johnwk
01-22-2010, 08:19 PM
SEE: Palin and McCain to Hit Campaign Trail Again (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/20/palin-mccain-hit-campaign-trail/)
This is most alarming, at least to those who understand the fundamental principles under which our nation was founded and thought that Palin’s political views were/are grounded in and limited by these principles.
Palin’s decision to support McCain is alarming because McCain has repeatedly violated his primary directive while holding and office of public trust:
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;
As Glenn Beck correctly says, “question with boldness” and at this point in time I will give Sara Palin the benefit of doubt, but she needs to explain her decision to help McCain get re-elected and do so because McCain’s record has been an ongoing assault upon our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
Tell us Sara, Senator McCain voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. But where in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted a power to tax for, spend on and regulate public schools systems established under state constitutions? Where does Congress get the authority to tax the people of Idaho to fund the public schools system of New York City? The truth is, Congress has not been granted such power and so, McCain voted in a manner which usurps power and defies our written Constitution. Do you approve of McCain’s vote favoring the NCLB Act which is designed to enlarge the iron fist of the federal government’s power over the education of our nation‘s children? You must know, Sara, that almost every iron fisted dictator from Hitler to Fidel Castro has seized a power over the education of their nation’s children.
Tell us Sara, McCain is very much in favor of the president exercising line item veto power. But the simple truth is, if line item veto were available to the president, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. And so, such a power, if allowed to be exercised by the president, would concentrate a very dangerous and blackmailing power in the hands of the President.
Our founding fathers were well aware of this during the Convention of 1787 and intentionally rejected McCain’s idea. For example, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_604.asp) of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
'The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The Convention finally did reach a compromise and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect if allowed and which McCain supports!
So tell us Sara, why do you support McCain’s desire to concentrate power in the hands of our president? You must know that progressives like Woodrow Wilson “believed that the American Constitution, especially after it had been stretched to bursting point by Lincoln, permitted a strong President to take every power that was needed. He believed that he himself was such a President, and he planned to make himself master of the government“. ___The Price of Union, Herbert Agar, 1950, page 665-66
And, let us not forget McCain’s desire to silence and manipulate political speech with his McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which proposed to shred one of our Constitution’s most formidable prohibitions placed upon Congress ___ that “Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” What part of “shall make no law” does McCain not understand?
This issue alone proves McCain is a dangerous domestic enemy of our Constitutionally limited system of government and a traitor to the oath of office he took to support and defend “this Constitution”, which does not provide an allowance for McCain to make the rules up as he goes along, especially when it involves freedom of speech and of the press. Is it not obvious to see that McCain supports the kind of controlled press which was practiced in Vietnam? Is this where he learned of its political advantages and benefits? And you support McCain? WHY Sara? Please tell us WHY!
And what about McCain’s feelings about Christians? In 2000 McCain attacked religious leaders, see
The New York Times, Published: February 29, 2000 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DA1239F93AA15751C0A9669C8B 63), by calling them "agents of intolerance" and later confirmed he said what he meant and meant what he said by saying , "I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out." (Hardball, 3/1/00) Why does McCain paint Christians with such a broad brush?
And, let us not forget that McCain, almost with violence, defended granting amnesty to 12-20 million foreign nationals who have invaded our borders! Is it not a primary directive of those who took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution to “repel Invasions“?
So tell us Sara, why is it that you plan to support and campaign for one who would greet those who have invaded our borders with open arms? Why, Sara? Why? Is it possible that you have made a very serious mistake in judgment concerning the real McCain, just as many voters made a very serious mistake in judgment when voting for Obama‘s “hope and change” without knowing the real change he had in mind? Keep in mind Sara, there were those who warned voters of the real Obama before he was elected, just as there are those who now are warning you about the real McCain!
JWK
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
This is most alarming, at least to those who understand the fundamental principles under which our nation was founded and thought that Palin’s political views were/are grounded in and limited by these principles.
Palin’s decision to support McCain is alarming because McCain has repeatedly violated his primary directive while holding and office of public trust:
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;
As Glenn Beck correctly says, “question with boldness” and at this point in time I will give Sara Palin the benefit of doubt, but she needs to explain her decision to help McCain get re-elected and do so because McCain’s record has been an ongoing assault upon our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
Tell us Sara, Senator McCain voted for the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. But where in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted a power to tax for, spend on and regulate public schools systems established under state constitutions? Where does Congress get the authority to tax the people of Idaho to fund the public schools system of New York City? The truth is, Congress has not been granted such power and so, McCain voted in a manner which usurps power and defies our written Constitution. Do you approve of McCain’s vote favoring the NCLB Act which is designed to enlarge the iron fist of the federal government’s power over the education of our nation‘s children? You must know, Sara, that almost every iron fisted dictator from Hitler to Fidel Castro has seized a power over the education of their nation’s children.
Tell us Sara, McCain is very much in favor of the president exercising line item veto power. But the simple truth is, if line item veto were available to the president, special interest projects and pork barrel spending favored by the president would prevail over projects and pork disfavored by the president. And so, such a power, if allowed to be exercised by the president, would concentrate a very dangerous and blackmailing power in the hands of the President.
Our founding fathers were well aware of this during the Convention of 1787 and intentionally rejected McCain’s idea. For example, in discussing veto power, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_604.asp) of the Constitutional Convention, reminds the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:
'The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
The Convention finally did reach a compromise and granted veto power to the president, but only in the limited fashion as detailed in Article 1, Section 7, which preempts the kind of presidential blackmail which line-item veto most assuredly would resurrect if allowed and which McCain supports!
So tell us Sara, why do you support McCain’s desire to concentrate power in the hands of our president? You must know that progressives like Woodrow Wilson “believed that the American Constitution, especially after it had been stretched to bursting point by Lincoln, permitted a strong President to take every power that was needed. He believed that he himself was such a President, and he planned to make himself master of the government“. ___The Price of Union, Herbert Agar, 1950, page 665-66
And, let us not forget McCain’s desire to silence and manipulate political speech with his McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which proposed to shred one of our Constitution’s most formidable prohibitions placed upon Congress ___ that “Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” What part of “shall make no law” does McCain not understand?
This issue alone proves McCain is a dangerous domestic enemy of our Constitutionally limited system of government and a traitor to the oath of office he took to support and defend “this Constitution”, which does not provide an allowance for McCain to make the rules up as he goes along, especially when it involves freedom of speech and of the press. Is it not obvious to see that McCain supports the kind of controlled press which was practiced in Vietnam? Is this where he learned of its political advantages and benefits? And you support McCain? WHY Sara? Please tell us WHY!
And what about McCain’s feelings about Christians? In 2000 McCain attacked religious leaders, see
The New York Times, Published: February 29, 2000 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DA1239F93AA15751C0A9669C8B 63), by calling them "agents of intolerance" and later confirmed he said what he meant and meant what he said by saying , "I must not and will not retract anything that I said in that speech at Virginia Beach. It was carefully crafted, it was carefully thought out." (Hardball, 3/1/00) Why does McCain paint Christians with such a broad brush?
And, let us not forget that McCain, almost with violence, defended granting amnesty to 12-20 million foreign nationals who have invaded our borders! Is it not a primary directive of those who took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution to “repel Invasions“?
So tell us Sara, why is it that you plan to support and campaign for one who would greet those who have invaded our borders with open arms? Why, Sara? Why? Is it possible that you have made a very serious mistake in judgment concerning the real McCain, just as many voters made a very serious mistake in judgment when voting for Obama‘s “hope and change” without knowing the real change he had in mind? Keep in mind Sara, there were those who warned voters of the real Obama before he was elected, just as there are those who now are warning you about the real McCain!
JWK
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas