Remember When…..Obame Said “I Take the Constitution Very Seriously”?

Then, Candidate Obama:
“You know, I taught Constitutional Law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously,” he said. “The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all…

“And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

How soon they and he forget!

Now, King Obame 1st with ANOTHER threat to bypass Congress:

And predictably, the mindless drones of the left applauded obame both times, then and now.  As usual, depending who is in the White House, the left will oppose such actions when a non-proggy is in the office and applaud worse actions when one of their own is in the office.

The latest tactic by the left is to bring up the NUMBER of Executive Orders that obame has issued.  It is indeed less than other Presidents, but they don’t want to discuss the CONTENT of those orders since in most cases they violate the rights of the citizen (FDR EO9066 – internment of the Japanese Americans) or violate the Constitution as in obame’s own words that he won’t use EOs or signing statements and “not go through Congress at all”.  Remember as a candidate, he originally emphasized the “checks and balances” of our government and how important it was to maintain it.  He was going to reverse the damage that evil Bush was doing.

Ah, memories…..

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “Remember When…..Obame Said “I Take the Constitution Very Seriously”?

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 2, 2014 / 9:17 am

      Jeremiah,

      Do you think it’s a coincidence that this is happening just down the road from Lexington and Concord? What irony if the second American Revolution started in the same place as the first. And, if you read the comments in your linked article, it sounds like the people are ready.

      • Jeremiah March 2, 2014 / 3:03 pm

        True, J. R., this government of ours is becoming evermore power-hungry. The local and state police going federal, “homeland security” buying up billions of rounds in ammo, Obummer threatening to use his executive privilege, letting Putin take over Ukraine, ramming through defense cuts, etc, etc…

        The heat is building, and we’re about to witness a melt-down.

  1. Retired Spook March 2, 2014 / 12:21 pm

    JR and Jeremiah,

    There is a solution that doesn’t involve a violent revolution.

    • Jeremiah March 2, 2014 / 2:52 pm

      It’s worth a try, Spook. My thinking is that we will have to see how the election goes in November before we have a chance of getting the 34 votes needed.

      In any event, many are ready to take back our country, violently if need be.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 8:13 am

        Jeremiah
        March 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

        “In any event, many are ready to take back our country, violently if need be.”

        ——————————————————————–

        I’m having a difficult time trying to visualize how this would go down, Jeremiah. Could you give me some sense of how you think that scenario would unfold? There is much talk among a certain segment of the American citizenry about violently overthrowing the government and “taking back their country” but not much is said about how they would successfully accomplish it. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

      • Retired Spook March 3, 2014 / 9:19 am

        There is much talk among a certain segment of the American citizenry about violently overthrowing the government and “taking back their country” but not much is said about how they would successfully accomplish it. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

        CO, the fact that it hasn’t happened yet speaks volumes about the restraint and character of the American people. Who would have ever thought, say 10 years ago, that we would even be having this conversation. I have no idea what the trigger event will be, but there will likely be a line, likely crossed by government, (although an external force is also possible) where a significant number of people will react — people who aren’t afraid to die to preserve liberty. I agree with the guy who wrote the letter to the Connecticut State Police, that the initial number will be around 3%. Based on history, it will probably not ever be more than 20%. It will likely be spear-headed by former special forces, and trust me, we have way more “former” special forces than we do current special forces. And they are well armed and well trained. But, you say, any such rebellion would swiftly be put down by the over-whelming force of the U.S. military. That could be, but that would require the U.S. military to follow such an order, and the odds of that are anything but certain. The only thing that is certain is that it would be very ugly, just like the last time brother took up arms against brother in this country.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 3, 2014 / 9:39 am

        Canadian, by almost any metric, Canada is more free and has a better run economy than the U.S., and yet you seem to prefer the way we are currently being run. Can you explain that?

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 11:33 am

        J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)
        March 3, 2014 at 9:39 am
        ——————————————————-
        If you’ve deduced that from my remarks, J.R., I’m sorry. That was not my intention at all.
        The current political climate in America does not appeal to me in the least. In all my years, I’ve never seen this level of pure hatred & divisiveness between the different factions of the population as we are now seeing in your country. Quite content to live where I do, thank you.

      • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 12:28 pm

        “There is much talk among a certain segment of the American citizenry about violently overthrowing the government ….”

        Oddly, I have heard no such talk. I have to wonder where you find this “segment of the American citizenry”.

        I have heard people say they will DEFEND the nation, and themselves, their rights and their families and the Constitution. Funny, isn’t it, how you had to distort that into a statement that would be treason, if it were to have actually been made. Funny, isn’t it, how you rushed to defame those who want to defend this nation by claiming their goal is really to VIOLENTLY OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT !!!

        I don’t know if this is a purposeful lie, or if your internal filters twist what comes into your mind to make it comply with your own perceptions. I really don’t care. But I do care about such vicious lies being told.

        What I see is a determination to take back the government legally, through the election process, and to then start the long hard job of gradually restoring it to its Constitutional foundation. I also see a concern about the government we have now rapidly degenerating into chaos, with the Constitution blatantly disregarded. We now have laws either made or ignored by a branch never Constitutionally empowered to do either, we have law selectively applied depending on the national origin, ethnicity or skin color of the miscreant, we have the “Justice”
        Department ordering government agencies to break the law and stating its refusal to enforce some laws, we have the federal government attacking state governments when they try to enforce laws, we have the creation of another branch of government —agencies—through the vast expansion of agency authority via executive orders, we have militarized police forces throughout the country at the same time the actual military is being systematically gutted, we have what military we do have being rapidly changed into a political reflection of the Administration, we have groups of citizens being openly targeted by the Administration merely for having a different political point of view and being labeled “domestic terrorists” with warnings to the public about the dangers they allegedly represent, we have government agencies openly targeting political opposition with the full force of the government behind them, we have a president openly stating his intention to bypass Congress and this intention repeated with admiration by people from his party as if this is even legal, much less desirable, we have a lapdog press acting as a cheerleader for the excesses of the Administration while covering up its crimes, we have an administration openly fomenting distrust and conflict among citizens by encouraging racial hatred and class warfare, and so on.

        You, the alleged outsider who seems obsessively compelled to stick your nose in where it does not belong, seem quite happy with all of this, being distressed only by what you simplify as “…pure hatred & divisiveness between the different factions of the population …” as if this just happened, somehow, inexplicably, spontaneously, mysteriously, out of nowhere. What is clearly way beyond your comprehension is the desire to overcome these divisions and conflicts, to reestablish unity in this nation as Americans first, and the understanding that those who have been creating these divisions to enable their own foul purposes will undoubtedly fight very hard to keep the ground they have won.

        If you have the ability to stand back and look at our situation objectively, you will see that one side profits by the concocted hatred and distrust, the divisiveness, the hostility, the splintering of America into conflicting factions and disparate identities. The opposition will benefit by having citizens of this great land start to see themselves, once more, as Americans, united in defense of our rule of law.

        You whine about the result of the strategy of the side you support.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 12:54 pm

        What I see is a determination to take back the government legally, through the election process…Amazona
        ———————————————————————————–
        I agree that that would be the more sensible route to take. And if, heaven forbid, it happens that the majority of voters elect representatives and, once again, a President who has a liberal agenda, what then?

      • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 1:04 pm

        “…. if, heaven forbid, it happens that the majority of voters elect representatives and, once again, a President who has a liberal agenda, what then?..”

        Gee, I don’t know, CO. Are you saying that a “liberal agenda” (and by this I assume you mean a Liberal agenda, as the word “liberal” has absolutely nothing in common with the Liberal, or Progressive, meaning of the word) is by definition anti-Constitutional?

        Are you really so dense that you actually think the opposition is merely an objection to a different political point of view, rather than to the dismantling of our very rule of law?

        As you posture as such an ‘observer’ of our political culture, surely you remember that we have had Liberal presidents and administrations which, while stretching the boundaries of Constitutional restrictions on the size, scope and power of the federal government managed to stop short of actually promising to violate it.

        Do you see the massive overreach represented by the Obama regime as a natural progression of the Liberal agenda? Are you saying that any Liberal ever elected will have the same disdain for our rule of law?

        Just what the hell DO you mean, anyway?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 3, 2014 / 1:20 pm

        If you’ve deduced that from my remarks, J.R., I’m sorry. That was not my intention at all.
        The current political climate in America does not appeal to me in the least.

        Admittedly, I haven’t been here as long as you, but in the 3 years or so I have been here, I have yet to see you heap anything but praise on the current leaders of this country. So excuse me if I got the impression I did.

        You, the alleged outsider who seems obsessively compelled to stick your nose in where it does not belong, seem quite happy with all of this, being distressed only by what you simplify as “…pure hatred & divisiveness between the different factions of the population …” as if this just happened, somehow, inexplicably, spontaneously, mysteriously, out of nowhere.

        Amazona, that’s a great point. Come on, Canadian, inquiring minds want to know how you think the political climate that you claim to detest got that way.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 2:19 pm

        J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)
        March 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm

        Come on, Canadian, inquiring minds want to know how you think the political climate that you claim to detest got that way.
        ———————————————————————————————-
        Oh, I don’t know, J.R., perhaps it had something to do with the election, twice, of a President with progressive ideas; ideas that certain folk find aberrant to their way of thinking.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 2:27 pm

        Amazona
        March 3, 2014 at 1:04 pm
        ——————————————————–
        Do you think this President has violated the scope and power of the federal government, Amazona? If so, I’m baffled as to why the opposing party has not had him removed from office. What, in blue blazes, are the waiting for?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 3, 2014 / 2:29 pm

        perhaps it had something to do with the election, twice, of a President with progressive ideas; ideas that certain folk find aberrant to their way of thinking.

        If you really think it’s just a difference in a “way of thinking”, then you’re not nearly the “Observer” that your screen name would suggest. Because, as someone noted earlier in this thread, we’ve had Progressive presidents before, and the level of vitriol was nowhere what it is today. You don’t suppose it could be the fact that, as the topic of this thread says, we now have an administration that ignores the Constitution at best, and shreds it at worst?

      • Retired Spook March 3, 2014 / 3:56 pm

        Are you really so dense that you actually think the opposition is merely an objection to a different political point of view, rather than to the dismantling of our very rule of law?

        Amazona, I would bet, absent a denial from CO, that that is exactly the way she sees it. Liberals, if nothing else, are guided by the ends justify the means, so anything that furthers the Liberal agenda cannot be bad, even if it’s illegal or unconstitutional.

      • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 4:07 pm

        “Do you think this President has violated the scope and power of the federal government, Amazona?”

        Duh. Can you really say you don’t? Really? Aside from the fact that your syntax is convoluted, this is an utterly stupid question. Let me fix it for you.

        Do I think the President has exceeded the Constitutional boundaries of his authority? Oh, yeah. I have given many examples of this. Go back and read them and address any of them if you disagree, but please do not engage in any of this coy pseudo-questioning. It is quite annoying.

        Do I think the federal government, in the hands of the Left, has exceeded the scope of its allowable size and authority? Ditto. Do try to keep up.

        “If so, I’m baffled as to why the opposing party has not had him removed from office. What, in blue blazes, are the (sic) waiting for?”

        Oh, you are not. Again, this coy simpering is annoying. You know perfectly well that the RRL have cleverly set up a situation in which even a lifted eyebrow at any antic of the Prez will result in a firestorm of shrill accusations of RACISM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and will be counterproductive, when the best course of action now is to just ride it out, and try to fix what can be fixed later. The process would be the equivalent of a $5000 popsicle—kind of refreshing, but at way too high a cost. No, better to keep him in place as an example of the miseries brought by the Left. He started off as poster boy for a cause, he got elected as a poster boy for a cause, he has stuck around because he has made himself a poster boy for a cause, so I’m fine with just making it a different cause—in this case, the stupidity of electing him in the first place. This is a lesson I do not want to go away. I want every moron who voted for him to have his or her nose rubbed in the mess he makes, so that next time around they might actually think instead of feel.

        Not to mention the strategy of watching him dig himself, and by extension his party, and by extension the whole disaster that IS Leftist political philosophy, deeper and deeper.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 5:12 pm

        “Do I think the President has exceeded the Constitutional boundaries of his authority? Oh, yeah. I have given many examples of this. Go back and read them and address any of them if you disagree, but please do not engage in any of this coy pseudo-questioning. It is quite annoying.

        You know perfectly well that the RRL have cleverly set up a situation in which even a lifted eyebrow at any antic of the Prez will result in a firestorm of shrill accusations of RACISM”…Amazona
        ————————————————————————————————–
        Oh, come on now, Amazona. If the President has truly exceeded the Constitutional boundaries of his authority, his opposition is not going to knuckle under and let the threat of being accused of racism deter them. If they have the ammunition, they will use it. You are not doing your side any favors by making them appear spineless and helpless against those bullying RRL’s.

      • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 6:58 pm

        Maybe you up there in the Great North find it productive to let your opponents set your strategies for you. Here, not so much. Clearly you have never played chess.

        What do you think would be gained by removing Obama from office? Other than recruiting a lot of brainless folks who would feel sorry for him for being picked on, that is. If you are arguing that we would be better off under a President Biden, please state your case. If you are asserting that the president has been within his Constitutional boundaries, please say so, and state your case. Don’t just play the coy little game you are attempting, without success, to pull off.

      • canadianobserver11 March 3, 2014 / 7:40 pm

        What do you think would be gained by removing Obama from office?…Amazona
        ———————————————————————————————
        I was under the impression, Amazona, that removing the President from office was exactly what his opponents wanted, and the sooner the better. Just reading the comments on this thread posted by Spook, Jeremiah & J.R. tells me that they would be overjoyed at the prospect. Wasn’t there a big push to declare the President’s birth certificate a fake in an attempt to make his election victory illegitimate? Although you, yourself, may think nothing would be gained by removing him from office, I don’t think you would get too many here who would agree with you.

      • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 10:05 pm

        You seem to be under a lot of impressions, and so far none of them have been true.

        I know this is going to be waaayyyyyy too complicated for you to grasp, but wanting Obama out of office and taking on the fallout of trying to get him out are two very different things.

        I notice you did not answer my question. Let’s try that again. What do YOU think would be gained by removing Obama from office?

        Perhaps if you would come here to engage in actual discourse instead of playing speed bump and just tossing out smarmy little comments and coy pseudo-questions intended to disrupt discourse you might actually learn something. If you don’t have an opinion you can explain and defend, maybe you should post somewhere else.

      • Jeremiah March 4, 2014 / 12:42 am

        Could you give me some sense of how you think that scenario would unfold?

        canadianobserver11,

        I think for such a scenario to take place, the government will have to be the deciding factor. It is the government’s decision to make. What, how, and when actions are taken by the government to create civil disobedience remains to be seen. But many people are already prepared, and many are preparing for the government to do so.

      • canadianobserver11 March 4, 2014 / 8:17 am

        “I notice you did not answer my question. Let’s try that again. What do YOU think would be gained by removing Obama from office?”…Amazona.
        ——————————————————————————————–
        What in the world makes you assume that I think anything would be gained by removing the President from office? That question should be directed at your fellow Right Wing compatriots, you know, those folks who are stockpiling weapons in preparation for battle.

        Look, I know you must be smart enough to realize, Amazona, that all the trumped up charges being thrown at the President amount to a hill of beans, his opponents know it and so do you. He will serve out his full term. Get used to it.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 8:58 am

        “What in the world makes you assume that I think anything would be gained by removing the President from office? That question should be directed at your fellow Right Wing compatriots, you know, those folks who are stockpiling weapons in preparation for battle.”

        And now, finally, a little hint of candor from the allegedly Canadian ostensibly observant poster. Inadvertent, no doubt, but still…..we’ll take what we can get. I am not surprised at your refusal to say what you think would be the advantage to removing Obama from office. After all, you still can’t grasp the difference between removing him from office and just not having him there—–the first rife with problems, the second a reasonable desire.

        Or maybe you do grasp the difference but prefer to misstate things because that suits your personal agenda.

        And please stop referring to a few people who express rash personal opinions as representative of all of those on the Right. If I were to judge all Canadians based on what I have learned of you, I’d consider the whole nation to be not even worth a bucket of warm spit, but I realize that no matter where we go we will find your ilk, and I know better than to think you are typical.

        So you see many of us as “…stockpiling weapons in preparation for battle.” Interesting.
        And you have no real opinion of your own, just a desire to barge in here and jab at those who do. Not so interesting, but quite typical of your kind.

        Remember, we have gone down a similar path before, when I challenged you to define and defend your political beliefs and all you could come up with was a list of pious platitudes completely lacking in any actual political ideology but reeking of hyper-emotional twaddle. Oh, it was a wistful wish list of “gee wouldn’t it be swell if…” but it showed a serious ignorance of the actual mechanics of the system you have somehow come to think will grant you all these warm-fuzzies.

        Now you are exposing more of your bias-based ignorance, in claiming that people who feel strongly about their rights in this country, who believe that any tyranny must first disarm its subjects before exerting itself and are determined to never let that happen here, and who buy guns and ammunition partly out of interest and partly to make sure the government does not have it all, are really just “…stockpiling weapons in preparation for battle.

        “Look, I know you must be smart enough to realize, Amazona, that all the trumped up charges being thrown at the President amount to a hill of beans, his opponents know it and so do you. He will serve out his full term. Get used to it.”

        First, the tactic of praising your opponent’s intelligence is well-known, worn-out, and sadly transparent. Second, thanks for blurting out what you believe, have believed all along, but didn’t want to come right out and say because you knew you couldn’t defend it. And that is that everything I have said about The One We Have All Been Waiting For is nothing but “trumped up charges” and “not worth a hill of beans”.

        Whew. It took a long time to get that out of you, but we are finally ready to start talking about facts instead of your emotion-based passion for one side and your knee-jerk objections to the other.

        So tell us, dear pretend-Canadian who thinks that adopting a foreign identity will give you credibility and gravitas—which of the “charges” against Obama are or have been “trumped up”? We can get to the value of these “charges” later, after we have discussed them, to evaluate their worth vis-a-vis piles of legumes. But for now why don’t you pick out a few of these “charges” and tell us just why they are false. That would be a super start. Just super.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 9:03 am

        And yes, Obama will serve out his full term. That is exactly what I have been saying. As awful as he is, he is less of a liability to us in office, bumbling along, screwing up everything he does, digging the nation deeper and deeper into debt and despair, rubbing peoples’ noses in the mistake they made in voting for him, tarnishing the thin veneer of acceptability the American Left managed to generate over a few decades when not wearing it right off so the dross beneath is visible, and making our point for us about the complete unworkability of the system he represents, than he would be as a martyr and symbol of a cause that leads to open race wars and permanent division of the nation.

        I just said this, in slightly different words. What is it about you, that you only hear what you want to hear? I know this is what it takes to be a Lefty, but why do you think it will fly here?

      • Retired Spook March 4, 2014 / 9:37 am

        But for now why don’t you pick out a few of these “charges” and tell us just why they are false. That would be a super start. Just super.

        Don’t hold your breath, Amazona. I don’t think the Canuck, whether she’s pretend or not, has either the desire or the mental capacity to answer your questions. She’s proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt over many years.

      • canadianobserver11 March 4, 2014 / 9:42 am

        “So tell us, dear pretend-Canadian who thinks that adopting a foreign identity will give you credibility and gravitas”…Amazona

        Surprised you are still gnawing on that old bone. Don’t you think my IP address would reveal where my posts originate?

        “which of the “charges” against Obama are or have been “trumped up”? “…Amazona

        In the words of that wise woman from Wasilla…”Um, all of ’em, any of ’em”.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 9:46 am

        What is increasingly clear is the realization, on the American Left, that Obama is a liability. He is toxic. No candidate wants to be associated with him, he is an international joke and a domestic mess. Now they want out, but they can’t get rid of him themselves, so they want us to do it for them, which would turn a disaster into a victory for them as they would then have what they have been working toward for so long.

        They would have a black martyr, they would have blood in the streets when black people allowed themselves to be incited to riot, they would have the open warfare they need when others defended themselves, they would have their chaos, they would have their splintered America, and they could blame it all on the Right.

        Now all they have is one mess after another, all of it inextricably tied to Obama. Obama is theirs. Obamacare is theirs. The IRS abuse of federal power to target citizens for political reasons is theirs. Fast and Furious is theirs. Bill and Bernadine are theirs. Each and every one of the czars, including the guy who advised a confused young boy to have sex with an older man, is theirs. The disasters in the Middle East are theirs. Our international reputation is theirs. The economy is theirs. Hillary is theirs, along with Whitewater, FALN, Benghazi and the infamous misspelled RESET button. It’s all theirs, it is starting to stink, and they want someone (us) to take it off their hands.

        So we are being goaded, as the CO so clumsily tried to do, into impeaching Obama, attacking him, making him a hero, and letting the Left spin their crap into gold.

      • Retired Spook March 4, 2014 / 10:51 am

        It’s all theirs, it is starting to stink, and they want someone (us) to take it off their hands.

        So we are being goaded, as the CO so clumsily tried to do, into impeaching Obama, attacking him, making him a hero, and letting the Left spin their crap into gold.

        Ya know, I had never thought of that possibility, but that makes more sense than anything else I’ve heard recently.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 12:04 pm

        Listen…….hear that noise? That odd, irregular clicking? That, my friends, is the sound of the allegedly Canadian non-observer tapdancing around my questions. Not much of a rhythm, but that’s what happens when the questions mount up, you know you have no answers, and the desperation sets in.

        Let’s just take a quick look at what makes her twitch, shall we?

        “So tell us, dear pretend-Canadian who thinks that adopting a foreign identity will give you credibility and gravitas”…Amazona

        Surprised you are still gnawing on that old bone. Don’t you think my IP address would reveal where my posts originate?”

        Well, we have learned from other seminar posters that many use programs that allow their posts to show all sorts of random IP addresses, from all over the world. So even if I had her IP address, it might—-or might not—-be conclusive. The careful phrasing of the comment indicates that the CO knows this—note the one-two punch (more like a feeble little bitch-slap) of first ridiculing the question and then dodging a direct answer.

        “which of the “charges” against Obama are or have been “trumped up”? “…Amazona

        In the words of that wise woman from Wasilla…”Um, all of ‘em, any of ‘em”.”

        And here we have another example of that effort at a one-two punch, falling way short of course but give half a point for a pathetic effort. First there is the mandatory effort to drag in one of the RRL’s Usual Suspects, and to take a shot at her, probably to provide the pleasure of a good snarl to try to offset the realization that she can’t answer the question, and then of course the pretense that she IS answering the question.

        I wonder if she would have posted this inane evasion if she had seen Spook’s comment first, which so accurately predicted that she would do exactly what she did do.

        “Don’t hold your breath, Amazona. I don’t think the Canuck, whether she’s pretend or not, has either the desire or the mental capacity to answer your questions. She’s proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt over many years.”

        Those of us who have studied the linguistic gymnastics of the RRL can spot their silly tricks as soon as they are attempted. I now find them amusing, and enjoy pointing them out to others. A thank you here to George Orwell, my first teacher in unraveling the doublespeak of the Left, and my late husband, whose extensive library provided me with so many examples of the various propaganda efforts of the Left, as well as an education on the process it uses to assume power.

      • Retired Spook March 4, 2014 / 12:22 pm

        Those of us who have studied the linguistic gymnastics of the RRL can spot their silly tricks as soon as they are attempted.

        It’s actually kind of humorous, and CO is, if nothing else, the poster child for such tactics.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 12:33 pm

        I know. They think they are being so clever, but after just one seminar poster it is not that hard to spot them. We have seen this before—-someone who sounds intelligent, who can spell and can write fairly well, who is smart enough to be careful in posting and avoid overtly inflammatory comments, who never argues a point but merely tries to be a speed bump, ridiculing what we say.

        The playbook is obvious. I think these people know that they are lying, which is why they duck and dodge direct questions. Many who post here can’t answer questions like that because they don’t know the answers. These people know the answers but also know how toxic the answers are, so we get the game playing.

      • Retired Spook March 4, 2014 / 12:47 pm

        Many who post here can’t answer questions like that because they don’t know the answers. These people know the answers but also know how toxic the answers are, so we get the game playing.

        So, which is CO? Just loves playing the coy little game or not too bright and really doesn’t know the answers? Care to enlighten us, CO?

      • canadianobserver11 March 4, 2014 / 1:59 pm

        Retired Spook
        March 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm
        ———————————————————————————-
        Spook, you must have concluded by now that we Canucks may be gold medal winners when it comes to Olympic hockey but if you want to have answers to questions about the current political mess y’all are in, we suck. Don’t have a clue how to mend the great divide between the angry Right Wingers and the rest of America. Sorry.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 3:01 pm

        And there’s that sound again, that annoying tappity-tap-tap of yet another Lefty trying to weasel out of a trap by being coy and precious. Awwwwww

        Naturally, such an evasive tactic must contain at least one snot-nugget—after all, that is what Lefties substitute for actual discourse.

        Yet a reasonable person would look at the Left, and at the Right, and see anger pretty much limited to the Left side of that equation. While the Right has its TEA Party folks objecting (politely, civilly, and cleaning up after themselves afterwards) about violations of our Constitutional law, the Left has the Occupy posturers, the bomb-makers, rock-throwers, window-breakers, name-callers, howlers-at-the-moon hysterics so frothing at the mouth with indignant and incoherent rage they can barely talk. While the Right has dismissed the presidential contenders of the Dems to the dustbin of history and moved on, the Left is still muttering in red-faced fury about Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. While the Right is trying to figure out how to work around the constant economic interference of the Obamunists, the Left is still freaking out over that 1% that drives them so crazy. Crazier. While the Right is concentrating on defending its civil liberties and Constitutional rights, the Left is buying up billions of rounds of ammunition (on our dime, mind you) and then screeching about the supposedly too-well-armed Right being too scary.

        And while the Right is minding its own business, coming to this nice conservative blog to discuss matters of interest to Constitutional Conservatives, the Left has its minions butting in to be snotty to us.

        Yeah, CO, you just keep squealing about how ANGRY the Right is, and we’ll keep an eye on the mob mentality that riots every time it gets in a snit—that is to say, the Left. If you ever see a Right-wing riot, it will for damned sure be followed by a clean-up crew because we don’t like to leave a mess. You guys? You s**t on police cars and then take pictures of it.

        We have Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn. You have Ed Schultz and Ranty Rhodes. ‘Nuff said.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 3:09 pm

        And doncha just love CO’s whine that it’s not just that SHE is dumb as a box of hair, or terminally dishonest—-it’s because she is Canadian.

        Well, don’t try to brand all Canadians with your own ignorance or deceit. I know plenty of Canucks who can, and do, expound on the follies of the Left. They also have the class to stay out of US politics unless invited to join in.

        What a weasel, trying to claim that her shortcomings and defects are due to her citizenship (real or not). What a crock. “Waaa waaaa waaaaa. I’d be smart if I had only been born across the border.” Is this a new take on the Twinkie Defense? The Tim Horton Defense? Maybe it’s actually an identified condition—Hoser Syndrome.

        Rule Of Holes, CO—Rule of Holes. Or, alternatively, Spook can just hand you another shovel. I’d hate to see you quit now. This is fun.

      • canadianobserver11 March 4, 2014 / 3:44 pm

        This is fun…Amazona
        ———————————————————–
        It sure is, Amazona, and as much as I would like to continue with the hilarity, unlike you, I have duties to perform; duties that take me away from the computer from time to time. Right now I need to pick my grandson up from his daycare and will be occupied with him for the rest of the day. I’ll come play with you again sometime soon. May I suggest you also take a breather as you seem to be highly strung; wouldn’t want to see you pop a blood vessel. Take care, now.

      • Amazona March 4, 2014 / 5:46 pm

        Tee hee. Translation: “I could support my position if I felt like it. Sure I could. I’m just not in the mood right now. But I could have, I really really could. Really. Just, uh…too busy right now. Yeah, that’s the ticket…..”duties to perform”. Yep, that’s it. Duties. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Busy.”

        Too funny.

        I noted the mandatory snot-nugget, too—- “… unlike you, I have duties to perform;..” A burn? Nah, not even a scorch. As an owner of a thriving company, I often spend the day in front of a computer, and to quote Rush I can debate the CO with half my brain tied behind my back and still run a business. I will be away from the desk for a while tomorrow, having OTHER “duties to perform”, but I won’t use that as an excuse to scurry away from a challenge.

        Somehow I don’t think this WAS much fun for the CO. As she got shut down time after time, got her clock cleaned every time she pulled out one of the supposedly tried-and-true seminar tactics, and got outed as nothing but a snarly little noise with nothing to back it up, it was obvious a few posts ago that she wanted out but really really wanted to have the last word before she tucked her tail between her legs and slunk off. And gee, too bad, the feeble claim of “other duties” was as close as she could get.

        Awwwww

        Time to check the latest version of the Lefty Dictionary—you know, the one where being right, and able to articulate my position, is now going to be defined as “highly strung”. Let me guess—the excuse for failure is now changed, from simply being cursed with being Canadian and therefore incompetent to just having to try to deal with someone “highly strung”. BTW, anyone have an actual definition for “highly strung”?

        Note that this exchange did not include any name calling, no personal insults (except to the entire nation of Canada, not my fault) and depended solely on one side presenting facts and challenging the other side to debunk them. This is what happens when you deal with the Left this way. You either get the vulgarity and name calling from some we have seen here, or you see a rather desperate effort to run away once the old tactics have failed. What you never do get, and never will get, is a reasoned defense of Leftism, backed up by historical references to its success when implemented in other countries. Hell, you are lucky if you can even get an admission of being a Lefty, much less a defense of it.

      • Retired Spook March 5, 2014 / 9:08 am

        unlike you, I have duties to perform; duties that take me away from the computer from time to time.

        And yet you spent an inordinate amount of time here in the last day, making zero points and accomplishing basically nothing. What duties could you possibly have that are more important than making yourself look like a fool — AGAIN?

  2. Amazona March 2, 2014 / 7:02 pm

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
    John Stuart Mill

    • Retired Spook March 2, 2014 / 9:36 pm

      Amazona,

      As you know, I have a large Word file that is filled with great quotes, and Mill’s quote about war is one of my favorites. I know, in my own mind, what it is I would fight for (or against), but I struggle with the possibility of using violence against another American other than one that is already engaged in an act of violence against me or my family. And yet I know that there are Americans whose vision for the future of America involves an America that will be neither as prosperous or as free as the America that you and I have enjoyed. I often pray, and one of the things I pray for probably more than anything else is that, when the line has been crossed, that I’ll have the moral and intellectual courage to be one of those who steps up and says, enough, without regard for my personal safety.

  3. Jeremiah March 3, 2014 / 12:44 am

    I often pray, and one of the things I pray for probably more than anything else is that, when the line has been crossed, that I’ll have the moral and intellectual courage to be one of those who steps up and says, enough, without regard for my personal safety.

    That’s wonderful, Spook. A prayer life is essential in order for the Lord to see our faith. Something our first President did quite regularly. It is well documented that on many an occasion he was found quietly on his knees praying with his Bible open in front of him.

    I wholeheartedly concur with you with respect to your statements about avoiding a violent revolution. I must ask, however, how can we avoid it? The country seems to be divided so greatly by the role of government, and on personal matters, that I don’t see how we can avoid it. And both sides in government seem to collaborate against the people. I know that a law is being passed here to silence gun-owners, it has already passed the house and is going before the Senate soon, and if passed, I would be required to register as a lobbyist, fill out tons of paper work, and pay a penalty for merely speaking out against gun-control. This bill, similar to the one in Connecticut where folks are dealing with being treated as common criminals for not registering their guns.

    I don’t know about you, but it seems to me like we are getting closer and closer to a communist state, and Saul Alinsky is smiling ear-to-ear as he watches the Obama regime work his poison.

    All of that aside, I believe that if the time should come that we have to protect our life and property from a confiscatory mob, that we would be morally justified in defending our lives and property from their actions. As a disclaimer from all past and present posts, I don’t endorse bloodshed just for the sake of dislike of the “enemy”, in the same vein, however, I don’t believe God would want us to give up our lives and property for the sake of an unruly and immoral cause at the hands of a few in our government, as it goes against conscience to surrender to evil. Something too many people are doing currently, which is surrendering, and going along with the evil going on in our country’s capitol.

    One question that burdens me, is — will our future generations have to deal with a dictatorship because we did not do enough to prevent it? I for one would dread to think that I have blood on my hands because I “didn’t do enough.”

    • Jeremiah March 3, 2014 / 12:49 am

      Is it illegal to form a militia?

      • M. Noonan March 3, 2014 / 3:50 am

        Technically, all able-bodied citizens 18-45 are in the militia – but since the National Guard was created in the misbegotten “progressive” era early in the 20th century, no State has maintained a proper militia. If we are to have one – and we should – then it should be a creation of the State governments.

      • dbschmidt March 4, 2014 / 10:23 pm

        Actually, all of the able-bodied males from 18-45 are still the militia according to definition unless I missed something in the creation of the National Guard. Also, do not forget that two individuals in the revolutionary war were noted for honors–one was 15, IIRC and the other 74.

    • Amazona March 3, 2014 / 12:43 pm

      I object very strongly to terms such as “violent revolution” . I think it does nothing but feed the hatreds of such as the allegedly Canadian supposed observer.

      I suggest that those who use this inflammatory language do great harm to those who have no intent of engaging in a “violent revolution” but who have stated a willingness to defend their rights and freedoms with violence if this is made necessary by attacks on them by the government.

      There is a vast difference between armed resistance and a “violent revolution” and such reckless talk only serves to weaken the position of those who are more level-headed and rational, who want to challenge the authority of the government through non-violent means but who are willing to do what it takes to defend themselves, their families, and their nation.

  4. Amazona March 3, 2014 / 12:56 pm

    What I see is a growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the direction the government is now going, accompanied by massive civil disobedience, with the result of either forcing the government to try to enforce its unconstitutional laws—-and meeting with resistance which would be armed if necessary—–or backing down.

    If this government were to sic the military on citizens, if it were to use drones to take out peaceful rallies, if it were to cross that line, then I could see armed rebellion, and I would characterize that as defense against a government run amok, not as a “violent revolution”.

  5. Amazona March 3, 2014 / 1:18 pm

    Colorado passed some gun laws last year that energized the population to protest. Two young men, with no political background or financial resources to speak of, started a movement that gained so much traction so quickly that two of the Dems who had pushed for the new laws were recalled in special elections, and a third chose to resign, so the governor could appoint another Dem, rather than face her inevitable defeat. The governor is now very vulnerable, because of his stance on this issue, as are nearly all of the statehouse Dems who voted for the restrictions. It may turn out that the temporary defeat of having these laws passed will result in a much larger victory, that of retaking the Colorado statehouse and governor’s seat. And now the Right can come in and fix what the Left broke.

    The ACA passed without a single Republican vote, and now this is having its rebound effect. Now that the population is learning that no, they were not lied to by the eeeeevil conservatives about the content of this misbegotten bill but by the lovable scamps they insisted on putting into office, now that they are realizing that their Senators and Representatives voted for a bill they never read, have still not read, and do not understand, most of these Dems are on shaky ground. We know the plan will fail, is failing, has always been doomed to fail. We always knew it was a massive disaster that would hurt millions of families and cost billions of dollars the nation can ill afford. But the bright side to this is that it has spotlighted the same defects in the Leftist agenda we have been trying to explain for so long. And hopefully the Right can come in and fix what the Dems broke.

    If the administration tries to totally usurp the Constitution—-say by using the military against the citizenry, or ginning up some emergency that lets it declare martial law and halt the election, or some such overt action, then armed rebellion would be appropriate. But when the Left is killing itself off, I suggest that we just let it go, give it a nudge now and then, and stop giving the supporters of the Left the emotional ammunition of being able to claim we are advocating a violent overthrow of the government—which is, after all, just about the only thing that could offset the swinging of the pendulum away from Leftist agendas we are seeing now.

  6. Jeremiah March 4, 2014 / 12:15 am

    On a more sentimental note, I don’t want to see our country devolve into chaos as so many other countries have around the world. Unfortunately, it is obvious that we are headed in that direction. It will be ugly, as Spook alluded to earlier in the thread, when brother is against brother like it was during the first civil war. I think of my family, my closest being Mom, Dad, and Brother, while we won’t be fighting each other, we will be fighting together, I could not imagine losing any of them in a fight for our county’s liberty. There is much love there in the life that we have created around each other. I think of the many aunts, uncles, and cousins that I have, and the experiences we have shared over the years, and what they mean to me and my family. How sad it would be to lose them, and the contributions they offer to our society, and the peoples lives that they touch. And I can’t forget my best friend, my little dog, that little fella he means the world to me, he never leaves my side, and when I’m away for a time, he is totally ecstatic when I return, and I just could not fathom a SWAT team coming in to confiscate my home, and killing him in the process, because he would do all he could to protect me. And I’m sure that many of you all feel the same way about your families, and loved ones, as well.

    War, while it is, or may be necessary at times, I don’t care how hardened one is, how brainwashed, or prepared one may be, there is nothing that can emotionally, physically, or spiritually prepare a person for the aftermath of having one’s limbs blown off, or shrapnel inflicting trauma to the head and face…nothing in this world. Not to mention the psychological trauma of having to witness one’s loved ones enduring such suffering.

    What we need more of is Jesus Christ in this world. If more people would compare their lives to that of Jesus, many would find themselves falling far short of their true purpose in this world, and what humanity truly needs.

  7. dbschmidt March 4, 2014 / 10:53 pm

    For Jeremiah,

    As a Marine, I have endured years where I have been part of the color guard, at the request of the fallen’s next of kin, handled over 54 funerals within one year including friends, compatriots, and the generation before me. This went on over many years. No one is prepared–emotionally, physically, or spiritually but God has a way of getting us through the tough times. Yes, to this day, I can still remember those faces and cry at the sounding of taps; however, that is a major reason I believe what I believe.

    For CO, and the other “Progressives”,
    A couple of quotes I particularly like–from around the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Eh?

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    That is what Americans were and many still are made of. Not a ‘violent’ word in them in less of course you consider forfeiting your own life in the pursuit of the greater good to be hostile. No–what I have a feeling you will find hostile is the mention of “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, “their Creator” and the such.

    ’nuff said

Comments are closed.