.
- Not suitable for rehire.
Dec. 4, 2009
When Republicans ran Washington, Democrats regularly complained that they were terrible managers. They argued that because of Republican incompetence, deficits were high, deadlines were missed, money was wasted, and rules were ignored. It called to mind PJ O’Rourke’s famous quote about Republicans: The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.
House Democrats, increasingly concerned that there may be no other way to clear spending measures and extend expiring programs by the end of the month, are nearly ready to resort to a multibill omnibus package.
The legislative traffic jam is particularly bad this year because of the Senate’s lagging health care debate, which may take weeks to untangle, preventing that chamber from moving quickly on year-end business.
At the top of the Democratic majority’s must-do list are the seven remaining fiscal 2010 appropriations bills. One idea under serious consideration, according to House Democratic aides, is moving those bills in a single package that would carry other items, including an increase in the debt limit, a one-year “fix” to prevent a cut in Medicare payments to physicians and a short-term extension of expiring provisions of the anti-terrorism law known as the Patriot Act.
Measures aimed at jolting the sluggish economy could also hitch a ride.
Such a package would have a price tag of more than $1 trillion, a point Republicans would be sure to make repeatedly…
Pivoting from health care to another bill will be difficult, and advancing them over GOP resistance will require Democrats to round up 60 votes to close off debate — and even setting up such votes can take days of floor time.
Senate Democrats met Wednesday to discuss how to accelerate action on health care and bring the bill to a vote by the end of the year. But at day’s end it remained unclear how successful they will be…
A particularly thorny issue for Democrats is what to do with legislation to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit, which could be breached if it is not boosted over the next several weeks.
At this point, the plan is to include it in a package of bills rather than have the legislation considered on its own; the latter situation would give Republicans a better platform to make a political issue of government spending.
Democrats have control of the White House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and an overwhelming majority in the House. Republicans have no ability to influence the process of governing. Yet it is the most basic functions – passing spending bills, managing the debt limit, and passing bills that are approved every year – that are falling by the wayside.
If anything, the appropriations process is easier than in past years, because Democrats added $787 billion to federal spending before the process began. That move eliminated all the ‘tough decisions’ by raining money down on most every federal program.
And now the Democrats’ solution is to pile everything into one (or two) large spending bills. In all likelihood they’ll turn to this bill in the waning days before Christmas, when few Americans are paying attention. The debt limit will be lifted to $13 trillion or so, billions will be added to the deficit to pay off the AMA for their support of a health care overhaul, and all sort of controversial bills will be passed under the cover of darkness, while the American people are looking the other way.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership are showing their incompetence.
by John Charlton
(Nov. 25, 2009) — It is often asked whether the usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama will ever have a remedy in the courts. But the fact is that there already is a remedy in the courts: the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803).
That case was the first to expressly indicate that no action of Congress was valid if it contravened the Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution requires that a President be a natural born citizen; and since the Supreme Court has in 4 cases used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to one born in the U.S.A. of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth, it follows inexorably that Obama’s election as president by the Joint Session of Congress, on January 8, 2009, is null and void. Against this legal conclusion there is no argument.
Here is the crucial text of the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison.
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
“No person,’ says the Constitution, ’shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The Obama File
Obama, the Putative U. S. President, was born a Kenyan citizen and British subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 — a fact he admits to at the bottom of this page. Obama is still a British Protected Person and/or a British subject to this day.
How can a person who was born a British subject be considered a “natural born” citizen of the USA?
Simple answer — he can’t. At the top of this page, in the big blue box, Obama’s own campaign identifies him as a “native [born]” citizen. They know. It’s been there all the time.
This situation was created when both major political parties ran ineligible candidates, who were not “natural born” citizens. Obama was ineligible because his father was a foreigner (Jus sanguinis), and McCain was ineligible because he was born in a foreign country (Jus soli). The U. S Constitution, applicable case law and historical and legal precedent have been ignored for political expediency.
We are now witnessing the biggest political cover-up in American history.
The Federal Government admits to over $12 Trillion dollars in debt. In reality, its obligations are multiples of that number. The unfunded promises from Social Security and Medicare total around $100 trillion. To properly fund the forecasted future deficits in Social Security and Medicare, $100 trillion would have to be put in the fund today. Without this infusion, this liability grows exponentially. Next year, for example, it will be $4 – 5 trillion higher!
The Government has promised benefits that they cannot possibly honor. The total net worth of the entire country (the country’s total assets less liabilities) is slightly above $50 trillion.
If the Government confiscated everything in this country, the two programs would still be $50 trillion short, and the Government would still be insolvent and incapable of honoring its obligations. Furthermore, all companies and individuals would have been stripped of every asset they owned.
Perhaps Albert J. Nock was correct when he wrote:
“Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.”
Regardless, our government, when it comes to Ponzi schemes, makes Bernie Madoff look like Mother Theresa.
(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.
The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.
However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document. Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.
Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.” It has been speculated for nearly 3 months, by concerned citizens who have examined the rules of other departments of Vital Statistics accross the country that this designation, “filed by” indicates “submitted to, but not yet accepted as verified.”
This interpretation has now received indirect confirmation from the Communications Officer of the Department of Health, Janice Okubo herself, in her email response to Mr. James H. Roberson, which was published today online at 5:58 PM Eastern Time at Free Republic. The email was originally published at the blog of Attorney Leo Donofrio, which is now defunct.
Mr. Roberson sent his email on Oct. 31, 2009:
The revealing email to and from Okubo reads as follows:
Aloha Dr. Fukino and Ms. Okubo – from sunny South Carolina and Old Dixie,
Conducting research, I have examined a significant number of Certifications of Live Births, issued by your Department, for children all born in Honolulu. The children differ, of course, by which year each child was born, and a large range in years is represented in the population of COLBs examined. All COLBs were printed using your laser printer, and thus all demonstrate the same basic layout format, and page spacings of “form-words” fields (i.e., CHILD’s NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, MOTHER’S RACE, etc. all occupy comparable locations on the page).
Aside from the different “distinguishing” information, specific to each child, that was inserted in the fields beneath the respective “form-words”, all COLBs appear identical except,
1.) Different years seemed to have a different style Border – which I assume was intended to inhibit “alterations” ( say a young teenager wants to make a computer template, and then add a couple of years – so they can buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. The young nippers are amazingly adroit with computers these days.), and
2.) On the lower left side of all COLBs, except for 1, the “form-words”: “DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” were printed. However, on 1 COLB the “form-words”: “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” were printed, instead.
As I’m sure you’ll agree, “Accepted” and “Filed” carry different meanings, or nuances. For example, “Accepted” indicates that all required forms/information were present (and, nothing looked out-of-order) – as specified by Standard Procedures – and thus this connotes the Certificate of Birth was issued with few reservations as to its validity. On the other hand, “Filed” leaves the hint that perhaps the information supplied may be either insufficient, or questionable as to its accuracy. In this latter case, the Certificate of Birth might carry a less than “full confidence” as to its completeness, authenticity, authoritativeness, or trustworthiness.
Likewise, “Registrar” (which could be either a “local”, or Island, Registrar) might perhaps be different from the “State Registrar” ???
I would be most appreciative if you will help me with the following Questions:
1.) Am I reading too much into the different “Words Choices” ? (I don’t want to sound sinister, or cynical.)
2.) Can you tell me under what circumstances would the above different “Words Choices” be required ?
3.) I have reviewed – without success – Hawaii’s Chapter (Title/Section ?) 11 “Rules and Procedures” looking for a definition of when the above “Words Choices” should be imprinted on COLBs. Could you please provide me with a “path” that I could follow to learn about the wording prescribed to be used on these type certificates / documents ?, and finally,
4.) Would you hazard an educated guess (just a general “ball park” figure would do) as to approximately what proportion of COLBs issued carry the “Filed” vs. “Accepted” classifications ? Less than 1%, less than 10% ? Or, do I have a “bad” population of specimens ?
If you are required to be presented with an “official” UIPA request, in order to provide the above information, then please consider this e-mail as such. Thank you in advance for any help that you can give me.
IN RESPONSE, I RECEIVED from Ms Janice Ukubo the following email:
“Aloha Mr. Roberson,
Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.
Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”
Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.
Okubo’s response also now makes her liable for criminal charges of conspiracy to use her office under color of the law to defraud the general public. Because in the fulfilment of her official duties she is legally obligated in State Law to explain what terms used on official documents mean, or at least to direct citizens to the published documents which explain these.
But numerous general inquiries for copies of such documents have been refused by the Deparment of Health for nearly 3 months
Last night I stumbled upon an article, A Case For Secession-Introduction, (first of a series) on Gather.com and it struck me that the time may soon be approaching when one or two states will be called to step up for the rest of us in hopes of saving the Republic. I’m not advocating for secession now; I’m just looking at the possibility with a little more interest. How such a move might shift our ‘government’ back to position where Representatives actually have to listen to and respect their constituents is a question that interests me. What is clear is that with Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in control, Democratic Members of Congress are currently being effectively bribed with earmarks, promises or threats to pass legislation America does not want. They are not listening.
Polling demonstrates over and over the majority of Americans are against government run healthcare, are against unreasonable infringement of our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, are against illegal immigration, are against socialism, are against tax dollar funding of organizations like ACORN and SEIU, are against politicians creating unsustainable debt that will cripple their children’s futures, are against government manipulate of the news, are against government creating more unsustainable entitlements, are against Congress not adhering to the Constitution, are against Congress exceeding their power, are against Congress trampling on the rights reserved to the states under the Constitution, and are against unreasonable infringement of rights of privacy and free speech. In many states, the majorities are huge. They generally reflect states with populations that realize that government handouts do nothing other than create dependence to government/politicians and harm the recipients.
Today Congress is acting like a mule; and like a mule, sometimes the only way to get its attention is to hit it between the eyes. As we (a majority) all know, the Obama Congress is running America’s balance sheet, value of her dollar, and entire economy over the cliff. Most of us also know that it’s only drastic action can get the attention of this Congress that appears hell bent on ushering in a new socialist nation. Ordinary Americans are trying with massive Tea Parties, but one certain way to get Washington’s attention and possibly prevent the coming economic and social disaster (annihilation) is for one state or two to say ENOUGH! The preverbal two by four between the eyes may be what is called for to save the futures of all Americans.
Logistically there are only a few states that have strong enough economies and sufficient resources to tell the Federal Government to go screw itself, we are going our own way.
Alaska has sufficient resources (energy, etc.), access to trade with other countries (Canada and Russia), self-sufficient people, leaders who have a minimal concept of a balanced budget, and natural independence from the contiguous United States.
Texas has many of the same attributes as Alaska (a notion of being somehow independent of the rest of the country, trade with Mexico, Latin America and an independent/self-sufficient people).
N. Dakota, Nebraska a few other boarder/coastal states may be able to manage independence for themselves, but not without a lot of determination. Other central states like Oklahoma would probably need prearranged trade compacts with neighboring states to be successful. They would go along as they have been; except they would not pay federal taxes, nor receive federal tax dollars nor serve in the U. S. military. That would certainly get people’s attention.
Most of the states that might reasonably consider secession as an option are the ones that ARE NOT like California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or New Jersey, etc. where politicians have intentionally created large dependent populations of people and groups with their hands out for “other peoples’ money” (dependent voting blocks tied to money- not principle).
To have a shot at successfully seceding, it is likely that a state must first have a large majority of its population that is interested in independence, who are self-reliant, who as a group have not been used to taking more than their fair share of federal tax dollars, who are not looking for ways to avoid fair taxes but who don’t want to be carrying the load for the above named states, who have reasonable expectations of government; and most importantly, who care about freedom, equality and the principles of the United States Constitution more than the “Federal Government”. America is its people; it is not the buildings, institutions, and politicians in Washington, D. C.
If a state did have the courage to choose secession, many of their residents would likely flee. However, millions of independent/self-sufficient Americans, small businesses, and numerous large businesses would be just as quick to try to come to live and thrive in freedom. Like the movie ‘Field of Dreams’ – build it and they will come. I believe that is true. Especially, if the state is built/rebuilt upon the principles that founded the once great U.S.A., it would ensure a diverse, hardy, can do citizenry that encourages one another. You know, a citizenry like America once had. Not the one that sues every time their coffee is too hot or they have their feelings hurt slightly.
Such a state’s own tax dollars, collected in a fair and reasonable manner from its citizens, would go twice as far as those they had been paying the federal government. Tax systems could be simplified so everyone has a stake in the services provided by government because they too are paying taxes. Those in times of need would be given a helping hand up to reach their potential instead of under the government’s foot!
If fact, upon secession, such a state could made one big but simple change in the system that would go far to encourage individuals to strive for success. What if the state recognized that it would be more likely that voters would choose the best candidate to represent all the people if voters did not have a big conflict of interest present? What if the state said that if you are currently receiving monetary benefits from the state/tax-payers (worker’s compensation, welfare, etc., excluding total disability) you cannot vote in any state election until you stop receiving government assistance? If one wants to participate in elections, one would need to try to get better if injured, try earnestly to find work, or find a way to stop receiving benefits from the state.
Education, environmental protection, etc. could all happen because it would not be in people’s self-interest to scam the state. Spending for the public good would likely be a lot more reasonable and not tied to corrupt special interest groups like ACORN.
If one or two states did choose to succeed from the Union, it would not necessarily have to be on a permanent basis. It might be done with the understanding that when the federal government starts respecting the rights of the individual and the states, balances its budget or at least seriously starts down that path, respects and again follows the Constitution; and stops supporting enterprises with a history of intimidation/voter fraud like SEIU and ACORN; then they would consider rejoining the union.
Somehow I imagine every Senator and Representative saying to himself or herself –
What have we done? We have brought about the destruction of America. It was on my watch!
(One additional thing for Members of Congress to remember is that states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and some other bloated, selfish, leftist states have much lower percentages of residents enlisting in the military than states that would be more likely to entertain seceding! Who would protect America and her diminishing freedoms from al Qaeda and the Taliban? Maybe they could make a deal with the state/nation to allow its free citizens to serve in the U. S. military.)
Maybe Members of Congress wouldn’t say anything and just continue bleeding America’s taxpayers without listening to them.
I hope for the former; but if the latter occurred, I would pack my bags and move to Texas or wherever. I would be going to that ‘Field of Dreams’!
Never in my 55 years on this earth have I thought that I would seriously consider the idea of secession from the United States of America. I guess I was wrong. Personally, I will be waiting to see if America can be set again on its path under the Constitution through the electoral process in 2010.
If America can’t be righted to its course, it may be prudent for all freedom loving Americans to be reading up on secession.
Speaking of the 2010 elections, have you heard that Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, is running for Congress?