Bill of Rights a forgotten document

After fighting a war to win liberty from a tyrannical government, Anti-Federalists — a faction of our Founding Fathers led primarily by Patrick Henry distrustful of a strong national government — pushed for amendments to the Constitution to identify fundamental natural rights and civil liberties.  Such a Bill of Rights, they believed, was necessary because of the known propensity of governments generally to usurp powers not delegated to it.  

Yet some, such as James Madison, initially fought such a move, based on the principle that there is no need to say what a government cannot do, because that could imply it can do everything else. 

In the final analysis, however, Madison took the lead in the Congress in support of the first ten amendments to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights, because not to do so likely would have doomed the entire process.  He therefore, but reluctantly, drafted 12 proposals to settle concerns of Anti-Federalists; 10 were initially ratified. 

The political and legal battles pitting individual liberties against growing government power have been waged ever since; even to the 112th Congress set to convene within days.  Historically and currently, government has notched far more victories on its belt than has the citizenry.  Clearly, one reason for the continued growth of government power – and the necessarily corresponding reduction in individual liberty – has been the growing public misunderstanding of the intended role of government and the distressing ignorance of our Constitution itself. 

According to a survey conducted earlier this month for the Bill of Rights Institute by Harris Interactive, for example, nearly half of the American people – some 42 percent — believe that the communist phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is part of one of the more important documents in American history. Through ignorance and forgotten history, Karl Marx has morphed into James Madison in the mind of the American people. 

Other aspects of the survey are equally disconcerting, though not necessarily surprising. Fifty-five percent do not realize that education is not a First Amendment right; despite no such guarantee anywhere in either the Bill of Rights or the body of the original Constitution. 

Only 20 percent can identify the Tenth Amendment as the part of the Bill of Rights that reserves powers not expressly authorized in the Constitution to the states or the people themselves. And a stunning 60 percent could not recognize the powers of the government deriving from the consent of the governed as a unique American principle. 

As the lack of understanding of fundamental rights fades away, so too will the Rule of Law. Rights will be treated as permissions granted by the government, and the pendulum will continue to swing toward statism. 

In this coming New Year, perhaps we can all resolve to do more to raise awareness to the documents that protect the liberties we have so fortunately lived under. But I’m not sure I would urge holding one’s breath waiting for such enlightenment to take place.

- by Bob Barr, The Barr Code

130 comments Add your comment

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
6:31 am

Don’t worry Mr. Barr, you didn’t hit any socialist liberals. Everything you wrote went over their heads.

carlosgvv

December 31st, 2010
7:45 am

All politicans have a desire for power and will fight to get as much as they possibly can. An informed citizinery in our country is the main counter to this. Unfortunately, America has been dumbing down since the early 60’s and is still doing so. So, look for our politicans to grab more and more power in the years to come.

Eric

December 31st, 2010
8:11 am

Amen! Great article once again, Mr. Barr.

sean smith

December 31st, 2010
8:38 am

I’m sure all of the continuing cuts to education by new Deal are going to exasperate this problem. Of course Republicans like an ignorant populous, they are easier to manipulate.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
9:04 am

Bill of Rights a forgotten document,…no s#*@. We can forget a person we met last week,why are kunservatives yearning for the good ole days?
A 230 year old document SHOULD be forgotten by now,considering WE THE PEOPLE weren’t the intended beneficiaries. Remember,slaves(blacks) and women weren’t a part of the equation. If guys like you can’t remember that FACT,then why remember EVERYTHING ELSE verbatim.

Conservatism=American Experts on Exclusion of Non-Rich and Non-White Males.

go fly

December 31st, 2010
9:35 am

Big Jim, there is a mechanism in place to amend the “230 year old document” when necessary, and that process was used years ago to include women and blacks in their rightful equal places. What other amendments do you propose to the remainder of the document?

Jennifer Wewers

December 31st, 2010
9:41 am

How about a series of columns that explain the Bill of Rights, one right at a time?

Class of '98

December 31st, 2010
9:53 am

Ah yes, the great liberal argument… that conservatives are at the same time rich, powerful and also uneducated and ingnorant.

Still trying to figure that one out.

I guess all those welfare recipients and other Obama voters read the Wall Street Journal every day huh?

Jeb

December 31st, 2010
10:01 am

Bob:

Funny you had not problem with this under the Bush admin.

jconservative

December 31st, 2010
10:04 am

Barr I concur in your thinking.

My personal favorite “forgotten” Amendment is the 9th:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Rights “… retained by the people”. They are ours. Government cannot take them away.

This Amendment says “other” rights are not dependent on government. Yet, as Barr says, we are all sitting around asking government to “grant” us rights or allowing government to “take away” rights.

And, at the ballot box, we are assisting government in taking away our rights.

We need to go to the ballot box with the thought that “just about everything is none of the government’s business”.

If candidate wants to pass a law that says someone cannot do something; that candidate needs to lose the election.

And, this is the Amendment that allowed James Madison to support the Bill of Rights. As Barr says, Madison had a fear that listing rights may imply that any not listed were retained by government. The 9th Amendment says NO, the unlisted rights are retaained by the people.

We need to guard this one with every fiber of our being.

Happy New Year to all!

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
10:17 am

Class of ‘98

Do you think that republicans don’t get elected by low income/unintelligent/lowest common denominators? You probably do.
Also,the word is IGNORANT.

go fly

That demonstrates why we should temper our fervor for THE FOUNDING FATHERS.You don’t know what their intent was because you weren’t there.
Why don’t we just follow the Magna Carta,or the Koran.They’re both older than our country,but that would require not blindly following christianity and its principles. While on the subject,The Founding Fathers weren’t all christians. Masons,Deists,with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin professing a distaste for organized religion.

Not acceptable by kunservative standards. Makes you wonder why we should heed a 230 year old document when there are MUCH older doctrines,MUCH OLDER RELIGIONS. But this is where SABOTAGE comes into the English language,an act of cowardice meant to tip the scales in your favor.

Rhett

December 31st, 2010
10:19 am

Big Jim is busy hanging out on his porch with his boom box waiting for his reperations check to be delivered. Of course the Kunservatives are holding up the mail.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
10:23 am

Jeb
Don’t expect this CHAMPION of AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES to speak out agaainst kunservatism. To beat a dead horse,Bob Barr proudly used OUR MONEY to get Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair. I repeat, Bob Barr proudly used OUR MONEY to get Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair.

Why hasn’t Bob Barr tried to impeach GWBush for lying about WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,ETC.?

Short answer,HEROES TO AMERICA are swine.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
10:24 am

Rhett

I work for a living.

Jeb

December 31st, 2010
10:27 am

Good point Big Jim. The hypocracy is remarkable.

Rafe Hollister

December 31st, 2010
10:36 am

Bob: Liberals, as you know, are not fans of the Constitution. I read yesterday, where one said, how can you intrepret something written over a 100 years ago. What a stupid statement.

We know Obama has said repeatedly that the Constitution is incomplete because it limits government, but doesn’t require Gov to provide healthcare, welfare, social justice, etc.

As long as education remains controlled by Gov, our children will be purposely mislead about what the Constitutional limits to government are. Thank God for the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, or we would not have perservered this long as a great nation.

Jeb

December 31st, 2010
11:01 am

Everyone knows education should be controlled by the church!

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
11:06 am

Rafe Hollister

I didn’t know that PRESIDENT Obama created welfare,healthcare,social justice,etc.

Thanking God for being born right(in the kunservative minds) is sick and twisted.But like this topic,the ONLY ones who count are kunservatives.

Are you guys still associating portable radios with Blacks? I guess Jesse Jackson makes radios. Anyone looking for an Al Sharpton produced
handgun,since we are the ONLY criminals/animals in God’s kingdom.

Now back to my boom box,carjacking,and enjoying all the white women I can. Women seem to like black men even more when their fathers hate us!

Unless you’re a vampire,you weren’t around long enough to KNOW whether
we would have perservered this long. Sickos.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
11:13 am

Jeb

I was considering taking some of my YEAR’s worth of leave time and going to Europe,seriously. But I remembered that the Earth was flat!
Silly me! I felt so stupid when realized this I almost asked my preacher to make God punish me. Oh well,back to the cotton fields.

That’s where kunservatives feel my KIND should be.

Anyone in the mood for a good ole fashioned bloodletting?Witch hunt?Lynching? Those activities would make for a nice Sunday,after church.

resno2

December 31st, 2010
11:50 am

If Republicans “like an ignorant populous” how did obama get elected, and why are pelosi/reid/frank/et al, still in office?

J.B. STONER

December 31st, 2010
11:57 am

DO YOU IGNORANT PEOPLE STILL NOT GET IT ??

WATCH GLENN BECK AND YOU WILL GET THE WHOLE PICTURE ON THIS SUBJECT……….

OH, BY THE WAY, HE IS ON FOX NEWS , MON.-FRI AT 5 PM….

TUNE YOUR A$$ES IN.

YOU’LL BE GLAD YOU DID….

killerj

December 31st, 2010
11:58 am

12 gauge, a beer, middle finger is all you need to know, Happy New Year to all! Go Tea Party.

david

December 31st, 2010
12:01 pm

The only hope for liberty is to elect the folks at http://www.lp.org

luangtom

December 31st, 2010
12:02 pm

Spot on, Mr. Barr. Y’all will never get the liberals or the DemoKraps to even read the Bill of Rights. Who amongst them would want less governance? Certainly not the cradle-to-grave advocates that we have seen so much of in the last few years. Ignorance is bliss……

Hillbilly Deluxe

December 31st, 2010
12:04 pm

According to a survey conducted earlier this month for the Bill of Rights Institute by Harris Interactive, for example, nearly half of the American people – some 42 percent — believe that the communist phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is part of one of the more important documents in American history.

With all due respect, I find that hard to believe.

luangtom

December 31st, 2010
12:07 pm

Forgot to add….the Bill of Rights composers certainly could not have foreseen that Federal government would create “Czarships” under the appointment of the President. Maybe it is time for the Congress to enact a Bill to add to those already there that would prohibit the President from appointing all of these “Czars” that we currently see being put in place. Circumventing approval of the Senate for them during recess is the only way Obummer can get them situated. That loophole needs to be addressed. I am sure our forefathers had never even thought of a President having the authority to circumvent the Senate approval process.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
12:09 pm

killerj,luangtom,jb stoner=Lowest Common Denominator

Tune in to Glenn Beck and you will get the whole picture? Do you guys really believe all knowledge comes from Fox News? Disturbing.

Big Jim

December 31st, 2010
12:12 pm

I thought the teabaggers gave way to their previous affiliation,..The Dixiecrats aka modern day republicans.

Robert

December 31st, 2010
12:25 pm

Sorry, this is on my mind:
The United States military manpower is approximately 1.5 million. roughly 10% being recruited and 10% leaving the military each year.
For those that did not serve their country in the military, stayed back, developed businesses, enjoying the fruits of the country, etc.
WHY DO YOU NOT HIRE VETERANS? We are talking 100,000 to 200,000 people THAT SHOULD BE PLACED IN JOBS, WHO HAVE PROVEN SKILLS, TRAINING.
WITH EVERYONE PUSHING FOR THE DREAM ACT, WHY CAN’T YOU REDIRECT THAT ENERGY FOR VETERANS?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
12:28 pm

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
1:01 pm

Rafe Hollister

December 31st, 2010
10:36 am

Thanks Rafe. Limiting the rights of government and protecting our unalienable rights from government is why the Constitution exists. The legal weight of the Constitution rests on the Declaration of Independence – Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.

Liberals think the Constitution exists to protect government authority and that our rights are granted to us by government.

Billybob

December 31st, 2010
1:02 pm

Looks like big jim needs a hug and like every good lib only wants the laws/rights that he believes are ‘fair’ and to hell with everything else that he deems is wrong. Spoken like a true statist/big gub’t lib. Oh, happy new year….

Ghost of Christmas Future

December 31st, 2010
1:04 pm

Beware Want and Ignorance, for on their head is written “doom”.

[...] BOB BARR: Bill of Rights a forgotten document [...]

Mrs. Norris

December 31st, 2010
1:14 pm

I agree with Hillbilly Deluxe. I also find that very hard to believe. I’m not sure who the “Bill of Rights Institute” or “Harris Interactive” are but I think they are full of ..it. Thank you for pointing that out and thank you Kamchak for looking into it.

Gerry S.

December 31st, 2010
1:17 pm

I usually agree with Bob B arr on Bill of Rights issues, but, like most Republicans, he misquotes the 10th Amendment. The text doe not contain the word “expressly” in limiting the federal government’s powers. For this very reason, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this Amendmednt is virtually meaningless. It was the predecessor to the Constitution — the Articles of Confederation — which, in its Article II, limited the federal government’s powers by the inclusion of this word “expressly.” I expect this kind of loose analysis from so-called experts like Joe Miller of Alaska but not from our local expert.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
1:17 pm

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
1:44 pm

Liberals usual guess as wrongly as they think…

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
1:48 pm

Liberals usual[sic] guess as wrongly as they think…

Then what is it that you use to read minds?

Ouija board?
Tarot cards?
Tea leaves?
Crystal ball?

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
1:54 pm

F@CK THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
1:57 pm

I don’t have to read minds or guess. All I do is read what liberals write and listen to the things they say to arrive at the general consensus of liberal thought.

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
2:08 pm

yadda yadda yadda…THE CONSERVATIVES love to talk about the “good ole days”…. liberals embrace the future

MrLiberty

December 31st, 2010
2:09 pm

One’s oath to protect and defend the constitution also seemed to be forgotten by all those who voted in favor of the Patriot Act (that means YOU Bob). The libertarians have known for a long time that those in government have no respect for either the constitution or the bill of rights. That’s why we abandoned the two-faced warfare/welfare party a LONG time ago. Nice of you to finally join them. At least one vote too late I am afraid.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
2:10 pm

All I do is read what liberals write and listen to the things they say to arrive at the general consensus of liberal thought.

So—all that I have to do is read what Dale Robertson wrote, and I can judge all tea-baggers based on that?

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
2:20 pm

I’m curious Mr. Barr, I mean your knowledge of Constitutional principle and needless to say law is better than mine. Is this infamous mantra espoused by Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Constitutional?

It appears to be the case, by default if nothing else.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Barr. Bob Barr said: Barr Code: Bill of Rights a forgotten document http://bit.ly/fIB4JP [...]

BillyRob

December 31st, 2010
2:24 pm

Big Jim like many liberals does not respect the constitution. While he is a little dumber than most, the undelying sentiment is that we should make the government do whatever we want it to. The constitution to most liberals is just a historical curiosity to be twisted to allow them to do as they please.
They see the underlying notion of limited government as irrelevant.
The consequence of course is tryany.

ROCKERBABE

December 31st, 2010
2:25 pm

Liberal is not a dirty four letter word. In fact, those of us who are more open-minded have fought for years to have the Bill of Rights applied to women, native Americans, Asians and those of African descent. Most of us more open-minded folks know exactly what is in the Bill of Rights and the Constituion, we just prefer to see the documents as living documents that are as modern as computers and as timeless as the blue sky.

All of this business about the federal government and its powers as little to do with our founding documents. All of the griping about social security, medicare and the deficit have to do with spoiled children and the fact that there is no free lunch and the bill has come due and the kids do not want to pay up.

Mr. Barr has gotten his retirement and his benefits and I doubt he will give them up without a fight. Too bad he doesn’t respect the rest of us and our predictment; of course, I am no 7 figure salaried person of consequence, so I guess, I, like most of the average working Americans can just get screwed.

All of this talk about the Bill of Rights is just talk. It is a cover for greed, selfishness and a vehicle to turn this country into a 3rd nation. Where the rich hold everything of value and the rest of us fight over crumbs; too tired and sick to do anything else.

Take your concern for the Bill of Rights Mr. Barr and go elswhere. Until us girls get “ours” you can’t expect anything other than what is going on. Your concern is too little, too late and misplaced.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
2:27 pm

So—all that I have to do is read what Dale Robertson wrote, and I can judge all tea-baggers based on that?

Only if one lone person can form a consensus, which they can’t.

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
2:38 pm

since OBAMA got into office, all rightwing zealouts suddenly want to protect the constituition; funny they didnt want to “protect” the constituition when GWB lied about WMD’s and declared war on a nation for no reason…BOB BARR is just a far right zealout who longs for the mythical “good ole days”

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
2:47 pm

Okay any libs want to take a stab at answering the question?

Is this infamous mantra espoused by Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Constitutional?

Do keep the 14th amendment in mind.

The Snark

December 31st, 2010
2:52 pm

Oh for heaven’s sake. Take a deep breath and relax. The Bill of Rights is not a “forgotten document.” It is alive and well and remains, as it always has been and always will be, the subject of a tug of war between competing interests.

Can the drama, Bob. When people are incited to believe that OMG MY RIGHTS ARE IN PERIL, they do dumb things. Like allowing politicians to make choices for them. Left or right.

Chill out and enjoy celebrating New Year’s Eve in a free country.

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
2:54 pm

thank god i was born in AMERICA…

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
2:55 pm

Only if one lone person can form a consensus, which they can’t.

Neither can the relatively small sample of liberals that you have read/talked to.

Had you written, “Some {l}iberals think the Constitution exists to protect government authority and that our rights are granted to us by government,” I would agree with you. You, however, did not use the qualifier “some.”

Rafe Hollister

December 31st, 2010
3:02 pm

Jeb, education should be controlled by the parents, not government or church. One big exception though, is someone like Big Jim, maybe his children should have a guardian appointed for them.

You Distort/We Deride

December 31st, 2010
3:02 pm

Bob, as you know, conservatives lambast liberals all the time about their misunderstanding of the Constitution, yet would lay down and let Dick Cheney rub their bellies when it came to illegal wireless surveillance of American citizens which distinctly violated the 4th Amendment.

See…for every jab against liberals, conservatives can be jabbed. I’m neither, so I’m constantly incredulous that so many people believe that their side is without question and the other is without merit.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
3:09 pm

I didn’t use a qualifier because what I wrote was in the context of a consensus. “Some” may be inaccurate as well, since you desire to impose the strictest rule to anything written without a qualifier.

Rafe Hollister

December 31st, 2010
3:17 pm

You distort

Jab back. Your Messiah Barry OH, has doubled down on all the illegal wiretapping started by Bush. Barry has added internet communication, which dumb ole W forgot, when he was conspiring with Dark Cheney to put all of you hardworking freedom loving Americans, that communicate with Terrorists overseas, in jail.

I guess the evil Republicans tricked ole Barry into supporting Cheney’s scheme of illegal surveillance of Americans and using Rendition to torture captured terrorists.

When are you going to get upset with Barry/Biden for supporting these illegal surveillance actions and continued rendition.

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
3:17 pm

all conservatives are bible thumping raCISTS…

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
3:18 pm

joeliberal

December 31st, 2010
3:18 pm

well, not all :)

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
3:27 pm

You Distort/We Deride, I would agree with you that far too many who identify themselves as conservative accept things from people like Cheney and Hannity without thinking for themselves. Even as much as I admire Justice Scalia, he and I part company on the 4th amendment.

I spoken several times against the “Free Market” crowd a number of times. Even challenged them to give Constitutional grounds for the claim of a “Free Market”.
Of course, I don’t expect any one from that bombastic group to try and square their vain “Free Market” talk with Article 1 Section 8.

It is a case of having to fight against your own side many times. On that I think, just a guess base on what Kamchak wrote previously in regards to immigration that he’d agree with me.

[...] More;http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/12/31/bill-of-rights-a-forgotten-document/?cxntfid=blogs_bob… No [...]

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
3:31 pm

On that I think, just a guess base on what Kamchak wrote previously in regards to immigration that he’d agree with me.

I have mixed feelings on the immigration thingie, so maybe you better tell me what it is we agree on.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
3:32 pm

It many(sic) be a “consensus” of the relatively small sample of liberals that you have read/talked to, but not to the group “liberals” as a whole.

I seriously doubt my sampling is a small number. I read and watch a good bit of news from many sources, including liberal sources and I not a shut in by a long shot.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
3:34 pm

I have mixed feelings on the immigration thingie, so maybe you better tell me what it is we agree on.

A great many things actually. It would probably be easier to peg what we possibly disagree on, which is what to do with those already in the country. Then again maybe not.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
3:37 pm

…I[sic] not a shut in by a long shot.

With over 6.89 billion people on this planet, your sample is still insignificant.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
3:39 pm

…which is what to do with those already in the country.

And my answer to that is, I dunno.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
3:46 pm

Sufficient to serve the case in this country. Want to test it? (Smile)

How about the question I posed based on past evidence provided by liberals in this country by majority?

Would you acknowledge that the majority of liberals in this country support Obama Helathcare?

Would you acknowledge that the majority of liberals support the progressive tax?

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
3:48 pm

Would you acknowledge that the majority of liberals in this country support Obama Helathcare?

No.

Would you acknowledge that the majority of liberals support the progressive tax?

Yes.

killerj

December 31st, 2010
3:54 pm

Spoken like a true minority,Go Tea Party.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
4:09 pm

Would you acknowledge that the majority of liberals in this country support Obama Helathcare?

No.

That is probably incorrect given the polling data and the results of the last election.

However, from what is not in contest. The Progressive Tax vs 14th amendment

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I made the statement that liberals think government grants our rights.

If the majority of liberals support the progressive tax and support equal rights then tell me how the majority of liberals don’t think government grants our rights?

I mean you cannot tax someone differently because they happen to be rich and say they received equal protection under law, let alone fair treatment, if our rights come from are creator and are not granted by government.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
4:18 pm

That is probably incorrect given the polling data and the results of the last election.

Well, according to the liberals that I have read/talked to, i have found a consensus in the desire for universal health care, or at the very least a single payer system which polls can’t or wont show.

I mean you cannot tax someone differently because…

I cannot tax anyone, sport.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
4:28 pm

But you do support government taxing people differently and that my friend is wealth redistribution: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

Which is the principle of the progressive tax as well as being the principle for single payer healthcare or ObamaCare. Classic Marxism. Under Marxism government grants rights, they are not unalienable.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
4:29 pm

But you do support government taxing people differently…

Please show me where I stated exactly that.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
4:35 pm

If you support the progressive tax , you support taxing people differently. Same case for single payer healthcare or ObamaCare.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
4:37 pm

If you support the progressive tax , you support taxing people differently.

Again–please show me where I said I supported that.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
4:38 pm

Do you support the progressive tax?

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
5:00 pm

Do you support the progressive tax?

Since you can’t show me where I stated that, I see that you must ask directly after the fact.

What I agreed to was that I acknowledge that the majority of liberals support the progressive tax[.]

I never included myself in that majority, not do I exclude myself.

Whenever I see the phrase “wealth redistribution,” I just gotta do the eye roll thingie. :roll: Too much talking point baggage to take that phrase seriously any more.

Michael H. Smith

December 31st, 2010
5:14 pm

I never included myself in that majority, not do I exclude myself.

That is dodging to give a direct yes or no answer. Maybe doesn’t count on this one. :lol:

Too much talking point baggage to take that phrase seriously any more.

It is a fundamental principle of Marxism whether you take it seriously or not makes little difference, it does not change it or make it less of a fundamental principle of Marxism.

Kamchak

December 31st, 2010
5:19 pm

It is a fundamental principle of Marxism…

Maybe so, but I’m not an expert on “Marxism. The only thing I am positive about “Marxism,” is that it is now used as a talking-point code word for fear.

And I never agreed that a progressive tax system is wealth redistribution.

[...] Bill of Rights a forgotten document | The Barr Code. This entry was posted in Opinion, US Government and tagged ajc, Bill of Rights, Bob Barr, congress, James Madison, Karl Marx, New Year's Day, opinion, Patrick Henry, Rights Institute, US Constitution. Bookmark the permalink. ← Best Editorial Cartoons of 2010- [...]

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
12:50 am

No maybe to it. That is the principle behind the mantra of Karl Marx. You might want to think it is a talking point code word or phrase but it really isn’t. I don’t fear Marxism or Socialism, I just reject them as immoral, as so many Capitalist in this country do. Perhaps it is that rejection that causes people fear?

Agree or not the progressive tax system does redistribute wealth, which is exactly the principle of the Marx mantra: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

I doubt that you ever will accept the fact that the progressive tax system is wealth redistribution, seeing as how you support it and single payer healthcare. Until you see the moral wrong in it you will always deny it is wealth redistribution. The idea of taking more from someone because they have more than others is not equal protection under the law. It simply says you believe it is moral and equal treatment of rights for government to take more wealth from the rich because of their ability and give it to the poor because of their need.

Viet Vet

January 1st, 2011
8:27 am

The intellectual father of capitalism, Adam Smith, said this about progressive taxation.

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” And, “What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”

A more contemporary, and exhaustive, study of progressive taxation is “The Spirit Level.” It demonstrates how economies with more income equality are more productive, and also have more social cohesion and happiness.

The opponents of progressive taxation are the stupidly greedy or they are ignorant of economics and the real data and history of taxation.
Progressive taxation is necessary to the well being of capitalist nations. The real question is how much and how it is administrated.

Kamchak

January 1st, 2011
8:49 am

I doubt that you ever will accept the fact that the progressive tax system is wealth redistribution, seeing as how you support it and single payer healthcare.

I never explicitly said that I supported either one, sport.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
9:32 am

I knew that was coming. If you disagree with me, you are either stupid or ignorant. LOL

Now that is the substance of intelligent conversation isn’t?

The intellectual father of capitalism Adam Smith also pointed to the benefits derived from the ambitions and greed of the so-called evil rich by the “invisible hand”, which is, “not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion” – that is given.

The real question is how much and how it is administrated.

A bit more is really questionable than that because it is not purely economics at issue. Issues like equal protection under the constitution, ethics and morals are involved.

Your money is a portion of your life. (taking more of one person’s life than another one’s is equal protection?)

Thou shalt not steal. (Now it becomes thou shalt only steal more from the rich?)

How much spending should government be allowed and for what purpose determines how much tax to collect and where it should go. The people spoke clearly in the last election, our government is spending too much and for the wrong purposes. At the very heart of that message are these three things: Size of government is too big, the scope of its powers are too intrusive and overreaching in our lives and it is consuming too much of our monies and resources. Which is the consensus among Tea Party members for anyone interested or asks what about something a talking head said who they think is a leader speaking for the movement. You can put their statement(s) up against the before mentioned consensus and if it does not concur, then the talking head in question is speaking for themselves and not the movement. (fair enough?)

It demonstrates how economies with more income equality are more productive, and also have more social cohesion and happiness.

What you want is wealth equality, economic parity. So did Karl Marx and he too wanted government to use its’ powers to achieve that goal. It isn’t constitutional, so change the constitution if you want to impose Socialism as a replacement to Capitalism.

Meanwhile, we are back to relying on the regulated Capitalism of our present Constitution and a proper and unencumbered functioning of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to provide economic tranquility and a sense of social parity in this society.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
9:42 am

I never explicitly said that I supported either one, sport.

And you won’t, sport. Though your leaning is very obvious.

Bill of Rights a forgotten document

January 1st, 2011
10:21 am

[...] Read more here >>> [...]

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
10:37 am

Joseph E. Stiglitz

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, says: “the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.”[15][16] Stiglitz explains his position:

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the “invisible hand” and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

I really like this, so pardon my liberties in bring it to fore:

…the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.

A proper use of government regulation would see to it that the “Invisible Hand” is always present and moving within our regulated market to serve the general welfare of the country.

I would have to agree with Stiglitz in the humorous use of irony serving to describe the aggregate infliction suffered by the disappearing “hand”, which is the visible reality of our government’s improper use of regulation.

Kamchak

January 1st, 2011
11:02 am

“Steal,” “Marxist/Marxism,” “socialist/socialism”—as I said, code words for fear.

JHB

January 1st, 2011
11:03 am

America is doomed as long as The Welfareites are PAID NOT TO WORK……
but are allowed to VOTE FOR MORE WELFARE ………..

JHB

January 1st, 2011
11:10 am

This new Congress will finally once-and-for-all get rid of the old out-of-date and contentious 2nd Amendment.
But, we have to remember, that old adage, “Those who beat their weapons into plowshares will plow for those who don’t”.
The 0bamastapo is watching and taking names………….

Ron Lewis

January 1st, 2011
11:12 am

Excellent, as always, Mr. Barr. But I sense the forgoteen and ignored Bill of Rights, sad though it be, is (if possible) a lesser catastrophe than the forgotten and ignored Declaration of Independence, especially paragraph two, which outlines the core principle of Americanism. As those vital words proclaim, our Constitution is just “a Form of Government” instituted to “secure these Rights” (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) or to be abolished by the People. This rash step was taken in 1788, after eleven years under the first Form of Government, the Articles of Confederation. It is the Declaration of Independence that is sacrosanct, not the Constitution, or any other “institution” of a “Form of Government.”

Viet Vet

January 1st, 2011
11:16 am

Mr. Smith suffers from the inability to see the world way in a complex way. For him progressive taxation = Marxism. Period By this definition virtually every democratic government in history, from ancient Greece through modern America, is Marxist, and Teddy Roosevelt must have been in league with Lenin.

I wrote “It demonstrates how economies with more income equality are more productive, and also have more social cohesion and happiness.” He read that as “What you want is wealth equality, economic parity.” No, I’m pointing out the conclusions of these studies. Again he demonstrates that he can only think in black/white terms. I said nothing about “wealth equality or economic parity,” neither of which do I believe are possible or desirable. I believe, based on the evidence, that taxes should be graduated and the wealthiest should pay more in taxes than the poorest.

Btw, he also completely misunderstand Stiglitz. He’s not praising free market fundamentalists, he’s mocking them and their the unshakable belief, against the evidence, that unfettered markets maximize individual freedom, that they are the only means to economic growth and that society should adhere to their specific ideas of progress.

For those other than Mr. Smith who are actually curious and able to comprehend a viewpoint other than his/her own, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Marlboro Man

January 1st, 2011
12:49 pm

Smith, you are full of crap.

Winfield J. Abbe

January 1st, 2011
2:27 pm

A good example of what Mr. Barr is talking about is Amendment 6 which demands a jury trial for criminal but not civil cases. Many judges and corporations object to jury trials for civil cases because they cannot corruptly control those outcomes, so it is good the Founders at least required a jury trial for criminal cases. Read the book “IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America” by Earl Carey, Bismarck House, St. Louis, 1992. Mr. Carey, a former engineer, acted as his own lawyer pro se. He lists no less than 42 federal judges by name and location who violated the very rules they were sworn to enforce and comply with. He dotted every i and crossed every t. This is a very disturbing book. All Mr. Carey ever wanted was a simply jury trial in his disupte with the computer giant. He tried every legal means to this end and every legal means failed. But he left this remarkable book to inform us all and document this legal obscenity. Our judicial system is a corrupt cesspool of legal tyranny, and lawyers are mostly to blame.

Liberal And Proud Of It

January 1st, 2011
2:28 pm

Yeah Barr used taxpayer money to go after Clinton and sat back in silence when his buddy Newt was doing as much if not more than Clinton ever thought of doing. And how many times has Newt and Barr been married – three marriages for each. Don’t you love it when the pot calls the kettle black?

What I Learned This Week (12/19-1/1)

January 1st, 2011
2:40 pm

[...] 42% of Americans believe the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” comes from the Bill of Rights. [...]

Winfield J. Abbe

January 1st, 2011
2:45 pm

As Mr. Barr stated, the great Founders of America sought limited powers of the Federal Government.
Abraham Lincoln was the first president to betray those intentions, as he illegally and without any legal authority, used armed force to compel the Confederacy to remain in the Union against its will. Voting was and is a peaceful and legal act. The States of the Confederacy voted to leave the Union. Rather than allowing them to leave as he could and should have, Abraham Lincoln allowed nearly a million victims to be killed or injured for no good reason other than “the ends justifies the means”.
Slavery was on its way out anyway and the Confederacy would likely have returned in a year or so anyway like a lover’s quarrel. Furthermore, not only was Lincoln only “elected” by a tiny minority of less than 40%, he was basically little more than a common thief and failed to compensate citizens for thefts in freeing the slaves, which were considered property under federal supreme law at the time, not southern law, and other thefts by the Union Army from private citizens. This unnecessary destructive war was the first ratcheting up of power to the federal government. Two more world wars separated by a great depression and followed by 9/11/01, and the current federal government is so powerful today it can destroy the whole earth. What was that hot air about limited government? Today we are all slaves or virtual slaves to all government, especially the bloated, bankrupt federal government which routinely violates the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis with impunity. Feel good?
Do we idolize Adolph Hitler? Why do we idolize Abraham Lincoln? He should be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Go visit the National Cemetery at Vicksburg, Mississippi and the National Prisoner of War Muserm at Andersonville, Georgia if you think it was worth sacrificing a million lives for this human massacre under the direction of Abraham Lincoln and his bullies in the North. Is it any wonder so many of his generals refused to fight before he came to the drunk and the psycopath to do the dirty deeds?

Winfield J. Abbe

January 1st, 2011
2:58 pm

The other problem which Mr. Barr did not mention, is the contribution of the Hollywood Perverts to the lack of understanding of our Constitution. It is they who for decades, have idolized the mytholgy of Robin Hood, with all those glamorous and exciting movies with Errol Flynn, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Our good for nothing local government “leaders” watched too many of these movies on Saturday mornings or afternoons and now put in place so many of our laws forcing many, who often cannot even vote, like businesses, to pay the costs of a little fun in the bedroom of others, which results in a child which must be clothed, housed, educated, fed, and doctored, usually at the expense of others, and usually forced, by the full military armed force of Georgia government at every level, from many legitimate and honest businessmen, who had nothing to do with fostering these children and certainly had none of that fun in the bedroom which produced thiese expensive “citizens” of our society. Shame, shame, shame on our good for nothing lawmakers for idolizing Robin Hood and Karl Marx and copying the secrecy of Nazi, Germany and the former Soviety Union in forming the tyrannical government of Georgia. All they did when in Europe was copy Adolph HItler and Joseph Stalin. Stupid is far too polite an adjective to describe the non leaders, but followers of Georgia. It costs about $12K per year to educate a child in public school.
I have a friend who is forced to support about 5 children of others in public school whom he did not foster. His own family of 4 children grew up decades ago. This is the “limited” government of Amerika in 2011 isn’t it? And we can thank our cowardly good for nothing mostly lawyer lawmakers for this situation.

Brad

January 1st, 2011
3:05 pm

“Slavery was on its way out anyway…”

I’m curious, Winfield, to know how you came to this conclusion.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
3:13 pm

Viet Vet

January 1st, 2011
11:16 am

Your personal attacks entertain only you, they have little consequence now and will have less in the future. Teddy Roosevelt was accused of brewing a witch’s potion that included socialism in a very comical political cartoon. We are not a Democracy and I understood what Stiglitz said, you missed the meaning of what I wrote obviously. Do you understand that a regulated Capitalist market as I wrote, is a “fettered capitalism”. It truly appear you don’t.

For anyone who wants another opinion they can do their own research without your insistence or inferences.

As I certainly do.

Say goodnight Brucie…

Kamchak

January 1st, 2011
3:16 pm

Your personal attacks entertain only you…

Who granted you the authority to speak for anyone other than yourself?

Ted Striker

January 1st, 2011
3:28 pm

Timely words for the new year. Thank you for sharing.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
3:28 pm

Who granted you the authority to speak for anyone other than yourself?

The same source that gave you authority to attack me.

People generally will tolerate an attack or argument leveled at an issue otherwise the attack is of little value, when you can’t kill the message in turn then kill the messenger.

Richard

January 1st, 2011
3:30 pm

Hey BB,
You were on my flight a while back where there were a small group of service members on the flight. I think everyone should know that when the flight pulled up to the gate that the pilot asked everyone to please let the service members exit the plane first as a symbolic gesture to pay our respects for their service. But Bob Barr was up there grabbing his bags and refusing to let the service members exit first. Clearly you’re pretty proud of yourself and humility isn’t a concept that you embrace. Stay classy, my friend.

Kamchak

January 1st, 2011
3:34 pm

The same source that gave you authority to attack me.

I haven’t attacked you, sport but you seem to have assumed the official spokesperson for everyone on this thread with your use of the words “only you.”

I am merely questioning who was it that granted you the authority to make such an exclusive statement.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
3:37 pm

I haven’t attacked you, sport but you seem to have assumed the official spokesperson for everyone on this thread with your use of the words “only you.”

I am merely questioning who was it that granted you the authority to make such an exclusive statement.

According to you, perhaps… sport.

Bill

January 1st, 2011
3:40 pm

1 – The biggest threat to our individual rights is our own fear. Of course, government has played on these fears. In seeking greater personal security, we willingly give up liberty.

2 – Conservatives seem to think that the greatest threat to our liberty is government regulation. I think the greatest threat probably comes from government protection. (We will keep you safe, but we need to search you with no reason, in case you are a terrorist.)

3 – “the powers of the government deriving from the consent of the governed as a unique American principle.” Actually, this is not true. This idea comes from Hobbes and Locke, a hundred years before our revolution. We were the first to actualize the idea.

Kamchak

January 1st, 2011
3:42 pm

According to you, perhaps… sport.

Nope, according to you.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
3:13 pm

Viet Vet

January 1st, 2011
11:16 am

Your personal attacks entertain only you…

Did you poll everyone here and arrive at a consensus about whether or not they were entertained?

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
3:58 pm

Did you poll everyone here and arrive at a consensus about whether or not they were entertained?

Did you, or have you anything of substance? An unending “by who’s authority chase” and what is entertaining to who isn’t worth continuing.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
4:12 pm

Bill, item (1) has merit, at times government seems to create crisis when it wants to rush something into law. Item (2) government regulation when it is use properly is necessary, when it is used to grab power for government is when the threat becomes real. Item (3) you are right in that much was borrowed in compiling the constitution and implementing all this is unique. I saw something yesterday Madison said that furthered the point as he mentioned the work of creating the constitution was not his alone.

HistoryTeachesUs

January 1st, 2011
4:28 pm

If one studies the history of the major republics and movements throughout the world, you will notice one main reoccurring fact. Major world powers only hold that power for approximately 200 years. Even the great Roman Empire fell. The United States as we know it will suffer the same fate as other great societies, unless we as the people take back over our government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely! If we don’t take back the power from the politicians, our nation will fall, like all of the other great societies in history!

margaret

January 1st, 2011
4:35 pm

In high school I never learned a thing about the Constitution. The teachers were really not teaching about important things that make this country great.

dave

January 1st, 2011
5:20 pm

The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation – we can never know what the authors of both truly had in mind. So we have a nation of anarchists who have no moral compasses: it’s a wonder we’ve made to 2011. God, or whatever, bless America.

Michael H. Smith

January 1st, 2011
10:46 pm

The U.S. Constitution: The Source of ALL Authority

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/12/the-u-s-constitution-the-source-of-all-authority/

Marlboro Man

January 2nd, 2011
3:09 am

Smith is full of crap

syzito

January 2nd, 2011
9:37 am

Liberals always smear those that they can’t debate using facts and logic.Democrats use hype and spin to hide the fact that they do not have a logical argument against certain issues.Obama is an example and so was Bill Clinton during his term as president.

Dcmatthew

January 2nd, 2011
9:44 am

I love how libs like to act like all conservatives were behind Bush’s abuse of power. There was a reason Bush’s approval ratings got so low and wasn’t because Dems didn’t like him they never voted for him. He lost the support of his party not to mention independent conservatives and blue dogs. Joe Bidden was the leading author of the patriot act and Obama has extended it and club Getmo is still open. Bush promised to be a true conservertaive unlike his father and got huge support when he cut taxes for all americans, by the way only accomblishment Obama has made that had majority supports was extending those cuts. Bush’s lost support after he started expanding goverment. Conservatives don’t change and they dont all have R’s by their names poloticians change, Bush was no conservative.

Michael H. Smith

January 2nd, 2011
9:49 am

Federalist 45

The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states. - James Madison

Federalist 41

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. - James Madison

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.

…Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated(Specified individually). - Thomas Jefferson

Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. - Thomas Jefferson

~

It is hard to reason that the precise purpose and meaning of the Constitution is unobtainable when the actual men who played such a great part as authors in writing the document clearly spoke of its’ purpose and meaning in a number of their other writings of that time to dispose of open interpretations and usurpations, used then as now, to grab unlimited powers that were never granted by the Constitution to the limited federal government, isn’t it Mr. Barr?

[...] Bill of Rights a forgotten document | The Barr Code. [...]

Kamchak

January 2nd, 2011
4:02 pm

There was a reason Bush’s approval ratings got so low…

Yeah, that 51% overall average is such a cross to bear.

:roll:

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Julia Adair, Bill of Rights Insti. Bill of Rights Insti said: Bill of Rights a forgotten document – shocking results from a recent study http://t.co/SVEddfh [...]

MarkV

January 2nd, 2011
7:15 pm

syzito: “Liberals always smear those that they can’t debate using facts and logic.”
One does not need anything more to recognize someone with limited brain power.

MarkV

January 2nd, 2011
7:19 pm

HistoryTeachesUs: “If we don’t take back the power from the politicians, …”
An typical example of drivel one hears so much around now. We take power from the politicians? And give them to whom? The people? How?

Michael H. Smith

January 2nd, 2011
10:57 pm

The people did take back power in the last election and have entrusted it to a new guard. Soon we shall see if the new guard sent to Congress remains faithful to secure our expressed objectives. The people remain the sole owners of power. For that reason power must be derived from our hands. In all cases, at all times, the people are never without the remedy to resolve an obstinate contrarian government or even the emergence of despotism of any form.

T minus two days and counting.

Martin Sloan

January 3rd, 2011
3:28 am

As usual, the stooges for the wealthy have only contempt for those they have in their care. The wealthy are winning and stooges like this guy are leading the way. The wealthy want only one thing ‘More’ any questions? The wealthy ruled Rome, and have ruled before and ever since. The poor are for use and abuse. JFK, FDR started the reform movement and as usual JFK was assasinated for it as was his brother(as was Marius,obscure reference). Anyone dependent on SSI, Medicare and Medicaid is by definition a democrat. Anyone thinking they are a republicon while dependent on SSI, Medicare, or Medicaid is a fool. Here are the reasons. The wealthy never need these services, they are completely without need of public assistance. The wealthy given the opportunity to keep their money, in fact, will. The only way to make the wealthy spend their money is to tax it. Why? How? If a wealthy person is made to pay taxes on their income they will find a useful way to keep from paying those taxes. They are considered loop holes. However, a common loop hole could fund new green energy and it’s assosiated industries while reducing the taxable income of some billionaire and paying the wages of a greater stable middle class. Giving The wealthy the right to keep their wealth while exploiting the people and country of their birth is insane. They are given specific rights they take the rights of others with money and then spit on the middle class exclaiming “We are the Aristocracy and you peasants owe us the life style we enjoy!” This is fundementally untrue. The wealthy owe their wealth to the people. There are no rights to despotism.

Martin Sloan

January 3rd, 2011
3:30 am

OOps a typo in there…forgive please..

Michael H. Smith

January 3rd, 2011
4:28 am

Wonder when the intelligentsia of the left will learn their own socialist history? LOL

The father of their pee-gressive agenda was Woodrow Wilson, he started the socialist ball rolling down hill. An elite aristocrat. Not exactly a pulpier, neither was FDR.
Unfortunately, they both choose to transform, not reform the country. That brings to mind another fellow doesn’t? Now who said he would transform America? Oh yeah, that is the present dear leader Comrade Obumer.

Problem with these socialist guys is they think observing or ignore the Constitution is an option. Good thing the newly elected House intends to see that they observe it to the letter of the enumerated powers given to the Congress. Might even challenge a few of these regulations that go beyond the enumeration. To bad for them the commerce clause will no longer serve as their Carte’ Blanche for all the socialist welfare goodies they want to redistribute.

Word has it, shellac futures are looking good on the commodities market with a delivery date of Nov. 2012.

Bye for now, stock up on popcorn, soda, other munchies before the slowdown-showdown show begins.

Chili Dogg

January 5th, 2011
12:35 pm

>Jeb wrote:
>Bob: Funny you had not problem with this under the Bush admin.

Jeb, you haven’t been paying attention. Barr was very critical of actions by the Bush Administration, esp. the Patriot Act. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Criticism_of_Bush_Administration to get enlightened. In 2005, Barr formed “a bipartisan group dedicated to eliminating aspects of the Patriot Act that could potentially affect law-abiding citizens rather than terrorists”. Your claim is factually incorrect. I’ll look for your correction.

>Big Dim aka Big Jim wrote: “To beat a dead horse, Bob Barr proudly used OUR MONEY to get >Bill Clinton for lying about having an affair. I repeat, Bob Barr proudly used OUR MONEY to get Bill >Clinton for lying about having an affair.”

Bill Clinton committed perjury in a sworn deposition and obstruction of justice. It seems unimportant to you that the President committed perjury and obstruction of justice, but the legal authorities thought otherwise. Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Lewinsky_scandal):

“In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton’s disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

“In January 2001 Clinton reached an agreement under which he was ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state’s bar officials and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years.[80] The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[81] Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.[82]”

His testimony was in connection with a sexual harassment case against him. So do you think that it’s OK to commit perjury and obstruction of justice because “it’s just about sex”?

Maybe you just forgot those facts – assuming you ever knew them. Or maybe you think it’s OK for a Democrat to break the law. I’m sure you would be so charitable towards a Republican who did the same thing. I’ll look for your correction.

Chili Dogg