Thomas Jefferson warns about the dangers of the national debt in 1816
Over the course of the last several weeks I have been working my way through the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and today I read with great interest on a subject he wrote about in an 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval which I feel is relevent today. While writing to Mr. Kercheval on the prospects of reforming the Virginia constitution Thomas Jefferson wrote about the dangers of incurring a perpetual national debt. As we head toward a national debt of $1.6 trillion I thought it would be proper and enlightening to read the words of this great man on this issue.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to perceive their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
When he wrote that he did not fear the people in this instance he was not in opposition to his axiom “when the government fears the people you have liberty, when the people fear the government you have tyranny,” he was simply stating his belief that the people are capable of self-government. And it is the ordinary people with whom our freedoms are entrusted, and with this trust we should not let the government saddle us with debt.
He continued:
In the wake of the revelation that a couple of Korans were inadvertently burned along with other books that Muslim prisoners were using to illegally communicate with the outside world Barack Obama has issued several apologies to the Afghan people. He isn’t the only one, several people within his administration have gone out of their way to apologize more than once for this mistake in an attempt to quell any violence which may occur from people within the religion of peace.
How has the contrition of the president and his regime been met? With violence which has included the killing of a couple of dozen people, including four Americans–the last two killed while they were within the Interior Ministry in Kabul. The apologies of the Obama regime have been met with violence and an utter disregard for the sanctity of life.
So while Barack Obama has been publicly apologizing to the Afghan people, what has Hamid Karzai’s response been to Barack Obama and the people of the United States for these deaths? Silence.
And what has Barack Obama’s response been to the news that Americans are being killed in response to the accidental burning of the Korans? Silence.
In this article Ann Coulter describes Romneycare as a “conservative alternative to national health care” and claims that if the other 49 states had followed Mitt Romney’s lead we wouldn’t be saddled with Obamacare today.
How is it possible for a big government program–which relies on federal money, and requires the people of the state to buy a product as a condition of residency or face a fine imposed by the state–to be considered a conservative alternative to anything? How is it that a program which costs millions of dollars and only brings the percentage of insured residents up by just a few percentage points, and which has done nothing to bring down the healthcare costs in the state with the highest healthcare premiums in the nation be supported by a person who is supposed to be a leading conservative voice?
Ann Coulter’s whole justification for calling Romneycare a conservative alternative to Obamacare seems to lie solely in the fact that it was implemented on the state level. State’s rights and the 10th amendment is a concept that is near and dear to the hearts of many conservatives–myself included–and I do believe that Romneycare is constitutional because it was implemented at the state level.
But merely implementing a big government policy at the state level does not mean that it is a conservative policy. Liberal policies can–and many times are–implemented at the state level. This is where Ann Coulter’s argument falls apart in her blinding support for Mitt Romney. If Ann Coulter wants to argue that Romneycare is constitutional because it was implemented on a state level, and if she wants to argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional because it was instituted at the federal level that is an argument that we can have, but that is not the case she is making.
The Republicans are on the verge of nominating the man who created the blueprint for Obamacare and this weak and feeble defense of Romneycare is simply not going to cut it in the general election.
Barack Obama promises to double down on his green energy failures
As gas prices continue to climb at a remarkable pace Barack Obama gave a speech today on his energy policy and promised more of the same failed policies in the future.
A century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough,” Obama said. “It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising
Never been more promising? This would be the same industry that gave us Solyndra, LightSquared, Beacon, Fisker, Tesla, SunPower, Ener1, and BrightSource; all failed “green energy” initiatives which gave billions of taxpayer dollars away to unsustainable companies. Companies which just happened to have high profile Democrat donors as major investors, by the way.
The charges against the New Hampshire man who fired a warning shot into the ground have been dropped
Yesterday I wrote an article about Dennis Fleming and his legal woes. In case you missed the story: Dennis Fleming is a resident of New Hampshire who single handedly stopped a thief who had broken into his house, and the house of his neighbor, by yelling freeze while shooting a warning shot into the ground. For his heroism he faced seven years in jail on a felony charge for reckless behavior which could have netted him more jail time than the thief he stopped.
Today I have the pleasure of informing you that all charges have been dropped against Dennis Fleming and he will no longer face felony charges for his actions. Here is what Strafford County Attorney Tom Velardi had to say about this decision:
My review of this situation was based on the circumstances under which the shot was fired and whether other citizens were placed or may have been placed in danger of serious bodily injury. The facts available at the scene on Saturday supported the charge of felony reckless conduct, but subsequent facts discovered since have led me to believe that such a charge under these circumstances would be unjust
The New Hampshire constitution is quite clear regarding gun rights, more clear than even the United States constitution; the New Hampshire constitution, in article 2A, states that “all persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state,” and today the New Hampshire constitution was reaffirmed and upheld.
Justice has been served in this case!
Video: What has the Obama administration been up to?
Below is a video Matt posted on Conservative Hideout which I feel is a must watch. It sums up Barack Obama’s first term in office in just under four minutes.
New Hampshire man arrested for firing a warning shot into the ground while stopping a crime
The story goes like this:
A New Hampshire man, upon realizing his home was robbed, grabbed his .38 caliber handgun and went outside where he saw a man walking down the road with a backpack. A few minutes later he came back outside and saw that same man jumping out of his neighbor’s window. Realizing that the police wouldn’t get to his home in time to stop the man, Dennis Fleming aimed his pistol away from the thief and fired a warning shot safely into the ground where he knew there was no chance any harm could come to anybody.
The startled thief immediately stopped, and while Dennis Fleming unloaded his weapon and set it down to avoid any accidents his neighbors who heard the shot quickly rushed out and subdued the criminal until the police were finally able to make it onto the scene. All of the stolen property was recovered and his neighbors were thanking and shaking the hand of the man who stopped the criminal. The police arrested the thief and that is where the story should end, but it doesn’t because the New Hampshire police made one more arrest in this incident. The police arrested Dennis Fleming–the man who fired the warning shot–as well.
Obamacare: Will the Supreme Court delay its decision until 2016?
When the Obama regime decided not to appeal the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional and requested that the Supreme Court take up the case before the 2012 election many people wondered what Barack Obama was up to. After all, why would Barack Obama fast track the Supreme Court hearing when he could have delayed it until after the 2012 election? Why did he chose to allow the Supreme Court to hear Obamacare arguments before the election, thusly turning this into a campaign issue?
We just might now know the answer to these questions. Any American who does not comply with the healthcare mandate will have to pay a fine to the federal government for their non-compliance with the law. In an effort to keep his promise to the American people, Barack Obama claimed that this “fee” was not a “tax” therefore he was not imposing a tax on people who earn under $250,000 and elect not to have healthcare coverage.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Supreme Court; the Obama regime’s defense of the healthcare mandate in the courts has been that this fine is indeed a tax and therefore it is constitutional because the Congress has the right to levy taxes on the American people. And this might be the reason why the Obama regime decided to fast track the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.
If the Supreme Court rules that the healthcare mandate is indeed a tax it may be required under law to delay a ruling on Obamacare until 2016, here are the details:
First enacted in 1867, the Tax Anti-Injunction Act sweepingly forbids any court from hearing any case in which any person attempts to prevent the assessment or collection of a tax. Once the tax has been assessed and collected, however, a court may hear a case on it.
The ObamaCare mandate is enforced by means of a penalty fine, collected by the IRS. With a few exceptions, this fine will be imposed on every citizen who doesn’t check a box on his tax return affirming that he has purchased government-controlled health insurance.
Is the IRS penalty a tax, or not? So far, lower federal courts have come down on both sides of this issue. And for complicated legal reasons, the Obama Administration has actually been taking boths sides on it: in Congress, the President’s men say it’s not a tax; in court, they say it is.
If the high Court decides the mandate is a tax, it will be a dream come true for the Administration:
- President Obama faces reelection in November 2012.
- ObamaCare doesn’t go into full operation until January 2014.
- The first time the IRS can levy the mandate penalty/tax won’t be until folks file their tax returns, in mid-April 2015.
- The slow judicial process will likely delay a final Supreme Court ruling until mid-2016.
This is certainly a potential turn of events that I didn’t see coming, and it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. I always thought Barack Obama may have had something up his sleeve when he made this decision and now we might just know what it was.
Rick Santorum and Satan
My name is Steve Dennis and I am a recovering Catholic.
Okay, I said it, I am a recovering Catholic: I was raised as a Catholic and I attended Catholic school for eight years, but my experience in Catholic school coupled with the fact that the leaders of the Catholic church didn’t quite live up to the standards they taught me I must live up to has driven me away from not only the Catholic church but organized religion in general. I keep my religious beliefs to myself for they are nobody’s business but mine, and my beliefs are between me and God. I live my life as just and as moral as I can, always trying to do what is right, while hurting nobody else, and when I am gone I hope to be judged on my actions, for in my opinion actions are more important than words.
My unwillingness to forgive the Catholic church and their leaders probably says more about me than it says about the church but I still cannot find it in my heart to move past the horrific scandal and coverup that was going on for years in the church. So it is with some concern that I read the words of Rick Santorum from 2008.
Satan has his sights on the United States of America!,” Santorum thundered to a Florida university crowd four years ago in a speech unearthed by the Drudge Report.
“The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on,” Santorum said. “[A] good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America
I am not one who would disqualify anyone from being president of the United States based on their religious views–as we all know the constitution gives us the right to practice any religion as we see fit–my only criteria in voting for president is that person’s stance on the issues and their religion doesn’t factor into that equation one iota.
But at the same time I do not want a president standing in front of the people of the United States who thinks that he is involved in some type of Holy War against Satan, that is not his job, I simply want a president who will stand up and defend the constitution.
Rick Santorum will be asked about these comments at the debate tomorrow night and he needs to draw a clear distinction between his personal beliefs and the way he will govern as president. There is no doubt that Rick Santorum is under attack by the media–and it is probably being orchestrated by Mitt Romney–and there should be a clear distinction between Rick Santorum the citizen and Rick Santorum the president, but he will have to make that distinction if he hopes to have any chance at winning the nomination and defeating Barack Obama in November.
Somehow over the course of many years the Democrats have been able to portray themselves as the party responsible for all the gains made in the civil rights movement, while also painting the Republicans as the party who opposed these measures. But nothing could be further from the truth, as Allen West reminds us in the following video of a speech he made recently to recognize Black History Month.
America's Watchtower 