Some folks insist that the Founders didn't want an armed citizenry aside
from service in a state militia. Actually the Founders made it clear that
an armed citizenry independent of the state was exactly what they wanted,
some of them wrote and spoke on the subject in very clear terms, just as
they did on the subject of how undesirable it was for govt. and religion to
be mixed. The courts consider such extra-constitutional evidence when they
are interpreting the Constitution, which seems a reasonable thing to do when
trying to figure out what the Founders *meant* which is the role which
inevitably came to the courts.
Pretty much the theme of the Bill of Rights.
They had to agree to legal slavery for the same reason, but that doesn't
mean many weren't holding their noses when they signed.
Put me down on the list of those who are pleased that the courts went that
route, state religions are things of horror.
Actually, the founding fathers said, in the 1st Amendment, that the FEDERAL
government should stay out of the religion business; states were free to
have their own state church (which several, including Connecticut and
Massachusetts, did). It wasn't until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education)
that the 1st Amendment's clause on religion became binding on the individual
Oh there will be a resolution, all of those critters up there is
Washington know full well that if they don't come up with a plan or
agreement that it will be political suicide for them all regardless of
which party held out.
It was all posturing, period. They knew it would _literally_ destroy
the country and that they couldn't allow that to happen. (Correction,
the puppets' handlers wouldn't allow that to happen.)
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Why should he do any different than in the past when the government was
shut down for several days because the party in power failed to do their
job and did not properly manage the budget and caused a need to raise
the budget limit.
His disapproval rating 4% than his approval rating (Real Clear politics
Poll which is a composite of about 8 other polls.) Most of the country
disagrees with his policies. Is there any wonder why he is against the
short term solution that would bring his 40% (about 50% in a year)
increase in the national debt before the public just before the election.
There will be NO "default" regardless of what Obama, congress, et al
says/does and despite what the rating agencies may proffer (which is
strictly opinion with no legal weight), all this is strictly political
The reality is that you are being strummed like an out of tune guitar ...
Can't do that. The government doesn't print money (well, it does, but under
contract to the Federal Reserve). But what the government CAN do is mint
coins. By executive fiat, the government could design and create a, say,
$100 coin (made out of pure aluminum) and monetize the debt with billions of
dollars worth of soda cans.
Here's some predictions:
1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the
adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides
suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side
will be wrong.
2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot,
he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to
historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding
3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to
our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy.
4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the
There is no such thing as a "viable" third-party candidate. The closest
we've ever come to that was when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose"
candidate. His candidacy cost Howard Taft the election and handed the
presidency to Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most venal president we've EVER
Third party candidates take votes away from the major party candidate to
which they are closest. If Al Gore decides to run as a 3rd party candidate,
he'll take votes away from Obama. If Ron Paul decides to run, he'll take
votes from Rick Perry.
What would be fun is if BOTH Gore and Paul decided to run!
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise
the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.
Obama will not allow default to happen.
I added this to a letter to our "leaders":
Any responsible citizen must have a budget, stick to that budget or face the
fallout... If I live beyond my means (as the government and many people have
done) my credit rating will plummet, and rightfully so. To repair it I must
pay down my debt, stop borrowing additionally and force myself to live
within my means. If I do not, only bankruptcy can "save" me, but I don't
believe our Nation has that fallback.
I am disappointed in the members of the Republican Party that abandoned
"Cut, Cap and Balance Plan"
As to extending the Ceiling date beyond 2012, why should we... it is
unpleasant business to be sure, but let's get it dealt with sooner rather
Salary of the US President ...................$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000
Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,000
Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000
Let the above be put into the Social Security for retirement, and under the
VA for medical insurance. And who else in the work force can give themselves
I think we found where some of the cuts should be made !
Ben Franklin warned that if we let being a Legislator become a profitable
position, we soon would have only profiteers filling the seats... seems like
he hit it on the head!
The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The validity of
the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, shall not be
questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that any debt above the
current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law".
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.