Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Our founding fathers were not simply old, rich, white men trying to make a buck as some on the left maintain. They were serious, sober, and brilliant men who were well read in political philosophy and well acquainted with the forces that lead to tyranny.

There were several learned men whose writings served as inspiration for our Constitution and form of government, perhaps chief among them being John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu.

Regarding the separation of powers issue and the need for a judiciary free from partisan/political pressure, Montesquieu wrote:

The political liberty of the subject is a tranquility of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of` another.

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may anse, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.

There would be an end of every thing were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people to exercise those three powers that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals.
- The Spirit of the Laws, - 1748


We have been hearing very disturbing things from this president, things that turn everything on which this country stands upon it’s head.

Be careful of people empowered to execute the laws taking it upon themselves to legislate them and declare them legal by virtual fiat.

It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to serve as a balance to executive and legislative abuse when it becomes so oppressive that it ventures into issues it had prefer not to judge.

However … Montesquieu was right in his analysis and the Founding Fathers, in their design of our government and inclusion of the Bill of Rights, thankfully agreed with his concerns.

If only they’d put a little more teeth into their prohibitions.

In that regard, and in light of federal overreach over the last 6 decades, the Anti-Federalists have been shown to be justified in their fears of a all-controlling centralized-control federal government..


( 40 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 4th, 2012 02:59 pm (UTC)
No - it's not "s some on the left maintain." In fact we are well aware of the larger issues and really only state that partial truth because it bugs those on the right.

Truth is that when you look at the history, the revolution didn't matter a whole lot to the average colonist of the day (until things started going their way, the shooting got close etc...) and at many points (and certainly prior to the events in Lexington and Concord) there were times when the Tory sentiment outnumber Rebel sentiment significantly. This will, of course, be misconstrued as anti-American, Founder hostility or etc... it isn't. It is a statement of the events of the day. I am quite happy it ended the way it did; but you can spin it how you like - it's your post.

The legislation and executive offices are still quite securely separate and your "gridlock as policy" Republicans have no real worry there. Even when the DNC had control of both houses and the POTUS they could barely get their consensus together and actually utilize their super majority to do anything significant except the passing of PPAHCA which I hope is stuck down as silly (so long as they can surgically retain the good parts). As for the courts... no - it seems they are doing just as they were intended to do.

So - a related question...

When states (like IL, SD, LA, MD, FL for some example) are shown to have histories of corrupt state governments... FAR more corrupt on a per capita basis than the rest of the country... what is supposed to counter that... their internal state mechanisms that allowed the states to drift into corruption in the first place? No one (except the perps) have a love of corruption. So ?

Oh so many issues - I wishI could actually write down all the things I intend to go on about - I forget most ... there are so many. I just need a jog of memory sometimes.

Edited at 2012-04-04 03:01 pm (UTC)
Apr. 4th, 2012 03:12 pm (UTC)
All governments are necessary evils.

If THE PEOPLE were not as corrupt as they are, the excesses of government would be less.

People often get what they deserve.

The Democrats almost never compromise and the republicans alwaus get stuck when they nake deals.

Obama is LYING again about his bogus $10 of cuts for $1 of taxes.

Reagan fell for it once and the Democrats reneged and spending skyrocketed.

PLUS, a cut is not a cut anyway. As I have been telling people for 25 years. It's just a tiny reduction in the rate of increase.

Obama is sounding more and more like a South American dictator ... which is par for the course when you actually look at his past.

Of course NO ONE wanted to do that in 2007-2008 and they are still trying to hide it today.

Of course revolutions and wars are always unpopular in the beginning. America was also overwhelmingly opposed to getting into WW II.

So what.

THAT'S what leadership and patriotism are all about.

We are becoming a nation of whiners and "feed me" slobs ... at least the part that think they are entitled to a free lunch.

Unfortunately, we may have reached the tipping point and we are already seeing a preview of what the result of that will look like.

Nice job utopians!
Apr. 4th, 2012 03:43 pm (UTC)

"The Democrats almost never compromise and the republicans alwaus get stuck when they make deals."

One of the biggest untruths I have ever heard you (often) repeat.

Again - an issue we will NEVER agree on.
Apr. 5th, 2012 12:08 am (UTC)
On what did the Democrats compromise in ObamaCare?

On the Stimulus?

On the Continuing Resolutions and debt ceiling?

On amnesty?

On spending cuts?

Reagan made a deal with the Democrats on taxes and amnesty and the stabbed him in the back. When Democrats have been in the minority they cry and whine and kick their feet until the Republicans give in and cross the aisle.

Whe the Democrats are in the majority, especially as they were in Obama's first two years, they told the republicans (and the American people who kicked their asses in 2010) to go to Hell.

Facts are such inconvenient things ... aren't they?

Apr. 6th, 2012 02:45 am (UTC)
Welcome to the BWNC
Welcome to the Bizzaro World National Convention!

I do not have time to go into all this today - too much going on...

ObamaCare was nothing BUT a compromise - the plan you would have got - the better option - would have sent your side into chaos and made health care in this country MUCH MUCH better. It also ponied up to the insurance companies far too much.

Simulus - you mean all the plans you guys started and the D's basically enhanced - you mean how GM is now turning record profits and is in the process of paying it's bills back... you mean how MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs were salvaged with a network of benefits that spread out to all other sorts of areas of the economy? Like how we can continue to have an industry that is now MUCH more modern and progressive and can provide the levels of tech development and capacity like the same one that dug us out of WW2?

The Debt Ceiling was an unnecessary crisis - and FULL of compromises - and you guys seem to have a history of raising it as well... and somehow shutting down the government seems like a good plan somehow? Really?

Which Amnesty - there are several. Immigration? There needs to be some work there. No one gets everything they want...

Spending cuts have been nothing but give give give you guys give nothing back. NOTHING. just NO.

Reagan did understand one thing... you need to work both sides of the issue or you get nothing. You guys do nothing but scorched earth now. It will be back to bite you in the butt. When you salt the fields nothing grows.

I noticed you avoided how the Democrats were MIRED trying to work with the house Republicans to the point athat their constituents were annoyed with how they got their Super Majority and were NOT USING IT. If they did you would have oh so much more to go on about.

Significant cuts to Medicaid and Medicare
Significant decreases in Revenue Increases
Gitmo's still open
Legitimized the suspension of due process
FAR more gun friendly than the right portrays
gay marriage not resolved
the contraception debacle
cuts to unnecessary regulation
reductions in federal positions
Junior era tax cuts

These guys had a super majority and they stumbled over EVERYTHING...

You talk about liberal use of obscure parliamentary processes... what is Reconciliation? THREE TIMES ... THREE TIMES... used to push Juniors tax cuts - and ONE TIME to pass the PPAHCA in the Obama Administration... What's good for the goose... Glad it might get struck by the renegade judiciary, but we covered our opinions on that - I dislike it for the wrong reasons and I don't dislike it enough.
Apr. 6th, 2012 03:31 am (UTC)
Re: Welcome to the BWNC
RE ObamaCare was nothing BUT a compromise - the plan you would have got - the better option - would have sent your side into chaos and made health care in this country MUCH MUCH better. It also ponied up to the insurance companies far too much.

*ROFLOL* You are officially in la la land!

The Republicans were totally shut out of the process. NO ONE EVEN READ THE BILL BEFOR IT WAS RAMMED THROUGH ... by A CORRUPT PROCESS.

Plus, there were pages and pages of "to be filled in later" by Kathleen Sebellius.

Almost THREE THOUSAND PAGES of government takeover of everything involving healthcare and some things no (like EPA regulations) because EVERYTHING affects health - right?

Oh, you want to lecture me on reconciliation?

I know EXACTLY what it is and what it is FOR. I wrote many posts explaining it.

It is simply meant to pass legislation by simple majority desogned to REDUCE THE DEFICIT!

They LIED as the recent CBO estimates (which are still lowballing) have determined the costs will more than DOUBLE and ObamaCare will ADD TRILLIONS to the debt.

They even tried to use a trick and DEEM it passed with a vote on the bill itself before Elena Kagan's office went into a panic on how they'd defend it.

Hey, Mike. Nancy Pelosi actually CHANGED THE LOCKS on the meeting room doors to deny Republican access.

When you try to blow out that revisionist hisory, please confine it to the drones who don't know anything and don't actually follow current events.

Shame on you. Spinning your diversionary propaganda to distract from the REAL ISSUES.

Hey, Mike. Obama CUT $500 BILLION from MediCare to fool the CBO into counting it as SAVINGS, and then ADDED it back in for MedicAid.

Revenue? Obama's not worried about revenue, or deficits, or debt. He WANTS to overwhelm the system. That is what he learned from Cloward and Piven at Columbia. And Bill Ayers. And the ACORN mobsters. These are the people he chummed with and their goal is to destroy capitalism.

Oh, brother!

You should be a full-time propagandist. Teach the Alinsky tactics.

There's a sucker born every minute.
Apr. 6th, 2012 03:35 am (UTC)
Re: Welcome to the BWNC
Incidentally, the insurance companies will be put out of business because, as Obama said, that is his goal!

And then it will be Obama's Death Panels deciding if grandma gets her pacemaker or a pain pill.

They are ALREADY making "recommendations" for tests, medicine and treatments to be withdrawn by physicians because they might be too "costly", especially for people who haven't many more years or positive contributions to make.

JUST AS WE SAID they would.

P.S. I'd give you a link but I know you don't click on them. :-D

Edited at 2012-04-06 03:37 am (UTC)
Apr. 6th, 2012 04:02 am (UTC)
Re: Welcome to the BWNC
Glad I could give you a laugh - you sound like you need it. I can promise you I had the same reaction.

I (and many others, who were actual supporters of the POTUS) are generally annoyed with the LACK of liberal backbone this guy has shown - the number of times he has rolled over on us and given in to your folk and displayed so little of the fire he showed us before. We have wondered how he does so many things for your side and yet you still cannot accept him even in small doses. That's another reason we cannot take you seriously.
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:32 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:04 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:54 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:05 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:09 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Welcome to the BWNC - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:05 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 6th, 2012 03:50 am (UTC)
Mike drank the Kool-Aid
Hey, Mike.

GE will NOT pay off their debts to the taxpayers. The little they DID pay was payed with BAILOUT MONEY they didn't use.

Record profits?

Sure ...

all there previous debts were wiped away.

their bondholders were FORCED to sell the holdings for nickels on the dollar.

they don't pay taxes

the taxpayer is STILL subsidizing them

they had to go into BANKRUPTCY, remember? Like you said they COULDN'T DO!

Like I said they should without having a government takeover.

Hey, Mike! How are your electric cars doing?

How much is the taxpayer on thew hook for that debacle.

Record profits! *lol*

No tax bill.

Big bonuses for all the union people.

Last I saw they still owe the taxpayer around $40 billion ... plus compounded interest ... and we'll never see it.

Hey Mike ... that sounds like one of those evil corporations you're always railing against.

Obama has frittered away TRILLIONS and what do we have to show for it?

A bunch of rich Obama supporters and a disintegrating America.

And you'll STILL vote for this guy in 2012 because you've drunk the Kool-Aid and you refuse to accept reality.
Re: Mike drank the Kool-Aid - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand
Apr. 4th, 2012 03:44 pm (UTC)
The rest of that is just repeated talking points we have already argued and we will waste nothing but time on it... so back to work for me. Very busy.

Apr. 4th, 2012 04:13 pm (UTC)
Q & hopefully A
So why are they a necessary evil?
Apr. 5th, 2012 12:02 am (UTC)
Re: Q & hopefully A
Because, in order to achieve security, prosperity and maintain freedom, people surrender a part of their soverignty to other men who, when not virtupus, moral and ethical ... and true to the limits of their contract, tend to become despotic.

Read Locke, Montesquieu, de Toqueville. Government should exist to PRESERVE freedom and the rights of the individual ... not to create a utopian STATE.

And recall these quotes from a couple of those rich white men from whom you hold such contempt:

"Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one." – Thomas Paine

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." - James Madison

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. - Benjamin Franklin

Apr. 5th, 2012 02:14 am (UTC)
Re: Q & hopefully A
It was actually a semi rhetorical question.

You forget... philosophy student. Read Locke. I am already aware of the answer.

It is incomplete.
Apr. 5th, 2012 08:57 pm (UTC)
Re: Q & hopefully A
I propose to you that there is no less a streak of despotism in the RNC than in the DNC - and then some. These National Parties want nothing more than to conserve power to their party and no one else. The RNC is no different.

A good and functioning government preserves the rights of the individual AND advances the quality of life, improves the security of, improves the welfare (in the traditional sense, not the policy sense) health and conscience of the society - and having attained some measure of success it should seek to assist others that desire it to attain similar goals for the sake of moral need, security and general human decency.

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." - James Madison - Agreed WHOLE HEARTEDLY

Paine - absolutely. Of course it is a matter of discussion where the lines are. Funny you would turn to him save you know he is one of my all time heroes.

Jefferson - Oh I do agree... I might rephrase it in terms of efficiency... you never seem to understand that I value efficiency and that small things tend to (but are not always) more efficient. I am VERY consistent on that note.

I have to disagree with Franklin for several reasons... you already know them He was captive by the prevailing theological reasoning and sentiments of the day. Many of the great minds of the time were. Just as their view of slavery was a product of their time.

You know one thing that drives up government costs... when they do away with a government job and replace it with a contract. I see this every single day at my work. It is disgusting when it happens. Low bidder might be saving now, but it doesn't save later.
Apr. 5th, 2012 11:08 pm (UTC)
Re: Q & hopefully A
1. Your comments about the RNC have nothing to do with despotism which is what
liberalism, progressivism,socialism, fascism, statism and the Democrat Party stand for ... control over each and every aspect of our lives.

Conservatism is the antithesis of such Statism.

The Republican Party establishment, as I have repeated for years, is dedicated to maintaining and strengthening their positions government, cutting deals with the Democrats, and who, along with you leftists, despise conservatives.

2. Oh, really? Ben Franklin was a "captive" of the conventional thinking of his time? *ROFLOL*

And when was this? Where did you pick up that little bit if spin? Oh, yeah ... those guys were really dullards and so naive. Oh, and slavery? They mostly abhorred it but it was a fact of life across the globe and they had to delay its abolition to get the country started.

Many of Franklins ideas on freedom and so forth came from Locke who, as I'm sure you know, was died several years before Franklin was even born. Their learning and intellects would have without a doubt made Barack Obama, who was immersed in leftist ideology from his youth, look like a fool.

Hey, Mike. Obama says he "believes" in God, praises Jesus, that he is his redeemer, that he believes in the resurrection, etc., etc. He cites Jesus to give credence to his politics.


but this is the problem with most all you leftists.

You DON'T believe rights are natural and God-given.

Except when you're talking about the rights to birth control and abortion and gay marriage and food stamps and robbing Peter to subsidize Paul. *lol*

It is not the job of the government to ADVANCE anything but freedom and carry out those TASKS we the governed entrust them with.

They are supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare and SECURE the blessings of liberty.

A government CANNOT legally assume more authority that that granted it, nor can even a majority of individuals legally empower anyone or any entity, grant anyone more authority or power than they themselves have.

But ... if you want the kind of all-powerful STATE that Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the othe left-wing activist Justices hunger for ... start your own country, surrender your rights, and write your on tyrannical constitution.

Just leave ours alone.

And do tell us how you're coming along. ;-)
Re: Golly - all the dodges - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 03:58 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:20 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 04:31 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:30 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:33 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 06:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: The tide goes in the tide goes out. - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 08:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: The tide goes in the tide goes out. - tniassaint - Apr. 10th, 2012 02:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Belching liberals - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 10th, 2012 02:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Belching liberals - tniassaint - Apr. 10th, 2012 02:51 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:09 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - tniassaint - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golly - all the dodges - metaphorsbwithu - Apr. 6th, 2012 05:37 am (UTC) - Expand
( 40 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com