Negative Liberties are Positive

The Constitution was created to ensure the liberties of the individual and protect the individual against the tyranny of the masses and government. These negative liberties restrict what the government can do to the individual (the smallest minority in America). The Founding Fathers were not evil men that put constraints on civil rights, they saw the corruption of the British government and how it abridged the liberties of American colonists. And they didn't want the new United States of America to become corrupted in the same way, ergo they restrained the government's liberties. This is a GOOD thing.

Gretchen Helfrich interview with Obama, 2001 on NPR
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. As radical as I think people tried 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 has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that." Rush Limbaugh put me wise to this scary stuff.

Let's read the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Click here for the Bill of Rights

Where does it say that Americans have negative liberty? Where does it say that health care is an issue? Obama talks about "redistributive change" he really is talking about His form of justice. Mike Rosen wrote in the Rocky Mountain News March 31, 2000: "Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome." Because not everyone can be a millionaire, nobody should be. Because not everyone can afford health care, those who can should pay for those who cannot. When He talks about the civil rights movement, He is talking about African-American liberties, liberties that the Republican Party in the 1960s championed. When He talks about redistribution in the context of the civil rights movement, something he talked to Joe the Plumber about, He really means redistribution of non-racial minority money to racial minorities. Dare I say His Presidency is a "reverse-..."? I better not, His Homeland Security has issued a warning on rightwing extremists.

"generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." He's talking about the Bill of Rights. Yes, these are negative liberties, but they are liberties that the government shall NOT have. SO, is His Presidency saying that this is wrong? Let's read the Bill of Rights as His Presidency would have it:

Amendment I-Congress SHALL MAKE LAWS respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II-A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL BE infringed.
...
Amendment X-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are NOT reserved to the states respectively, NOR to the people.

Entitlements, Subsidies and Checkbooks

Schwarzenegger Eyes End To Calif. Welfare Program
All Things Considered (NPR), May 28, 2009 · Saying that the state is "backed into a corner," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed $5 billion in deep spending cuts....

Progressives love entitlements and subsidies. Dangle some gift or prize in front of someone, like some carrot and horse, make them do some loops that you enjoy watching...because progressives are more educated than you and know better. Yeah right!

My wife used a clever teaching tool when she taught elementary school. She used a checkbook system. Instead of dangling prizes for doing work or homework, she gave her students a tool that gave them the power to choose and make decisions in their own self-interest. Each student was given a checkbook, as a condition of being in class they were given a salary. They would have to pay for renting their desk; they would be charged if they caused trouble. Using the checkbook/capitalism system they managed their money, learned a budget and math. She would not give her students subsidies or entitlements. Students will never learn responsibility for their actions.

When you continually bribe someone with a prize if they do something...they will always expect a prize. So when we bribe or subsidize women to have children and tell them it's OK because we will subsidize you with welfare...are we really teaching them anything? Too many people have become slaves to entitlement and subsidy and government. Farmers get paid by the government not to grow food.

The federal government has become the national Plantation. The plantation is an institution that enslaves men and women. And the ultimate outcome is more money and power for the masters.

His Presidency has increased our debt into the trillions (yet He and the media are worried about a couple hundred million dollars in bonuses...0.02% puh-leez, but that's another post another day) to buy GM, Chrysler, AIG...who's next? The banking system and auto industry are slowly being brought into the Plantation. His Presidency (I mean the master) tells Chrsyler and GM, "You need to slim up..." they drop thousands of dealers leading to tens-of thousands of jobs lost (the average dealer has near 50 employees). The master runs the banks and auto companies.

In stead of working toward their own self-interest, these companies and "recepients" have succombed to the "greater good".

In the end, welfare is a part of our national Plantation, it subsidizes women to have children who will grow up thinking government is the end all and the party and people who have, for decades, "fought" the war on poverty have yet to win it and are losing big time. When will they break their bonds from a failure of a policy.

The poor, GM, Chrysler, the farmer GET OFF THE PLANTATION. Stop the cycle of poverty and degradation. Stop working for the master, stop making government babies...

Read up on Chris Gardner or Ben S. Carson, M.D. Given the right inspiration anyone can get off the Plantation.

tidbit-Names

What's in a name?
Barack (arabic=blessing) Hussein (arabic=handsome/to be beautiful) Obama (possibly Kenyan=he + crooked/bending slightly)
Blessing Handsome Crooked
Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff)
Rahm (German=cream) Emanuel (Hebrew=God is with us)
A cream God is with us... quite fitting for what many call His Presidency as the "messiah". He did tell Germans that he would lower the rising seas.
Hillary Clinton (Latin Hilarius=cheerful)
She really is hilarious.
Michelle LaVaughn Obama
Michelle (Hebrew=Who is like God) LaVaughn (Welch=Little)
Michelle is the woman behind the Man.

Hope and Pyong-Change

NKorea test-fires missile, slams Security Council: by AP Writer Siyoung Lee

I will preface this posting by saying that this is all predicated on Evil Korea's eventual evil actions.

His Presidency and the State Department has failed.

Barry Obama (and even H.R. Clinton) during Decision 2008 harped on the failed foreign policies of the Bush Administration. In fact, the most said phrases of that campaign had to be "failed Bush policies" and "the failures of the last eight years". With H.R. Clinton's extensive foreign policy experience and His Presidency's charm and charisma, they were going to change the way the world likes us.

Now Obama becomes His Presidency and H.R. Clinton heads the State Department, everyone likes us, they really, really like us....

The progressive movement loves to say that talking with the people who hate us and understanding why they hate us will make the world a safer place. I assume that H.R. Clinton used these tactics when talking with Evil Korea. So, if talking with Kim Jong-Il was working why does he hate us? Why did he pull out of the military truce with Good Korea?

Let's see, Obama policies and (in)actions have led to nuclear tests, missile tests, cancelling of a truce with Good Korea, threatening the U.N. Security Council... the Korean Peninsula on the brink of war (dare I say nuclear war). I think I would consider these failed policies; this is if you consider the proposed outcome of His Presidency's policies. These things didn't happen during the Bush Administration...he didn't fail.

Going back to the article: NO WHERE is it mentioned about Obama's policies, H.R. Clinton, the State Department, leading to this or not being able to stop this.

"I don't think that anybody in the (Obama) administration thinks there is a crisis," Gates told reporters aboard his military jet early Friday.

This is a curious quote. I wish the text could convey sarcasm. Italicize "(Obama) administration" and it sounds like Secretary Gates says something totally different than reading it dead-pan.

Let's look back in history: Neville Chamberlain's infamous Munich Agreement (an appeaser's Holy Grail); he wanted to talk and sit down and hash out the differences with the evil men. Well, we see how well that worked. But Neville wasn't an American progressive. Let's let right kind of people (His Presidency) try it now and things will be so much different (sarcasm).

His Presidency, please don't repeat the failed policies of the Chamberlain Administration.

If Evil Korea hits Good Korea (and the American military there) and His Presidency acts peacefully without retaliation, a whole lot of Americans will be mad. If he does act, then his peacemongering progressive friends will hate him as well, especially the ones that fund His on-going 2012 Presidential Campaign.

Kim Jong is Illin' while Obama is chillin'.

Progressive Sotomy

"I, [NAME], 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 and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." -The oath taken by a Supreme Court Justice

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -Sonia Sotomayor

Really? So when she takes the oath to "administer justice without respect to persons", will she be going back on some of her beliefs? Can she say this oath with a straight face?

The Associated Progressives/Associate Press along with many other media organizations are agog and committing sotomy over this nominee. His Presidency has given us a woman with real-world knowledge, one who truly cares and is empathetic.

Let's put it this way, she has enjoyed the American Dream. She graduated from the Ivy League and sits as a judge. Through her push and self-interest, she overcame her existence (with the help of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) and made a name for herself. OK, how does that make her more qualified to make a decision than a poor black man from Georgia, Justice Clarence Thomas. Ah, yes, because he is "conservative" and she is "progressive".

Many media outlets are praising His Presidency's choice of the first Hispanic justice. Racism is a tool of progressives for political gain. It's racist ONLY if the the perpetrator is conservative, Republican, or individualist.

As for reaching "a better conclusion", is she saying that if a latina had been on the court all this time, rulings would be different? Does this not undermine or keep in contempt the Court's previous rulings?

A last thought: Are not the progressives worried about loading the Court with Catholics? If sworn in, she will become the sixth Catholic Jurist, following the Papists Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. If His Presidency wants an empathetic Court, the Catholic experiences of these six would be worrisome to abortion-rights activists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_sotomayor_31

The Constitution of Sam

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

As a popular Denver radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, likes to say... "Let me tell you where I sit before I tell you where I stand." I sit as the smallest and, of late, the most discriminated minority in America, an individual.

The biggest influence in my life is my family. My great-grandfather came to America to work the coal mines of Southern Colorado. He saw the immense opportunities that this great land promised. It was truly the "Land of Opportunity". My grandfather, born in a coalmine camp, later became the owner of a grocery store and farm. My mother came to America in the 1960s for family and economic opportunity. Things were tough in the Old Country and my family members followed their own self-interest and they made it in America. They became a part of America; they wanted to melt into the pot of opportunity and not be the olives in the salad bowl of America. My wife's family came over in the 1700s from Northern Ireland for a better life.
The interminable human spirit, singular, has lead my family and I to a better life. I get my inspiration from them. I get my motivation from my wife and daughter.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"-
The basis of our independence from Great Britain are rooted in truths that need NO proof. These were considered truths for everyone who is a rational and sane being. Unfortunately, if you only follow the pundits on the progressive news outlets, become mind-numbed by some progressive academic these truths are not necessarily self-evident anymore.

"that all men are created equal"-
Even though the Founding Fathers had changed "pursuit of happiness" from Property, they still had this jab toward the slave-owning Southern Democrats (Don't mistaken this, in the end the Democrats tried to uphold slavery, the "original" Republicans demolished it). All men ARE CREATED equal. Equal regardless of skin color, eye color, hair color, gender, ethnicity, disability, or whatever you were physically born with.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"-
We are all given these Rights by our Creator. We will forever have these Rights and only the One who gave them to us has the prerogative to take them away. Evil men will try and take these Rights and usurp the power of the One who gave them to us.

"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."-
Life...I am against the abhorrent practice of killing unborn human beings. You can call me "pro-life", "anti-abortion", "against a woman's freedom to choose", I call it barbaric and macabre. I believe in the liberty of the individual and I believe that he should have the ability and freedom to choose his own destiny and...pursuit of happiness. I don't think these Rights were in a random order. Without Life, there are no other Rights, no life, no civilization, no point. You cannot pursue Happiness without Liberty (the ability to do freely as you would like, a state of freedom).

A socialist will tell you, "It's for the good of the whole." This will be at the expense of the individual, and the crisis of the whole will be perceived and not real. This is how a few will rule individuals.

I wish there was an Individualist Party to counter the Socialist Party (slowly forming from our two-party system).