28 Nov

Harry Reid & The Democrats Want To ‘Break The Rules To Change The Rules’

                                       

It’s ironic that in 2005, when the Democrats were the minority in the Senate, Harry Reid said it was illegal to change the filibuster rules:

cheap viagra online://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0′ align=’middle’ height=’500′ width=’410’>

For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American. The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can’t do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can’t do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.

“The majority can’t get what they want so they break the rules to change the rules. We believe the traditions of the Senate should be maintained. We believe if you are going to change the rules in the Senate, change them legally, not illegally.

“They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right.

He doesn’t stop there:

The Senate is a body of moderation. While the House is the voice of a single man, single woman, and the House of Representatives is a voice of the majority, the Senate is the forum of the States. It is the saucer that cools the coffee. It is the world’s greatest deliberative body. How will we call this the world’s greatest deliberative body after the majority breaks the rules to silence the minority? Breaking the rules to change the rules.

Ultimately, this is about removing the last check in Washington against complete abuse of power, the right to extended debate.

Feinstein:

If the nuclear option is successful, it will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at anytime by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then, legislation.

Hillary Clinton:

The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out; to ignore the precedents, to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance we have obtained that has kept this Constitutional system going — for the immediate gratification of the present President.

Obama:

a change in the Senate rules would change the character of the Senate forever. And what I worry about would be that you would essentially still have two chambers in the House and the Senate, but you would have, simply, majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended

And Joe Biden:

The nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. I say to my friends on the Republican side: you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

Ah…the irony. As President of the Senate he will be the one who makes it happen if they follow through with their nuclear option.

And now Obama is fully supporting Reid’s “illegal” changes:

The President has said many times that the American people are demanding action,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “They want to see progress, not partisan delay games. That hasn’t changed, and the President supports Senator Reid’s efforts to reform the filibuster process.

This isn’t reform, this is “breaking the rules to change the rules”

Mitch McConnell today:

[Reid] no longer recognizes—as Senator Byrd did, by the way—that ‘the Senate was not established to be efficient,’ but ‘to make sure that minorities are protected. Then, my friend recognized ‘that is what the Senate is all about.’ Now, he says, the primary consideration is ‘efficiency.’

“He seeks to minimize concerns about this majoritarian power-grab by characterizing the effect as ‘tiny,’ as a ‘minor change,’ as changing Senate Rules just ‘a little bit.'”

I think Senator Baucus said it best in 2005, when the Democrats opposed breaking the rules to change the rules:

This is the way democracy ends. Not with a bomb, but with a gavel.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Constitution, Harry Reid, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, November 28th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
| 518 views

57 Responses to Harry Reid & The Democrats Want To ‘Break The Rules To Change The Rules’

  1. Nan G says: 1

    I think it was Mitch McConnell who asked Reid if he was really willing to be in the MINORITY under these same rules he is suggesting now.
    Never heard a reply.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 2

    Liberal fascism rears it’s head again.

    ReplyReply
  3. WHAT kind of example they are teaching the PEOPLE to cheat,
    they have no moral they play that game to often it will come back and hit them where it hurt at the end.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 4

    The democrats have jumped the fence of the law so many times, they had a gate put in to make it easier to cross.

    ReplyReply
  5. Ditto says: 5

    Harry Reid is a bitter, evil little man. If Reid and his fellow Democrats insist on a tyranny of “the majority,” Democrats should be guaranteed by Republicans that they will remember! Both in future Senates, and in the current House of Representatives. The Democrats are clearly doing everything they can to insure that any consideration of bipartisan compromise will have died in Washington. Political self-defense is not obstructionism.

    ReplyReply
  6. kelsonus says: 6

    hypocrisy is only a charge for someone who has standards
    Thus the left cannot be guilty of such a thing

    ReplyReply
  7. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 7

    But on the 1st day of the the new session, it would only take 51 votes to change the filibuster rule.

    ReplyReply
  8. Kemo says: 8

    How can facts and reality still be lost on so many? Changing definitions of words – for example, you can’t be a liberal, socialist, communist AND a Marxist – they are all different things

    I have only gone through 5 pages of articles and posts, but so far the majority is ignorance and hypocrisy – and using those words to describe those that are actually the opposite by definitio0n.

    Does anyone have an suggestions to solve the countries issues and or comments of substance with verifiable facts to back these opinions or is this strictly an opinion only site?

    ReplyReply
  9. Smorgasbord says: 9

    @Kemo: #8
    Curt lets people say what they want, even if it doesn’t make any sense.

    There have been some very good suggestions how to change our government for the better. This can only be done after enough of the existing politicians are voted out, because they won’t want them. Some of the best I have read or heard are:

    (1) Pay the politicians a percentage of the GNP. If the economy goes up, so does their pay.
    (2) They are put on the same retirement plan we are.
    (3) Any former politician receiving the fantastic retirement benefits now, will end.
    (4) Each politician has to vote on every department, committee, etc. whether to let it continue or end. The votes will be spread out over the shortest term in congress, and each politician has to vote during each term.
    (5) Enact the Fair Tax.
    (6) Bills introduces to congress will be voted on in the order they were introduced.
    (7) Bills will be voted on AS IS, with no amendments allowed. The only one who can change it is the one who introduced it. This would end the pork barrel attachments.
    (8) Fund the government by the numbers. Each agency, department, etc., will be given a number rating. The military will be the only #1. Then the #2s are funded, etc. The ones who aren’t getting as much as they think they should will scrutinize ALL of the others to se if there is any pork barrel spending there.
    (9) A political crimes tribunal will be set up like the War Crimes Tribunal to go after politicians who committed political crimes while in office. No statue of limitations.

    There are many others, but these are the ones I think are REALLY good ideas.

    ReplyReply
  10. Kemo
    yes and that is your opinion just like other, you are entitle to it.
    even if other don’t share it.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  11. Smorgasbord
    hi, you always have good ideas,
    and if the elected would take it, they would gain in intelligence

    ReplyReply
  12. Kemo says: 12

    @Smorgasbord: Thank you for your reply.I like having many resources in and out of the US from different perspectives. But vetting the source is important as well of course. Your thoughtful response is appreciated.

    ReplyReply
  13. Ditto says: 13

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    After going to all the trouble to shove it through, you don’t really think Harry Reid would let a motion reach the floor calling for a vote to restore the Filibuster on the first day, do you Lib? You can’t possibly be that naive, so we’ll just consider this yet another in your continued efforts to be disingenuous.

    @Smorgasbord:

    (10) There must be a federal requirement for voters to present a valid ID to be allowed to vote. Anyone convicted of vote fraud will forever lose their right to vote. All received Military absentee votes shall be the first counted on election day.

    (11) All lobbyist contact with congress critters (and the president) must be recorded, either audibly, video, or via duplication of correspondence. If they are going to represent the people, the people have a right to know about these contacts or meetings. The FOIA applies to these records. Former Congress members who lobby shall forfeit their pension during the entire year that they work for a lobby.

    (12) All campaign contributions shall be recorded in a searchable database. Failure to verify that contributors are US citizens, shall result in a fine levied against the campaign (might I suggest 10 times the amount of the contribution with a minimum of fine of $1,000 for each separate incident.)

    (13) Congressional Ethics investigations should be handled in the same manner as Grand Juries, with a pool of registered voters rendering the verdict.

    (Maybe Curt or one of us should start a new discussion under the heading “Reforming Government over the Cracker Barrel”)

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord says: 14

    @Kemo: #12
    I always like to get as many views as I can on things new to me. Glad to have you here.

    ReplyReply
  15. Smorgasbord says: 15

    @Ditto: #13

    All received Military absentee votes shall be the first counted on election day.

    And the vote will not be totaled until ALL MILITARY absentee ballots are in.

    (might I suggest 10 times the amount of the contribution with a minimum of fine of $1,000 for each separate incident.)

    Fines to billionaires are nothing. Ever hear of JAIL TIME?

    (13) Congressional Ethics investigations should be handled in the same manner as Grand Juries, with a pool of registered voters rendering the verdict.

    The Political Crimes Tribunal should be made up of non-politicians, and elected for no longer than four years. They would be under the same rules as politicians, and could be punished for crimes committed on on the tribunal.

    One web site that is trying to do something about our runaway government is Contract From America. http://www.thecontract.org/

    One thing EVERY concerned citizen can do is to join a Tea Party, or donate to the Tea Party Patriots, or to a Tea Party in your area. Make sure it is a Real Tea Party. The liberals are creating fake ones that the Tea Party Patriots are trying to police.

    ReplyReply
  16. Ditto
    didn’t I tell you before that you and Smorgasbord would make
    super president and vice president,
    didn’t I

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    CONTRACT FOR AMERICA is a super idea,
    and now’s the right time,

    ReplyReply
  18. Smorgasbord
    how can one make sure they are not in a fake TEA PARTY GROUP?

    ReplyReply
  19. Smorgasbord
    I LIKE THE MENTION OF GIVING THE MILITARY THE FIRST PRIORITY ON VOTE INCOMING, GERAT INCENTIVE ALSO.
    THEY DESERVE IT TOO.

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    I believe that if Reid was to get his way, and if the GOP won back control of the Senate in 2014, that Reid and his fellow Democrats would be calling for the Senate to revert back to the old rules, where the minority could block the majority.

    Does anyone else think otherwise?

    ReplyReply
  21. Common Sense says: 21

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): I’m betting there won’t be 51 votes available to destroy our nation.

    ReplyReply
  22. FedUp says: 22

    I’d like to add (14) All elected representatives should be term limited. Senators to 2 terms and Representatives to 8 2-year terms. Since this would lead to short term jobs, there should be NO benefits or pensions at the end of their terms. That should weed out thugs like Harry and incompetents like Nancy, Boxer, Maxine and a whole host of others. I’d love to have them pass a test on the Constitution and an IQ over 100, but that would probably be considered racist or sumpin.

    Good going, all of you who have contributed above. Great Ideas!

    ReplyReply
  23. FedUp
    yes that ‘s good, they must earn it and love AMERICA more than themselves,
    may I add one,I was thinking of quite a while before,
    that is; any one who is eligible to vote must recite 5 lines of the CONSTITUTION without reading,chosen by an under voting age child just before, and different for each voter,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  24. Smorgasbord says: 24

    @johngalt: #20
    I think that if you go back in history, both sides try to make the rules the way they want them, so that the party in charge can get what they want.

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @FedUp: #22

    All elected representatives should be term limited. Senators to 2 terms and Representatives to 8 2-year terms.

    A lot of people are saying that all politicians should be limited to 12 years, then out. I’m for that.

    …there should be NO benefits or pensions at the end of their terms.

    They could have the same retirement plans civilian employees have (401(k) or an individual IRA).

    I’d love to have them pass a test on the Constitution and an IQ over 100,

    Immigrants wanting to become citizens have to pass such a test. Sounds like a good idea to me. I suggest the test be administered before each of their elections. That could be one of the qualification to run, or run again. Great idea. I don’t know about the IQ test. You have to keep in mind that the majority were educated in government schools, from kindergarten through high school. We might have to import a president again, but, our imported president we have now isn’t doing so good, so I don’t like that idea.

    We all have to keep in mind that NONE of the changes that SHOULD be done, will be done by the incumbents. They ain’t going to vote themselves less power and pay. All of the changes would have to be written in a contract to be signed by anyone running for office. I sent such a suggestion to the Tea Party Patriots. I suggest that all who want these changes, contact your local Tea Party and encourage them to recommend to the Tea Party Patriots that they ask any candidates to sign it. It won’t do any good to contact your politicians.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord says: 26

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #16
    I’ll let Ditto be president. I have always said that you don’t want me in charge of anything, but I’m a good helper.

    ReplyReply
  27. Smorgasbord says: 27

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #18
    It’s just like any organization or church. If things don’t seem to be the way a person thinks they should, then start checking into the people who started it.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord
    YOU SAID, you don’t want you in charge, but youare a good helper,
    well that was my line at a certain time, and because I was a good helper,
    I was very well like,
    then they put me on top, and I did real good because I had some enemies,
    that’s the way to evaluate it.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 29

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #28
    I can’t remember names. I can’t keep appointments in my head. I have missed appointments when I only had one to keep track of. Just lately, I missed a Search And Rescue meeting because I was one day behind in my head. Would you want someone like that in charge of ANYTHING?

    If I volunteer to HELP with ONE thing, I’m OK. For many years I have said that I could be the president of the Procrastinators Club if I ever got around to joining it. My motto for myself is, “If there is going to be a tomorrow, why worry about it today?” When I am helping others, it is, “Once I get going, don’t try to slow me down. I am like a big rock. When I am going, I am hard to stop. When I am stopped, it is hard to get me going again.”

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord
    yes you would be better than what is now,
    all you need is to do the job when you get going without stopping, that would be double job,
    and you accomplish all in that timeset
    than you would be able to go to HAWAI for longer vacation
    well deserved., as to remember names you have your delegate person for that, and he would be your memo, so no problem, you’ll do
    bye

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 31

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #30
    I’m on a permanent vacation in Idaho now.

    ReplyReply
  32. the AMERICANS lost control of their election to foreigners,

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasbord
    that is well deserve also, I’m sure,
    but you are still working for the TEAPARTY,
    YOU ARE A PATRIOT,
    by the way, if you see the red truck with a big idaho potato,
    tell them to come home,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. Kemo says: 34

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Here’s where the problem comes to light. How many generations does it take to not be considered a foreigner? If there is a standard set, considering British and Spaniards were original foreigners according to history, how do you determine this? How much of the populations are NOT foreigners and how have you determines this number? Based on your statement you consider yourself a minority and are against many American laws that have allowed some to be legal citizens and therefore as American’s be allowed to take part in what happens in their country. I have to ask because when I hear comment’s about being a patriot, this doesn’t make sense to me.

    ReplyReply
  35. Kemo says: 35

    @Smorgasbord: Thank you – glad to see you here too! :D

    ReplyReply
  36. Kemo says: 36

    @Smorgasbord: I agree with your opinions and suggestions so far, but I have to say if you are part of the Tea Party, you seem to be an exception. Most I have spoken with and have seen speak don’t seem to know anything of history and often are supporting those that are working against them. Nice to know some actually have some idea what is going on!

    ReplyReply
  37. Kemo says: 37

    @Ditto: Could you explain how those elected by the people to represent them, and their majority vote equates to ” .. a tyranny of “the majority,.. “? How did you combat this under the previous administration and what is your definition of tyranny? Also, what constitutional alternative do you suggest? Thanks!

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 39

    @Kemo: #34
    The conversation has been about the president, not being a citizen. The Constitution says for a person to be qualified to run for PRESIDENT, they must be a “natural born” citizen. This means that BOTH of their parents had to be born in the USA. Even though the qualifications to be a citizen of the USA have changed, the qualification to be president hasn’t. This has caused confusion, and the liberals are the ones causing it.

    They are trying to say that since the laws have changed for being a citizen, this also means the law has changed to be president. It hasn’t. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to do this. I am for an amendment that would make it mandatory for anyone running for congress or president would have to have his parents and all grandparents born here. This way the individual has deep roots here.

    obama is disqualified in more ways than the “natural born” requirement. He does not have a:
    (1) US birth certificate
    (2) Social Security card
    (3) Drivers license (I’m guessing this, since Illinois doesn’t give drivers licenses to illegals, and it is known that obama doesn’t drive. Can anyone in Illinois find out if obama has an Illinois drivers license?)

    ReplyReply
  39. Smorgasbord says: 40

    @Kemo: #36

    Most I have spoken with and have seen speak don’t seem to know anything of history…

    I was and still am lousy at history. I focus on what is going on now, and I don’t like it. One day I remember thinking to myself, “We need to have another tea party.” Not long after that, I found out that others had the same idea and had acted on it and created the Tea Party Patriots. I have been a patriot ever since.

    Most of my life I didn’t pay much attention to politics, and figured the ones in office were there because they knew what was best for the country. After I retired, and started going to web sites like Drudge and Flopping Aces, I woke up.

    I used to live about 200 miles from Washington DC, and attended almost all of the Tea Party rallies there, and have been to others. If there is another major one in DC again, I will probably see if local tea parties are chartering busses to attend. If not, I hope to go on my own.

    Idaho has all republican congress members and governor. I have written or called mine many times, especially about obama not having a birth certificate, him using someone else’s Social Security number, and his Selective Service registration number being declared a fake too. What really surprised me is that all three of them said that obama is legally qualified to run for president. After he was elected again, I sent the following letter to them. I suggest that don’t want obama to be around for four more years to write there federal reps. It won’t do any good to write the democrat reps. I recently found out that the first suggestion can’t be done, so ignore it.

    ================================================================

    You have allowed a known illegal to become president.  That isn’t bad enough:  You let it happen twice.  Do you want obama to be president another four years?  Now that he can’t loose another election, he is going to go all out to accomplish his mission to transform the USA into the kind of government he wants it to be.  If you want to stop him, there are still two ways to do it:

    (1)  Use the Electoral College against obama.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/how-obama-can-be-stopped-in-electoral-college/

    (2)  Have obama declared an illegal:  (A)  He doesn’t have an American birth certificate:  http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/296881/  (B)  He is using someone else’s Social Security number:  http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/152773/  (C)  His Selective Service registration card is a fake:  http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-wants-obamas-original-draft-card/

    I guess he hasn’t driven in many years.  Why?  Could it be that he doesn’t have a drivers license?  If he doesn’t, could it be because illegals can’t get a drivers license in Illinois.  Can you find out if he has a drivers license?

    Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  The democrats changed it to fit their desires.  Their motto is, “We don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time, we just have to fool enough of them long enough to get elected.”  They have now fooled enough of you twice to get elected twice.

    Since you have allowed him to fool you twice, I guess the old saying of, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me” applies to you.  Who’s side are you on?

    In case you noticed that I didn’t capitalize obama, I don’t capitalize obama, republican, democrat, white house, or congress any more.  I think the capitalization should be EARNED, and all of them have given up the right to be capitalized in MY writings.  If I don’t respect it, I don’t capitalize it!

    ReplyReply
  40. Kemo says: 41

    @Smorgasbord: So you are one that doesn’t believe his birth in Hawaii counts as him being a citizen? And many American citizens don’t drive – and I think access to drivers licenses like license plates depends on your state laws. I know mine does not make that public information, just like school records aren’t automatically public information. Have you researched that aspect of it? And do you have reason to believe the CIA and FBI would not have fully vetted Obama, and or that the McCain and or Romney campaigns also would not have done al they could to ensure they had?

    ReplyReply
  41. Kemo says: 42

    @Smorgasbord: PS I am on the side of what is right – research, facts, truth, and what is for the good of the people, just like our founding father’s claimed [even though at the time that only meant white male landowners] -

    ReplyReply
  42. Ditto says: 43

    @Kemo:

    @Ditto: Could you explain how those elected by the people to represent them, and their majority vote equates to ” .. a tyranny of “the majority,.. “?

    You seem very eager to give out homework to others. Don’t be surprised when some of us turn this tactic around on you.

    The answer to your question should be obvious to a student of history. It includes both components of ‘mob rule’ and ‘single party control of government.’ It is why the founders of this nation guaranteed in the Constitution that this nation would be set down as a republican form of government. It is why they very specifically, wholly rejected making it a democracy. Even with a Republic, they knew full well the nation could devolve into a democracy, which is why Benjamin Franklin’s reply when asked by Mrs. Powel “what kind of government did (the Continental Congress) give us?” was “A republic, If you can keep it.” It is also why many of the founders had a poor opinion of political parties. They knew that a few well trained orators and (aka, “con-men”) could dupe the people into following a them in a movement and put these “great speakers” into office. Once in office, if these leaders had nefarious plans, the people could suffer under the regime. (We saw this most prevalently in the administration of Woodrow Wilson.) Which is why their goal in the creation of this new republic was that the minority could be protected from the majority, only by electing wise statesmen to office. They also knew that when the people discovered that they could vote themselves riches via government largess, that it would spell an end to the republic.

    The tyranny of a majority can, as I wrote, be via ‘mob rule’ or ‘single party control of government.’ Examples of such “tyranny of a majority” are prevalent throughout history:

    It is the goal of rabble-rousers in motivating mobs.

    The crowds of Roman Coliseum thrived on it.

    The Inquisition based it’s legitimacy on it.

    Witch trials relied on it.

    It was what created Nazi Germany’s “Third Reich”

    All socialist regimes gained political power through it.

    It is what often allows the persecution of a minority group.

    Even journalism has gotten in on the game. The MSM has utilized it for decades under the sub-concept of “shaping conventional wisdom” to alter and ‘nudge’ the way people think via a ‘majority opinion’ professed by the few.

    And it is how Obama won a second term, by purposely ignoring and not campaigning on what he did in his first term, and without putting forth his own agenda for a second. Instead, he made his campaign a movement against a minority in society (the wealthy,) and by unfairly painting his opponent’s party as a party of oppressive wealthy white males.

    But back to the specifics of my use of the term “tyranny of the majority” above: It is also how a minority of people, elected by as minority of the people, (by roughly on average 25% of adult citizens eligible to vote,) who hold a majority party control of the government, can force their agenda on the minority parties, and thereby an entire nation. It is this type of “tyranny of the majority” which gave us Obamacare, even though the majority of the populous was against it.

    How did you combat this under the previous administration..

    I’m not clear of the odd wording in your question regarding the previous administration. The vagueness of this question makes it impossible to answer. What “tyranny of the majority” is it that you are referring to? If you are under the assumption that I was a supporter of the previous administration, you clearly have not read my past posts. I have always been rather skeptical and distrustful towards the motivations of politicians of all flavors.

    and what is your definition of tyranny?

    If you are going to parse our posts to demand definitions of well known terms, you are clearly wasting our time. Look up “tyranny” in your own dictionary and also research historical records of tyranny. I have already explained above enough for you to perceive what was meant by the “tyranny of majority”.

    Also, what constitutional alternative do you suggest? Thanks!

    Why, every constitutional avenue that is open to us in combating the tyranny of one political party or movement. Do I really need to describe such “Constitutional alternatives” to someone who asserts themselves to be a superior researcher, knowledgeable of government and history?

    but I have to say if you are part of the Tea Party, you seem to be an exception. Most I have spoken with and have seen speak don’t seem to know anything of history and often are supporting those that are working against them.

    ‘Most you have spoke with’ is a rather vague and no doubt incomplete survey of a large segment of society. I would say that the average Tea Party member is no worse versed in history than the average American. I could point to those featured in Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segments and “Battle of the Jaywalk All Stars” and make a similar assessment of Southern Californians (from which the majority of people in those segments live). This lack of knowledge of history is in part an indictment of the failure of our education system.

    PS I am on the side of what is right – research, facts, truth…

    As are most of us here. Although we may differ widely on what we might personally consider “what is right.”

    and what is for the good of the people, just like our founding father’s claimed

    What you think is “for the good of the people” may or may not be reflective of what the Founding Father’s thought was. You are too new here for us to make that type of assessment. Time will tell.

    If you are fair and include the GOP that confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, then you have a fair argument:

    Both sides have a tendency to confuse what is in the Constitution, and what is in the Declaration of Independence. To be fair you must keep that in mind.

    [even though at the time that only meant white male landowners] –

    At the start of the revolution in 1776 all landowners or those who paid taxes had a right to vote, this tended to favor “white males” but did not rule out others. That included females, and didn’t necessarily rule out non-whites. Some colonies, were more open with whom they allowed to vote. For example, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey allowed women to vote. Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting. When the Constitution was fully adopted in 1787, the Federal government left it up to the states to determine on their own voter eligibility. The ‘only white males’ rules came about after 1802 when new states were formed out of the Louisiana purchase. The constitutions of these of these new states came up with policies banning the vote to women and by 1807 all the states had reverted to only allowing voting by white males.

    Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson, (a pro-socialist president much revered by leftist college professors,) held very racists policies and was vehemently against giving women the vote. It is interesting how little any of us know about actual history and revisionism in our nations schools and colleges complicates the problem.

    ReplyReply
  43. Ditto
    thank you so much

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord says: 45

    @Kemo: #41
    First, let me say that I take a long time deciding if something new to me is as it is presented. This has been going on since his first campaign. Since the propaganda media did everything they could to hide ALL of his records, it is hard to get any information to figure out what is true and what isn’t.

    Anyone with an open mind can look at his birth certificate and see that it was done with a word processor, not a typewriter. There are even two different fonts used. No hospital claims him as being born there. No city claims he grew up there. The democratic government of Hawaii passed a law allowing the destruction of the paper birth certificates, and the last I knew, they were trying to pass a law to be able to destroy the film copies of the certificates. Why?

    Over the years, there have been several people research obama’s birth certificate issue. A lot of the time, documents turn up missing. One example:

    http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/03/23/breaking-immigration-records-missing-for-week-of-obamas-birth-passport-witness-to-testify-against-obama-fatally-shot-outside-church/

    The passport records of obama’s mother have dissappeard:

    http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/186677/

    As my post said, I am GUESSING that obama doesn’t have a drivers license. He doesn’t have a birth certificate, Social Security card, or a Selective Service registration card. Why would he have a driver’s license?

    Have you researched that aspect of it?

    That is why I asked if anybody can find out if he has an Illinois driver license. I don’t know, but I would like to.

    And do you have reason to believe the CIA and FBI would not have fully vetted Obama, and or that the McCain

    and or Romney campaigns also would not have done al they could to ensure they had?

    I don’t gamble, but I made a bet with my financial planner that obama wouldn’t run again. Several states were setting standards for anyone running for the office of president had to pass. I ASSUMED this meant that they would have to present a REAL birth certificate. Since obama can’t produce one, I figured this wasn’t a gamble. A bet that can’t be lost is not gambling. I would like to know how he was vetted in the states that SUPPOSEDLY, set up the standards.

    What is scaring me is all of the documents from different state and federal agencies that turn up missing AFTER someone asks for them. I can see one or two agencies involved in a coverup, but not as many that are covering stuff up all across the country.

    ReplyReply
  45. Smorgasbord
    tell me ,if it is DECEMBER 17, IS THE DATE RIGHT? or is it the 7?
    that the 17 states minimum number , must not go to be represented to electorate,
    hope they where told, that is very important ,
    thank you for the info.
    MAY GOD PROTECT AMERICA,

    ReplyReply
  46. Smorgasbord
    this one is new to me
    how much dangerous the matter is, talking of life and death danger for who touch it,
    and I hope the 17 states get the messages and know what to do on DECEMBER,
    you know he won’t be back at that time, maybe that is to delay the process he must have been told of,
    bye
    I did this comment, because I didn’t know the previous comment was pass,
    I try to go back to the link to review the date, if I had it right,
    and it disappear on the second call,
    that is weird

    ReplyReply
  47. Smorgasbord says: 48

    @Ditto: #43
    An easy way to tell if a school, organization, or news media is liberal is if they call the USA a democracy. Say the pledge of allegiance. Which type of government did you pledge of allegiance to? Republic sounds like republican, and the propaganda media doesn’t want y0u to think republican.

    ReplyReply
  48. Smorgasbord says: 49

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #47
    It was news to me too. I found it when looking for something else.

    ReplyReply
  49. Kemo says: 50

    @Ditto:

    “You seem very eager to give out homework to others. Don’t be surprised when some of us turn this tactic around on you. The answer to your question should be obvious to a student of history.” Not sure what you or others would be turning around on me as I am all about the research or ‘homework”, and if I am wrong, presented with information that demonstrates that, then I am grateful for the information, not threatened by it. I don’t have to be right, I am trying to be informed. I have strong personal beliefs of right and wrong however that and the facts of what is going on in the world around us are not the same thing. I was actually giving you the benefit doubt, assuming you had already done all your homework and may have some insight to resources I may not already be aware of to offer .

    You did give me one link, so I checked it out. I did not find accessible references to facts backing up the website’s claims, and the Confederate flag is a bad sign, but I don’t give up easily so I decided to research the points for myself and see what I could find.If interested, here are some of the references that address these points that you and the website you gave me make, specifically regarding Obama’s citizenship, fraudulent document and passport scandal claims.

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/arpaio-forged-birth-certificate-report
    ** Says You can access and or download for free but actually requires payment for the information

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3957054.html
    CBS/AP/ June 18, 2009, 6:26 PM
    Candidate Passport Files Breached

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/arizona-secretary-of-state-closes-obama-birth-certificate-matter/
    May 23rd, 2012 02:45 PM ET

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
    
    http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-Arpaio-Investigation.htm

    http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/15/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
    Obama Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is A Forgery

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/shocking-video-obamas-attorney-doesnt-admit-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
    Shocking video: Obama�s attorney DOES NOT admit birth certificate is a forgery

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/22/488323/sheriff-joe-arpaio-uses-taxpayer-funds-to-pursue-birther-conspiracy-probe/?mobile=nc
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio Admits Using Taxpayer Funds To Pursue Birther Conspiracy Probe: �So What?�

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59087668/Response-to-Zebest
    “On June 13, 2008 then candidate Barack Obama released his sealed and certified Hawaiian birth certificate to the press and public. On April 27, 2011 he did so again, this time releasing his long form version. Both documents have been attested to by the government of the State of Hawaii as authentic, as proving that he was born in the United States of America. With those acts, he has provided more] proof of his natural born citizenship than any other president or presidential candidate in all of American history.”

    This addresses the details regarding the Adobe PDF for al those that aren’t familiar with the software:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/59087668/Response-to-Zebest
    Obama Long Form Birth Certificate
    A Response to Mara Zebest


    http://www.mediaite.com/online/sheriff-joe-arpaio-president-obamas-birth-certificate-definitely-forged/

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio: President Obama�s Birth Certificate Definitely Forged
    [Trump quoted this too however I cannot find anything that either ever produced after initial announcement of big news and proof that was forthcoming. ]

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>