Title: The TRUMP Fight Song [unofficial] - TRUMP 2016 Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Aug 31, 2015 Author:Strengthen The US Post Date:2015-08-31 09:17:51 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:5690 Comments:29
#2. To: A K A Stone, CZ82, Too Conservative, Redleghunter (#0)
Very disturbing to me to see all the Gadsen flags that were adopted by the Tea Party movement. The movement, to me at least,represents a return to limited and constitutional law. Trump when you get beyond all the populist rants represents the NE liberal Republican notion that they can manage the nanny-state better than the Dems. I don't believe that Trump will feel restrained by constitutional principles. I would be amazed if he would let that stop him . On the contrary ,like the emperor I think he is arrogant enough to say 'that's the way it is " ..."I dare you to do something about it " .
Mona Charen says it better than I can:
Among a very long list of harms inflicted upon the United States by Barack Obama and his party, perhaps the worst was Caesarism. Obama relished the worship of millions in 2008. From his star turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he was treated not as a political candidate but as a savior. Progressives fell into a swoon, typified by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas’s 2008 comment that “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.”
Obama had accepted the reverence of the crowd but governed as a normal president, his sin would have been merely aesthetic. But he did not. Contempt for law and tradition has been the hallmark of his presidency. His lawlessness makes Richard Nixon’s look penny ante. In addition to his blatantly illegal grant of legal status to 4 million illegal immigrants — a move Obama himself declared he lacked the authority to make — Obama has acted as an autocrat in dozens of other instances. Without any legal basis, he imposed a fine on BP after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and unilaterally suspended offshore drilling. He bypassed the plain language of Obamacare multiple times, whenever enforcing the unpopular or unworkable aspects of the law would be politically inconvenient. (The employer mandate, for example, was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014.) He attempted to make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when the Senate was not in recess. He waived the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law. Earlier this year, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration “set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.” His administration has ignored repeated congressional subpoenas, while his attorney general was found in contempt of Congress. President Obama perhaps calculated that he could get away with this lawlessness because of his uniqueness. The Constitution provides a remedy for lawless executives — but while Obama has arguably committed acts that merit impeachment, he knows that his status as the first black president gives him immunity. Impeachment would tear the country apart. The courts have thwarted some of Obama’s power grabs. The Supreme Court has rebuked him several times. The NLRB appointments were reversed, and the immigration waiver has been judicially stayed for now. But much damage remains. Obama’s legacy is a profound weakening of respect for law and tradition in this country. That Democrats are fine with this isn’t a huge surprise. They’ve long demonstrated that they are ends-justify-the-means types. Since the era of Woodrow Wilson, they’ve decided that if they cannot get their preferred policies through legislatures, they’re happy to see them imposed by courts. If not by courts, then by executive fiat. They conveniently uphold a “living” Constitution — which is pretty much no Constitution at all but just the raw exercise of power by those in robes. Conservatives and Republicans, by contrast, have traditionally stood for the rule of law — with all of its frustrations and inefficiencies. Respect for the rule of law is more precious than any given policy outcome. If we are not, as John Adams said, a “government of laws and not of men” we will soon drift into the kind of despotism that characterizes nations without a strong legal tradition. Putinism is destroying what is best in Russia. Peronism devastated Argentina. Franco crushed liberty in Spain for half a century. The Castro brothers have imposed their tyranny on Cuba for longer than that. The list of countries that succumbed to Caesarism is very, very long. The appeal of Trump falls into this category. Though one might suppose that his borderline pathological narcissism, his arrested emotional development, and his nearly incoherent ramblings would exclude him from consideration for county clerk, he sits atop the GOP field. The message from a segment of the Republican party is: “Okay, we’re an autocracy now So let’s have this guy govern by fiat.” Unless the rest of the Republican party makes a different case — namely that the answer to Obamaism is a return to law — it may be game over for self- government in the world’s oldest democracy.
Very disturbing to me to see all the Gadsen flags that were adopted by the Tea Party movement. Sounds like something John boner would say. Or Linsey Graham.
Establishment talk.
you forgot to add the rest of my comment :
The movement, to me at least,represents a return to limited and constitutional law. Trump when you get beyond all the populist rants represents the NE liberal Republican notion that they can manage the nanny-state better than the Dems. I don't believe that Trump will feel restrained by constitutional principles. I would be amazed if he would let that stop him . On the contrary ,like the emperor I think he is arrogant enough to say 'that's the way it is " ..."I dare you to do something about it " . .................................................
Trump will fit in very well with the "establishment" .He has been a rent-seeker his whole life and has operated very successfully as a crony corporatist .He frequently expanded his business by using the power of government. I'll say it again. People who have been supportive of the Tea Party movement ,who now support Trump, have lot's of 'spalning' to do about their inconsistency .
who now support Trump, have lot's of 'spalning' to do about their inconsistency .
You're not tea party. You're establishment through and through. You support selling out the American worker. You know Pat Buchanan the true conservative shows you to be a liberal on trade. Protecting American jobs is the way to go. You sell outs have ruined the economy with your treasonous NAFTA, GATT etc. Trump will try his best to end those. By any means necessary hopefully.
nah . As a Tea Partier I realize that it is government spending that is the problem and not this notion that not enough taxes are collected . I too want "tax fairness" .That's why I support flat taxes . I'm not like the socialists /progressive/liberals who set one group against the other and demonize them .That's their game plan ,and Trump is all in with that . They too always promise to relieve the burdens of the working and middle class (more Marxist rhetoric) and end up hurting them even more . When Trump comes up with a plan to cut spending and balance the budget wake me up. All I hear from him is more big government spending .
But in fairness; supposedly Steve Forbes and Art Laffer are involved in writing his economic plan. Neither of them are "soak the rich " and soak Wall Street type of guys . Maybe all Trump is doing is his typical pablum reguritation to get attention .
ahh ,the 'what would Jesus do ' ? question. I find that argument often given by those who least believe......like the emperor . Do you really think that if the rich guy was compelled to pay a higher proportion of taxes that there is any virtue in it for him ? Taxation is compulsory ,so how could the rich man claim any virtue in paying taxes ? The contributions you speak of in the passage were totally voluntary. Do you really think that Jesus was Robin Hood ? Helping “the least of these” is the Christian way .Taxation is not a means to that end . Scrooge thought he was doing his duty to the poor by paying his taxes.
'At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, 'I wish I could say they were not.'
'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink. and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
What did Jesus really think of taxation ? Maybe he did not think too highly of state taxation . "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault ... if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." - Matthew 18:15
Now do you really believe that the money governments collect are totally collected for the truely needy ? Nope , there are many more things that our tax dollars go for that are not what you would call something a Christian should support . Would Jesus approve our tax dollars going to the abortion mill Planned Parenthood ? If only Christianity influenced government policies on that ! You can't even give me clear evidence that the taxes collected that are targetted for the poor do any good .I suggest that in many ways the policies those tax dollars support help perpetuate poverty.
