'most corrupt government in U.S. history'
strik...@mail.com
> This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which
>follows.
> To view this item online, visit
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=120009
>
>
> Thursday, December 24, 2009
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A VOICE OF SANITY
> Can we still
> save America?
> Exclusive: Robert Ringer plans to battle
> 'most corrupt government in U.S. history'
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: December 25, 2009
> 1:00 am Eastern
>
>
>
> By Robert Ringer
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> In a 2008 radio interview, Barack Obama said:
>
> " � the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution
>of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice
>in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize
>the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the
>essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
>Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court
>interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of
>negative liberties."
>
> I tell you, life isn't fair. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ever
>ventured into the matter of "redistributive wealth?" And what in the world
>were the Founding Fathers thinking about when they failed to broach the
>subject?
>
> Surely it was an oversight that they never addressed the issue of
>taking your assets and giving them to your neighbor. Or perhaps it's just an
>indication that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison were
>cold, calloused individuals who enjoyed watching people suffer.
>
> In the same interview, Chairman Obama went on to say that the
>Constitution "[says] what the federal government can't do to you, but
>doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your
>behalf, and that hasn't shifted � and one of the � tragedies of the civil
>rights movement was � because the civil rights movement became so court
>focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and
>community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put
>together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about
>redistributive change."
>
> Excuse me? Do on your behalf? Those stupid Founding Fathers again.
>They didn't even think to put in the Constitution what the government must
>do on your behalf. And what a tragedy it was that the civil rights movement
>didn't put together the coalition of powers that could bring about
>"redistributive change."
>
> Forget the fact that the Constitution never mentions the
>redistribution of anything. After all, the debate is over: We all know that
>redistribution of wealth is the only moral way to operate a country, right?
>
> America will go through a fundamental change in 2010 � guaranteed.
>Either it will be fundamentally transformed into a full-fledged socialist
>police state, then, ultimately, a communist police state, or those who still
>believe in freedom will do whatever it takes to overthrow the oligarchy that
>now rules over us.
>
> If the Republicans, after winning back the House and Senate � or even
>coming close � continue to act like a branch of the Demopublican Party and
>ignore the Constitution, it most likely will bring into existence a third
>party (How about the Tea Party?) that would be the first such animal of the
>modern era that would have a legitimate shot at of winning the presidency in
>2012.
>
> (Column continues below)
>
>
> But, as I have so often pointed out, the caveat is that the fascist
>president and Congress may very well find a Chavezian reason to declare a
>state of emergency and "postpone" the 2012 presidential election. Regardless
>of whether that emergency is a total collapse of the U.S. economy or a
>terrorist attack, don't be fooled. If it happens, it will be a planned event
>by those who are now in power.
>
> Via health care, cap and trade and other wildly unconstitutional
>measures, BHO and the criminal Congress will assure that the economy is many
>times worse off by next November's elections than it is now. The objective,
>of course, is to bring people to their knees so they will have "no other
>choice" but to look to benevolent government for help.
>
> I believe that 20-25 percent unemployment is coming, more massive
>bailouts of companies "too big to fail," higher taxes, government controlled
>health care, cap and trade and, yes, jail time for those who do not obey the
>unconstitutional edicts of the criminal class in Washington.
>
> Could I be wrong? Sure. I thought we'd have runaway inflation and a
>solidly entrenched police state by the mid '80s, but I underestimated the
>sheer power of Ronald Reagan's personality � not to mention the government's
>capacity to print fiat currency and borrow money.
>
> Having said this, the only way that a "fundamentally transformed
>America" can be avoided is if:
>
> 1. Free elections are held in 2010
>
> 2. Conservative Republicans sweep into power
>
> 3. Said conservative Republicans immediately began to repeal all
>unconstitutional legislation � including government involvement in health
>care, welfare, regulation of the environment, government involvement in
>education � and so on.
>
> In short, get rid of all government functions other than providing a
>legal system for arbitrating disputes, protecting the lives and property of
>citizens and providing for a national defense.
>
> 4. While all this is going on, those of us who are on the moral high
>road should be prepared to spend enormous amounts of time and energy
>educating the anesthetized, sports-crazy, entertainment-crazy,
>vacation-crazy masses about the wonders of the free market. We must put
>forth the effort to explain to them why liberty is the most valuable
>commodity they can ever possess. We must help them understand that liberty,
>not government handouts, gives them the best opportunity to achieve economic
>freedom.
>
> The year 2010 will be like no other in American history. It is not
>just another Carter era of sheer stupidity and incompetence. This is the
>real thing. This is what progressives have been working toward since the
>days of Theodore Roosevelt. We are living through a major historical time
>that may very well shape the destiny of the human race for centuries to
>come � or bring about its final demise.
>
> But cheer up � it's Christmas. Enjoy your family and the other things
>in your life that are dear to you. Then, refreshed, come back after the
>holiday prepared to do battle with the most corrupt government in U.S.
>history.
>
>
Let's work to collapse this terminal form of government and create
something better. I note this quote from the above:
> America will go through a fundamental change in 2010 � guaranteed.
>Either it will be fundamentally transformed into a full-fledged socialist
>police state, then, ultimately, a communist police state, or those who still
>believe in freedom will do whatever it takes to overthrow the oligarchy that
>now rules over us.
Push has come to shove.
Striker
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
You gotta admit, Barack Obama is doing a little better than George
Dumbya Bush. Bush was the worst president ever!
Catfish Hunter
No, he isn't doing any better. In fact, Obama is probably going to
displace Jimmy Carter as the worst President in History.
MACK DADDY
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you meant to say George Dumbya Bush! Carter does not rank
among the worst 5.
Catfish Hunter
No, I meant Jimmy Carter. You never know exactly how they are going to
do when you first vote them. I voted for Carter. To this day I wish I
could take my vote back. Now we have his political twin in office.
> Carter does not rank among the worst 5.
Correct. He wins the title of the worst outright.
MACK DADDY
ranked among the worst 5, but he doesn't, and isn't. George Dumbya
Bush is the absolute worst, followed by Reagan, Daddy Bush, and
Hoover. Even Nixon, who was impeached, wasn't as bad as Dumbya Bush.
I'm really surprised you Republicans are so down on Obama. He is not
a liberal. He has a D by his name but you ought to like the fact he's
a corporatist like Bush, Bush, and Reagan, and also too he's a
warmonger!
Catfish Hunter
The point that you have missed is that Carter doesn't get that kind of
a break. He is by far the WROST President in history.
> George Dumbya
> Bush is the absolute worst, followed by Reagan, Daddy Bush, and
> Hoover. Even Nixon, who was impeached,
I don't accept your clueless babble as a meaningful point. If you
don't understand the facts, then I suggest that you educate yourself.
> wasn't as bad as Dumbya Bush.
> I'm really surprised you Republicans are so down on Obama.
More ignroance on display. Sorry to bust your bubble, but I am a
Democrat. I am not one of the ignorant Democrats of the world, i.e. a
liberal.
> He is not a liberal.
I suggest that you take the time to do the research, he is a liberal.
In fact, he was one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate.
> He has a D by his name but you ought to like the fact he's
> a corporatist like Bush, Bush, and Reagan, and also too he's a
> warmonger!
Bush 43 was a neo-liberal. That is the reason that he didn't thrill
me.
MACK DADDY
...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -