Tag Archives: Mitch McConnell

The Sixties Radical on Statist Republicans who are Selling on Their Country to Keep Power

I can’t believe this shit. The gang of six is at it again. This time these idiots are about to send this country right to hell with their idiocy.

That’s right cut a deal a with the evil Obama. These clowns believe all the bullshit that is spewed out by the lying sacks of shit in the press, Standard and Poor, Moody’s and the rest.

These people will sell their soul for a buck.

This is a bold face lie.

When the country reaches the debt ceiling we as a country have to payoff the obligations of the bond owners and all of that.

We have enough money to do that each month.

This is the bold face lie the media, The Prez, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Coburn, Susan Collins, and the rest of the statists want you to believe.

Here is a definition of statist or statism- Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.

When used to describe analyses, statism refers to analyses that use a dichotomy between state and society, with the state viewed as a homogeneous institution capable of using political power to enact policy on a passive or resisting society composed of the body of people. Such an analysis, dependent on the elitist theory of power, is contested by those who prefer the pluralist theory of power which contends that power is exercised by individuals and competing organisations within society.[1][2]

Economic statism (dirigisme), for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.[3][4] It may refer to the ideology of statism that holds that:

Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which is seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[5]

The term statism is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism or highly-regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention. It is also used to refer to state socialism or co-operative economic systems that use the state, through nationalization, as a means of running industry.

 

This is what these evil people are doing to this free country of ours. They want to set themselves up as the ruling class.

Now the gang of six lead by John McCain wanta be- Republican Senator from Oklahoma John Coburn, Joe Lieberman Senator Connecticut, Susan Collins, Maine just to name a few are doing.

These idiots have to go.

Colburn etal you are selling out this country.

If this country continues down this path we are doomed.

W E DON’T HAVE THE MONEY.

WE ARE BROKE.

Obama is a Marxists.

You want to give him what! To do what! Are you freakin nuts?

Shut it the %%$$## down.

Let’s restore some sanity to our Marxist spending ways.

We the People have too much on our backs.

What do you want every penny we make to so you can give it away to the Democrat Socialist Party, and the Republican Party to spend on their special interests.

Oh, Yeah, that’s the plan.

This is called stealing.

Here is some food for thought.

What is happening in the good old USA is not a new idea. These ideas have been around since the dawn of man.

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote these words in 1762.

I WARN the reader that this chapter requires careful reading, and that I am unable to make myself clear to those who refuse to be attentive. Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one moral, i.e., the will which determines the act; the other physical, i.e., the power which executes it. When I walk towards an object, it is necessary first that I should will to go there, and, in the second place, that my feet should carry me. If a paralytic wills to run and an active man wills not to, they will both stay where they are. The body politic has the same motive powers; here too force and will are distinguished, will under the name of legislative power and force under that of executive power. Without their concurrence, nothing is, or should be, done.

We have seen that the legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone. It may, on the other hand, readily be seen, from the principles laid down above, that the executive power cannot belong to the generality as legislature or Sovereign, because it consists wholly of particular acts which fall outside the competency of the law, and consequently of the Sovereign, whose acts must always be laws.

The public force therefore needs an agent of its own to bind it together and set it to work under the direction of the general will, to serve as a means of communication between the State and the Sovereign, and to do for the collective person more or less what the union of soul and body does for man. Here we have what is, in the State, the basis of government, often wrongly confused with the Sovereign, whose minister it is.

What then is government? An intermediate body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of liberty, both civil and political.

The members of this body are called magistrates or kings, that is to say governors, and the whole body bears the name prince.18 Thus those who hold that the act, by which a people puts itself under a prince, is not a contract, are certainly right. It is simply and solely a commission, an employment, in which the rulers, mere officials of the Sovereign, exercise in their own name the power of which it makes them depositaries. This power it can limit, modify or recover at pleasure; for the alienation of such a right is incompatible with the nature of the social body, and contrary to the end of association.

I call then government, or supreme administration, the legitimate exercise of the executive power, and prince or magistrate the man or the body entrusted with that administration.

In government reside the intermediate forces whose relations make up that of the whole to the whole, or of the Sovereign to the State. This last relation may be represented as that between the extreme terms of a continuous proportion, which has government as its mean proportional. The government gets from the Sovereign the orders it gives the people, and, for the State to be properly balanced, there must, when everything is reckoned in, be equality between the product or power of the government taken in itself, and the product or power of the citizens, who are on the one hand sovereign and on the other subject.

Furthermore, none of these three terms can be altered without the equality being instantly destroyed. If the Sovereign desires to govern, or the magistrate to give laws, or if the subjects refuse to obey, disorder takes the place of regularity, force and will no longer act together, and the State is dissolved and falls into despotism or anarchy. Lastly, as there is only one mean proportional between each relation, there is also only one good government possible for a State. But, as countless events may change the relations of a people, not only may different governments be good for different peoples, but also for the same people at different times.

In attempting to give some idea of the various relations that may hold between these two extreme terms, I shall take as an example the number of a people, which is the most easily expressible.

Suppose the State is composed of ten thousand citizens. The Sovereign can only be considered collectively and as a body; but each member, as being a subject, is regarded as an individual: thus the Sovereign is to the subject as ten thousand to one, i.e., each member of the State has as his share only a ten-thousandth part of the sovereign authority, although he is wholly under its control. If the people numbers a hundred thousand, the condition of the subject undergoes no change, and each equally is under the whole authority of the laws, while his vote, being reduced to a hundred-thousandth part, has ten times less influence in drawing them up. The subject therefore remaining always a unit, the relation between him and the Sovereign increases with the number of the citizens. From this it follows that, the larger the State, the less the liberty.

When I say the relation increases, I mean that it grows more unequal. Thus the greater it is in the geometrical sense, the less relation there is in the ordinary sense of the word. In the former sense, the relation, considered according to quantity, is expressed by the quotient; in the latter, considered according to identity, it is reckoned by similarity.

Now, the less relation the particular wills have to the general will, that is, morals and manners to laws, the more should the repressive force be increased. The government, then, to be good, should be proportionately stronger as the people is more numerous.

On the other hand, as the growth of the State gives the depositaries of the public authority more temptations and chances of abusing their power, the greater the force with which the government ought to be endowed for keeping the people in hand, the greater too should be the force at the disposal of the Sovereign for keeping the government in hand. I am speaking, not of absolute force, but of the relative force of the different parts of the State.

It follows from this double relation that the continuous proportion between the Sovereign, the prince and the people, is by no means an arbitrary idea, but a necessary consequence of the nature of the body politic. It follows further that, one of the extreme terms, viz., the people, as subject, being fixed and represented by unity, whenever the duplicate ratio increases or diminishes, the simple ratio does the same, and is changed accordingly. From this we see that there is not a single unique and absolute form of government, but as many governments differing in nature as there are States differing in size.

If, ridiculing this system, any one were to say that, in order to find the mean proportional and give form to the body of the government, it is only necessary, according to me, to find the square root of the number of the people, I should answer that I am here taking this number only as an instance; that the relations of which I am speaking are not measured by the number of men alone, but generally by the amount of action, which is a combination of a multitude of causes; and that, further, if, to save words, I borrow for a moment the terms of geometry, I am none the less well aware that moral quantities do not allow of geometrical accuracy.

The government is on a small scale what the body politic which includes it is on a great one. It is a moral person endowed with certain faculties, active like the Sovereign and passive like the State, and capable of being resolved into other similar relations. This accordingly gives rise to a new proportion, within which there is yet another, according to the arrangement of the magistracies, till an indivisible middle term is reached, i.e., a single ruler or supreme magistrate, who may be represented, in the midst of this progression, as the unity between the fractional and the ordinal series.

Without encumbering ourselves with this multiplication of terms, let us rest content with regarding government as a new body within the State, distinct from the people and the Sovereign, and intermediate between them.

There is between these two bodies this essential difference, that the State exists by itself, and the government only through the Sovereign. Thus the dominant will of the prince is, or should be, nothing but the general will or the law; his force is only the public force concentrated in his hands, and, as soon as he tries to base any absolute and independent act on his own authority, the tie that binds the whole together begins to be loosened. If finally the prince should come to have a particular will more active than the will of the Sovereign, and should employ the public force in his hands in obedience to this particular will, there would be, so to speak, two Sovereigns, one rightful and the other actual, the social union would evaporate instantly, and the body politic would be dissolved.

However, in order that the government may have a true existence and a real life distinguishing it from the body of the State, and in order that all its members may be able to act in concert and fulfil the end for which it was set up, it must have a particular personality, a sensibility common to its members, and a force and will of its own making for its preservation. This particular existence implies assemblies, councils, power and deliberation and decision, rights, titles, and privileges belonging exclusively to the prince and making the office of magistrate more honourable in proportion as it is more troublesome. The difficulties lie in the manner of so ordering this subordinate whole within the whole, that it in no way alters the general constitution by affirmation of its own, and always distinguishes the particular force it possesses, which is destined to aid in its preservation, from the public force, which is destined to the preservation of the State; and, in a word, is always ready to sacrifice the government to the people, and never to sacrifice the people to the government.

Furthermore, although the artificial body of the government is the work of another artificial body, and has, we may say, only a borrowed and subordinate life, this does not prevent it from being able to act with more or less vigour or promptitude, or from being, so to speak, in more or less robust health. Finally, without departing directly from the end for which it was instituted, it may deviate more or less from it, according to the manner of its constitution.

From all these differences arise the various relations which the government ought to bear to the body of the State, according to the accidental and particular relations by which the State itself is modified, for often the government that is best in itself will become the most pernicious, if the relations in which it stands have altered according to the defects of the body politic to which it belongs.

Thank God our founding fathers rejected this drivel.

 

Rousseau went on to write-

 

4. DEMOCRACY

HE who makes the law knows better than any one else how it should be executed and interpreted. It seems then impossible to have a better constitution than that in which the executive and legislative powers are united; but this very fact renders the government in certain respects inadequate, because things which should be distinguished are confounded, and the prince and the Sovereign, being the same person, form, so to speak, no more than a government without government.

It is not good for him who makes the laws to execute them, or for the body of the people to turn its attention away from a general standpoint and devote it to particular objects. Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of the laws by the government is a less evil than the corruption of the legislator, which is the inevitable sequel to a particular standpoint. In such a case, the State being altered in substance, all reformation becomes impossible, A people that would never misuse governmental powers would never misuse independence; a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed.

If we take the term in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be. It is against the natural order for the many to govern and the few to be governed. It is unimaginable that the people should remain continually assembled to devote their time to public affairs, and it is clear that they cannot set up commissions for that purpose without the form of administration being changed.

In fact, I can confidently lay down as a principle that, when the functions of government are shared by several tribunals, the less numerous sooner or later acquire the greatest authority, if only because they are in a position to expedite affairs, and power thus naturally comes into their hands.

Besides, how many conditions that are difficult to unite does such a government presuppose! First, a very small State, where the people can readily be got together and where each citizen can with ease know all the rest; secondly, great simplicity of manners, to prevent business from multiplying and raising thorny problems; next, a large measure of equality in rank and fortune, without which equality of rights and authority cannot long subsist; lastly, little or no luxury — for luxury either comes of riches or makes them necessary; it corrupts at once rich and poor, the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness; it sells the country to softness and vanity, and takes away from the State all its citizens, to make them slaves one to another, and one and all to public opinion.

This is why a famous writer has made virtue the fundamental principle of Republics;E1 for all these conditions could not exist without virtue. But, for want of the necessary distinctions, that great thinker was often inexact, and sometimes obscure, and did not see that, the sovereign authority being everywhere the same, the same principle should be found in every well-constituted State, in a greater or less degree, it is true, according to the form of the government.

It may be added that there is no government so subject to civil wars and intestine agitations as democratic or popular government, because there is none which has so strong and continual a tendency to change to another form, or which demands more vigilance and courage for its maintenance as it is. Under such a constitution above all, the citizen should arm himself with strength and constancy, and say, every day of his life, what a virtuous Count Palatine19 said in the Diet of Poland: Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.20

Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.

This what the evil Obama and his minions believe.

If “We The People” don’t stand up to this evil man we will lose our freedom.

 

 

 

 

 

The Sixties Radical on The Real Democcrat Socialist Party Agenda

You just gotta love this Bullshit that is coming out of the White House and the Democrat Socialist Party.

Harry Reid, Man Child President, the evil Little Lord Fauntleroy Obama, and the state run media are throwing a hizzy fit over House Majority leader Eric Cantor who after years of taking the shit that these clowns have been dishing out finally said I have a enough of your crap and told them to go pound sand.

This is about time.

Somebody has to do it so why not Eric Cantor.

Harry Reid etal can do this to the Republicans but how dare someone dare turn the tables on us especially a Jew.

Obama is an anti-Semitic prick.

So are Harry Reid and the rest of them.

You fight fire with fire.

Let me quote a line from The Untouchables- they put one of yours in the hospital you send three of theirs to the morgue.

It comes down to this.

If Speaker of the House John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mitch McConnell cave our country is screwed.

Will now become a Marxists society.

The lies are coming out.

The evil one has destroyed the housing industry, the auto industry, the banking industry, and the food industry just to name a few.

We have to stop this evil dead in its tracks.

Lyndon Baines Johnson destroyed the black family in 1965 with the war on poverty.

American’s Christian and Jewish roots upon which this country was founded have been destroyed by the Left, the Democrat Socialist Party, the state run media, the elitist Republicans etal have forced this country to turn its back on the God of The Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

When this happens all hell breaks loose in a society.

It all starts with abandoning of  God.

Then social institutions of the family, education, and  political stones upon which a society is built fall apart the society is doomed.

The last to go is the economic.

This is basic Sociology 101.

Here are some definitions 

A social institution is a complex, integrated set of social norms organized around the preservation of a basic societal value. Obviously, the sociologist does not define institutions in the same way as does the person on the street. Lay persons are likely to use the term “institution” very loosely, for churches, hospitals, jails, and many other things as institutions.

Sociologists often reserve the term “institution” to describe normative systems that operate in five basic areas of life, which may be designated as the primary institutions. (1) In determining Kinship; (2) in providing for the legitimate use of power; (3) in regulating the distribution of goods and services; (4) in transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next; and (5) in regulating our relation to the supernatural. In shorthand form, or as concepts, these five basic institutions are called the family, government, economy, education and religion.

The five primary institutions are found among all human groups. They are not always as highly elaborated or as distinct from one another as into the United States, but, in rudimentary form at last, they exist everywhere. Their universality indicates that they are deeply rooted in human nature and that they are essential in the development and maintenance of orders. Sociologists operating in terms of the functionalist model society have provided the clearest explanation of the functions served by social institutions. Apparently there are certain minimum tasks that must be performed in all human groups. Unless these tasks are performed adequately, the group will cease to exist. An analogy may help to make the point. We might hypothesize that cost accounting department is essential to the operation of a large corporation. A company might procure a superior product and distribute it then at the price which is assigned to it, the company will soon go out of business. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to have a careful accounting of the cost of each step in the production and distribution process.

A social system basically consists of two or more individuals interacting directly or indirectly in a bounded situation. There may be physical or territorial boundaries, but the fundamental sociological point of reference is that the individuals are oriented, in a whole sense, to a common focus or inter-related foci. Thus it is appropriate to regard such diverse sets of relationships as small groups, political parties and whole societies as social systems. Social systems are open systems, exchanging information with, frequently acting with reference to other systems. Modern conceptions of the term can be traced to the leading social analysts of the nineteenth century, notably Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim; each of whom elaborated in some form or other conceptions of the major units of social systems (mainly societies) and the relationships between such units- even though the expression social system was not a key one. Thus, in Marx’s theory, the major units or components of the capitalist societies with which he was principally concerned were socio-economic classes, and the major relationships between classes involved economic and political power.

The most influential conceptualization of the term has been that of Talcott Parsons. Parsons’ devotion to this issue has two main aspects. First, what is called the problem of social order; i.e. the nature of the forces giving rise to relatively stable forms of social interaction and organization, and promoting orderly change. Parsons took Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, 1651, as his point of departure in this part of his analysis. Hobbes had maintained that man’s fundamental motivation was the craving for power and that men were always basically in conflict with each other. Thus order could only exist in strong government. To counter this Parsons invoked the work of Max Weber and, in particular, Durkheim, who had placed considerable emphasis on the functions of normative, factors in social life, such as ideals and values. Factors of this kind came to constitute the mainspring in Parsons Delineation of a social system. Thus in his major theoretical work, The Social system, 1951, he defines a social system as consisting in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors, who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the optimization of gratification and whose relations to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.

The major units of a social system are said to be collectivities and roles (i.e. not individuals as such); and the major patterns or relationships linking these units are values (ends or broad guides to action) and norms (rules governing role performance in the context of system values). Parsons second major interest has been to make sociology more scientific and systematic, by developing abstract conceptions of the social system; one of this points being that even though Weber placed much emphasis upon normative factors as guiding action, there was in Weber’s sociology no elaboration of a theoretically integrated total system of action. Hence the attempt to combine in one framework both a conception of actors in social situations and an overall, highly abstract, outside view of the major factors involved in a social system as a going concern. Various points in Parsons’ formulation have been criticized. Notably, objections have been made to the emphasis upon normative regulation, and it has been alleged that Parsons neglected social conflict under the pressure of his systematic perspective; i.e. pre-occupation with system ness and analytical elegance which blinds the sociologist to disconsensus in real life and spurs him to stress integrative phenomena in his analyses. However, it is widely agreed that sociologists should operate with some clearly defined conception of what constitutes a social system. Thus, for many sociologists the term social system is not by any means restricted to those situations where there is binding normative regulation; but in order to qualify as social system it must involve a common focus, or set of foci, or orientations and a shared mode of communication among a majority of actors. Thus, on this basis there can be a system of conflict.

In the end we as a nation have moved away from the grace of God.

Our Founding fathers knew this.

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported.

Oliver Ellsworth, The Landholder, December 10, 1787

Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The truth is we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar. This can’t go on.

WE ARE BROKE.

Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the rest of you Republicans hold firm. Do not take the deal. Push your budget through the House. Cut taxes and spending.

Do away with The EPA, The Department of Education, The Department of Energy, and all the other departments.

Stop the spending.

Just say no.

The lies are being exposed.

The truth shall set you free.

Here’s a nother diddy. The Democrat Socialist Party are pushing for more spending and if the Republicans want to stop government waste and fraud they must give into new taxes and spending.

Part two- The Democrat Socialist party plan B is Mitch McConnell idiotic plan.

Give me a break.

McConnell you are a joke.

How does one compromise with evil?

If good compromises with evil, evil wins.

Can you say Bye-bye USA.

 

 

The Sixties Radical on The Republicans Selling out the Country for Nothing but a Pittance

I have had with the chicken shit Republican Leadership. These no good for nothing leaders will not stand up to the evil one Barrack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck “YOU” Schumer etal.

Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican leader Mitch McConnell have said that they will not attack the deficit problem.

These two idiots have both blinked.

McConnell and Boehner are in the process of selling us down the river for a slice of the power pie.

The Republicans don’t get it.

They were elected by “We The People” to stop this out of control spending and stop the government take over of our lives.

This country is in the position losing everything.

The evil one is spending trillions of dollars.

He is bankrupting this country and the country of our children and their children.

The straw dog argument is this.

We have to tax the rich. Tax the oil companies. Tax everyone who makes over 250 grand and this will fix our problems.

The real truth is this.

All of us little people will lose everything.

In the end “We The People” lose and get screwed.

The USA takes in enough money to cover its obligations.

We have a spending problem.

Let’s say the government takes all money from all millionaires and billionaires, all the money from the oil companies and big business this would only cover our expenses until mid-October.

The Government would have to take everyone’s income from one dollar to a million dollars and this money would only take care of the expenses until midnight December 31 2011.

The government can’t continue spending money like a bunch of drunken Marxists.

WE ARE BROKE.

WE DON’T HAVE THE BUCKS.

The spending has to stop now.

If the Republicans cave on this issue you are finished.

People like me will never send you a dime.

We will form a third party.

The evil one will win another term and the USA is toast.

This is the sad fact of your actions if you cave and try sell us a bill of goods like you did the last time.

We are sick and tired of this shit.

Hey Boehner the House controls the purse strings.

You have the power.

Stop spending money.

Close the purse strings now.

It is time you stand up for this country instead of the Leftist, the Libs, the Republican Party, and the rest of the political elites in this country.

Beohner you are not a man of principle your are chicken shit who will sell out his country of bowl of porridge.

I have an idea read the Constitution.

Oh yeah, that’s right you did that and January and it went in one ear and out the other.

You still don’t get it.

Read the Bible.

Read a basic ECON 101 book.

You can’t spend more than you take in.

In the bulls eye of the evil Obama is our very way of life.

Our freedom is hanging by a thread.

You have to act now.

Stand up and do the right thing.

Don’t compromise.

Shut this sucker down.

If you Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and the rest of you Republicans were around at the time our country was formed you would have sold us down the river.

We would still be under the thumb of England.

You are gutless wonder.

The difference between you and Chuck “YOU Schumer is this.

Schumer lies all the time and we know it.

You know what is right and won’t do it because you are scared of what the state run media will say about you.

You lie to us.

You say one thing and do another.

Does the recent Budget bill strike a familiar note?

You said 65 million when in reality it was it was less than that.

You lied.

You and the Democrat Socialist Party are a cut from the same cloth.

Government control of our lives under the guise of doing what is best of us we the people

Once freedom is lost we will never get it back.

You are the idiot. 

Boehner you are part of the problem.

You are part of the cancer that is murdering this country.

Boehner has to go.

Just like the rest of McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Let me ask you this.

How do you compromise between food and poison?

 

 

The Sixties Radical on the Stupidty of Harry Reid and Mitch McConell

Our country is going to hell in a hand basket. The idiot leaders Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Vic clown Joe “Bite Me” Biden, and the evil Obama are deciding who to tax and who not to tax.

These jokers want to raise the debt ceiling.

Little Tim Geithner is spreading gloom and doom if we don’t raise the debt ceiling.

The truth is if we don’t raise the debt the spending levels will go back to 2006 level.

We will have to pay off the debt first.

Here is a little ECON 101. You can’t spend what you don’t have. If you do you go broke.

What part of broke don’t these people get?

They do get it.

This is done by design.

Tax the hell out of all of us.

If you think it is okay to tax the rich. Think again bozo.

The rich is considered anyone who makes 250 grand a year.

This means we will all take it in the shorts.

And if you think taking away tax loopholes is a good solution.

Guess what your taxes go up.

This is a tax increase.

These tax increases on businesses are passed on to the consumers.

This is why gas and food prices are through the roof.

Here’s a news flash.

Gas companies do not get subsidies.

If you want to cut subsidies stop giving money to General Electric, the Ethanol industries, green energy such as wind power, solar power and electric cars.

Here is a news flash left.

Electricity is created by coal.

Guess what?

Cut coal power electric generators.

No electric cars and high electric prices.

Jeez people use your head for something besides a hat rack.

Take the shackles off of us.

Let us do what we do best.

Create.

Make money.

Big daddy government led by the evil Obama is driving us into the drink.

This is called totalitarianism.

If the USA falls the rest of the world is fucked royally.

Thomas Jefferson wrote these words.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.

Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789

 

 

Excessive taxation will carry reason & reflection to every man’s door, and particularly in the hour of election.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, November 26, 1798

For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

 

One final parting shot. When has Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Obama, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, etal have ever drilled for oil or built a car company?

When have these idiots started and run a business.

Met a payroll.

Not on the taxpayers dime but theirs.

Not law firms either.

The dirty little secret is this.

The evil Obama and his minions are creating all of these situations. This is done so the economy completely tanks. Then these clowns will step in and have a ready made solution.

See free market economy doesn’t work.

Government to the rescue.

The government controls our entire lives.

 

 

 

 

The Sixties Radical on The Debt Ceiling

This is getting patiently ridiculous. The Republican leadership is a one-note band. This is getting really tiring. John Boehner and his counter part in the Senate Mitch McConnell are blow hards. They talk tough. When push comes to shove these idiots Boehner and McConnell cave like a cheap suit.

Sure, let’s play Monty Hall and lets make a deal.

Let’s compromise our values and let the evil Obama and his socialist Democrat Party dictate the terms.

Boehner you have the majority in the House so act like it.

McConnell you have enough votes in the Senate to stop the Marxist Democrats dead in their tracks.

Maybe you clowns should try this idea.

Have you ever heard of a poker face?

Or in Mafia terms it is called a stone face.

You never show you’re emotions.

Hey, guys here’s a novel idea. Don’t show your full hand. Don’t show your whole card

On the table you have a pair sixes showing while your opponent has a pair of eights.

Your whole card is a six.

Your opponent is doubling down all the time.

You know they are bluffing.

You have the cards in your favour.

The dealer gives you another six while the opponent is dealt a five.

They double down again.

Instead of calling him you thrown in a winning hand.

Why?

Your opponent can read your face.

He knows you are scared and will cave like you always do.

Instead you say I raise you and call.

But no, you clowns are scared of what people will say about you.

The opponent knows this and they will double down again and again knowing that you will cave time and time again.

It is time to act like men.

Our country needs Boehner, Eric Cantor and rest of Republican leadership to stand up for our rights.

If you don’t the country is lost.

The sad fact is this we as a nation cannot afford to raise the debt ceiling. If we do this will only exacerbate the problem and in the end this will cause more harm than good.

What Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, McCain and the rest do not understand this downhill economic is directly tied to our destruction of our countries morals and values.

Read any Sociology book 101.

This is written in plain language.

After the institutions of Marriage, Family, Religion, Education, fall apart the last to go is the Economic.

This is what is happening know.

Our fore fathers knew this. This is way these men based The Constitution on sound Biblical teachings.

We The People know this.