The Occupy Wall Streeters — Destroying the First Amendment
The “Occupy Wall Street” protestors have put their platform online with an apparent list of demands. One of those demands — an immediate ban on all private campaign contributions to political candidates — shows a woeful ignorance and virtual contempt for basic rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
They also call for:
The immediate reversal, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic holding in the “Citizens United” case by the Supreme Court, which equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals, and unions to politicians with free speech. We, the People, demand that institutional bribery and corruption not be deemed protected speech.
Subject to the above ban on all private money and gifts in politics, to enact additional campaign finance reform requiring free air time and public campaign finances to all candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to participate in the primaries and/or electoral process, to shorten the campaign season and to allow voting on weekends and holidays.
The OWS protestors don’t seem to understand (or don’t care) that the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech” or “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That includes the ability to not only speak out on political issues and the merits of candidates for public office, but to spend money on persuading others about the merits of those candidates or helping them get elected through campaign contributions.
Americans have the right to associate with others who share their beliefs. Freedom of speech is not limited to just individuals, but also to the many other forms in which American associate, from unions to corporations to organizations such as the NAACP, the Sierra Club, or the National Rifle Association.
These demands are more than just pernicious proposals by protestors who want to destroy the economic and personal freedom that has helped make us a great nation. They are unconstitutional attempts to limit the ability of Americans to associate with others or to petition and otherwise lobby the government on many important public policy issues. The OWS protesters are themselves benefiting from the right to associate and speak that they now seek to deny to others.
This is a truly sad era in our history throughout the world. The “have nots” are seeking for financial equality throughout the world, while the “haves” will not spend even an extra cent contributing to the economy as a whole. I, myself, belong to the “haves” and it truly sickens me to see this worldwide picture. It sickens me that we have reached this point in our Earth’s history. It sickens me that in every part of this world, every man or woman is out for themselves, and only for themselves. We, collectively as a human race, have lost sight of the common good – together we stand and divided, we MUST all fall. This wisdom is universal and will stand the test of time. This world will fall since greed is the first agenda of each and every single day. The commonwealth in this world cannot stand as long as every man and woman in this world cannot think as a collective but chooses to think only for the individual self.
Dear Dave,
It is abundantly clear to me that you have no concept of the difference between Self Interest and Selfishness. (this is something all leftists share)
It is also abundantly clear that the concept of Private Property (codified in Commandment number 10 regarding coveting) which is enshrined in the third, fourth and fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution is beyond your scope.
History also proves that in a society where Individuals are allowed to act in thier own self interest, and are permitted to keep the fruits of their labors, the benefits of such are broader and more inclusive than in any collectivist society ever tried.
Communism always looks good on paper, and sounds good in speeches, but invariably it stinks on ice.
I suggest you stop telling everyone else how to live their lives and see to your own.
What is truly sad, Dave is that you don’t see the hypocrisy in your own post. How is it that you are one of the “Haves” if you truly believe the collectivist pap you are posting?
If you truly believe in collectivism, then you should be giving away every penny you make beyond that which keeps you directly above the poverty line.
When you and all the other Liberal “Haves,” have done this then you will have the moral standing to begin being ashamed of the rest of us.
Of course, just like Matt Damon, Al Gore, George Soros, and the rest of the 1% Liberals, you will never actually put your own money where your mouth is, so me and the rest of the reasonable, intelligent conservatives have little to worry about.
So, Dave, since you’re a “have” how much extra have you paid in taxes? All you gotta do is make out a check to the Treasury Department and then your conscience is clear.
In all of recorded history there has never been a society of which Dave is dreaming. That hasn’t stopped millions of fuzzy thinking folks from claiming it’s out there if we just did it “right”. The only system that has had consistently reliable and predictable results in raising the standard of living for everyone in a society is a capitalist system. The only “collective” aspect that should apply is that the system should be driven by the collective result of billions of daily decisions made by individuals in their own best interest. Call it greed if you want to, but there are no Solomons or angels available to run things and assuage the fears of all the folks who fundamentally don’t trust people to start with and therefore pine away for something that does not exist.
The problem my dear sir is that, apart from your delusions, there are no socialists. Only those who promote socialism for others. Everyone else is rightly out for themselves. Honestly or dishonestly. We have seen too many examples of what happens when we are forced to be out for everyone. Liberty, self interest and the invisible hand leads to prosperity. The hell holes that you mention are caused by just the things you propose. Bad government, a lack of liberty and the lie of “one for all and all for one”. Freedom and the rights of the individual are what is generally lacking in all tyrannies and failed political systems.
would have commented but dont want to pile on
We, collectively as a human race, have lost sight of the common good
Dave-
You are ignorant of the common good. Are you running for King of the Collective? Should you become activist in attempting to impose some version of the ‘common good’ on the rest of us, you would have to determine what discipline to apply to those who disagree with you. Please know that imposition of your noble schemes, however loftily stated, will be opposed with maximum hostility by those of us who still believe in the right to assemble to promote such of our beliefs which conflict with yours.
“while the “haves” will not spend even an extra cent contributing to the economy as a whole.”
This statement is just plain false. Do some research on who donates what (start with Bill & Melinda Gates). Could pile on more as well but will refrain.
He’s not talking about charitable donations, he’s referring to all those people who run a risk benefit analysis before investing the money they have earned into ventures.
You see, some folks looked at Solyndra and saw an unsustainable business model that would only lose money and therefore they Selfishly witheld their investments forcing the Obama Administration to forward them a Loan of half a trillion dollars.
If only those people had done their duty and lost their money voluntarily through collective thought rather than using the Selfish Individual Thought they employed, the Taxpayers would not have had to lose all that money!
Oh, I see. It is all so clear now. We must give all our monies to the government and they will choose how, and who, to save. Why didn’t I understand that before….
… Ackk, cough, wheeze… Thank’s JD. That was a good one.
Now if we can simply get the government out of my pocket (taking money from me, that is), I can give my money to stuff that I believe in, rather than the stuff that “they” think is best for their vision of what the country should be like..
I agree that solyndra deal was pretty bad, but let’s try to stick to the facts. The loan was half a billion, not half a trillion. You’re off by $450,000,000,000.
Half a trillion is more like what the Bush administration gave to bail out all your banker buddies in the first round of TARP.
What is the “common good” as you see it?
Perhaps the only thing our friend Dave “has” is a big student loan and no means to pay it back.
You have all proved my point about what this world has turned into and this is the end result of what we’re seeing today, all across the world.
Are you referring to the prosperity we are experiencing that is unparalleled in human history?
My guess is you are upset because some have more than others. If we continue to spread the ideas of free markets and individualism, we’ll come closer to reaching the ideal where everyone is (nearly) equally wealthy. History has shown that government coercion to acheive this goal backfires every time.
Dave,
I myself would be inclined to suspect that it is rather that you have proven the point of the people who responded to you. Why should you or I have “financial equality” to Michael Jordon when neither of us played basketball as well? If you are of the “haves” is it not presumptious to assume you know what the “have nots” want? o_O
It’s always a wonder to me whenever leftists or their useful idiots like Dave start prattling on about “greed”. In fact it is a monumental joke, with more of the relentless semantic games and lies deliberately used to obfuscate the leftist agenda. None of the economic disaster we find ourselves in today would have been remotely possible without the financial backstops set up by the progressives of both parties in government.
In the case of the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent attempts such as TARP (proposed by the progressive Republican Bush) to “fix” it, the left wants the economic mistakes of banksters to be redistributed across the masses of people, both those now alive and future generations. The many are forced to underwrite the failure of the few. That’s pure unadulterated socialism. If some financiers get their usual cut along the way, it doesn’t prove otherwise. As always, it’s rationalized with leftist hysteria, fearmongering, and sanctimonious moral preenings that then become the agitprop spewed out by the progressive lapdog media.
The big picture is plain for all who live in reality to see: the leftist oligarchy has made deals with the jerkoffs of high-finance, such that the left is allowed tyranny over the little people while the banksters finance it. The result is an unholy mix of statism/corporatism/leftism. Technically it might not be communism or fascism, but it is most certainly predicated on socialism. Of course it still allows the leftists at the top to live like arrogant royalty, including vacations in Spain and Martha’s Vineyard, and numerous trips to the golf course.
The only greed here is for more power and lavish perquisites by leftists, aided and abetted by their bankster bedmates. Both of them dangle visions of world government in front of each other, expecting the other to be the chump when they secretly plan to wrest total control at some final outcome. All of them deserve a special place in hell.
Dave and the OWS are just more of the usual clueless leftist useful idiots, anxious to foist off their hazy ideas of morality (consisting only of greed and racism) onto everyone else. But it is all a monumental sham. The thing about real morality is that it is hard. The faux morality spouted by Dave and the OWS idiots allows them to feel virtuous without any effort. They spout all the requisite leftist memes and slogans, and suddenly they are virtuous, but it requires nothing in the way of real sacrifice by restraining their most basic innermost instincts. In the final analysis, socialism is the default secular religion for fakers, the intellectually lazy, and potential world dictators whose true desire is to control all the rest of us.
Over the past few months I’ve been collecting quotes about equality and about leftists such as Dave. The quotes are from various sources. In most cases the sources were vague or unatributable, so I’ll have to apologize ahead of time if someone sees something here that they in fact created in the first place.
- Liberals take for granted the existence of the goods of this world, and are only concerned with distributing them equally (also known as the Obamamessiah cargo cult).
- On one hand, liberals deny that there is an objective good. On the other hand, they say that anything that people desire (so long as it doesn’t involve coercion) is good. But if there’s no objective good, how do they know that anything that people desire is good?
- Liberals deny objective moral truth while feeding parasitically off of it. This is the very essence of liberalism.
- Progressives don’t care whether the effects of their programs make you rich or make you poor, all they care about is that it makes everyone equal. As for Obamacare, the left couldn’t care less whether grandma lives or dies, but only whether the State makes the final decision.
- The Left are collectivists. Their program is motivated by hate, based on theft, enabled through tyranny and enforced by murder. They have no redeeming qualities.
- Scratch a progressive, and underneath you always find a Marxist.
- Central banking is a socialist-banking system, not a free-market banking system
- Equality is theft, and progressive equality is institutionalized theft. Equality is taking the fruits of another’s labor, and handing them out to your own sycophant dependents and special interest groups.
- Progressivism is a man-caused disaster.
You have a very strange definition of “have not”.
First, I tired of the polemics and disrespectful behavior of the “left” or “liberals” or Democrats or “progressives” who seemed and seem to believe there has never been anyone in the world before who had had a useful thought in facing the problems of living together in the world. Now, reading responses to Dave’s post, I’m tired of representatives of the other side. Shouting the other guy down is not the basis of our current system of government; nor is any particular economic system the basis of our system of government. Government is not economy, economy is not government UNLESS YOU ARE A MARXIST and believe that economic considerations trump all others. Children, you’ve all drunk the koolaid!
“A Torrie is a Man who has his Head in England, His Body in the Colonies, and Deserves to have his Neck Streched!”
That line appeared in a newspaper in 1773.
Now then BeaM, upon what basis are you making the claim, “Shouting the other guy down is not the basis of our current system of government;”?
And of course Bea, you are the only sane clear thinking one among us.
We have no one to blame but ourselves (The government) we are now a nation of gimmies, gimmie this gimmie that. the gimmies are looking for a handout from the people who have went out and earned their income. In other words steal from one to give to another. 99% of those OWS clowns are simply wanting to continue the freedom that has been supplied bu their hard working parents. Get out and get a job there are thousands of job out there. Oh sure maybe they don’t pay as much as you want. But SOME MONEY IS MUCH BETTER THAN NO MONEY.And you will end up feelig better about yourselves,
This is just too funny and smarmy to be taken seriously. I think maybe Mother Earth is using another nickname and pulling our collective legs.
I talked with my 16 year old granddaughter earlier in the evening after she returned from a lucrative babysitting job. After her dad (our DS) greeted her and congratulated her on another job well done–I pointed out to him that “it’s not fair”….as she flaunted the cash. I said, “It’s not fair that she has all that money. We were here all evening, and didn’t get any money at all, so I think she should have to share it with us. Right?” He picked right up on the point and agreed….but as he turned to her to suggest that she give us some of the money she had earned, she just grinned and said, “Good luck with that!”
I’m proud of that girl. Very proud.
…..forgot to mention they live near Portlandia….she hasn’t had time to occupy anything but life this week…..
Is she planning on attending a communist concentration camp for a brain washing and a spin cycle. It happens in the best of families.
Why do you ask? Have you been to one? It seems as if though you speak from knowledge and expeirence.
This is conventional wisdom:
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
This is my wisdom for the world:
In my line of business, as a boss, my advice is to teach all of your employees how to fish and to do it very well. Then when they do, for every two fishes that they catch, show compassion by offering one fish of your own. They will all catch the entire ocean for you.
My point is this, in every aspect of humanity, people will work much harder and production will go through the roof when you establish a fair, collective, and happy environment. This will also hold true for every government in every country in this civilize world. We are a civil society. We all came into this physical world naked and we will all leave this physical world just as equally naked. It’s what we do in between these two processes that will amount to any value towards our legacy.
“My point is this, in every aspect of humanity, people will work much harder and production will go through the roof when you establish a fair, collective, and happy environment.”
No, people will work much harder when they see a benefit for themselves as a result of doing such labors.
There is a word that describes when the benefits of one’s labors are yielded to another 100%. It’s Slavery.
To yield 10% of the fruits of your labor is called a tithe.
At what point between 10% and 100% does yielding your benefit cease to be tithe and become slavery?
Freedom and Liberty are of greater benefit to a larger percentage of the population than collective thought and Communal living will ever even hope to be.
Keep your collectivism. I’ll take the Constitution any day.
Dave, do you pay your employees the same as yourself? If you aren’t, you’re a hypocrite.
No! You DON’T show compassion by giving someone else half the fruits of your labor. You show compassion by teaching the other guy how to fish. Because one thing you are forgetting is that a part of human nature is lazy freeloading and a large percentage of the population will figure out that they don’t have to do a thing to get fed. That’s what’s wrong with the world today. Half of us have figured out how to whine a play the victim so idgits like you won’t necessarily give anymore yourself – but you are in a position to force the rest of us to give for you.
“This is conventional wisdom:
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”
OK, jharp, but not everyone can secure a highly-paid position like Fishing Instructor, such as you have somehow managed to find. But tell us, what kind of fishing do you teach…fly, net, long-line, lure, live bait? Or are you a cover all bases type of guy?
I think you misquoted that – it should be:
Give a man a fish and he’ll eat that day;
teach a man to fish and he’ll spend all of his time at the lake drinking beer;
give a man fish stamps and he’ll have plenty of time on his hands to complain that he’d rather have restaraunt stamps so he doesn’t have to mess with cooking the fish in order to eat it.
Aww, were you the one that missed the fishing class? Don’t worry there will be another one, just for losers like you.
Give a welfare Democrat a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Try to teach a welfare Democrat to fish and he’ll say, “Just give me the damn fish.”
Teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime
No, it’s: “Teach a man how to fish and he’ll spend all day Sunday out on a boat drinking beer.”
There, fixed it for you.
Bozo, the clone. Your name says it all. Nothing needs to be added.
Like all leftists, Dave is attempting to hijack the teachings of Christ and Christianity, and subsume God to be subservient to the State. He is either unwilling or unable to tell the difference between charity made as a personal decision of individual morality, versus secular collectivism enforced against people’s will by the mindless all-encompassing State.
The truth of the matter, Dave, is that your “wisdom for the world” is yet another in an endless series of sugar-coated lies foisted off onto the backs of individuals to become the unwilling slaves of dictators foisting themselves off as humanitarians. This has been seen ever since this world began, and now it is incarnated once again in the guise of the Obamamessiah.
Tweaked a tad, progressives see government as their Jehovah Jireh, their provider, and in it do they trust. There is also a god complex among progressives, crossed with a hypocritical nannyism borne out of an innate sense of superiority. Many truly believe that the permanent underclass they created is incapable of surviving without their intervention. It is the worst type of prejudice there is because it is the most destructive to society as a whole.
“My point is this, in every aspect of humanity, people will work much harder and production will go through the roof when you establish a fair, collective, and happy environment.”
Who gets to decide what is “fair”? Who gets to establish and define this particular “collective” for the rest of us? “Fair” is a relative term. “Happy environment” is relative term.
Why not let each individual decide for himself or herself if they want to support this “collective” effort you talk about? Free will, right?
And what happens to anyone who simply refuses to join this particular “collective”? Maybe they don’t see a “happy environment” and might just decide to do something else on their own.
It all boils down to this: The only way to convince those who refuse to join a particular “collective environment” is with force, violence and guns.
And here is where government comes in. Government is the only entity that can legally use force to accomplish something.
Please understand the potential ramifications of what you’re asking for.
If you do not comprehend this, then there is no point in debating anything else.
I’ve decided that “Dave” is actually a clever alias for something like “Fourth of Eleven.” IOW, he’s a Borg drone. All the happy talk of “collective this” and collective that” give it away.
Dave, please make an appointment with the nearest surgeon ASAP. It isn’t too late to get those bio-mechanical implants removed. You can still reclaim your humanity.
Parting shot, Dave: We will NOT be assimilated into your hellish collective. And thanks to the 2nd Amendment, resistance is NOT futile.
For all of you ignorant people on this website, this has been the reponses from my employees since the Occopy on Wall Street started and have now spread all over the world –
“Boss, it’s sad that there are so few of you in not only this country, but in this entire world. If more bosses in this world have the perspectives that you have towards humanity and just life as a whole in general, we would not see this movement spreading throughout the whole world. This is very tragic.”
I totally agree with all of my employees’ sentiments. These people are not trash or somehow of less value than those of us who are blessed. They are not looking for handouts, not every single one of them. They just want corporate businesses of this world to have the employees’ best interests at heart also. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that the corporate businesses of this world is now doing this. If anybody can tell me this with a straight face, they are living in an alternate universe. We are literally pushing the middle class over the cliff in this entire world.
One last note for all of you ignorant people on this website, this is not a Republican or Democrat issue that we are seeing all over the world with this movement. This is a HUMAN ISSUE. This country is a slave to a two party system and I am completely not bounded by this. Most of you people are merely slaves to this two party system and will stick to your political ideology till your very last day on Earth. This is what is tragic in this country, a two party system that will go through great lengths to be at odds with each other and the end result of all of this is complete stagnancy.
Dave, you are wasting your time trying to reason with unreasonable people. All they know to do is name call and produce no solutions. I grew up very poor where my parents worked hard but could never have enough money to adequately provide for us. In fact my father worked himself to death..at age 43. If he had medical insurance, he would have survived his stroke. I started working at age 16 and worked until I retired 3 years ago..most of that time 2 or 3 jobs at a time. While I now am considered middle class, when I was raising my children and working very hard, I was one of the “working poor” who sometimes had trouble putting food on the table. So you see, I have seen both sides so I feel I know what I am talking about.I have NO problem helping others out now that I am better off….far from rich but doing fine. It is our duty to help out those less fortunate as Jesus would want us to. So sad when they meet their maker with selfish ways and have some ‘splainin” to do.
I think a lot of the problems were having, especially with these OWS crowds, I don’t think they intentionally want to destroy the country, or even the Constitution. I think they’re ignorant. They just don’t know any better.
They are getting all their news and information from the Democrat bought-and-paid-for media and don’t bother to question what they hear so, when something like these protests happen, they just go out and repeat the talking points that they’ve heard on TV and make sense to them.
Think about it for a second. To a young person, nationalized health care just makes sense. Why shouldn’t everyone be covered? We feed the poor, shelter the homeless, we have all these programs to aide the sick, the dying, the young, the handicapped and the old, we already give most of them free (or extremely cheap) healthcare through Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other such programs. Why not expand it a bit and take care of everyone? They never stop to think about how it will all get paid for, they just think it makes sense and almost every other country in the world does it. It seems downright wrong that America, the greatest nation the world has ever seen, abuses it’s citizens in such a way when everyone else is doing it.
Campaign finance, again, all these people hear is from the mass media and they are telling them that Citizens United made it legal for corporations to donate to presidential campaigns. Our Constitution (they know this much) promises freedom of speech to people, not to big companies. A corporation can’t speak. No CEO in his or her right mind would dare to claim to speak for every employee in his or her company, it would be ludicrous. So again, thinking of it from a person who only ever hears the news from one of the big three networks, and does no further investigating, it all makes sense.
Then they are told by these same talking heads that Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Rielly are evil and want to hang black people, lock Hispanics behind a huge electrified fence and want to take away our social welfare safety nets – Gee, I wonder what they’ll think? I wonder how they’ll respond when someone like Limbaugh or Hans Von Spakovsky try to educate them on their poor choices. Someone who probably does know better tells them “He’s a Rush Limbaugh supporter” or “He’s probably a nut bag fan of Glenn Beck” because we all know anyone who’s a fan of Beck is a nut bag, right?
So, they stand there, in the streets, ignorant by design and unwilling to listen to anyone who tells them they’re wrong because the people who would Dare to say they’re wrong are all evil nut bags.
The number one leading cause of Anti-American sentiment today is the American old media and we can’t legislate a repair.
Think about it for a second. To a young person, nationalized health care just makes sense. Why shouldn’t everyone be covered? We feed the poor, shelter the homeless, we have all these programs to aide the sick, the dying, the young, the handicapped and the old, we already give most of them free (or extremely cheap) healthcare through Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other such programs. Why not expand it a bit and take care of everyone? They never stop to think about how it will all get paid for, they just think it makes sense and almost every other country in the world does it. It seems downright wrong that America, the greatest nation the world has ever seen, abuses it’s citizens in such a way when everyone else is doing it.
Do you think people should be forced into bankruptcy or have their lives destroyed because they can’t afford health care? This issue is the Republican Party’s Achilles heal and the Democrats biggest strength. Yet, with Obamacare Americans have the worst of all worlds – a health care system that is hugely expensive, massively bureaucratic and one that doesn’t cover everyone – although everyone does receive emergency care.
A less ideological approach would result in implementation of a modified Canadian system. It would begin with tort reform and involve a basic government system for everyone with the more wealthy being free to pay for additional services. This would bring voluntary money into the system while ensuring that the middle class, who have to pay their own way, aren’t paying excessive amounts for a basic service and small businesses aren’t burdened with bureaucratic red tape.
I call BS. People don’t die for lack of treatment. No hospital is allowed to turn away a patient. Our problem is health INSURANCE. Our system could be fixed by a couple of simple fixes and democrats would rather see dead people piled like cordwood outside then enact them.
Two fo those fixes would be to truly treat healthcare like car insurance and allow the companies to seel across state lines. Second – tort reform.
But good luck getting a bunch of lawyers to legislate against lawyers.
Lolly, your post reminds me of an old Benny Hill sketch about the Medical system in England. Benny went in for the “free” treatment, his little bald costar went in as a rich paying patient both with the same problem. Benny got Nurse Ratchet and a bandaid, his costar got three or four beautiful nurses, ten blue million tests and a limo ride home.
That’s not correct.
By law, no hospital *Emergency Room* can deny emergency or urgent care to a patient.
But Herman Cain couldn’t get regular cancer treatments at an Emergency Room.
I couldn’t get dialysis at an Emergency Room.
If you’ve lost your health insurance due to being laid off and you get cancer or heart disease or kidney failure or some other serious illness, the hospital social worker has to scramble to try to scrape enough enough funds to treat you. Often those funds are from government programs like Medicare. Otherwise they wouldn’t even have those moneys for your treatment.
Before Clinton I was laid off for a period of 24 months.
I was able to go to an insurance broker during that period and buy a policy for Catistrophic Care for a family of four at $39.00 a month. Working as a Limmo driver I was able to afford that easily.
(Catistrophic care would handle Dialysis and Cancer Treatment.)
In 2001 I was laid off again for a period.
But I could not afford ANY Health Care Plans because the Catistrophic Care Only plans no longer existed. They’d been legislated out of existance.
.
That’s reality! Not Theory!
Lolly,,,,you call bs to a hospital turning away a patient? Well, when I was pregnant and went to the hospital after starting labor pains…I WAS TURNED AWAY AND TOLD TO COME BACK WHEN I WAS ABLE TO PUT SOME MONEY DOWN FOR THE HOSPITAL BILL. My husband had just been laid off and lost his insurance, so we had none. I was in active labor and had to go to my mother’s home which was closer to the hospital while my husband went to get the money. So, hospitals DO turn you away if you don’t have insurance. Me or my baby could have died while waitng to be admitted. So yes people with money do get preferential treatment. It’s a fact. Thank God I have insurance now……but millions don’t. And why should a family lose everything due to excessive medical bills?
So, I work hard, and pay the bookies (insurance companies) to insure that my family has the best possible health care, and you morons want me to pay to provide you with that same health care?
How ’bout a HELL, NO, and a DIE MISERABLY?
Food is not a right. Shelter is not a right. Health care is not a right.
One of the down sides of freedom is that you can starve to death. Only slaves have their food, shelter, and health care guaranteed by the their Master.
You may get visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve.
Because you sound just like Ebenezer Scrooge.
I’m a conservative.
I’m not a libertarian.
It costs something to maintain a stable society, rather than a society in which the affluent live in gated communities far from the poor and the infirm which they don’t want to have to come in contact with.
I used to worry about that. These days, I’ll meet them with a shotgun.
I’m not a libertarian either. I’m a Church and Republic conservative. When I help the poor, I do it with my own time and my own money. I don’t demand that the government take money away from someone else so that I can feel better. Which, by the way, it has no Constitutional authority to do.
Unfortunately, all the evidence from the results of the modern “War on Poverty” seems to be that Scrooge was right. We’ve bankrupted ourselves trying to help the poor, and what do we get? More poverty. We’re subsidizing the scum of the earth and we’er getting more of them. Worse, the rot is spreading up through society. We need to stop doing that.
Food is not a right. Shelter is not a right. Medical Care is not a right.
If we choose to provide these things, those receiving charity are not entitled to “dignity,” nor are they entitled to the same quality of food, housing or medical care that individuals who DO provide themselves enjoy.
The “poor” will not leave their poverty if it is made comfortable. They must be driven from it.
Charity at the point of a gun is theft, not charity.
“When you start paying people to be poor, you will quickly discover that you have a lot more people willing to be poor.”
…. Ronald Reagan.
When a major, life-altering medical problem arises, generally one of the consequences is that the afflicted can no longer work. They might still have health coverage for some time, but they have no income. Even if their medical bills are being paid they usually don’t have enough income to pay their other bills. The number of people who live pay check to pay check today is enormous; none of them seem to have the concept of saving for a “rainy day”, whether that means money in the bank or sick leave. If they were just squeaking by with the basic necessities that would be one thing, but too many are spending every cent for new cars, iPods, iPhones, laptops, vacations to Europe or Disneyland, etc, and then griping that they have no money. Then they get ill and are out of work for six weeks or more, fall off the employer’s books because they only had four days of sick leave, and there goes their income AND their health insurance. It’s the loss of income that bankrupts them. That can be seen by the fact that the number of bankruptcies in Britain and Canada is nearly as high as it is in the states, even though the medical bills ARE covered in those countries. When you have a major illness it isn’t the sudden appearance of medical bills that does in your financial state, it’s the inability to earn an income while you are incapacitated. Most hospitals and medical providers will work out payment plans; they don’t demand all the money right away, but if you have no income you can’t pay ANY of your bills.
“none of them seem to have the concept of saving for a “rainy day”, whether that means money in the bank or sick leave.”
It might not even matter if they did save for a rainy day.
I’m an example. I *did* save. I had a 401(k) plan. I had an IRA. But when I got kidney failure and was put on dialysis, the cost of treatments, lab tests and visits to specialists cost around $90,000 per year. Even the average American who has an average-sized 401(k) would burn through it in a few years at that rate, and then be in the poorhouse.
Fortunately I had health insurance. If I didn’t, I would have to file for bankruptcy.
Surveys have shown that the biggest single cost of bankruptcy in the United States is–guess what–serious illness.
Ask Herman Cain how much his cancer treatments cost. Could one of his employees at one of his restaurants have afforded that out of his own savings?
The GOP has to stop this Social Darwinist nonsense. You can’t have a stable society with ordinary, hardworking, decent folks becoming ruined through no fault of their own just because they got cancer or kidney failure.
The opposite of a “social Darwinist” is a eugenicist, not a man of compassion. Learn the history of these terms before you throw them around.
No one’s saying you should be able to help others, or to pool your money with like-minded people and form a charity. We’re saying YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONFISCATE OUR MONEY FOR YOUR CHARITY.
That’s why I have Long Term Disability Insurance, and had when I lived in the US. It’s not that expensive to get.
Yikes! I live in Ontario. Americans, wake up! You absolutely do not want any form of socialized medicine in the U.S., let alone the Canadian system. The Canadian system is awful, plain and simple. It took two and a half years to get a doctor to agree to have my husband and myself as patients. The wait times here are outrageous for regular medical appointments, surgeries, and follow-up appointments with specialists. I found out first-hand this past summer. My doctor wants me to see a neurosurgeon. Wait time for this appointment? Two years. We were just about to book a flight to the U.S. to get medical help for me when, thankfully, my symptoms started to subside. Somebody was looking out for me and it wasn’t the Canadian health care system.
I’m 64 and my husband is 66. I am so afraid of having one of us get really, really sick and be unable to get the care and treatment we need. I have no confidence that the socialized health care system in Canada will take care of us or do everything that needs to be done to treat us or save us from death.
The Canadian system you speak of is a farce, I know I’m Canadian. We pay, through the nose. We have the highest taxes on everything!! We are multiply dipped, tax on fuel, tax on food, tax on services from our own government. I don’t have all day to point out how Canada gets co-opted for how great our system is when it is just different from yours. Do not look at our universal anything as being a success. I live in the highest have province and we are drowning in health care costs. Our great eurotrashy province quebec gets 17% of albertas revenue in transfer payments yearly. Our system is more broken than yours, we just hide it better.
I bet the people on “Occupy Wall Street” would be surprised to learn that many of the high donors for Obama not only got major low-cost loans from the administration (such as in the case of Solyndra), but that the vast number of lobbyists in Washington has actually gotten worse under Obama, not better. Lobbyists are also the key to the problem in Washington. Election money comes and goes, but the lobbyists always remain regardless of whichever party is in power. Notice that the OWS people never seem to mention those people, especially the lobbyists for the unions, perhapse the most insidious and most destructive lobbyists of them all. And I doubt the OWS people realize that many of the horrific entitlements that the OWS people hold so dear, like Obamacare, was obtained BY these same lobbyists. These protesters are nothing but a bunch of communists and anarchists and should be treated as such. They are the arch enemies of the Constitution and represent the worst the country has to offer. Shame on them all.
I don’t understand why anyone except a radical libertarian would find anything wrong with the idea of outright abolishing the ability of corporations to contribute money or political speech (note for the slow, I am using corporation to collectively refer to businesses, unions, PACs, etc.) as well as limit how much money the rich can contribute. If politicians could only receive $5,000/citizen, they might actually have to actually spend most of their time at local events talking to ordinary citizens.
Or, the politicians might start setting up old-fashioned, Chicago-type political machines (only now much more efficient due to the internet and computer tracking) to bully people into voting as directed.
Mike T – Your thinking is the same as those who want limits on advertising so parents don’t have to work at being parents. Like they should be shielded from the work of being a parent and resisting the entreaties of their kids for whatever the latest thing is. You fundamentally don’t trust people to be able to make decisions on their own. You want to control the message. You think that’s fine because you fancy yourself not “slow”. Therefore whatever you want for others is best for them because you’re the anointed.
That’s a bad comparison because political contributions go farther than trying to convince someone you should vote for them. When a business advertises in the ways you describe, they’re just trying to appeal to a market segment. As long as they don’t defraud anyone, there’s nothing wrong with creating their own demand.
That’s not how the political system works. If a union or company can funnel millions of dollars to a party, it can become a much bigger player than the actual voters.
I don’t want to “control the message,” I want to outright get rid of the message for special interest groups altogether and complement that with no public financing. That’s the only way to force candidates to compete by actually talking ideas with ordinary voters.
Mush! Special interest groups are people and people have special interests. If you want your special interest to be heard form your own.
MikeT – You are so marinated in your position you can’t see it for what it is. There are all kinds of your biases and assumptions about what’s best for the rest of us built into your position. You’ve already decided who an “ordinary voter” is. You’ve already decided that it’s correct to select for voters who can come to a face to face meeting. You’ve also decided that the superior candidate is one who plays well to live groups, though you’ve left it open on whether Nuremburg style crowd size is preferred over a more intimate setting. You would impose a Mike-T brand of fascism under the guise of “open” and “fair” opposition to the imagined threat of some other sort of fascism. You don’t trust everyone else to make a decision for themselves. You do want to dictate the types of messages and the terms under which others will get their information.
Apparently you aren’t familiar with any of the conservative or capitalist critiques of corporations. I’ve got news for you, I am hardly the first free market advocate who wants incorporated entities to be brought to heel. They’re legal fictions created by the government. They ought to be targeted as such.
Someone who is in favor of breaking the incorporated entity’s power in society fails one of the critical tests of what constitutes actual Fascism. Were you familiar with doctrinaire Fascism, you’d know that. Or are you one of those people who calls Islamism “Islamo-Fascists?”
Yeah, Mike, how DARE those people pool their money to get out a message! They think they’re FREE or SOMETHING?!
They’re perfectly free to pool their money as private individuals. Incorporated entities have no business in the political process because they’re not people. They’re legal fictions created by the state. Only individual people should have a voice in the political system.
Or are you one of those jackasses who thinks that “corporation = company” without realizing that corporations exist for all sorts of purposes ranging from companies, to local governments, to unions and charities?
These people are Obama’s People. These are the people Obama wants as Americans that vote for, and enslave themselves for, HIM.
This is the predictable result you arrive with when someone as shallow, bigoted, and ignorant is given so much power.
We have a government of Bolsheviks, that want a single party system, and they governing as if they already have it.
America’s history and greatness means nothing to them. They are the worst parasites to inhabit the earth. They will suck the life out of every human and their offspring, and leave a trail of waste like a slug leaves slime.
The OWS crowd is clueless and grotesque. The Wall Street crowd are mostly advanced white collar criminals. “Show me the laws they have broken”, you say. The only reason I can’t is because the bastards paid the Congress to make what they do legal. The elite send their children off to the Ivy League to learn how to rape the system. They call this making money. Revolution is coming.
And clueless conservatives and libertarians frequently don’t get this. The Ivy League is more likely to graduate a pirate captain of industry than an entrepreneur. MIT, which is elite because of actual standards but far more accessible to “real Americans” as Palin called them, has an incredible record that puts the ivies to shame. A few years ago, a report came out that said that if MIT were a sovereign nation and its graduates were its citizens, the wealth they’ve generated and businesses they’ve founded would make them something like the 9th richest country in the world.
<half-sarcastic>Every Harvard or Yale Business School graduated should be given a graduation gift of a FBI agent to personally monitor how they run their business if they get hired to an elite position</half-sarcastic. It would probably save the the public billions in damage to corporate American later.>
The Ivy League does not teach their students how to “rape the system.” They learn how to protect their wealth by joining the aristocratic “establishment,” and copy the patrician Keynesians. See http://clarespark.com/2011/10/15/baltzell-on-the-good-jews/. Not all teachers in the humanities do this, but a critical mass does, and we see the results in the OWS movement.
Revolution is coming? O.K. I have a good supply of ammo, and am locked and loaded.
The level of gross denial of the facts of life and the plain text of the Constitution displayed by nearly everyone in this society, and exemplified by the OWS folk, is disheartening. What part of the strictly limited enumerated Fed powers is hard to understand? What part of the 10th amendment likewise? They’re not hard to understand; they’re just hard to accept. For some twisted reason most people WANT a king. In this nation we don’t want to call it a king. But for decades, the true king of this nation, We the People, have been handing over king-like powers to our gov’t, in gross defiance of the Constitution, and in gross denial of the facts of life.
If we were actually following our own Constitution, all the Fed rules/regs that currently throw not sand but boulders into the gears of the economy would disappear: EPA/OSHA/SocSec/Medicare/ATF/FDA, the whole alphabet soup of Fed bureaucrazies. In the final analysis these agencies benefit no one but the bureaucrat and multinat. Don’t like corporate contributions? Quit empowering the corporations through unConstitutional Fed bureaucrazies, which help the mega-corp’s by keeping their small-midsize competition down. Quit empowering the Fed gov’t beyond its Constitutional bounds; then corp’s won’t care as much who’s elected, because it won’t affect them: no corp hand-outs, no need to ‘tweak’ the rules/regs to their benefit, etc.
Don’t quote the Gen’l Welfare Clause or the Commerce Clause, those two which have been twisted beyond recognition as a rationale for whatever unConstitutional idiocy Congress is enacting: the ‘expansive’ interpretation is so obviously incorrect that only gross denial can account for anyone proposing it. Don’t quote some SCOTUS decision justifying this or that unConstitutional outrage: 5 out of 4 of the SCOTUS claim the Constitution allows every mother to have her unborn baby killed w/o meaningful restriction up to the moment of complete birth. We the People shouldn’t trust them to interpret a grocery list let alone the Constitution.
Our military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Were they to pursue that oath in truth, they would have to take action against not only the current Congress, executive, and judiciary, they would have to take action against the bulk of the citizenry. This does not end well.
My Counter demand
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
——————————————————————————–
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
——————————————————————————–
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
——————————————————————————–
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
——————————————————————————–
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
——————————————————————————–
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
——————————————————————————–
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
——————————————————————————–
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, the Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest William Jackson Secretary
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
tl;dr
i’ll just wing it
Why does everyone always quote the constitution, but yet want to ignore the bill of rights that goes with it???
All of the rights the OWS and other collectivists want to introduce are contained in the Second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR and championed during the last election by Barry Obama, who called the Constitution’s Bill of Rights negative because they are rights that are granted by the Creator and cannot be taken away by government. Positive rights are granted by the State and they sound really great if you don’t know how much things cost, either in reality or in the shame of surrendering your individuality and independence for false security that can be taken away at any time.
“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
“The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
“The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
“The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
“The right of every family to a decent home;
“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
“The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
“The right to a good education.”
All of those boil down to “the right to a pre-emptive claim to a portion of the results of someone elses’ labor.”
Da, comrade.
People should understand that Barry saying the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are lists of negative rights is very telling about him. He is ignorant of the events that were transpiring in the 18th century in America, in regard to Britain and George III. He also is unable to see those events within the historical timeframe of when they occurred. What did people think back then? What did they believe in? What things were of prime importance to them? He is unable to put himself in their shoes and this is what must be done to properly understand history.
People from that time period have put down in writing myriad accounts of what was going on, what the opinions of the people were, and what the hope for the future of America was. Obviously, Barry has no knowledge of these writings.
Barry is an ignorant, narcissistic and, I believe, evil man whose only desire is to take down the United States of America. What a feather in the cap of the marxist/communist who is able to accomplish that feat!
He is not ignorant of them, he disagrees with them so he ignores them. With this stance he commits treason to the oath of office that he took and the country as a whole. High treason is still punishable by death. A statement of the facts.
I seriously doubt the Founders ever imagined a time when a politician would raise a billion dollars for a single campaign (Obama), or lobbyists would cram Washington D.C. handing out bribes to any crooked politician willing to take them.
This is 1776, and what worked then isn’t necessarily working now. Our politicians do not represent us; they represent those with deep pockets willing to buy the most personally-favorable laws they can. And this is what our courts call free speech?
So only the wealthy or those belonging to wealthy organizations can speak freely? The whole thing is bad joke. Donations and bribes are NOT free speech. They create a woefully lopsided playing field; they utterly corrupt politicians, and they destroy economies, as we can now see. Say what you will about the goofy OWS protesters, on this issue they are correct. They are not trying to stop free speech; they are trying to stop PAID speech: the very speech that allows Bank of America to shout YOU down and bend the laws to its own will regardless of what YOU want.
Since when did buying access to politicians become a free speech issue? By all means, amend the Constitution if necessary to put a stop to this grotesque manipulation. As long as special interests can buy politicians and rig elections with vast sums of money, “freedom of speech” will remain a figure of speech for almost eveyone except the well-connected.
Ah, it is refreshing to read the words of a seeker of perfection. May I suggest you move to Afghanistan, Mexico, Russia or some other country that has found a way to deliver perfection to their citizenry. I am sorry our miserable country has failed to provide it for you. Bon voyage.
Oh, but before you go, you may want to consider ways to eliminate or reduce the bribery you so rightly deplore. Let the dear departed John Murtha be your guide.
What a twit. Your response bears no relationship to my comments. It’s just knee-jerk, pompous crap.
All of you defending unlimited money going to politicians keep in mind that those who have it can step on you in a heartbeat, and unless you have it too, you are out of luck. Don’t complain when the lobbyists get cap and trade laws passed, or “convince” Congress to outlaw your air-conditioning. You wanted it, live with it. And don’t complain when Obama gets re-elected because he has unlimited funds from Wall Street and alleged non-profit organizations to buy endless television time and print ads. You get what THEY pay for. If you think that some day you’re going to be billionaires and will benefit from these “free speech” policies, dream on.
Who would ever have imagined that American citizens would stand up and cheer for political bribery and corporate control of their own lives. Talk about sheep willingly headed to slaughter.
Wealthy organizations can become wealthy through the contributions they receive from millions of ordinary people who are pooling their voices so as to amplify them. The attempt to “get money out of politics” would violate the rights of those people above all. How else could any individual’s views on gun rights, abortion, Israel, health care or any other issue or any candidate ever be heard other than by joining with others to create a “wealthy organziation”? As for the influence corporations try to exercise on policy makers, there’s a simple solution: make fewer policies seeking to control voluntary contracts, and corporations will have no need to constantly enter the political sphere to protect themselves (and, of course, as corporations must do, try to get an edge on their competitors).
They (OWSsers) are not trying to stop free speech; they are trying to stop PAID speech: the very speech that allows Bank of America to shout YOU down and bend the laws to its own will regardless of what YOU want.
Gee, Occupiers’ own speech is getting underwritten up by some pretty heavy hitters, including but not limited to George Soros, sundry unions and various other disgusting and agenda driven entities who see the unwashed and naive disrupting the streets in American cities as some wonderful bunch of Useful Idiots.
Generally, all liberals seem interested in shutting down any and all speech and behaviors that don’t happen to fit their personal dogmatic versions of which speech is correct and which speech isn’t.
BTW, Bank of America has never shouted me down.
“They are not trying to stop free speech; they are trying to stop PAID speech”
OWS claims to have $500,000 in their bank account, and more coming in. There are reliable reports that many of the “protestors” there are being paid for their presence.
You’re being duped, apparently willingly.
Note his clever ruse as well.
By saying PAID speech he is creating a connotation that the speech that is generated is somehow not what the speakers themselves would say in the first place.
The fact is that what they want to stop is Free Speech that has Paid for a Platform so it can be heard.
That is not PAID speech, it is FREE Speech that he doesn’t like.
There isn’t much humorous going on in public life these days, but reports of fighting over the occu-pie, capitalist style, were pretty funny.
Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in — but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers
The Founders may or may not have imagined this that or the other thing. One thing they probably imagined and feared: that those citizens who voted would have no interest in or working knowledge of the Constitution. They did know that circumstances might arise that required changes to the Constitution. That’s why they built in an amendment process. But we don’t need to change it: we just need to follow it!
You want to decrease corporate power and influence? Eliminate the vast swathes of unConstitutional Fed bureaucrazies: EPA/OSHA/ATF/FDA/SocSec/Medicare/etcetcetc. Besides jacking up the cost of everything, infantilizing the populace, and trampling the Constitution in the dust, they hurt small-midsize business far more than the mega-corps; the latter can afford to pay the fines, hire the lawyers to tie the regulators up, etc. Basically these regs enrich the bureaucrat and the multi-nat, and impoverish everyone else, especially the poor, who have long been denied the entrepeneurial and employment opportunities they ought to have had.
Quit blaming the corporations; they’re only taking advantage of wickedness and laziness of the sovereign of this nation. We the People have long allowed and encouraged our hired legislators to grossly violate our own foundational Law. It ought to be considered treasonous to pull the voting lever w/o a working knowledge of the Constitution, with particular attention to the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment.
Those are good points, but until our politicians are banned from accepting bribes–which is what campaign contributions are–and special interests are stopped from lobbying with buckets of money and promises of future employment in their office at hand, the country is doomed. Big Business–not small business–runs this country and owns its politicians.
Calling giving piles of money to politicians free speech is beyond hubris. The Supreme Court clearly has some vested interest in keeping this nonsense going. How many judges have huge investments in the very corporations funneling money to candidates or receiving government bailouts? Big Business and Big Money call the shots. Koninklijke Philips Electronics, aka, Philips, a Dutch company, and its lobbyists got incandescent light bulbs outlawed in the U.S. so it could sell us far more expensive ones. G.E. and its money bought a president and his lavish support, endless government contracts, and tax exemptions. Campaign contributions netted pseudogreen companies billions in low interest, government insured, loans, not to mention millions in grants. Note that all the banks and companies getting bailouts and grants were enormous contributors to Obama’s campaign. They gave him money, he gave them government money, and now they can use some of that back to his new campaign. It’s absolutely crooked and immoral, and has nothing to do with free speech.
If I have money and want to contribute it to someone else, it’s my money. If I belong to a group and the group wants to contribute money, it’s our money. It’s tyranny to prevent me or us. According to the Constitution the Fed gov’t is strictly limited to a short list of powers; regulating campaign contributions, from whatever source, ain’t on the list. It makes no difference if it’s called ‘speech’ or not. Since there’s no mention of Fed powers to that effect in the Constitution, it falls under the ‘all else is left to the states and to the people’ part. If it’s so all-fired important for the Feds to limit campaign contributions, I’m sure it will be easy to get a Constitutional amendment passed to that effect. Until then I will remain in opposition to any law that is in violation of the Constitution, including any Fed restrictions on campaign contributions.
And I want to be very clear: like you, I deplore the cronyism etc a la the bailouts, the lightbulbs, etc, etc. But the solution is not banning corps from this or that political influence; the solution is recognizing that the Fed gov’t has no authority to legislate concerning lightbulbs, or farm subsidies, or green this or that, or banking regs, etc, etc, etc. If We the People required our legislators and execs to actually follow the Constitution (radical thought, I know), Phillips would have no opportunity to have legislation passed in its favor, because We the People would fire any legislator or exec who dared to violate the Constitution by passing such a travesty.
“Utopia is not under the slightest obligation to produce results: its sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what does not.”
~Jean-François Revel, Last Exit to Utopia
(sounds like a fairly accurate description of Occupiers)
Occupiers are owed nothing.
And consider the soul destroying aspects of Obama’s so called “positive” rights (huerfano, #11 above) the guaranteed free lunches, literally turning human beings into conditioned slaves.
Conditioned slaves will, inevitably, revolt when the honey pot dries up or when they’re getting too uppity and their masters pull the plug. See Greece in particular and European socialist economies in general.
Thomas Jefferson on Barack Obama’s redistributionist ideas and “positive” (aka regime provided) liberties:
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and
that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is
to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits
acquired by it.”
~Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816
It is ironic that you, the author, attack OWS for failing to understand the constitution. I noticed at least 3 statements, about the constitution, in your article that are completely wrong. My con law professor would give this an F. Pleases read something about constitutional law, before attacking other people.
I also have a question. Do you think the founders intended corporations to be considered people?? LLCs did not exist until 1977. How long have 501(c)(4)s been around? Where in the constitution does it say corporations are people? Nowhere! When is the last time a corporation was arrested, or thrown in jail?
Yes but neither is the AARP, AMA, or the Sierra Club. None of those is a person. They are organizations composed of many people with a common interest. Kinda like a corporation right?
Seems pretty clear that the “right of the people” includes our right to represent our business interest as well as our other activities.
The Sierra Club is a corporation. I am guessing those others are corporations as well. To be a corporation is not a right granted in the Constitution, but a privilege granted by a society. Nothing you said changes the fact that corporations are not actually people.
Corporations are legal entities with many (not all) the rights of people. They are incorporated (“given a body”) so that they may own assets and enter into contracts. They may be sued, and they may be criminally prosecuted. They exist so that people may work towards a common goal without endangering their personal liberties or assets beyond those they chose to contribute to the corporation.
Stop being an ignoramus, or a child, or whatever is causing you to whine about corporations.
“To be a corporation is not a right granted in the Constitution, but a privilege granted by a society.”
“…is not a right granted in the Constitution…”
Gee whiz Con Law Person. Check out the 9th and 10th amendments.
Con Law… as in let me (con)vince to into believing that if you sacrifice yourself to me you’ll feel better.
“My con law professor would give this an F.”
Yeah, but Obama was a notoriously poor teacher.
“Do you think the founders intended corporations to be considered people??”
Do you know what “corporation” means?
I am sorry, is the constitution a dictionary? The constitution does not define corporation. Yes, Miriam Websters does, but that is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The constitution says absolutely nothing about corporations. States define corporations. However, the supreme court has taken it upon itself to decide what the states meant. Sounds like legislating from the bench to me. I thought people here were all for states rights? I must have been confused. I also thought people were strict constitutionalists. I also must have been mistaken about that fact.
Well then, if you decide they aren’t people they cannot be taxed.
They also cannot enter into contracts.
That means they also cannot be sued.
.
It is the ‘person’ status of a corporation that enables the government to levy upon them the requirments of Citizenship. The court only enabled them to have the Benefits as well.
The occupiers serve only one purpose. A visible example of Obama’s point of view. Hating America, hating freedom and liberty is their name. Communism is their game.
I would be willing to bet that Occupiers’ so called dissatisfaction with the SCOTUS decision in Citizens’ United is a grievance that has been planted (in skulls full of mush) by their puppetmasters.
And that, prior to said planting, Occupiers in general didn’t know the Citizens’ United decision from a hole in the wall.
Barack himself was seriously aggrieved by that decision.
It just didn’t fit with with his anti-freedom agenda, yaknow ?
The Citizens United opinion left one giant door open: Foreign ownership or control of a corporate speaker.
Government (state or federal level) could draft a restriction on corporate (for-profit and not-for-profit) political speech where the ownership, membership, or donations are not 100 percent by US citizens.
Barack Obama criticized the Citizens United decision in his 2010 State of the Union address (pretty tacky in and of itself), saying:
“Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.”
Justice Alito, sitting placidly in the audience, shook his head “no”.
The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, maintained that the court was not specifically overturning this barrier to foreign campaign spending, essentially saying that it was outside the scope of the opinion.
I think Alito skipped this year’s SOTU.
So, pdxnag, is your ignorance of the particulars accidental or purposeful? Citizens United did not change the prohibitions on foreign donations/spending.
It was, rather, Obama’s 2008 campaign that put an end to them.
The legislation was not narrowly tailored to address foreign intrusion into domestic politics; corporate and non-corporate. The problem is one of overbreadth, where the court struck down restrictions on non-foreign speakers — which necessarily and incidentally struck down restrictions on the speech of corporations generally. It is a drafting problem. But, it is also a political problem in that people with a beneficial interest in corporations would likely scream if they had to comply with the demands for transparency that would be necessary and proper to enforce such a restraint.
I, personally, want a nice clean way to assemble and aggregate data on which entities are owned or controlled by locals versus foreigners. This would be one way to get some of the information, at least for those entities that seek to meddle in domestic politics.
And if their demands are not met? What will they do, continue to “sit”, continue to beat drums and sleep in parks?
Oh the pain, the pain…
#14 Brian N. #17 pdxnag: I don’t personally have an issue with the Citizens United decision nor with any kind of corporation; for- profit or non-profit; being able to make financial contributions.
My concern is with the growth of the super-PACs that don’t have to disclose where their money is coming from. I see a need for transparency and accountability. It matters nothing to me if the money comes from Soros or the Kochs. But contributors should be disclosed.
Isn’t it amazing that a bunch of defecating, anti-semitic rioters should occupy so much of our time, never mind the parks, both public and private?
Defecating, anti-semitic rioters?
That is pretty insane. Some of you make valid points. Some of you are legit nuts.
I don’t think OWS is undermining the constitution, that actually seems really stupid, since all they are doing right now is protesting. Were tea party protests undermining the constitution? What about when you protest anti-gay rights, that seems like a direct undermining of the constitution, but whateves.
My real issue is this. In a society where all of you have benefited from each other’s tax dollars. ALL OF YOU HAVE. Whether it is through an agricultural subsidy for your farm, a subsidized public education, or god knows what else, every single one of you have benefited from our collective tax dollars. So if we all spend our money, to ensure that you and your children can learn in a safe environment, so you can have paved roads and police officers and courts. So you can transport goods and be safe and conduct business fairly. Why is it such a crime to ask that those who have been more successful in that system, pay a little more, as a means to pay back the environment that made them successful? You show me one millionaire kicking around who did it without even so much as a piece of government help in some form, and I will agree with you. But as long as paved roads and traffic lights exist, I’m pretty sure that is impossible.
If my company has a really good year, they issue us all bonuses. It is a “here, you made us so successful, that we want to give back, because your work was instrumental to getting us here”.
And before you have the “your business isn’t required to give you a bonus” argument. Understand this, would you want to work for a company that doesn’t give out bonuses when it is doing well? No? Me neither.
Why does that not go the same way for society?
“Why is it such a crime to ask that those who have been more successful in that system, pay a little more, as a means to pay back the environment that made them successful?”
Are you clowns still marinating in this idiocy? You do realize that your concept of “society” bears far more resemblance to a neighborhood controlled by the Mafia than to a free society, right? “The government has permitted you to operate here and built the road you drove on, so cough up the tribute, pal.” What loons you people are. Your argument (if one can even call it that) is not that “society” or the government helped him become successful, since they did not, but that it permitted him to, and so it must pay tribute. Progressives have a natural and apparently uncontrollable lust for totalitarianism, but this whole “pay up or we won’t allow you to get rich like we did” delirium is just a bit absurd.
Although Landru (above) said it best, I feel compelled to add a little more, in small bites so that maybe even you can understand…
- True charity is personal, not collective.
- Progressives hate that because it doesn’t allow them easy vicarious morality.
- Progressives require equality enforced by the State.
- State equality is theft.
- It takes from individuals who produce, to special-interest groups who don’t.
- Productivity and wealth come from true liberty.
- True liberty never comes from the State to the individual.
In your sublimated lust for power over others, coupled with your lazy vicarious excuse for morality, your thinking and the arguments you pose are inevitably back-assward. It would be laughable, except for the inestimable damage and death your kind has brought on the world.
Read the apparent list of demands. This is a political platform. It does produce a great oxy-moron in the invitation to have an anarchist convention.
I hear that in N.Y. the OWS security people are searching tents without warrants. The next thing you know they will want to quarter their troops in civilian homes during peacetime.
Why is it such a crime to ask that those who have been more successful in that system, pay a little more, as a means to pay back the environment that made them successful?
They already do. Top 40% of earners pays in excess of 70% of all federal taxes. Bottom 50% (that would include the OWS), nothing.
You want to give some cash to these people ? Be my guest.
You show me one millionaire kicking around who did it without even so much as a piece of government help in some form, and I will agree with you.
I guess you’ve never heard of America’s earliest entrepreneurs who achieved all they did without one cent (or iota) of government involvement. In more recent times, I think the same applies to Steve Jobs, Microsoft et al.
But as long as paved roads and traffic lights exist, I’m pretty sure that is impossible.
We’re already paying for the roads, traffic lights etc., that is when government uses tax dollars for things it should legitimately support, instead of egregious pensions, dumping 1/2 billion down the drain on Solyndras or throwing nearly a trillion away in “stimulus”, hiring new federal workers, and sundry boondoggles.
How about including the controversial F-35 fighter plane as another example of a government boondoggle? The Pentagon wants 2,443 of these things at a cost of $382 billion. Throw in the costs of operating them over a few years; fuel; training of pilots; and the total cost approaches $1 trillion. There is some thought that when the plane is finally flying in numbers in 2016, it will already be obsolete. Solyndra is “chump change” in comparison.
Occupy Wall Street, Self-Serving Anarchy
Anyone who has ever had burdensome college loans to pay off, anyone who has lost a decent job and can’t find another, anyone who ever bought a house he couldn’t afford, anyone who lost a bundle in stock market downturns while banks and auto companies received billions in bailouts must have felt at least a minimal degree of empathy for the Occupy Wall Street protestors.
Anyone who still believes they deserve empathy is a damned fool.
Whoever organized the initial disorganized demonstrations over a month ago may have had valid beefs with the establishment but the protests have long since been co-opted by the most radical elements within and from outside American society.
Communists, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, skinheads, and anarchists representing extremist fringes now seem to comprise the bulk of the occupiers and are working to direct the rudderless group toward lawless chaos which promises to deliver to any sincere protestors a nation only anarchists would want.
As OWS-inspired demonstrations spread like pestilence throughout the country and the world, they grew increasingly violent and intractable after notable, wealthy liberals from President Obama and Vice President Biden on down to Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin gave them stamps of approval.
And, it’s getting worse:
. When representatives of nations such as China, Iran, and Russia where similar demonstrations would be met with repression, jail time, and worse, joined the chorus of OWS supporters, something is evidently, seriously wrong with Occupy Wall Street.
. When the disgraced and disbanded ACORN and billionaire capitalist/America-hater George Soros emerged . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5818.)
I think that the Occupy Wall Street people are doing good work. This is not about hating capitalism or hating success, this is about hating corruption, hating SOCIALISM FOR BANKS, hating the corrupt politicians who have been bought off by these same banks, hating the fact that for some odd and twisted reason corporations have been granted personhood. Corporations are not people. Their bribes to politicians are not a form of free speech. Occupy Wall Street on the other hand represents the best of America. Viva capitalism, down with socialism for corporations, let’s give a big hurrah for competition, merit-based success, and Americans using their First Amendment rights to express their disgust with the current state of affairs. Both parties are bought off. The only way this will change is if people get on the street and scare the bejeezus out of corrupt politicians and get US corporations back on track: providing employment, innovating, building market share – but in a fair manner, and not by buying off politicians and screwing over the American people. Have you seen your health insurance bill lately? Have you noticed that your tax dollars are going to Banker bonuses? This is not about capitalism. It’s about fairness. Wake up.
“The federal government does not have the power to force American citizens to fund the campaigns of political candidates any more than the government has the power to force them to vote for particular candidates.”
Uhhuh….
“The federal government does not have the power to force American citizens to involuntarily enter into the stream of commerce by, for example, forcing them to purchase health care insurance” is also something I heard once upon a time….there’s no more middle ground….it’s either socialism or liberty, I am afraid….the left will not compromise their vision, the rest of us will no longer compromise the Constitution….
OWS has stated time and time again, it was an amorphous group of individuals who decided to unite in New York’s park, just off Wall Street, to protest capitalism, and greed, and injustices of the “system,” and the lack of jobs, and so on and so forth.
All individuals, either seen or interviewed at this event, over the course of six weeks, avowed it was an amorphous group of individuals interested in “righting the wrongs” of an unjust system (read: capitalism).
On 10/28/11 a Bloomberg News reporter was able to track down a Mr. Pete Dutro, admitted “bundler” of funds for OWS movement, said they (OWS) were able to raise $500 million dollars since early September.
When asked how this was possible, Mr. Dutro said, “individual small donations and contributions.” This is an amazing feat…surely oustanding, Mr. Dutro in less than six weeks, was able to:1) get a list of donors, 2)get their email addresses, 3)contact them with information, 4)lead them to sites (such as MoveOn.org and other social media participants)to spread information (messaging) about the upcoming event. Things, any self respecting small or large business would take months (or years) to accomplish…yet, Mr Dutro accomplished this in less than SIX WEEKS. Pure Genius. Folks, that’s $500 million dollars!!!!
When the Bloomberg reporter asked Mr. Dutro how this largess was distributed, he said, through “working groups,their media contacts, and simple messaging.”
Further prompting by the reporter elicited from Mr. Dutro where he studied, if he had a business and what his goals were: answers were 1) he studied finance in a college, 2)he has a Tattoo business, and 3) his goals were to continue to “message on social media” aboutinjustices of Wall Street greed and corruption.
Mr. Dutro did offer an explanation of how much time he was devoting to this effort and what happened to his business: 1)He spends his time, from sunup to late at night, organizing since he is the “second in command,” 2) his business (Tattoo Parlor) had employees making more than he did, because he ran it as a co-operative (read: his business went bust).
Conclusion: 1)It is generally known Mr George Soros has financed this “amorphous group of protesting individuala.” What isn’t known, is how much of Mr. Soro’s funds were funneled through his Tides, Priorities, etc. entities. 2)It is also known, by Mr. Dutro’s own admission – this WAS NOT an amorphous uprising, but yes (alas!) a well greased, well funded, organized, anti-capitalist aglomeration of dissaffected, jobless, individuals possibly criminals, willing to spend time doing whatever with their free time…this by Mr. Dutro’s own words “they were messaging (on social media) well BEFORE the first OWS individuals stepped on the park just off of Wall Street.”
This spread all over the world, per Mr. Dutrs. How? one asks. What does OWS in New York have to do in Oakland, CA, or Paris, FRance? Must be some centralized, organized, location with servers, nerds, geeks and computerphiles willing to sensitize their breatheren across the pond…after all, they have $500 million dollars to waste in an unjust capitalistic system, getting thier anti-capitalist rant out.
One asks, whay aren’t these anti-capitalist’s using smoke signals, instead of social media,i.e., servers, iPads, Androids, Facebook, Twitter,etc.? Seems they’re betraying their fellow travelers “cause celebre”…using Capitalism.
Cloward-Piven are both smiling at the wonderful effort, work, and results so far. And a pat on the back for Mr. Dutro’s hard work, too. Young man with a future in communism…knows all about co-operatives, too. Abject failures.
Congress is bought. The Whitehouse is bought. It is indeed purchased with money from the financial sector, which is incestuously intertwined with its federal regulatory bodies.
How could any of you come to the conclusion that these [admittedly brash and simplistic] demands undermine the First Amendment?
I don’t support the socialistic / fascist portion of the OWS crowd; but much of what they are protesting is disgust over financial whorehouse that is now Washington, DC, and involves rightly-espoused libertarian thought.
Don’t throw out the baby with the bath.
I am shocked about most of the comments here. People are so convinced of their own truth and simple conclusions, they hardly listen to the arguments, they just shoot their own opinions at the other side. Pity. Left and right do have both points. You might both agree something is sick and the once great USA has lost power, influence and much of its image. You both care to make things work again. Now listen to each other, what makes sense of the other side. Modern wars prove, all sides lose.
Dear right, if one uses the word collective that doesn’t mean communism or socialism by a long shot. It means you feel part of the community, like the local voluntary fireman, the neighbourhood watch and others who volunteer to help their (local) community. These people reduce disaster and unrest in society and thus add wealth (not only money) to the community. And when people are poor in the US is that not only because they don’t work. It might be because the Chinese hold their jobs now, because the shareholders off shored.
Dear Left, you expect the right to understand you care about others. They don’t trust you, think you don’t do squat and just want to get it for free. Perhaps you could better focus on criminal actions by big industrial bosses, that hit both you and many right winged people. They love competition, but they are harsh on crime. Prove there are crimes. Many right winged people seem convinced you make the US poor because of welfare. Here arguments don’t work, you need facts, like Denmark. This country has a way richer population on avarage with more jobs and a great welfare. Impossible the right seems to think. The Dutch see their health care go down. Privitising means a lot of money used for health care now is wasted on advertising campaings in order to compete, bonuses for CEO’s and profits that goo to shareholders rather than to research.
So dear Right there are many cases where competition doesn’t always improve things. The whole country is in dept, because every election candidate, since a many years, seem to have the need to promise tax cuts in order to get elected. The right don’t like a strong government, but that same government must be able to protect US interests abroad. Now the US loses a lot of income and business because the big industries moved the production to China. What is earned by the US shareholders from those industries, hardly goes to the avarage US citizen or the government. And China now has the jobs, the income and almost all the power.
The left like a strong government, but forget such a thing costs money and for money you need income. And for income you need business. So both sides should support domestic industry, enough taxes to have a workable government and be more curious what the other side actually means, before you condemn them with arguments you learned from biased media (whatever side) and your local leaders.
(I think you mean the Danish.)
Here’s the point. I read the demands. They indeed sound like the beginning of Communism. The Citizens United case was a group of PRIVATE CITIZENS trying to make a political point. What this will do is give the MSM’s thought control back.
They want no exemptions or deductions (not even for children!; well, they probably don’t ahve many), but they want student loan deductions. Why not attack the problem at the root, at the University? They sound like spoiled brats, and unthinking ones at best.
I LIVE in a partly socialist country, Israel. The good things here are the result of supply-side economics. The bad things are a result of governemnt “protections” that harm those they claim to protect. We have a form of socialized medicine, better than the one Obama is moving towards, but still I would rather not have it. AMERICA, DON’T DO IT!
Kill your television… Don’t you remember?
Shut down communication so that only Party approved communication can exist.
I wonder if Susan and Bill are helping them with bomb making now the retirement age is near?
Let them protest and PLEASE continue to give them a microphone, a pen, a blog and whatever other form they wish to communicate their message in.
The more they talk and the longer they are there, it becomes clearer that they are far outside the main stream of society. They also continue to alienate those who once supported them.
I hope they also keep attracting politicians to identify with their movement, making the next elections much easier to discern.
Keep on protesting and showing your true colors! Isn’t America GREAT?
I know it’s wrong, but I now have a burning desire to do everything possible to stop any possible relief of student loans and make those spoiled brats pay. (But I’m sure there are innocent victims, too.)
I think there is one government program we SHOULD support. Anyone who can prove that he spent at least a week at an OWS encampment, should be offered a free, one-way ticket to the European country of his choice, provided he abrogates his citizenship. It’s win-win; Europe gets their tax base, they get their socialism, and we are saved from a great threat to our freedom. Heck, I’ll even contribute to the fund from my own money, and I don’t even live in the U.S.!
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) gangs commit criminal sabotage, a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction (Revised Code of Washington 9.05.060): disruption of operations of one of the world biggest ports resulted in revenue losses; disruption of work of small businesses resulted in laid offs and unemployment fund losses in NY; disruption of banks’ economic operations and bank robbery attempt; vandalism; rape; etc. Criminal sabotage is a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW (Revised Code of Washington). US and local Authorities shall take bold measures to enforce the US LAW instead of cover it under “freedom of speech” umbrella twisting the US Constitution in anti-American way.
Moreover, OWS, gangs of genetic lazy freeloaders, use Nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric and SS intimidation tactics demonstrating their real “face” and intention.
I do believe all of the ideas you’ve presented on your post. They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are very brief for novices. May you please extend them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.
I’m no longer sure the place you’re getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while learning much more or figuring out more. Thank you for great info I used to be in search of this information for my mission.
Excellent blog right here! Additionally your web site so much up fast! What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate hyperlink on your host? I desire my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol