About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

WILL THIS BE OUR FUTURE? RIP THE USA

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Born 1776, Died 2008

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November’s Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency”

Obama’s election brought the United States astronomical public debt, a slumping currency, increasing government control of the economy, continued job losses, radical judges, a disastrous foreign policy, a proposed government takeover of health care and a job-killing energy bill. Americans — some unwittingly — put in place the most radical government in generations, and they now are realizing what they have wrought.”

And if American freedom dies it will be the enablers in academia, left -wing religion and journalism that are partly responsible for its demise.The underlying myth in much of their “reporting,”and teaching has been that free market capitalism was a greater threat to human happiness than communism or socialism!

In many ways the USA is rapidly approaching the economic situation that precipitated the rise in power of Adolph Hitler in Germany. With the massive spending of money that the Treasury is printing on a 24 hour cycle to fund the outlandish social programs the Congress is passing to satisfy the Marxist in the White House. We are setting ourselves up for this scenario as described in Wikipedia.

In 1922 and 1923 Germany was hit by Hyperinflation. This means massive rise in prices, everyone was affected by this. Te confusion caused by the hyperinflation led Adolf Hitler to believe that he could take power in Munich in November 1923. The attempt failed. Hitler believed that the government was so unpopular that Germans would be on his side. Hitler was arrested for high treason. While Hitler was in prison he wrote a book called my struggle(Mein Kamp), he became very popular with the Germans.

When Hitler left prison he set up a proper political with a national organization. He set up different sections for the party teachers, women and children. He appointed Josef Goebbels as head of propaganda.

There was bad employment IN Germany as we have here in the USA, and the prdictions are that it will get worse!. From 1929 support for the Nazis grew steadily. Most of what Hitler did in his quest for power was legal. Such as his move to centralize all aspects of German government, social life and its economy. Sound familiar!

The nazi party was well organised and had the support of Alfred Hugenberg who was a millionaire and owned 53 newspapers.And Hitler was an eloquent speaker who could motivate people not unlike the man we have in the White House!


The career of Adolf Hitler was marked by a spectacular rise to power. He went from being a nobody in the streets of Vienna to the supreme leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth. Hitler came to power through a combination of legal means and backroom politics. The events leading up to the rise of the Nazis and Hitler are prime examples of the myriad of factors intertwining in the area of social action. Economists view the economic conditions as the major reason for the downfall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis. Are we heading toward the fate of the Weimar Republic?



Posted in
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

COMPARING PRESIDENT OBAMA TO LICOLN COULD BE MISTAKE



Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

As we were during Lincoln's era, we are once again a nation at war, and the laws of war are different. I know that this is a difficult concept to grasp, because most people today are not used to thinking in terms of wartime and peacetime. But in reality, the laws of war are different. And Obama's delay of the alleged mastermind of 9/11/2--1 and his proposal to close "gitmo" prison are examples of a President who apparently is letting A special interest group of voters cloud his attitude toward the war situation in which we presently are involved.

Think about this: We lost 620,000 people over the four years of the Civil War. We could lose that many people in one day if we realized a chemical or biological attack at the hands of terrorists.

The horror of, and after, September 11, 2001, has again raised tensions between and dialog about American security and personal liberty. As Lyndon B. Johnson said on January 20, 1965, while taking the presidential oath, "We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. Terrific dangers and troubles that we once called `foreign' now constantly live among us."3

Today, I hope to provoke not only thought, but also comments and questions from you regarding those issues that President Lincoln confronted in the area of civil liberties and those facing our current Commander in Chief.Source: Heritage Foundation


In the words of historian James G. Randall: "No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did.... It would not be easy to state what Lincoln conceived to be the limit of his powers.

In the 80 days that elapsed between Abraham Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops--the beginning of the Civil War--and the official convening of Congress in special session on July 4, 1861, Lincoln performed a whole series of important acts by sheer assumption of presidential power. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia to "suppress said combinations,"6 which he ordered "to disperse and retire peacefully" to their homes.7 He increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.

Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of "civil war," but rather the suppression of rebellion. We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President's hands.

Lincoln's critics, especially abolitionists and Radical Republicans, said he moved too slowly as President to end slavery. In his written response to Horace Greeley's editorial (see below), having already discussed a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet, Lincoln wrote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."EMPHASIS IS MINE

During the American Civil War, Lincoln used the war powers of the presidency to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" but exempted border states and those areas of slave states already under Union control. As a practical matter, at first the Proclamation could only be enforced to free those slaves that had already escaped to the Union side. However, millions more were freed as more areas of the South came under Union control.

Although Lincoln initially resisted efforts by his generals to free slaves in areas captured by the Union[citation needed], including revoking emancipations proclaimed by some of his generals such as Freman, eventually he gave in to necessity and drafted the Emancipation Proclamation. The war powers were the basis for the Emancipation Proclamation. The technical language of the Proclamation never actually freed slaves in the border states or in areas of the Confederacy already back under Union control, but strategically only gave freedom to slaves in Confederate territories where Lincoln did not have actual power and would disrupt the enemy. Many slaves were freed however, as the war continued. Lincoln was hesitant about pursuing broader emancipation during the war for areas already under Union control[citation needed], not wanting to provoke sedition in those Union areas that would be affected. Lincoln also attempted to compensate former slave owners for their losses throughout the war[citation needed]. The border states were pressured to abolish slavery on their own (all but Kentucky did so), and in doing so contributed to the more than 180,000 blacks in the Union Army and Navy. Lincoln credited these soldiers and sailors with turning the tide of the war[citation needed], and argued that their sacrifice earned both freedom and the right to vote. The Thirteenth Amendment made abolition permanent.
And history shows that Lincoln was not adverse to revoking the Constitutional rights of citizens. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set up military courts in several states in the South and Midwest. Many at the time felt that Lincoln had superseded his authority, and in 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from performing civilian law enforcement without congressional approval.

Do the members of the team of President Obama want him to be compared with this side of President Lincoln that cannot be found in school room text books today?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is It Time To Start the Conservative Party?

 





Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

There are no longer sharp dividing lines between the Republican and Democrat parties in the USA Congress.Or for that matter in all levels of politics.
What we have is "Rinos"(Republicans in name only) from states where real Conservatives cannot win elections, but Democrats have historically been out of favor.
Then we have here in the South, where voters no mater how conservative they are, remember that Lincoln was the first Republican President, and vote Democrat no matter who runs. The South is also well known for "Blue Dog" Democrats, and fiscal Conservatives who run as Democrats only because very few would vote Republican.

It is past time for the Conservative Party to be formed.The dividing line between Liberals and Conservatives has been drawn in the sand. Those who believe in cradle to grave government control are on one side, and those who believe in the individual right to succeed and excel are dependent upon himself or herself is one of the dividing lines.
The other main division is the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. The Conservatives advocate this position, whereas the Liberals believe the State should allow partial birth abortion and Euthanasia.

There are many other defining positions that separate a Conservative from a Liberal. Core conservative principles include outspoken belief in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate "American exceptionalism," a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, American conservatives have been the driving force behind increased U.S. military power.
Liberals think of us as people whu grasp their guns and bibles! I do not think this is a bad thing!


In the USA today, social liberalism combines support for government social programs, progressive taxation, and moderate Keynesianism with a broad concept of rights, which today includes a right to education and health care. However, this is by no means the only contemporary American political current that draws heavily on the liberal tradition.

So you can see there is a definite division between the two political philosophy's. Thus, I believe the need for a new Conservative party! And Ron Paul would be a great candidate!Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government, just what the doctor ordered!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »