ABOUT US

CONTACT US

SHOP
AATTP

PRIVACY
POLICY

WORK FOR
AATTP

Americans
Against the Tea Party Because Fox News Lies

HOME

TEAPUBLICANS
IN ACTION

TEAPUBLICAN
SMACKDOWNS

HUMAN
INTEREST

FOX
NEWS LIES

THE
ECONOMY

HUMOR

SHOP
THE AATTP STORE

Home • Most Popular on AATTP • 10
Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives’ Heads
Explode

10 Founding Fathers
Quotes That Will Make Conservatives’ Heads Explode

Posted by: Elisabeth
Parker in Most Popular on AATTP, TEApublican Smack Downs July 4, 2014

Conservatives insist their cruel and unworkable agenda is sanctioned by
America’s Founding Fathers. As with their similar claims about Jesus Christ wanting America to
oppress the poor and help the wealthy, these claims are blatantly false. The
following 10 quotes prove this.

The Founding Fathers on regulating corporations.

1. “If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the
banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will
deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert
Gallatin.

2. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy
of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
— Thomas
Jefferson.

3. “The power of all corporations ought to be
limited, […] the growing wealth
acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James
Madison

The Founding Fathers on war.

4. “He who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole
contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.”

— Thomas Paine: The Crisis No. V, 1797

5. “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward
redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.” -Thomas
Jefferson

The Founding Fathers on liberalism.

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt
to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the
community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope
ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” —
George Washington

The Founding
Fathers on religion.

7. “The Government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed
by Founding Father John Adams

8. “We have abundant
reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed
over the power of bigotry and superstition… In this enlightened Age and in this
Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not
forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining
and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to
the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

9. “In every country
and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in
alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his
own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas
Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

The Founding Fathers on taxes.

10. “As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from
Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to
protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence
and rapine.” –= Alexander
Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801

Read More Here at AATTP…

Twenty Quotes From the Founding Fathers on the Separations of
Church and State

Watch Sarah Palin Claim that the Founding Fathers Were Her
Special Brand of Crazy (Video)

Bill Maher Educates Teapublicans About the Founding Fathers,
Must Watch!

alexander
hamilton conservatives Founding Fathers George Washington James Madison john adams quotes Thomas Jefferson Thomas
Paine 2014-07-04

Elisabeth
Parker

Previous: Breaking: Dow Tops 17,000 For the First Time
EVER Proving Obama is the Worst Socialist in U.S. History

Next: Obama Truth Bomb to GOTea: Move to Center or Give
Up on the Getting Back into the White House

About Elisabeth Parker

Elisabeth
Parker is a writer, editor, web designer, mom, political junkie, and
dilettante. "Like" her on Facebook, follow her on
Twitter, check out her Pinterest
boards, and + her on Google
+. For more AATTP articles by Elisabeth, click
here.

D Lll

This first quote hits the nail on the head. I would like to know why so
many Democrats are against Audit the Fed? Elizabeth Warren has a lot of big
bad rhetoric against banks but she (for some unknown reason) wants to leave
the Fed alone so politics does not influence their decisions. I find this
insane. Regardless of whether you believe about the Fed is private or a branch
of the government, it needs someone or something to oversee it and keep it in
check.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive
the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to
Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.

Martin Hruz

The title of this article seems bigoted to me. I would encourage all
person’s to read the documents of the founders, as well as Henry Wallace’s
warning about American Fascism (particularly the warning about blind obedience
to party).

Chris Parker

American is not a secular nation. Quit fogging the truth with the BS you
spread.

franco11

Conservative here. I agree with all of these.

The author of this attempted hit piece is Elisabeth Parker asserts;

“Conservatives insist their cruel and unworkable agenda is sanctioned by
America’s Founding Fathers. As with their similar claims about
Jesus Christ
wanting America to oppress the poor and help the wealthy, these
claims are
blatantly false. The following 10 quotes prove this.”

Dear Ms. Elisabeth Parker, as for the 10 quotes you assert will make my
head explode, I as a Conservative Christian, agree whole heartedly with all of
them 100% as do most all other Conservative/Libertarian in the thread.

So can you please explain to all of us how you can be so fare off in your
understanding of Conservative/Libertarian thought? Have you ever really
critically thought about it for yourself?

I just wish our current President agreed with all 10 quotes too. Perhaps
you be so kind as to address that issue as well?

Since you are the one to bring up Jesus Christ. As for your false assertion
that Conservative Christians claim Jesus Christ wants America to oppress the
poor and help the wealthy. Any person who would make that claim is not a
follower of Jesus Christ.

If you truly believed in Jesus Christ then you would already know that and
wouldn’t have included it in your false assertion. Seeing you like lists of
10, for you to enlist your saviors name to make a false claim against another
breaks both the 3rd
and 9th commandments.
He will forgive you for it,
but you have to ask him first with a sincere heart.

jayjay4142

enkill_eridos
I do not understand why you do not have more likes. I
would give you a thousand if I could.

frankthemurph

Hey dopes, the word “Liberal” in both international and historical contexts
is closest to what we call “libertarian” nowadays. Nice try,
though.

D Lll

Amen

from wikipedia –

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism
which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with Representative
democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into
neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as
possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme
form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of
neo-classical liberalism

Dan Dorfman

….. this is a series of LIBERAL quotes. Not democrat vs. republican quotes.
Furthermore, it used to be that each political party had its own conservative
and liberal factions. Not exactly such anymore.

Marilyn Bennett

It’s not only FOX News that could stand to hire some fact checkers.
Jefferson did have an incredible distrust of and destain for banking
institutions; however, the quote used here does not appear in any form of
written provenance. The first time this quote was credited to Jefferson was in
1932 — and they were wrong then as well. Better to use his actual writings
which can be confirmed than to stand on the shaky shoulders of those who like
to shove their in words in the mouths of the.long-dead.
And, yes, I am a
Democrat. That doesn’t stop me from preferring justice.

Harleigh

It’s word for word nazi propaganda that they never practiced imbecile. You
baggers are conned by the neocons. Min Kampf has been translated in English
and is now the Republiecon platform.

Harleigh

that would make you a conservanazi bagger.

TKpeterGunn

WWII was finaced through bonds sold the the AMerican People. Now we take
money form American and return give them 11 million illegal immegrants on
wellfare

Phillip Mezzapelle

Dear liberals, progressives and radicals. You made a big mistake in
including quote 7. It does’nt help your agenda at all. Here John Adams was
simply stateing that in the United States of America, there did not exsist,
nor could there exsist according to the constitution, a religion of the state,
such as there were in many European countries at that time. By no means, was
he against Christianity. If he was, he would have never said,” Our
constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other.”

David J Gill

Well, with Adams and Jefferson you can find many written by them
expressing benevolent religious ideals and some rather angry denunciations
of religion, including Christianity. Jefferson was very contemptuous of
organized religion while believing in a divine power. Adams maybe less, but
still plenty of hostile remarks.

Nathan

And the founders were exactly right…

Btw, when they say liberalism, they are not talking about it’s current
version.

If the founders KNEW the change in politics, they would most certainly be
conservatives today.

David J Gill

No they would not all be conservatives. You are right (I think) about a
changed meaning of the word “liberal” that has come about over the last two
centuries.

I think we can say that Washington, Hamilton and Adams would be opposed
to states rights, small government for its own sake, narrow interpretations
of the Constitution and free trade. They were for a strong federal
government, for government lead economic development and for a central bank.
In general you could say they favored authority and order over and above
personal freedom (…not to overstate that, though.) These were their
approximate viewpoints on these issues in their own day.

They, Washington particularly, would be dismayed and disturbed by the
negative, cynical anti-government remarks of conservatives and especially of
the Tea Party. The were “Federalists.”

Lincoln’s views on these issues was much the same. None of these men
would have been conservatives as that word is defined today.

Jefferson… a different story.

Susie Sotar

No, the libertarian is correct. It is today’s leftists who try to twist and
distort the meaning of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and the thoughts
of our Founders. You, obviously, are one of them.

http://etsy.com/shop/JimzGemz James Pierre
Hauck

Drewski you have an invalid view of American
conservativism

http://etsy.com/shop/JimzGemz James Pierre
Hauck

Agree with guest

David Shaw Jr

All were bastions of well paying union jobs that were
off-shored.

Nick Demasky

You’re using Wikipedia as your sole source? You just completely discredited
yourself.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

My source is the 25 point program of the National Socialist German
Workers (Nazi) Party.
Here it is on a Yale Law website. It’s the exact
same information.
www DOT Avalon DOT law DOT yale DOT
edu/imt/nsdappro.asp
So tell me if these principles are “left wing” or
“right wing”:
No. 11: abolition of unearned income (capital gains)
No.
15: social security
No. 13: nationalization of trusts
No. 14: profit
sharing of industries
No. 18: a “ruthless war” be waged on those that
injure the “common welfare”, such as usurers and profiteers
No. 7: a
State guarantee of “living decently” and “earning a livelihood”
No. 20:
the State is responsible for education
No. 21: The state has the
responsibility to “raise the standard of national health” and provide
“maternity welfare centers”
No. 24: Common Good Before the Individual
Good
Sounds like FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Elizabeth Warren’s
dribble, and generally, the democrat party platform…

So tell me… are these principles left wing or right wing? You cannot say
with an ounce of intellectual honesty that these principles are anything BUT
leftist principles.
You leftists are more aligned with the Nazis than the
Founding Fathers. The truth hurts.

http://intoexploring.blogspot.com/ Lance
H

It’s amazing to me how liberals never fail to eventually rattle off
about how ‘educated’ they are. I wonder if they realize they’re actually
boasting about how successful their indoctrination was.

Raji the Green Witch

When your attack is against how much education your opponent has then
your own case loses ALL credibility. Since WHEN has a LOT of education
been a BAD thing? do you REALLY want our society to be run by MORONS
with NO education? You will get EXACTLY what you vote for, NOTHING at
all.

http://intoexploring.blogspot.com/ Lance
H

Thanks for proving my
point.

TheKnowerseeker

Dear article writer: Why would anybody want to obtain a “license” to copy
and paste your silly blather within the confines of these comments simply to
have a reference to what they are commenting about? Narcissist
much?

TheKnowerseeker

#9: This is a statement against the typical behavior of those who hold
(high-level) positions within religious organizations, not a statement of
condemnation against religions themselves, founded by their holy books,
notwithstanding attempts to bureaucratize them.

TheKnowerseeker

#8: This statement is about discrimination against religious denomination
(such as a Protestant refusing to allow rights or office to a Catholic, for
instance), not a statement against religion as a whole. The founders had no
intention to abolish religion.

TheKnowerseeker

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion.” — The government may not have been, but the
Constitution, the oldest laws, and the identity of the nation (what it meas to
be “American”) were influenced by it, and the overwhelming majority of its
citizens were practicing Christians. That is why conservatives say that the
U.S. was a Christian nation. (Not anymore!)

TheKnowerseeker

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who **conduct themselves as worthy members of the community** are
equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see
America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — Notice the
emphasis above: That’s family values.

Lefty2

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hypocrisy. My understanding of
history is based on history, in large part, to wit: libertarianism is a
grotesquely, demonstrable failure.
All teachers are liberal by definition.
Education is a liberal pursuit. Ignorance, superstition and tribalistic
bigotry are the hallmarks of conservatism.

Tantalus XVI

Your argument falls apart when you confuse their liberalism read: LIBERTY
with your liberalism read: FASCISM. Much to your dismay, with the incessant
ranting of the parties switching sides, LIBERALS ACTUALLY DID, Thomas
Jefferson suddenly turned into INGSOC. In an effort to make conservatives look
ignorant in regards to history, the left CONSISTENTLY outs themselves as
completely ignorant of history. Back to the Frankfurt School with you
people!

Lefty2

A libertarian citing Mises to prove a point is like a Christian citing the
bible to prove a point. Both are myth and fable with no basis in reality.

Both the USSR and China call themselves republics. Does that make them
republican forms of government, moron?

Ed

Wow, Came here looking for a quote. Like choosing sources w/o regard to
party affiliation. Some good conversations going on here!
My 2 cents
worth:
This article covers 2 of the major entities, as a nation we were
warned about, corporations and centralized banking.
I’m not exactly a
science rocket, but I can see the detrimental effects of these on our country
and the rest of the world.
Cant you see that we are in a fight not only for
the soul of our nation but also for personal liberty and our very lives.

Meanwhile we bicker about who’s team is better. Our so called leaders, are
leading us off a cliff.
Example: Our CURRENT NDAA, put in place for our
protection, strips the protections of the Bill of Rights from the
Constitution. Shouldn’t that be something we can all agree on? The current
version was passed by the Bush admin, added to and extended by the Obama
admin.
I need to go… We need to unite to save this awesome country we have
before its gone, then like the people who started it all, we can decide what
kind of country we want. Maybe we can keep our republic for another 300
years.

Tim Casey

in order to sell the Liberal slant ya gotta tell lies.

Tim Casey

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,

founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of

enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and,
as
the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility
against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising
from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony
existing between the two countries,” reads
Article 11 of the treaty signed
by the United States and Tripolitania
(in modern day Libya) in 1796.

In its recent attempt to question the notion of the United
States’
Christian foundation, the group committed an embarrassing faux-pas
when
it erroneously attributed an anti-Christian quote to Thomas
Jefferson.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Catholic league spokesperson told CP Thursday
that the group is historically wrong.

“It is understood that this nation was founded in the late 18th century

under the Judeo-Christian ethos,” Jeffrey Field, Catholic League
director
of communications, told CP. “Indeed in 1892, a century later,
the U.S.
Supreme Court stated that we are a Christian nation.”

Field
insisted that Backyard Skeptics’ erection of this billboard during
the
holiday season shows that its members are “not interested in
educating
the public, rather it was done with malicious
intent.”

Tim Casey

it would be great if the whole quote was here instead of this kind of
yellow journalism

Dave Kalin

HOWEVER!

The income tax was wholly unknown to the founding fathers.

I am one to believe that the income tax would have been anathema to the
founding fathers.

The income tax makes every citizen a slave.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

“#6) What George Washington meant by the word “liberal” has nothing to
do
with the modern Left. Washington refers to what is known as
“Classical
Liberalism” which is close to modern Libertarianism and much
closer to
modern Conservatism than modern Liberalism. In fact, it is
the
antitheses of modern so-called liberalism.”

In your opinion.

The founder’s religious opinions have no basis in either our Constitution
or our laws. They wrote our Constitution that way
deliberately.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Great comment, sir. I am always trying to deepen my understanding of the
foundation of our government, as well as the Founding Fathers themselves. They
truly were geniuses.

You were able to completely destroy the arguments of this article. I was
quite shocked to see progressives/liberals actually attempt to claim that the
Founders were on their side. Considering the miniscule agreeability and lack
of common beliefs between modern liberals and the Founders, it must be hard to
find quotes and attributes that display some degree of similarity. I’m sure
that the author of this article had to research high and low to come up with
the above quotes. However, once you scratch below the surface, as you did, the
intellectual dishonesty of her arguments becomes evident.

I honestly have yet to read a single quote by one of our Founding Fathers
that I do not agree with, and that does not agree with my political
philosophy, which I’d describe as constitutional libertarianism.

On a side note, I find it amusing that when conservatives/libertarians
quote the Founders, the left dismisses them by saying that the Founders were
“rich, out of touch old white male slave owners”. Yet here they are,
attempting to persuade the sheeple that the Founders are on their
side.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Ms. Parker:

It is easy to cherry-pick quotes that you think support your position, but
history says otherwise. Further, when Washington and the Founders refer to
“liberals”, they are referring to classical liberals, NOT modern-day liberals.
Classical liberals, as in that time period, were libertarians. (LIBERal
=LIBERTY). Every one of their positions on government and liberty supports
this.

Your Hamilton quote on taxes is taken out of context. (As noted below by
the NUMEROUS quotes about taxes/welfare.) The Founders did NOT advocate an
income tax. A majority of the revenue they believed government was authorized
to collect came form tariff duties on imports. (Which progressives have
essentially whittled away with free trade agreements, such as NAFTA
implemented under Clinton.)

Your quote about corporations and banks is not used in the correct context.
When the Founders mentioned “banks”, they were referring to central banks. (ie
the Federal Reserve, as created by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson.)

Regarding your quotes on war: real conservatives/libertarians are NOT
advocates of war. Bush’s wars were BS, but Bush was NOT a conservative, so I
digress. However, must I remind you that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Harry
Reid voted for the Iraq War? My views on war would be called isolationist,
like Rand Paul’s. Do you progressives support Obama’s drone wars in Pakistan,
Yemen, and Somalia? Do you think they’re any better, because only foreigners
are killed? (vs a ground war where both sides lose life.)

As far as the quotes on religion, I agree. Religion should not be used as a
basis for law. (Gay marriage should be legal in all states.)

The following quotes will show that a vast majority of modern progressive
policies and views on government go against everything the Founders believed
in. (including progressive republicans like Bush, McCain, Graham, Boehner,
Cochran, etc.)

On the right to keep and bear arms, and the militia:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials.” -George Mason (the Bill of Rights was based on his draft of
the Virginia Bill of Rights)

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the
injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in
their right to keep and bear their PRIVATE arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks
on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms. ” — Samuel Adams

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

(I could go on, but I think you get the point: the people should be armed,
and the militia is EVERYONE; not the National Guard, as you progressives
allege.)
———————————————–
On welfare and income taxes:

“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose
fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily
the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free
exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.’”
-Thomas
Jefferson

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to
the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out
of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the
less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the
contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and
became richer.” – Ben Franklin

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the
money of their constituents.” – James Madison

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald
the end of the republic.” -Ben Franklin

——————————
On trusting government, and believing that government can
solve our problems:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a
troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action.” – George Washington
—————————————
On equality
and rights:

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have
to catch it yourself.” -Ben Franklin

————————

On the size and scope of laws: (Obamacare and ever other hundred page
law)

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of
their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so
incoherent that they cannot be understood.” -James Madison

———————————

On moral relativism:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution
indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” –
George Washington
—————————
On public debt:

“We are bound to defray expenses within our own time, and are unauthorized
to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves morally bound
to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the
majority.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public
debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we
must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such
debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our
comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government
from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them,
they will be happy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
———————————-
On central banks
(Federal Reserve):

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that
has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be
taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly
belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson

—————————————–

On “multiculturalism”, diversity, and the importance of speaking one
language:

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been
pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people
descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the
same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in
their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and
efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly
established general liberty and independence.” -John Jay in Federalist No.
2
——————–

Guy_Montag451

Yet we have a Federal Reserve, a private bank that manages the nations
money, thanks to liberals.

Yet “taxes” as we know them did not exist until the
1900s.

Esteban Rey

Careful. Your first quote from Jefferson on banks is a popular but false
quote.

Zachary Zarko

If supply side economics (tax breaks for “job creators”) actually worked –
then America would be thriving right now because we have been living by supply
side economic policies since the Reagan Administration.

The cold, hard fact is that there is only one thing that stimulates and
grows the economy: SPENDING.

As a business owner, if you give me a big tax break, the ONLY way I would
use the money to create jobs or expand my company is if there was an increased
demand for my products. Otherwise, hiring more people would be an utter
waste.

On the other hand, if employers paid workers better wages, more
rank-and-file employees could afford to buy more goods and services –
increasing demand and creating jobs.

Supply side economics never works. It’s simple Economics
101.

Billy Howell

I would love to know how some people just say, “He didn’t mean that,” when
it comes to the Treaty of Tripoli. You sound far more intelligent when you
talked about how they were capable of complicated thought and how liberal has
a deeper definition than for what this article gives it credit. Keep to the
thinking and less on the attempts to discard complications to your preferred
view.

Billy Howell

And how many of those were endless repeals of Obamacare? Serious question.
Even if that number is zero, I’ve heard of plenty that have left the house
that are equally asinine. There is a difference in passing a bill as a matter
of posturing and trying to get something done. Of course, the content doesn’t
really even have to be brought up. If you do a comparison of numbers alone,
they so far behind the aptly named “Do Nothing Congress” that they are
redefining what that really means. So, in numbers, they aren’t presenting
ideas, and, more importantly, they aren’t producing them in content either.
The one time they started throwing out a ton of ideas was right around the
government shutdown when they wanted to make it look like the Dems weren’t
working with them. It’s like they and all of their supporters forgot the
previous years that contained a televised meeting where the Reps were asked
for ideas on the ACA and further calls for conversations or bills that
contained ideas to replace the ACA if they felt it wasn’t good
enough.

Billy Howell

If you read Jefferson’s and Franklin’s autobiographies, it will give a lot
of light on their religious beliefs. Franklin wasn’t even sure of monotheism.
He just felt that he saw “God” in nature and its
workings.

Billy Howell

It is funny to see people speak as if they have coffee with them and Jesus
every morning.

Billy Howell

I honestly think they were smart enough to realize that both sides have
good ideas or half ideas on each subject. These were thinking men. They didn’t
stand by dogma. Although I agree with you on their perspective when it comes
to religion, I don’t know that either side would call them only their own
today.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

“I honestly think they were smart enough to realize that both sides have
good ideas or half ideas on each subject. These were thinking men. They
didn’t stand by dogma.”
You just described today’s libertarians, aka
classical liberals.

Billy Howell

I described anyone that can think for themselves. That isn’t strictly a
person affiliated with one political party or another. I get that you
identify as a libertarian and that you believe that’s the only way to
reach some righteousness when it comes to political ideals. I still
disagree with you though.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

It’s the only political ideology that I’m aware of that does not
contradict itself and employ major bouts of hypocrisy.
It’s quite
simple, actually: don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff
(including money).

Billy
Howell

Yes, I get that you feel your team is better than anyone
else’s.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

I feel like the Constitution is the best, most sound founding
document in history. (It did create the most prosperous, free country
in the history of the world.) It’s nothing
personal.

Lefty2

The Constitution is a stalwart of liberalism that sought to balance
and protect the interests of both the people as a whole and each
person individually, and made itself susceptible of the change needed
to maintain that balance, a concept utterly foreign to
conservatism.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Well then why don’t today’s “liberals” aka progressives believe in
it?

Lefty2

“Believe in it?” You can’t distinguish between law and
scripture?

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Why don’t today’s liberals espouse following the Constitution?

There. Do you understand now?

Lefty2

So, your complaint is not that liberals don’t “believe” in the
Constitution, it is that they don’t “espouse following the
Constitution?” Nope! I’m not sure what you are trying to say here
either. Would that be analogous to following the Lord? I’ve heard that
one but don’t know what it means either.

Perhaps you could cite an example (with a link to a reliable
source), of what you mean by “today’s liberals [don’t] espouse
following the Constitution?”

chuckleberry74

They do, particularly the glaring part about equal protection. You
“Patriots” also love Putin and Netanyahu and attempt to sabotage your
own POTUS ahead of getting things done.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

You do realize that the “liberalism” of the 18th and 19th centuries
would be described as libertarian today, right?
That’s why it is
now known as “classical liberalism”… after FDR and the progressives
hijacked the term.

Lefty2

Hahaha! Well there were have it. As I predicted, the resident
capitalist troll took only about 5 posts to trot out the “classical
liberal,” meme. Sorry, teabagger, but, as I have already explained,
there is no such thing as a classical liberal. The term irreconcilably
conflicts with itself. It is a term made up by capitalist
propagandists because they are trying to take ownership of the root
word liberty for the continued demagoguery of idiot conservatives who
can be made to believe anything.
Nor do you know what a liberal is
or what liberal means. If you are a liberal, it matters not what
century you lived in. Unlike a dim witted conservative, a liberal is
capable of and freely engages in independent, critical thinking
(something utterly unfamiliar to you), in every
century.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Arguing with someone that views big government and neo-liberalism
as their religion is a lose/lose situation.
You’re a totalitarian
statist, whether you admit it or not. You want to force your views on
other people. And that is why you are evil.
I can only pray for a
new revolution. At least I know which side has all the
guns…

Lefty2

In other words, you have no substantive response, so you resort to
pathetic, laughably idiotic pejoratives. Your religion is the mythical
free market. No less mythology than Zeus, Athena, Poseidon or Jesus.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hypocrisy. You have no idea
what you are talking about. You parrot neo-fascist talking points
spoon fed to you by the Heritage Foundation. But, when your false
premises are laid bare, you fold like a wet newspaper.

YOU, Mr. LibertyDefender, are the enemy of liberty and freedom. You
are the ignorant, unwitting, tool of corporate neo-fascism, and you
don’t even know it. Or worse, you do know it, your just a liar and a
fraud.

Libertarianism is the fast track to corporate feudalism where you
are either a billionaire, or a serf. Libertarianism affords no
freedom, no liberty, no opportunity, no equity or fairness. It is the
idiocy of stupidity, and you are its cheerleader.

Lefty2

The term “classical liberal” contradicts
itself.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Ludwig Von Mises, the free market Austrian economist, referred to
himself as a liberal, and referred to liberalism as capitalist, and
anti-socialist.
From F.A. Hayek’s 1978 Foreword to Von Mises’ book
“Socialism”:
“It is that half a century ago Mises could still speak
of liberalism in a sense which is more or less the opposite of what
the term means today in the United States, and increasingly elsewhere.
He regarded himself as a liberal in the classical, nineteenth-century
meaning of the term. But almost forty years have now elapsed since
Joseph Schumpeter was constrained to say that in the United States the
ENEMIES of liberty, “as a supreme but unintended compliment, have
thought it wise to appropriate this label.”

Lefty2

Von Mises, Hayak, and the rest of the libertarian nutbags were
incompetent fools whose views have been demonstrated to be monumental
failures on numerous occasions.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Do you even know what capitalism is? Capitalism is simply VOLUNTARY
TRADE. Meaning: I don’t have to buy your product unless I want to.
Capitalism is a voluntary economy. Products, companies, and people
fall on their own merit. So long as you produce a good/service that
people want to pay for, then you will be successful.
The problem is
when corporations and government collude, such as the GM bailout,
Federal Reserve quantitative easing, Wall Street bailouts, corporate
welfare, etc.

Lefty2

In other words, you don’t know what capitalism is. There is no such
thing as a voluntary economy. That is another libertarian myth, like
the “free market.” In the reality based universe, you are either in
the economy, or, you perish. The question becomes, should there be
ground rules to maintain some measure of equity, fairness and
opportunity for everyone, and, if so, what should those ground rules
be? How far should they extend?

Nathan

Lefty, I’m very interested as to the meaning of your avatar…

I’m not a tea party follower, I was just confused for a second
because you ALSO said you’re a libertarian..

Lefty2

Nathan, I don’t have an avatar, and, I’ve never said I was a
libertarian, unless I was being ironic.

Rather, in my view, libertarianism is a scam, a fraud, promoted by
capitalist propagandists to dim witted conservatives (who can be made
to believe anything), in which capitalists declaim, inter alia, that
collectivism, the only effective means they have to protect themselves
from the well known, historically established abuses of capitalism, is
a burden on their “freedom.”

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Thomas Jefferson called himself a liberal. So did Thomas Payne. As
did Alexis De Tocqueville and John Locke. Yet they believed in small
government, gun ownership, minimal taxation, maximum liberty, and
basically the OPPOSITE of everything that “liberals” today believe in.
(With the exception of social issues, such as drugs, gay marriage,
etc.) Have you read Common Sense by Thomas Paine? What about Locke’s
Second Treatise of Government? Or how about Tocqueville’s Democracy in
America? Or Jefferson’s first inaugural address? If you did, then you
would realize that they believed in the exact OPPOSITE of what today’s
liberals do when it comes to government’s role in our lives.
So if
you call yourself a liberal, but don’t believe in maximum personal
liberty, and freedom from government intrusion, then you are either a
hypocrite or you do not understand the word “liberal.” The liberals of
our founding would now be called libertarians. (ie maximum
freedom)

Lefty2

Again, you misuse the word “belief.” Faith has no part in this
discussion. You will have to rephrase your comments without resorting
to notions of faith (something you wish was true, but, have no
evidence that it’s true), if you want me to reply.
Having said
that, if your comment about “maximum personal liberty, and freedom
from government intrusion,” was meant to be imputed to the founding
fathers, then you are just flat wrong. The founding fathers were quite
brilliant in their foresight and ability to balance the interests of
the people as a whole and the individual.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

I take it you haven’t read any of the aforementioned literature.
Otherwise you would know what real liberalism is, and you would stop
arguing with straw men. Start with Common Sense. Thomas Paine was as
liberal as they come.

Lefty2

I read more in a week than you read in a year. Yes, Thomas Paine
was a liberal who would be vilified in the right wing, hate media,
today.

My friend, your reference to common sense is even funnier than it
is hypocritical.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Thomas Paine is a hero to libertarians. And no, you didn’t read it.
Otherwise you would know that you are NOT a liberal; rather a
totalitarian.

Lefty2

It comes as no surprise that Libertarians are as wrong about Paine
as they are about government and economics. Now, let me show you what
totalitarianism looks like: “In real capitalism, the government has
ZERO involvement in the private market.” — You

jayjay4142

If you are such a believer in small government then stay the hexck
out of my bedroom and leave my body alone. Also do not try and push
your religious beliefs on me. This country was meant to have
separation of church and state. I live in AL. and this state makes me
sick with their ignorant conservative values. They can lie , cheat ,
and steal elections . From the pulpits they tell you how to vote. and
are still tax exempt. You take food stamps from the poor, the veterans
who fought in your oil wars and the ones started by conservative liars
about WMD.s then blame it on Obama. I may not be as educated as some
of you on here. But I have been around since FDR was President. Never
in my lifetime have I seen the office of the President been so
disrespected no matter what you political leanings. There is so much
hatred for this Presodent that people are voting to destroy America to
destroy the legacy of a black President. You are allowing corporations
to own this country.

Lefty2

There is no such thing as a classical liberal. The term is an oxymoron
that conflicts with itself, and makes no more sense than the term modern
conservative.
Primarily, a liberal is someone who is open to change. A
conservative is someone who is not. The founding fathers, revolutionaries,
were the epitome of liberals. The conservatives were loyal to King
George.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

LIBERalism is (was) based on LIBERty. I’m sorry that this fact has
eluded you.

From the Classical Liberalism Wikipedia page: ” It advocates civil
liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private
property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.
(Doesn’t sound like today’s “liberal” to me…)

In the early 20th century, liberals split on several issues, and in
the United States in particular, a distinction grew up between classical
liberals and social liberals.”
Today’s liberals are indeed social
liberals. But economically they are not liberal at all. They advocate
big government and redistribution of wealth, which is the opposite of
true liberalism.

Lefty2

Nothing has eluded me. Something has eluded you – libertarianism is
the shortest path to corporate feudalism – in which there is liberty
for the rich, but, none for anyone else.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

You haven’t the slightest clue about capitalism. In REAL
capitalism, _as in no Federal Reserve, bank bailouts, “green”
corporate welfare, etc.,) the rich will only get rich if we want their
products and pay them for it!
Read a pre-progressive-era book on
liberalism and then get back with me. Until then, your leaders thank
you for your support, comrade.

Lefty2

So, in addition to knowing nothing about capitalism, you know
nothing about history, either. The Federal Reserve Bank is the epitome
of capitalism and serves the interest of capitalists who always seek
to accumulate and hoard as much wealth and power for themselves. This
is the state of affairs that you support.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

You think the Federal Reserve is “capitalism”? lol The Federal
Reserve is what happens when crony capitalists (JP Morgan,
Rockefeller, etc) collude with government.
Good luck,
sir.

Lefty2

Crony capitalism IS capitalism and is, yet, one of the many
inevitable, anti-democratic, anti-liberty, feudalistic, manifestations
of failed, incompetent, libertarianism.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Crony capitalism is a blend of capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism in America died in 1913. A core tenet of real capitalism is
that one gets to keep the fruits of their labor… And that died when
the progressives enacted an income tax.

Lefty2

Sure! And the Nazis were socialists, right? You are a very
confused, malinformed, person. I don’t know if you can be
rehabilitated or not. It may be too late.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Are you trying to be funny right now? Do you not know what NAZI
stands for? National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party.
But sure, the
Nazi’s weren’t socialist. And 2+2=5.
And for the record, Hitler was
a big fan of FDR’s “New Deal” programs…

Lefty2

Hahaha! Thank you for proving my point. I suppose that the USSR was
a “republic” too! I guess it’s too complicated for dim witted
conservatives to understand that Hilter and ie: Lenin, et al., were
polar opposites on the political spectrum, Hitler being on the far end
of the far right.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Nazism was not socialism just in name alone… You clearly did not
read the link I provided, otherwise you would understand that.

Your USSR argument is merely a red herring that does not need
further attention.
___________________________________
Program
of the National Socialist German Workers Party (word for word)

We demand that THE STATE be charged with providing the opportunity
for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

Abolition of unearned incomes. (Property incomes (rent),
inheritance, interest (investments))

We demand the nationalization of all associated industries.

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scare of old age welfare.
(Social Security)

Immediate communalization of large buildings

Land reform – expropriation of land for public utilities. (BLM land
grabs)

Usurers and profiteers are to be punished with death

National education program

The State is to care for the elevating national health (National
health care)

Restrictions of press – Newspapers must have permission from the
State to be published. Publications which are counter to the general
good are to be forbidden. (Diane Feinstein’s attempts to regulate
journalists.)

For the execution of this we demand the formation of a STRONG
CENTRAL POWER in the Reich.
————————-
Gee, does that sound
SOCIALIST to you? It’s practically the current Democrat Party
platform!

Ed

Awesome Defense!

lefty has made good use of rules for radicals, rule No. 5:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s
irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to
force the enemy into concessions.

Too bad for lefty, didn’t do such a good job with the other
rules.

Keep up the good fight and when you get discouraged:

“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and
annoys the pig.” RH

Came to mind as I was reading lefty’s nonsense.

Peace

Lefty2

The fact remains that libertarianism is idiotic on its face,
incompetent, and a historically demonstrable
failure.

Nick
Demasky

Yeah, because the other guy never once ridiculed lefty at all.
Guess we won’t mention that.

Sheesh.

Lefty2

Is there nothing too stupid for a dim witted conservative to be
made to believe? Once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of
history. Did you write that yourself? Do you know what a citation to a
reliable source is? Do you know what quotation marks are?

Assuming, arguendo (which I do not), that your unquoted quote is
genuine, does it occur to you that the substance of your post bears no
resemblance to historical fact. What the Nazis actually did was murder
all of the socialists, destroy labor unions, and attempt to
exterminate the Jews. Gee, does that sound like the neo-fascist GOP to
you? Practically the republican party platform.

If you don’t feel like an idiot now, you should because you sure
look like one.

Harleigh

Agreed 1000%

Harleigh

Those 4 were ALL as far right as you can get idiot bagger. The
first was total fascist and the rest were communist dictators. Hardly
liberals except maybe to Beckypoo or Limpbag or faux. You sound as
stupid as Susie Stupid.

jmtaylor700

Still fantasizing about something that has never existed and never
will. Devised to bring about its own destruction –
Libertarianism

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

In real capitalism, the government has ZERO involvement in the
private market. Yet the Fed is buying trillions in government
bonds.

Lefty2

You are really confused, aren’t you! I real capitalism, THERE ARE
NO RULES! Capitalists exploit everything including the power of
government. What do you think the Fed is? Who founded the Fed? Whose
interests does the Fed serve?

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

The Commerce Clause was bastardized by progressives in Wickard v.
Filburn.
——-Because, you know, the government should be able to
tell us how much wheat we can grow…

And yes, there is a rule of capitalism: supply and demand. If you
don’t like a product, then don’t buy it. Companies/businesses rise and
fall on their own merit.

How do capitalists exploit? I have yet to see a company hold a gun
to someone’s head and demand they buy a certain product. (Except for
the government and Obamacare, of course.) And before you use the
“scary monopolies” talking point, let me remind you that monopolies
lead to further innovation and entrepreneurship. Remember the railroad
monopolies? Well that helped garner a market for alternatives, such as
motor vehicles. The free market destroyed the railroad monopolies. And
Pan Am, one of the greatest monopolies of all time. What happened to
them? Oh yea, the free market again defeated it! Their eventual
competition ended up pushing Pan Am out of business. (Rightfully).

Did Karl Marx exploit you into buying his books? Did Apple exploit
you by selling you an iPhone? Did Toyota exploit you into buying a
Prius? When you have a free market, there is no exploitation, because
there are always other options! Don’t like Apple? Buy an Android.
Don’t like Toyota? Buy a Honda.

The Fed was created in 1913. It was planned by Senator Nelson
Aldrich, and all the major power players of the banking industry,
including representatives for J.P. Morgan, National City Bank, the
Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc.
It serves the interest of big
government and crony capitalist bankers. How else could the government
spend billions more than it takes in? And how else could the big banks
get billion dollar taxpayer bailouts?

Your solution for everything is more and more government
regulation and intervention. The only people that win in this
situation are the government and the people/companies that they align
with.

You sound like a 19 year old college student who just discovered
Das Kapital. Your arguments are shallow, yet never fail to reveal your
true totalitarian, statist leanings.

Lefty2

You sound like a paid troll for the Koch Brothers. Once again, you
have no idea what you are talking about.. You know thing about
capitalism, nothing about, economics, nothing about public policy,
nothing about history. You are a second rate propagandist paid to
spread lies on the internet. That is what you are.

The commerce clause provides: “The Congress shall have power . . .
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes . . . .”
I defy you to cite a
single example where the Congress exceeded its authority under the
Commerce Clause that was not struck down by the USSC.
I can
understand why your capitalist paymasters consider any regulation on
commerce to be a bastardization. Capitalism is the exploitation of
everyone and everything at every opportunity. Regulation is a
limitation of the capitalist’s ability to exploit. And, greedy,
sociopathic capitalists, with limitless senses of entitlement, don’t
like being told what to do.
The Federal Reserve is a perfect
example of capitalist exploitation in which capitalist parasites bribe
elected government representatives to allow them to self regulate
which is, in fact, no regulation at all.
Crony capitalism is the
EPITOME of capitalism. Exploiting big government to protect capitalist
profits at the expense of public health, safety and welfare has been a
foundational pillar of capitalism since the beginning of human
civilization.
Finally, your solution for everything is the mythical
“free market,” the magic elixir that will cure what ales you. But,
there is no such thing as a free market. It doesn’t exist. Markets are
either regulated, or they are exploited and monopolized.

Libertarianism, a fraudulent label more accurately called corporate
feudalism. It is a historically demonstrable failure advocated by
capitalist parasites to dim witted conservatives who are stupid enough
to be made to believe anything. “Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it.” — Jorge Santayana

MaskedPatriotCorner

Psst..cupcake if no one told you. It was liberals or rather
democrats who created the federal bank reserve. Try as you must, going
around your justification for progressives as true defender of our née
great Republic is laughable. The founding fathers would have executed
them all today. Alone side many progressive GOP that are as
conservative as a used up bag of potato chips with
msg!

Lefty2

In other words, you know nothing about economics, history, politics
or the founding fathers, all of which makes you the epitome of a dim
witted, malinformed, conservative. And, your employment of strawmen
would be laughable if it weren’t so incompetent.

MaskedPatriotCorner

Ahhh, I hit a progressive communist nerve, the late progressive
POTUS Wilson must be feeling your pain….cupcake!

Lefty2

Yet more substanceless blather from the yapping, dim witted,
conservative, Chihuahua.

MaskedPatriotCorner

Don’t you feel foolish speaking with your face in the progressive
toilet bowl? Watch out for Obama’s floating
fece…cupcake.

Lefty2

Pea brain!

Harleigh

Then lets do it your way and cut all of the red states welfare that
gets back more than they put in! Real savings could be realized by
eliminating all red state welfare like socialist roads, snow removal,
bridges, tunnels, clean water and sewage treatment, and flood control.
All Medicaid, ACA HC, NIH, CDC involvement, food inspection, farm
subsidies, SNAP, FEMA and EPA should be eliminated in those states
along with money for fire, police and prison services and vaccines.
Most military installations in those states are total waste and need
to be closed or consolidated into the blue states. The biggest waste
of money in the red states is for education. While that spending has
been greatly lowered the remainder could go to the richest 1% allowing
all those 99% children to go work in factories or in warehouses or on
the poison laden farms. Praise jebus!

TKpeterGunn

As opposed to your version which is liberty for none (except the
party elite) Now , where have I seen that before….oh yes, the Soviet
Union!

Susie Sotar

You conveniently deny an accurate description of “classical loberal”
on the one hand and attempt to change the meaning of “Conservative” on
the other.
Conservatives aka Patriots were not loyal to the king. The
king represented big, tyrannical government. Today’s leftist liberals
continue to be loyal to big tyrannical government and continue to be
loyalists to it.
Conservatives and Patriots are still champions of
individual freedom and want nothing to do with your herd
mentality.

Lefty2

Conservatism is institutionalized stupidity, and you are the
epitome of a conservative. Consistent with your conservatism, you have
absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you can’t think for
yourself, and you parrot the stupidity spoon fed to you by the
neo-fascist, capitalist media. Further, your ignorance is exceeded
only by your hypocrisy.

The patriots were revolutionaries – liberals by definition.
Conservatives fear freedom because it is beyond their comprehension.
Conservatives were champions of noble feudalism in the dark ages,
supporters of the King in the American Revolution, and are champions
of capitalist feudalism in the post industrial age.

The false patriotism of conservatism is the manifestation of the
tribalism (herd mentality) that has always plagued dim witted
conservatism. Conservatism is doomed to be consumed by the same
evolution that they don’t “believe” in.

jayjay4142

Wrong!!! Please tell us why you conservatives are always in our
bedrooms and our VJJ’s.? Why are they making laws right and left to
discriminate against the LGBT people??? I even saw where one refused
to give medical attention to a baby who had same sex partners. Why is
it that the very states who walk around waving their flags saying they
are Christian and patriots? They are the same ones who get more in
federal aid than any of the other states… Why are they making laws to
take away a woman’s right to choose.? You pro-life people are such
hypocrites. The KKK down here still wear their hoods and march around
calling themselves a Christian group. You will starve a child after it
is born but kill to protect the fetus no matter what horrible
conditions happened to the Mother. You now call her a host and the
government has the rights to the fetus. You steal pensions from people
like Christi has done and many others . You steal SS from the elderly
and claim it is broke when all that needs to happen is to raise the
caps on those making over $108,000 a year.
Don’t give me this small
government BS. Anyone with half a brain cell can pick up a history
book and know that this country was not meant to be ruled by religious
dogma.

TKpeterGunn

A liberal is not open to change, they are open to changing anything
that consevatives support. When people first started pointing out that
gun control In D.C. not only didnt work but made things worse,
Liberal-open-to-change- Elenor Norton Holmes said, “Just because it
hasnt worked is no reaosn to get rid of it!” The Torrys were liberals,
they beleived in an all powererfull Govenrment and having their daily
lives ruled fomr cradle to grave, they were happy to grovel from King
George’s scraps. It was far more benificial to not seek freedom and keep
the peace and security The people who beleived in freedom, and self
determination took arms agaisn the king and belkieved a dangerous
Liberty was better tahn a peaceful slavery. Guess who THEY were? The
antecedents of today;s true libertarians (not the 420 knucklheads) Even
today Liberals want freedoms registered, licences and will surender any
power to the government to make this happen. Liberals would NEVER have
allowed the Americna Revolution if they could have stopped it. I think
it is outragous for liberals like you to suddenly think they were the
poineers of liberty an freedom in America. You were the one who opposed
it

jayjay4142

I am 74 years old and find it difficult to understand that we were
ruled by the government all of these years. Yes, the government played
a role in our history . Liberals have always fought for the rights of
all people. Not just a select few. At one time Republicans like
Eisenhower fought for these things also. But now that we are corporate
owned and the wealthy pay nothing in taxes we the working class have
to pay if we want any sort of infrastructure or fair wages for a
worker or not allow corporations to destroy the only planet we
have.

TKpeterGunn

Liberals now fight agasint the rights of the people. They are
against the rights to keep and bear arms (they CLAIM they are, and
then propse a laundry list of infingments) they are against freedom of
the press (citzens united, net nutrality, fairness doctrine etc.) and
many of their supporters of these restricitions are the very 1% they
claim to be against. Even “Occupy” is a corporation. In the election
before Obama, the republicans were attemtpting to put forth a black
candidate who propsed a consumption tax instead of an income tax. This
way, if you bought an $100,000 car, you paid more in taxes than they
guy who bought an $25,000 one. And if you were in the coutnry
illegally, you still paid your fair share like everyone else. But, no
one wanted THAT, instead we voted for free gifts from hopey changey.
In your 74 years you never read Atlas
Shrugged?

Billy Howell

Depends on your home area. It is MOST conservatives in
mine.

muttkat1 .

IRS Scandal Proven false? lol lol

samwolf78

Yes actually. It was proven that they didn’t single anyone out. That
Democrat and Republican groups were treated equally and the Obama
Administration had nothing to do with it.

Are you done now dumb ass? You can’t win because every single republican
talking point is full of holes. Accept defeat and go back to jerking off to
Bill O’Reilly.

muttkat1 .

Its gotten down to so called missing emails and some woman IRS employee
and is a scandal and yes that Lois……was being singled out.

Am I done? Well what I figured out is you would rather attack the
Republicans…Conservatives choice of things rather than the bad laws the
govt have been passing. I on the other hand, let the Senators know about
their shitty laws they want passed whether they’re Demos or Repubs. I let
the KK and whoever….voters know whats going on….do petitions….whatever.
Letting Homeland Insecurity, DOJ have it.

You have YET to come up with any credible reference as to anything
besides that piehole of yours besides….default…..and winning is all you’re
concerned about so pat yourself on the back for that one.

Its easier to be a punk rather to have debatable opinions done in the
proper form.

Being you don’t know much about political events as I do….It shows thru
you insulting everybody.

samwolf78

The only politics you know anything about are the ones fed to you by
republicans and FAUX NOISE. I wont do your homework for you. But I will
give you a hint. Politifact.

muttkat1
.

Wow I’m impressed and/or go figure.

Your not capable of doing you’re own homework.

and I dun’t watch fax news ether.

You’re giving Politifact a bad name, cause your not exactly a
chining example.

samwolf78

Perhaps you would like to come up with an actual legitimate source for your
information.

I noticed you still haven’t tried to contradict the fact that dear old
Daddy Koch was a Nazi.

And as for Daddy Koch changing his communist supporting stripes. A person
can call himself anything he wants it doesn’t change what he is. All the money
coming from the Kochs to the tea party is nazi and communist money.

Kyle Bradley

The President’s job is to enforce law not make law. It’s funny how
progressives complain about not being able to get a jobs bill passed,. Where
was all that concern in the first two years of Obama’s presidency at the
beginning of the never-ending recession? Oh, that’s right, they were shoving
Obamacare down everyone’s throat, never mind.

Billy Howell

Actually, measures had already been taken with the stimulus that were
showing signs of slowly working. I agree that they didn’t do enough in the
first two years, but to say that they did less than the Republicans have
done in the past four is laughable.

Kyle Bradley

Republicans control one half of one third of the government, attempting
to place blame on them for anything that’s happened during Obama’s failure
of a presidency is laughable. The Democrats won’t even consider republican
amendments to bills in the Senate then they say republicans refuse to
compromise, really? What’s their definition of compromise? Sit down shut
up and do what I tell you is not
compromise.

muttkat1 .

So if the Democrats know how to use logic, then why is it that you
don’t?

I know that you don’t have a special kind of logic……you don’t have any.

Would Castro, Red China, Egg Foo Young from North Koreas have the same
logic as Democrats?

muttkat1 .

Do you happen to read sammers dogs replies?

samwolf78

Democrats actually know how to use logic. Unlike you we don’t have a
special kind of logic. We use the same logic as the rest of the world.

muttkat1 .

So if the republican logic is the majority is always right then what is the
democratic logic?

TKpeterGunn

He needs to cut back because you might run out?

TKpeterGunn

Interesting, so when the founding fathers say something that goes against
the narrative, it was “a bunch of white christian 1%ers form hundreds of years
ago” and what they said and wrote back then has no bearing today…but you find
a couple of nuggets that seem to SUPPORT the narrative and now they are wise,
modern and relevant. Liberal as they knew it is not the same as what you are.
They would have known you as a “Tory” and put you aboard a ship at Yorktown
bound for England. If you had taken Western Civ and American History instead
of Woman’s studies and post American Multiculturalism, there would be
appropriate historical context which would render these quotes as no where
near as anti-conservative as you would like them to be.

muttkat1 .

Why don’t you liberals bash the NSA’s recording every phone call, text,
email…..instead of “Tea Partiers” all the time. Recording all that is not
OK!

Dave4088

Another smart ass libtard who has comprehension problems and lives in
mommy’s basement.

Obozo ordered the IRS to audit, harass and deny tea party and conservative
groups tax exempt status. Obozo continues to bypass Congress and unilaterally
amend Obozocare. Obozo is now threatening executive order amnesty if the House
Republicans don’t submit to his will. Obozo (and Holder) continue to ignore
laws they disagree with and broadly interpret laws they like. The President is
not vested with these powers but libtards are too brain dead and ideological
to understand this.

A dictator answers to nobody and acts as the supreme law giver. You’re
pretty ignorant to think that all dictators kill or imprison everyone who
disagrees with them although Obozo is slowly working up to
that.

muttkat1 .

Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given

moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only
the
pigs have guns, then it’s off to the concentration camps, the gas
chambers,
or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the
democratic
rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the
Constitution,
gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is
a greater right;
the right of human dignity that gives all men the
right to defend
themselves.”—-Huey P Newton

muttkat1 .

The most foolish mistake we could possibly
make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows
that all conquerors who have
allowed their subject races to carry arms
have prepared their own downfall
by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far
as to say that the supply of arms to
the underdogs is a sine qua non for
the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
let’s not have any native militia
or native police.——Adolph
Hitler

muttkat1 .

snopes has been busted

muttkat1 .

Not a dictator but a KING who thinks he can bypass
Congress.

samwolf78

Okay now look up the definition of King. It’s no different than dictator
except there ordained by a god. If he were a King he would have people like
you killed or imprisoned.

And by the way each time he bypassed Congress it was because Congress
refused to act on what needed to be done and gave no reason except pure
obstructionism. And Bush made far more Congress bypassing appointments than
Obama has even considered.

muttkat1 .

And by the way, the Constitution doesn’t say because the Congress
refused to act on what was needed………that its OK for the King to do
whatever the f…. he wants to do. Theres something called Checks and
Balances….levels of govt.

Really? How many did Bush do compared to the KK?

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

He hasn’t actually bypassed Congress. What he has done, the EO’s, is
solely about how enforcement of the laws are done. The Executive branch
has almost total control over that. So, issuing an EO to modify how a law
is enforced is not bypassing
Congress.

Calamity

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that
in this Land the light of truth
and reason has triumphed over the power
of bigotry and superstition…”

How sad he would be to see a full half of the country still blaming the
president for no other reason than he isn’t white!

Calamity

And global warming doesn’t exist, and Kennedy was killed by the Mafia and
aliens are trying to get into our brains.. Thank you Mutt. You can pick up
some nice parting gifts as you walk on out the door.

Calamity

You really need to learn what a fallacy is. Every argument you make is
based on a fallacy of one kind or another. Just deplorable what they teach in
schools anymore.

Calamity

Nice picture. Yours should have a swastika on the armband though, shouldn’t
it? I mean, force is your go to? Really? Just shoot someone? That all you got.
Violence and a slogan! Hey, Heil hitler was a good slogan. Here’s your
gun.

muttkat1 .

The Kenyan King has his secret kill list in which there is no court to
decide your fate. Then he sends drones to kill you but in the mean time any
kids nearby get taken out too. The govt doesn’t tend to let you know how
many innocent civilians died too….they just hit that one target.

Then the US govt can kidnap you, torture your children, you….kill
you…hold you indefinitely without trial, court, lawyer, without seeing your
family and you’ve got the audacity to state they should be wearing a
swastika armband? You Obama followers don’t know much.

What I put up above isn’t even all the crap that the DC Nazis can do or
do.

samwolf78

If all that is true how do I get you on the kill list?

muttkat1 .

IF? It is true.

Bow wow

samwolf78

So answer the question I want you at the top of the list.

muttkat1
.

Is it due to the fact that you are so ignorant of the Nazi laws
passed my liddle, twiddle chupeta baay bee. No comment on the
obviously more important things. No, Obama is a Marxist,
unconstitutional…..prez….and that he sucks…….

muttkat1
.

I forgot to mention is how little punks like you don’t know whats
going on in our govt and how ignorant and stupid you are but what can
you expect….You voted for Obama!

samwolf78

Let’s see here I will use some republican logic. I’m part of the
majority of Americans who voted for Obama. Using republican logic the
majority are always in the right. Since I’m part of the majority that
makes me, oh yes, right. So by default you have to be wrong.

Looks like your the one whose ignorant and stupid. But then we
already knew that.

muttkat1
.

Let me see here I will use some Nazi logic. The majority of the
German people voted for Adolph Hitler but probably not as many Jews
did. Using nazi logic the majority of the Germans were always IN THE
RIGHT, So that made the Germans, oh yes, right. So by default the Jews
were wrong.

Looks like you’re ( not your) the one who is ignorant and stupid.
But then we both already knew that.

Definition of a Democracy: Full Definition of DEMOCRACY 1 a :
government by the people; especially : rule of the MAJORITY b : a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and
…

Which is what you’re stating, but the problem lies in which you
don’t seem to have any awareness of is that the USA was formed as a
Republican form of govt

hat form of government in which the administration of affairs is
open to all the citizens. A political unit or “state,” independent of
its form of government.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or “public
thing,” refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct
their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a
ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in
character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was
ruled by an aristocratic elite.

In the U.S. historical tradition, the belief in republicanism
shaped the U.S. Revolution and Constitution. Before the revolution,
leaders developed many political theories to justify independence from
Great Britain. Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense (1776), called
for a representative government for the colonies and for a written
constitution. Paine rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to have a
part in government. This attack on the king was echoed the following
year in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson
proposed that colonists reject the monarchy and become republican
citizens. Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a
REPUBLICAN government.

Article IV, Section 4, states “The United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN FORM of Government….” Though
the language was vague, the authors of the Constitution clearly
intended to prevent the rise to power of either a monarchy or a
hereditary aristocracy. Article I, Section 9, states, “No Title of
Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” and most state
constitutions have similar provisions.

SO SLICK, if you weren’t so interested in bashing the Tea Party,
you might learn something on how the govt (the one you voted for) is
trying to destroy the Constitution in passing it’s Nazi laws but we
both know by your answers given that you are not
capable…….NEXT!

samwolf78

Oh no he called me slick whatever shall I do. You’re so stupid you
don’t even realize the Republican logic and nazi logic are exactly the
same therefore by default you’re a nazi.

As for the rest I’m not putting alot of faith in it. You fuckers
are constantly twisting the Constitution for your own ends.

As for that hereditary aristocracy you mentioned I see that all
over the republicant party and there corporate masters like the Koch
brothers.

Speaking of the Koch brothers. You know those hero’s of the tea
party. There descended directly from Nazis. There dad and his
associates were part of the American Nazi movement and also supported
Stalin the communist dictator who was responsible for over 40 million
Soviet deaths.

Care to try again little
boy.

Calamity

My dad always told me to never try to teach a pig to dance. It makes you
look stupid and annoys the pig! Muttkat- this dance lesson is
over.

muttkat1 .

“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the
pig.”—-Robert A Heinlein

Sorry Sweetie Pie, you done stuck your foot in your mouth and NO you
can’t give Daddy credit for that one.

I use that quote after you show proof to someone and they don’t
listen.

You didn’t teach me nothing to begin with. Over and
out!

Sam Graham

Incredible, you just got done jumping my ass for insulting
someone.

Calamity

Fascism is characterized by intolerance of women and minorities. An utter
disgust of labor or unions. It is hyper-patriotic. Coddles the wealthy as more
deserving and the working man as a cog in the machine, to be tossed out when
used up. Wars are never ending because they fuel the manufacturing industries
and enforce power over those conquered and those that create and build the
weapons. Sounds like the Republican Party for the last 30
years.

Calamity

Dave is a prime example of what is left in the GOP. Rants and raves about
things that don’t exist. Motivated by hate and anger, and never by ideas and
solutions.

Dave4088

I’m not a Republican, so I guess your liberal crystal ball failed
you.

WillVMI68

Did you people bother to read what you have listed here? Quoting Adams in
his self-admitted exaggeration to the Muslim Ambassador of Barbary Pirates who
had just that moment threatened that “while a war between Christian nations is
a civilized conflict, not so a war between a Christian Nation and an Islamic
one.”
Using the word “liberal” as if it had the same definition in 1790
that it has today, which is in fact totally backwards.
Words have meaning,
and their context affects that meaning.
All 10 of your quotes are either
Libertarian or Conservative concepts supported by the Founders.
And yet,
your Lemmings don’t seem to be aware of what the words actually
mean.

Surly Curmudgen

7. “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by
Founding Father John Adams
That was inserted after the signing by person or
persons unknown. From John Adams other writings that phrase is very unlike
him.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/08/back-by-popular-demand-what-is-three.html
DesertLion

What this article actually shows is how little you know about what you
think you are against. Of course, there is no such “party” as the TEA Party,
just millions of people who agree on some basic principles – that we are Taxed
Enough Already, that the government’s cozy relationship with the private
Federal Reserve Bank is unconstitutional (point 1), that facism – a government
direction of private corporations – is dangerous to a free people (point 2),
that individuals must elect representatives, not be appointed by anyone,
whether corporations (point 3) or other entities, that war should be avoided
at all costs (points 4 and 5) even though there are things worth fighting for
(Thomas Jefferson was the first to fight Islamic extremism – the Barbary
Pirates), that today’s definition of the word “liberal” (the government should
tax productive citizens and give liberally to those whose life choices have
condemned them to poverty) is diametrically opposed to the definition the
Founders used (live and let live – the government should not be dictating any
citizen’s behavior so long as it harms no other citizen, but must hold all
citizens accountable for any harm caused others) (point 6), that the new
government was not to be controlled by the Church (as it was in England), but
that the new Republic would only survive if its citizens lived under the
precepts of Christianity (the faith, not a religion or denomination, i.e.,
Church) (points 7-9), and that taxes are necessary to fund the essential
functions of government, but that government’s role is clearly defined and
limited by the boundaries set for it under the Constitution (point 10).
So,
no, nothing in that list makes this Constitutional Originalist’s head explode.
I suspect that would be true of most people whose beliefs about the
appropriate role of government align with the TEA Party. I’m certainly not a
“liberal” or “conservative” by today’s definitions, although I absolutely
believe in the Founder’s views of being liberal, letting people choose for
themselves what they will believe as long as they also accept the consequences
and don’t expect the government to steal from the public treasury to bail them
out. I also seek to conserve that for which the Founders gave their lives,
their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create. I expect that would mean
you’d think of me as a “conservative” and therefore evil. You’d be wrong on
both counts.
On the other hand, I suspect this will draw much ire from some
who have posted comments here already. More evidence that what passes for
“liberalism” today isn’t anything remotely related to what George Washington
was referring to.

Billy Howell

I find it cute when Tea Partiers or their defenders use the safe-to-print
explanation of the Tea Party. It all sounds so noble and principled. Then,
many, if not most, of the members and political leaders that identify with
the group open their mouths. I am not saying the Tea Party is the KKK when I
use this next hyperbole to make the point more obvious, but do you really
buy that the KKK was all about resisting the unfair treatment during the
Reconstruction Era? In the end, the people representing a group and their
mouthpieces define what it really means to the populace – not some pretty
slogan from a website.

Kyle Bradley

I think you all have conservatives confused with corporatists they’re not
the same thing. Barack Obama is a corporatist and he is most definitely not a
conservative or a libertarian. Libertarians and conservatives have a lot in
common like limiting the power of government and application of the law
equally among all concerned. We also believe the individual is his own best
authority and an informed individual is the best foundation of any society.
The founding Fathers also believed these things the thing is anyone can cherry
pick quotes from Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, etc., to make
whatever political point they want but when taken in context they were all
concerned with one thing the power of the individual to determine for himself
what is best.

Calamity

Right, that’s why we have had so many jobs bills come through. That’s why
America is plagued with tax incentives for the rich to invest and the Middle
Class has such low taxes. Because Conservatives have gone to such incredible
lengths to make our lives better…………….said no one ever!

Kyle Bradley

Ever hear of the Senate? You know the half of congress controlled by
(D)Harry Reid and the democrat majority where legislation goes to die?

Calamity

Blame. Really? Again with the blame. Do you never take
responsibility? No ideas. no help. Simply say No and blame someone else.
Kyle, Reread what you wrote and try to assume that someone from another
country is reading it for the first time. You sound petulant and
clueless. Come back with ” We have three jobs bills that will honestly
help America’s poor get back on their fett. They do this, then this,
then this. After that we should increase spending on education and start
reaching across the aisle……..! But all we ever get from the Right is.
Cut taxes for the rich. It’s Obama’s fault. What about Clinton. He’s
really to blame for …….! Hillary is ugly! You sound like idiots with
nothing but hate. No solutions. No love for America. Just more anger and
a desire to get back in power so you can do it all over
again!!

Kyle
Bradley

I’m not concerned with what people from other countries think about
the United States or libertarians and conservative principles. I don’t
believe they care to understand the United States founding principles
of personal responsibility, individual liberty or self reliance just
as progressives fail to grasp those concepts. That is also the reason
progressives believe that government is the solution to and not the
cause of the problem with the economy.

Billy
Howell

I never cease to be amazed at the ego that a dogmatic idealism,
religion, etc can provide.

Kyle
Bradley

This country was founded by and for people who believe in
individual liberty, personal responsibility, and self reliance. The
very idea that government should be the ultimate authority is contrary
to the principles on which the United States was founded. I’m also
amazed by progressives who think they are smart enough to make
decisions for 360 million individuals, imagine the ego derived from
that ideology. Imagine the ego of a president that wants to remake the
country by ignoring the constitutional framework of our government and
changing laws on a political whim because there’s an election
year.

muttkat1 .

…..and the Middle Class has such low taxes?” LOL LOL
LOL

terry mcclinton

Indeed most of this also shoves everything the Progressive’s squawk about.
You scream about corruption & Corporations ruling the USA & you’re
right in most instances. .but the hypocrisy should choke you out before you
even open your treasonous little mouths. Your president & his minions do
business w/ & for the same people you hate ( the Koch’s, your scapegoats
are a great example). These Republican led wars. .voted on by the Dem party..I
will go so far as saying at least Bush put it to vote..#kingstompyfoot has let
us all know that he’s gonna do what the FU*K HE wants to do regardless (Libya,
Syria, Egypt) so….. and my favorite. .the religious quotes.. I’m pretty much
agnostic but I love watching all of you who apparently believe that GOVT is
your god get your panties in a wad over it. Please continue w/ your futile
attempts to not look like hypocritical, power hungry as*holes..I need the
laughs..

Calamity

When you speak of treason, look to your leaders. You have the blood of
almost a million innocents on your hands for voting them in. America has
never in it’s history lied our way into a war with people that never
threatened us, or attacked us, just so we could steal their resources.
Terry- You have a lot of death on your hands. Keep you comments of treason
to yourself. You don’t represent anyone in America BUT the Koch’s and the
Cheney’s. If you want more of the same, get a gun and go kill innocents with
your own hands. Don’t hide at home and act sanctimonious.

muttkat1 .

You mean Obama is different from Bush?

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a
foolish idea acceptable only to the
doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be
almost identical, so that the
American people can “throw the rascals
out” at any election without
leading to any profound or extreme shifts
in policy.

– Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

Bill Clintons mentor, who also studied the
CFR

Guest

Libertarian here. Folks, I hate to break this to you, but MOST
Conservatives and Libertarians already know this stuff – and yes, we agree
with the Founders! We understand that corporations need to be regulated, that
all Americans have freedom of religion, that taxes are necessary and that war
is a thing to be avoided if possible.

Most Conservatives and Liberals agree on these fundamental principles, it’s
the SPECIFICS that that we disagree on. How MUCH taxes? How MANY regulations?
And for what reason?

Liberals, please do not kid yourselves that the Founders would take your
side in these matters- when the Founders use the term “liberal” in a positive
sense, they are using the OLD definition of the word liberal – as in LIBERTY-
as in freedom from a large, oppressive government. They are certainly not
speaking in support of the leviathan-sized welfare state that liberalism
represents today.

In fact, if Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were alive today and had
talk radio shows, Liberals would brand them as “reactionary, right wing
extremists” and accuse their limited government philosophies as being
“draconian” and “heartless.”

The American Revolution was indeed a “liberal” revolution of it’s time – a
revolution of LIBERTY that “liberated” us from Monarchy – but the the Founding
Fathers would almost certainly be considered Conservatives by TODAY’S
definition.

Calamity

Controlling taxes and corporations is not the same as abolishing taxes
and giving corporations welfare checks in the hundreds of billions. To have
a company in this country is an honor. It should be built of service and a
collaboration. We are now victims and, in some cases, slaves to these
companies. Conservatives are still trying to get them MORE tax breaks. MORE
welfare and MORE rights. That is nothing like what you describe. THAT IS
conservatism in America right now. Saying one thing and doing the
opposite.

pitdoug1998

There is NO SUCH THING as ‘corporate welfare’! EVERY penny of corporate
taxes is, and should be, passed onto the public. Only liberal twits, herd
animals can’t understand this VERY simple concept.

And this is a jewel sir: “THAT IS conservatism in America right now.
Saying one thing and doing the opposite.”

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your
health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” ~~ Barry

This phrase was repeated over two hundred times between the ‘campaign’
for Obombacare (100% partisan) and November 2012. We’re approaching
10,000,000 Americans who’ve lost their plan and their doctor(s).

Also Mr Calamity (hard to take anonymous cowards seriously, just
saying) I’d like to have you show us an example of an evil corporations
threatening you with threats of prison and violence that uses heavily
armed men and women to FORCE you to do ‘business’ with them. I can give
you the name of the largest on the planet, The United States Federal
gubmint………..

Also give us some examples of armed men and women with guns forcing you
into a Wal-Mart to buy the ginkgo-biloba that keeps you so obviously,
mentally sharp.

TKpeterGunn

shhhhhhh Don’t tell the Liberals that America is Corporation….. if
they find out the Joke is up!

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

What are you talking about?

TKpeterGunn

Go to your town line and look at the “welcome to” sign. Dollars to
Donuts under the name it says “incorporated” followed by the year.
Your town is a corporation. So is your state and your country. By the
way Occupy is also a corporation, (owned by an executive from Google
and Business consultant) but they don’t put THAT on a picket signs do
they?

Billy Howell

You are incorrect about corporate welfare not existing. The rest of
your response is either fact or debatable opinion, but unnecessary
subsidies and tax cuts to businesses who break profit records every
quarter has been deemed by the public to be called “corporate welfare.”
It is such a thing, and it should pee you off as much as any other
misuse of tax money.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Yet you support Obama, who absolutely LOVES corporate welfare, so
long as the companies fit his agenda.

According to CNN, in 2011, he gave over $24 BILLION just to “green”
energy companies alone. money DOT cnn DOT
com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/

And Obama, along with Bush, gave BILLIONS to the big banks, as well
as the auto companies.

You sound like a hypocrite when you rail against corporate welfare,
yet support progressives that do the EXACT SAME THING. And as an Obama
supporter, you probably also rail against Wall Street, oblivious to
the fact that Obama is a Wall Street darling. In fact, according to
POLITICO (2011), “The president has raised more money from Wall Street
through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account
than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked
in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial
services companies than all Republican candidates combined.” www DOT
politico DOT com/news/stories/1111/67770 DOT html

Without being a hypocrite, you simply CANNOT support Obama, and
stand against Wall Street cronyism. (They are one and the same.)

That’s why I’m a libertarian. I can follow my principles without
compromising them for any politician or political party. My political
philosophy: Don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff (including
money).

Billy
Howell

You didn’t read what I said clearly enough.

“unnecessary subsidies and tax cuts to businesses who break profit
records every quarter has been deemed by the public to be called
‘corporate welfare.'”

Notice the “businesses who break profit records every quarter” and
the use of the term “unnecessary.” The banks and auto companies were
given money in either handouts or loans to keep them from crashing.
Many of those green energy companies were getting loans as well. Free
money to a thriving oil company though? Who does that help?

On top of that, I am not against all tax break incentives. I just
don’t see the point in giving them to companies like Exxon unless they
actually have to use it on a specific venture and can’t pay for it
themselves.

I’m not even talking about Wall Street in this conversation, so I’m
not sure what brought that up other than your deep-seeded need to bash
the President over whatever you can fit into a conversation.

As far as your cute story about how you can follow your principles
simply by being libertarian, which is a political party too by the
way, I can follow mine as well. I don’t follow blindly. I just happen
to agree with the Democrats more often than not. I don’t instantly
support something just because they say it though. Sometimes I agree
with Republicans. More times I agree with Democrats. Sometimes I don’t
agree with either. For instance, I think both have implemented poor
ideas in the realm of education starting with NCLB and on. I have some
issues with the ACA that I wish someone would fix. You can think for
yourself and be connected to any party.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

You just further proved my point. I’ll clarify: corporate welfare
is any taxpayer money, or tax breaks, given to corporations,
regardless of their particular trade or interest. Money given to a
profitable oil company, and money given to a struggling green energy
company are BOTH corporate welfare. Same as money going to auto
companies to “save them”.

Government should not be giving taxpayer money to any
corporation/business that has not earned it. Ever. The only time
government should be giving money to a business is if government is
buying one of their products or services.

So are you FOR, or AGAINST the government giving taxpayer dollars
to corporations? Because basically you’re saying it’s ok in some
cases, but not when it’s to a company that earns big profits, like oil
companies.

Government giving money to ANYONE that has not earned it, is wrong
and is not in spirit with the Constitution.

The Father of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, would agree: “I
cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

(Notice he said on “objects of BENEVOLENCE”, meaning that even if
you think it is for a good cause, it is still wrong and
unconstitutional.)

Billy
Howell

I did no such. You cannot place my words into a different context
and validly reply. I stated earlier how I view the definition of
“corporate welfare.” With your definition, I would say that I am ok
with it when it serves the good of the public. However, with your
definition applied to public welfare, I guess I received it when I
took out student loans that I have faithfully been paying back for
seven years now. I don’t see how that’s welfare, but I don’t have to
since I’m abandoning my own ability to think for the sake of
argument.

As for your quote, the Constitution talks about laws that can be
passed by the Congress. If a federal law exists and does not conflict
with the Constitutionally-provided powers, then it is indirectly given
the power through the Constitution. Article 1 provides all that is
necessary to make a legal argument for welfare. Madison probably
wouldn’t approve though since he said what you pointed out due to his
fear that said acts would be taken beyond charity. What’s charity
though? Is it charity to help a business not collapse so that people
can keep jobs and their livelihood? It can still be
debated.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

Our country has given to the needy since long before its inception.
Take a look at any council (town or city) in either the colonial or US
history and you will find that they helped those who could not help
themselves.

In one town, in the 1600’s (I don’t remember where, I’m sorry),
there was a family (husband, wife + 4 children) who was destitute
because of the husband’s drinking. The council decided that the wife
was able, because she did not have toddlers who need to be watched
continuously, to do laundry. They took their laundry to her and paid
her in food and labor. They found apprenticeships for the children
(apprenticeships were expensive, btw) as they each came of age.

These kind of actions happened in every single town or city in
either the colonies or the US. And it continued on until now.

As the population increased, the way that this was handled changed,
because of that population increase. We, the US, have over 300 million
people that we need to address. Part-time Government is no longer
feasible, and has not been for a very long time.

There have been taxes for as long as there has been Government. Any
Government. To try to do away with them is simply unrealistic. Not
just tariffs, either. Property taxes have been in place since this
country was founded. Look it up.

Our Government, which has to do with our Federal responsibilities,
cannot run on nothing. Where we started having problems was with the
Reagan Administration. That was when our tax rates started changing.
Lowering taxes to a point where our Government slips deeper and deeper
into debt is not only not economically feasible it is stupid. As is
refusing to even consider raising taxes to help lower our
debt.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

“Take a look at any council (town or city) in either the colonial
or US history and you will find that they helped those who could not
help themselves.”

You are absolutely right. And local and state governments should
still be playing that role. It would cut down on most of the abuse in
the welfare system. It would also ensure that needy people don’t “slip
through the cracks”.

Our nation was founded with a focus on state and local governments
having the most interaction and impact with citizens’ lives. The Tenth
Amendment solidifies this.

“There have been taxes for as long as there has been Government.
Any Government.”

True. But in terms of our nation’s history, the income tax is a
newer concept. Before the income tax, most of our revenue came from
tariff duties on imports. There was a flat tariff of 25%. This is what
funded most of our government. Now, tariffs range from mostly free, to
about 6%. (The highest tariff is 37.5%, which is reserved for certain
textile products.) As of now, our tariff rates are historically low.
If we were to increase those to proper levels that are fair to US
manufacturers, we could get rid of or significantly lower the income
tax rate.

We were even able to pay off our national debt in 1830 under Andrew
Jackson, without any sort of direct taxes. (Property, income, etc.) It
was done via tariff duties.

Here’s what Jackson had to say about it:

“Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our
country is blessed with a general prosperity and our citizens exempted
from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of
the human family are obliged to bear…. How gratifying the effect of
presenting to the world the sublime spectacle of a Republic of more
than 12,000,000 happy people, in the fifty-fourth year of her
existence, after having passed through two protracted wars — one for
the acquisition and the other for the maintenance of liberty — free
from debt and all her immense resources unfettered!”

“Property taxes have been in place since this country was founded.
Look it up”

I have no problem with property taxes, as they fund my local
government, which I have a voice in and am very much a part of.

Our problem is not too little revenue. It is too much spending.
This year, our government is poised to collect $3 Trillion in revenue.
(Which is a record, by the way.) Yet they will spend nearly $4
trillion.

*********Even if our government were to tax *100%*, of income made
by people making over $114k/year, we would STILL have a budget
deficit. Meaning not only could we not pay down the national debt, but
we would still be adding to it! So how can raising taxes solve the
problem again? Would you not agree that the only solution is to curb
spending?********
(source: WSJ ; article: “Where the Tax Money
Is”)

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

“You read that right. Wall Street gave Obama more money than any
other politician IN HISTORY.”

No, the employee’s did, not the company’s. That makes a huge
difference.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Who do you think comprises Wall Street? PEOPLE. It is not some
superfluous, alien entity.
Why would all the Wall Street employees
give him so much money? Just because they’re so kind and generous? Or
maybe because they knew they’d benefit with him as president.

Obama’s Federal Reserve has been VERY generous to Wall
Street.

Lefty2

Obama is conservative.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

LMAO.
Obama may not be a progressive, but he is NOTa
conservative.
Conservative principles:
small government
free
market
individual liberty
personal responsibility
Obama
getting into bed with Wall Street and Corporations doesn’t make him a
conservative. It makes him a corporatist at best, and a national
socialist at worst. Conservatives despise corporate welfare and crony
capitalism.

Lefty2

At the top of my reply, it states: “Hold on, this is waiting to be
approved by Americans Against the Tea Party.”
I’m not sure what may
be objectionable about my post. I guess you may not have the benefit
of my response.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

“”If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your
health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.””

And the insurance companies decided to change this. It was not the
province of the Government. It was solely the province of the insurance
companies.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Actually the minimum coverage aspect was written into the law. Nice
try.

jkstraw

“using the OLD definition of the word liberal ”
——–
Like they use
the OLD definition of the word ‘militia’?

http://www.thelibertydefender.com
TheLibertyDefender

The left hijacked the term “liberal”. Liberal means an advocate for
liberty. They are today’s libertarians. The meaning of the Second
Amendment, including the term “militia”, has NOT changed, although you
progressives sure have tried.

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a
few politicians.”
– George Mason (The Virginia Declaration of Rights,
drafted by George Mason, was used as the basis for the Bill of Rights.
(Which includes the Second Amendment))

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for
the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence
than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson
That was easy.
Next?

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

“The left hijacked the term “liberal”. Liberal means an advocate
for liberty.”

Where did you get this idea?

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

From Princeton: “Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to
the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including
freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western
Europe, and the Americas.” (AATTP won’t let me post the link; search
the above quote if you want to see the page)

So when Washington referred to “liberals/liberalism”, THIS is what
he was talking about: small government, free markets, etc.

To get a better idea of how today’s liberals are nothing like real,
classical liberals, I’d recommend The Free Man’s Library by Henry
Hazlitt, written in 1956. Even in the 50’s he saw how the meaning of
the term “liberal” was being changed to suit statists and
authoritarians.

A quick internet search also would’ve shown you this:

“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas
of liberty and equality”. It is the very first line of the wiki page
for “liberalism”.

Hopper
McMahan

there’s no ‘limited government’ in the classical definition,
PATRIOT.

Hopper
McMahan

trust him, he’s the PATRIOT! ….or do you prefer THE LIBERTY
DEFENDER?

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Corporate welfare is not a conservative issue. It is a progressive
issue. (Including progressives republicans like GWB, John McCain, Boehner,
etc.) Obama absolutely LOVES his corporate welfare. According to CNN, in
2011, he gave over $24 BILLION just to “green” energy companies alone.
money DOT cnn DOT com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/

I am against ALL corporate welfare, including oil subsidies, farm
subsidies, warfare subsidies, etc. It sounds like you are only against
subsidies given by republicans. That, my friend, is called
“hypocrisy”.

HP McLovincraft

lie-bertarians

muttkat1 .

And the Obama voters as stupid and ignorant perhaps? They only seem to
know on bashing Christians or Conservatives cause they have guns or they’re
bigoted, must be Christians. You’d think they would be bashing the Nazi type
laws being passed by our Congress but no…..Lets bash Conservatives
instead.

Zachary Zarko

Instead of bashing people – why don’t Republicans use their time a bit
more wisely and try to find a qualified MODERATE who can garner enough
independent votes to win an election?

I’m an independent voter by the way. Since Republicans and Democrats
have roughly the same number of registered voters, independents like me
decide every election in the country.

I know you hate Obama, Democrats, and Liberals – and I couldn’t care
less. Put forth candidates who have real solutions to the nation’s
problems and who can relate to non-millionaires, and I guarantee they will
win.

muttkat1 .

Both parties bash. I voted independent also. I don’t hate Democrats
or Liberals otherwise I wouldn’t be friends with them.

I know what Obama stands for and its anything that is
unconstitutional, unAmerican, family values. He is for Agenda 21, global
govt. He thinks he’s King and can bypass Congress and do whatever he
wants + his Nazi type laws he passes. The American govt has never forced
its citizens to buy anything so what does he do? He sics the IRS on you.
Then he allows the NSA to record every everything and likes to blow
those taxpayer $$$$$$$. Then theres the NDAA….

There was a good candidate, Ron Paul but the media blacked him out.
Before that Ralph Nader who said “people come before money”. Theres too
many people who vote for the party and not the person.

Zachary
Zarko

Please do some unbiased research. If you look at Obama’s policies
and executive actions, he is a moderate conservative politician.

Even John McCain and other GOP leaders concede that Obama has not
violated the Constitution or done anything else to meet the criteria
necessary for impeachment.

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush’s popularity soared to more
than 90%. That is when Bush used executive orders to establish a huge
new government agency (the Homeland Security Agency) and the Patriot
Act – without any input from Congress or voters. The Patriot Act is
what allows the NSA to spy on Americans without probable cause and to
intercept communications without warrants.

By the time Bush left office, he had used more than 300 signing
statements to establish policies without the consent of Congress or
voters. So far, Obama has used 182 signing statements – and most of
those were to get work done in the face of record numbers of
Republican filibusters and congressional obstruction.

These are just facts. I am not defending Obama by any means. As an
independent voter, I usually support more Republicans and Independents
than Democrats.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

You said: Obama “is a moderate conservative politician.”

Truth: According to CNN, he had the most liberal voting record in
the Senate. politicalticker DOT blogs DOT cnn DOT
com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/

(I cannot fathom how anyone can call Obama a conservative
politician.)

You said: Bush implemented the PATRIOT Act, and spied on US
citizen. (This is true, and Bush violated the constitution by doing
this.)

Yet Obama has doubled down on the PATRIOT Act and NSA spying. He
approved its reauthorization. So you criticize Bush about this, yet
give Obama a free pass.

You have a problem with Bush issuing 300 signing statements, yet
excuse Obama because he has done fewer? Are you against signing
statements, or no? I am, and ANY signing statements are unacceptable,
regardless of the party of the president. Obama’s signing statements
are especially egregious considering that Obama said THIS about
signing statements in 2008: “We will not use signing statements to
nullify or undermine duly enacted law.”

Your statements indicate that you are nothing more than a simple
partisan. If Bush does something, you’re against it. If Obama does
something, you are for it, or at least excuse it. If you want to be a
partisan, that is your own choice. But it must be difficult to live
your life with zero principles. Open your eyes. Please. When the
government’s boot of tyranny is on your neck, it matters not whether
it is a red boot or a blue boot.

Zachary
Zarko

Why are you looking at his ancient voting record as a senator?

According to political tracking organization DW-NOMINATE:

We find that President Obama is the most ideologically moderate
Democratic president in the post-war period, with a first dimension
DW-NOMINATE Common Space score of -0.329. President Lyndon Johnson,
the second-most moderate Democratic president in this period, has a
score of -0.345. President Obama’s ideological position is estimated
from his “votes” (statements of support or opposition) on 282
congressional roll call votes. This amount is somewhat low; for
example, President George W. Bush “voted” 453 times during his last
term in office. However, it is adequate to recover his latent
ideological score.

muttkat1

Can you define a moderate conservative politician and a liberal
politician? Are there any more catagories besides king and a dictator?
Obama is more of a dictator with his secret kill lists and lack of
transparency and a liar quite often and Bush thought he was the
dictator too.

The DHS WAS DONE WITH AN EO. Patriot Act was voted on. the PA gets
renewed every year or 2. 99% of Congress passed the Patriot Act into
law without even having a chance to read it. They were only given like
an hour to read it. Ron Paul and perhaps a few others got to read it.
Cheney got up there and told Congress if they didn’t sign they would
get blamed if we got another attack.

The Patriot Act is just plain unconstitutional. The Constitution
states anything contrary to the Constitution is void…..Its not being
enforced.

Bush did about 280 EO AND HE DOESN’T NEED CONGRESSIONAL support for
Activities to promote personal fitness.

According to this video there are 13 impeachable offenses and
theres actually more.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-13-impeachable-offenses/

Zachary
Zarko

John Boehner, John McCain, and Paul Ryan have stated they have no
grounds to impeach Obama. The allegations in the video you posted are
all claims from Congressman Bob Beauprez, and if there was any truth
to them, the GOP would be gearing up for impeachment proceedings.
(There would be absolutely no reason NOT
to.)

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

” find a qualified MODERATE” ?? You mean like a Obama? Who is neither
qualified nor moderate? His qualifications, or lack thereof, speak for
themselves. (Unless you consider being a community organizer and working
for ACORN to be qualifications.)

And moderate? According to CNN, he had the most liberal voting record
in the Senate. politicalticker DOT blogs DOT cnn DOT
com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/

I find it amusing that you advocate a “moderate” republican, while
the democrats did the exact opposite.
I swear, hypocrisy and
progressivism are one and the same.

Zachary
Zarko

Can you stop bashing Obama long enough to even ponder the next
REPUBLICAN candidate for president?

You have a bad case of ODS – Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Who cares what the Democrats are doing?

Mitt Romney may have very well defeated Obama if he had been
allowed to run as a moderate conservative candidate instead of a far
right-wing conservative.

Independent voters decide EVERY national election in America. And
they despise far-left Liberals and far-right Conservatives. To improve
chances of election victories – it is logical and wise to put forth
moderates.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Are you joking? Romney IS a moderate. The GOP establishment will
NOT run a real conservative/libertarian, because the GOP does not have
those principles any longer. They care about power. And they need a
“moderate” (aka progressive) candidate that will not threaten the
power of big government. If anyone made the case that Romney was a
“far right-wing conservative”, it was the liberal media.
I only
brought up Obama because you seem to think that only “moderate”
candidates can win. That is clearly not the case, as Obama, who is
nowhere near being “moderate” won for the dems. (See the above
citation by a liberal news site, objectively noting that Obama was the
most liberal senator before he was elected
president.)

Billy
Howell

I have to agree with LibertyDefender that Romney was a moderate. He
had to lean more conservative to gain the more conservative base. He’s
much like McCain. He talks far more conservatively when election
season is upon us.

Peter
Gibson

Romney…. far right-wing….. conservative….. Jesus. I’m sorry but
that has to be the most ridiculously hilarious thing I’ve ever seen
written about Romney. Please tell us you’re joking.

That man is no more “right wing” than I am the prophet Muhammad. In
fact he’s as moderate as it gets. Good Lord, you lot really do make up
reality as you go along, huh.

infadelicious

dreams from my founding fathers……

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

This is just stupid. Why would you post it?

infadelicious

To make stupid people ask stupid questions

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Why are you shilling so hard for Obama? What has he done for you?
Are you a member of OFA or something?

Zachary
Zarko

That is my POINT. Romney IS a moderate. But he was not allowed to
RUN as a moderate.

Learn to read more carefully, and turn off your preconceived
notions of what people are trying to say.

You are so utterly closed-minded, it’s beyond
belief.

Peter
Gibson

Firstly, if I misunderstood I apologize, but your point still reads
as being all-but ridiculous. He wasn’t “allowed” to run as a moderate?
Christ man, Romney’s entire campaign was quintessentially moderate, in
that every position he took was basically an appeasement speech to the
sensibilities of moderates and Independents. Your citations however,
regarding Romney ‘campaigning for the 1%’, these examples are nothing
more than the DNC’s more successful character assassinations, slightly
reworded. They most certainly were not the platforms Romney stood on,
they were the broad strokes painted around him by morally repugnant
DNC campaign hitmen.

Obama won in 2008 because anyone with a pulse and a passport would
have beaten the GOP after the Bush years and a war-weary nation.
More-so even because the establishment GOP, in their infinite
stupidity, put McCain and Palin up in the batting order. McCain aside,
it wouldn’t have mattered in the least had Jesus Christ himself been
the GOP nominee in 2008, any Democrat would have beaten them.

Obama won again in 2012 based on a litany of – some would say –
criminal falsehoods, backed by a fully co-opted media machine. Romney
lost because he couldn’t lie as well as Obama. Hell, even had he
tried, the media was still far too enamored with their ridiculous
Golden Boy. In fact there are so many citations to list regarding
Obama’s 2012 disingenuous campaign lies now, in hindsight, all of
which utterly disprove your working theory that he won on his ability
to “relate” to moderates. He was able to LIE and COVER UP his first 4
years of ineptitude only. If anything, Romney was too “moderate”,
certainly too moral to press Obama when he had the chance. Full stop.

Appearing moderate has nothing to do with Obama’s winning either
time, and that you would suggest as much tells me your own objective
discernment is lacking, considering the mood of this nation in 2008,
and the all-but criminal politicking and manipulation by the DNC in
2012. He won plying skin color Liberalism and outright lies.

Furthermore, “moderate” political candidates, on many of our
pressing issues today, are exactly what will destroy this nation
fully, past 2016. Mark my words. Looking out for Mr. (or Mrs) Moderate
is exactly what has already turned our leadership into a Big
Government wasteland of cross-pollinating cronyism, special interests,
and a vastly more socialistic system than we’ve ever seen in our
entire history. Because those posing as moderates are notoriously
nothing but “Yes” men hiding a very radicalized ethos. These are the
useless malleable scumbags that ply moral relativism and merely pass
it off as moderation.

We’ll reap a whirlwind at this point if we set out to elect a
“moderate” after the sheer damage this last 6 years has done. I’d
submit to you that the “moderate” American leader is a myth in the
first place, and that myth is what radical cretins like Obama have
used successfully to con this nation into believing such pure,
unadulterated hype.

America has always been at it’s best when it stood for something.
In 2016, if there’s no one left willing to vote for the person
standing for something strongly and firmly, then sell the farm,
because we’re already done as a nation. If we are forced to suffer
another “let’s pander to everyone’s sensibilities and stand for
nothing” politician, then America is one, maybe two generations away
from splitting, and potential Balkanization.

Zachary
Zarko

Well written. I respect your opinion, but I don’t think America
will split up due to moderate leadership.

I feel that the biggest problem with our current government is
cognitive dissonance and a lack of teamwork and compromise. Elected
officials and voters from both ends of the political spectrum are
entrenched in their opinions and ideas. They only listen to broadcasts
or read materials that support their pre-existing ideas, and they
cannot tolerate anything less than 100% agreement from others. Anyone
who has a different opinion is summarily dismissed, belittled, and
berated. These types of closed-minded attitudes make everything a
wedge issue and have put a halt to progress.

Peter
Gibson

After reading that last “Right Wing Romney” laughable reply, I
think you’re being a bit generous in describing this as merely
progressive “hypocrisy”. It truly does bear all the hallmarks of a
delusional disorder.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

” His qualifications, or lack thereof, speak for themselves.
(Unless you
consider being a community organizer and working for
ACORN to be
qualifications.)”

Why do you outright ignore the fact that he was a Civil Rights
attorney and taught Constitutional Law for 12 years? Those are not
minor things to ignore, they are major.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

He was an associate professor. There are thousands of them. And
tell me ONE civil rights case that he won. And there are hundreds if
not thousands of civil rights attorneys.

What major business has he ran? What leadership experience does he
have?

If you think that that makes one qualified to be POTUS, then I have
some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell
you.

Kyle Bradley

You’re exactly right. Unfortunately most of the progressives on this site
haven’t read so much as the Federalist Papers let alone anything else that
was written by the founders therefore any attempt at educating them as to
founding principles is at best an exercise in futility.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Progressives also forget that the Constitution is an instrument that
has a sole purpose of LIMITING GOVERNMENT. The Constitution does not grant
or deny individual rights. It simply states the FEW and ENUMERATED powers
the government has.

Billy Howell

Even if I completely disregard that the first ten are called the Bill
of Rights, your way of saying it still means that the rights are then
implied through the restrictions placed on and powers given to the
government.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

I’m glad you brought that up. For the most part, Madison did not
want to create a Bill of Rights, specifically because he feared that
people would use the idea of a Bill of Rights to imply that the
Constitution grants rights to people, and forget about what the true
meaning of the Constitution, which was to list the enumerated powers
of the government. After all, the Constitution was designed to list
only the enumerated powers of the federal government. (It is much more
expedient to list what the
government CAN do, versus what the
government CANNOT do.)

Madison was concerned that the enumeration of certain rights could,
in the future, be used as an exclusive list of the rights of the
people. Madison’s worries about enumerating rights were demonstrated
in his inclusion of the Ninth Amendment, which read “The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people.”

Madison’s original Ninth Amendment, as proposed on
June 8, 1789:
“The exceptions here or else- where in the constitution, made in favor
of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the
just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to
enlarge the powers
delegated by the constitution; but either as
actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater
caution.”

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
TerriGeer

It doesn’t actually matter what the FF’s opinions were. If it’s
didn’t get into the Constitution, then it is not law.
Period.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Please stop commenting on a document that you clearly haven’t read
nor understand.

Tell me, where in the Constitution does it says what our rights
are? And please quote it.

www DOT archives DOT
gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Billy, since you did not reply to my last comment about the Bill of
Rights, maybe this one will be easier to understand:

Rights are not implied in the Constitution. Rights are God-given,
and inalienable. The Constitution’s purpose was to restrict government
by saying exact, specific powers the government has. It did not
mention individual rights at all. Madison and Jefferson intentionally
did not mention individual rights in the Constitution because it was
not designed to list/grant/enumerate individual rights. (Have you ever
read it?) The first mention of individual rights came within the Bill
of Rights, added to the Constitution YEARS after its implementation.
The environment that lead up to the addition of the Bill of Rights was
that of fear created by, among others, George Mason and Elbridge
Gerry. They simply wanted even more reassurance and protection of our
inalienable rights. The federalists viewed the Bill of Rights as a
“parchment barrier”, and feared it would do more harm than good by
creating a false assumption that all other, non-enumerated rights did
not exist, or were less significant than those enumerated.

James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, also feared that a Bill of Rights
would undermine the true meaning of the Constitution, which is the
theory that “congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit
implications, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument
of the union. Hence…everything which is not given is reserved.”
Therefore, the presence of a bill of rights “would have supposed that
we were throwing into the general government every power not expressly
reserved by the people.”

Further, Alexander Hamilton contended that a bill of rights “would
contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on
this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more
than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which
there is no power to do?” Meaning: OF COURSE government cannot take
away the right to bear arms, or the right to have a free press, or any
other rights, so why even bother listing certain rights?

In the end, the BoR was only passed in order to prevent a new
constitutional convention from being called.

Billy
Howell

Actually, I became busy at work. It has nothing to do with my
intellect or your claim of a lack thereof.

Thank you for the history lesson. I will fact check it at a later
date, but it is interesting.

In fact, I have read the Constitution. I understand your story of
how it was viewed to be a restriction of power on the government to a
certain set. The Bill of Rights was added no matter the history of
dissenters. The further restrictions on government imply rights
through simple logic whether it fits your cookie cutter or not. For
instance, saying the government cannot force me to provide quarters
for members of the military during peace time means I have the right
to refuse such requests. It’s that simple. Furthermore, the act of
amending it set a precedence for it to be a living document. It is as
valid with the amendments as it was without. So, your conversational
route of trying to diminish the Bill of Rights or any other amendment
is futile.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

I did not attempt to attack your intellect. When I said I would try
to make it easier to understand, I was being serious and literal,
because my last comment contained much information.

However, the Constitution is not just “viewed to be a restriction
of power on the government”… It IS a restriction on the government.
The Constitution is not a “living” document, but yes, it CAN be
amended: but solely to replace more restrictions on GOVERNMENT. (Yes,
it has been abused by certain amendments, such as the 18th
(prohibition), but that does not change the original intent and spirit
of the document.)

I did not fully understand the Constitution until I read the
Federalist Papers. And to get an even better understanding of it, I am
currently reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, written by Brutus, who
was the Anti’s answer to Publius.

Also, the Bill of Rights’ intentions become clearer after you
consider the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. (I also noticed
that it is not officially referred to as the “Bill of Rights”. It is
referred to as “further declaratory and restrictive clauses”, as in
restrictive of the government. Anyways, here are the Ninth and
Tenth:

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Madison felt safe adding the
Bill of Rights so long as these amendments were included. These were
meant to serve as safeguards against viewing the BofR as an inclusive
list, and also to remind us that the intention of the Constitution is
to “delegate powers to the United States”
government.

Billy
Howell

*Exclusive list

But I knew what you meant.

If a document can be changed/amended, it meets the single
requirement of a living document.

I will add the Federalist and Anti-Federalist to my book list.
There is still plenty I can learn.

Yes, Amendment 10 speaks to the laws that Article 1 talks of coming
out of Congress. It is part of my other response about
welfare.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

Actually, it goes both ways.

It limits the Government, while telling the Citizens their rights.
But is, also, says what rights the Government has.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

No, it does not tell the citizens their rights. It only limits the
government. In the original Constitution itself, is says nothing about
citizens’ rights. It only mentions the duties that government has.
Rights were mentioned only in the first ten amendments. The Ninth and
Tenth clearly show that this is not an exclusive list of rights, and
that the sole function of the Constitution is to “delegate” certain,
limited, enumerated “powers to the United States” government.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.

Kyle Bradley

Those facts are conveniently ignored by progressives. You’re too
generous in saying they forget. I think they either don’t know or don’t
care, likely both.

Hopper McMahan

you guys play role playing games RIGHT?

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

The Federalist Papers are not law. Period.

Just as today, there were more than just a few FF’s than those that
wrote anonymous opinion pieces that are listed in either the Federalist
Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

The Supreme Court has cited the Federalist Papers in 206
decisions.

Kyle Bradley

Why didn’t you just comment “I don’t get it”? The Federalist Papers
were the argument for the ratification of the constitution. The point of
the Federalist Papers was to assuage the concern

Kyle Bradley

The Federalist papers were the argument for the ratification of the
constitution. They served to educate and enlighten the people as to the
purpose and content of the constitution, the limitations of the federal
government and the reasoning behind the document. If you haven’t read
The Federalist Papers then you don’t have an understanding of the
mindset of the people who wrote and ratified the
constitution.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family
Terri Geer

I have read the Federalist Papers, as well as the Anti-Federalist
Papers. And they are both just as valid. The POINT is that they are
personal opinions and that they were not made into law. And they were
not made into law for good reasons. The majority of the writings in
both collections were printed anonymously.

Kyle
Bradley

Nobody ever intended for the federalist papers to be a governing
document they simply were the argument for ratification by
understanding the argument you understand the intent. Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the federalist papers and
were delegates to the constitutional convention, so, I think they had
a pretty good idea what they intended for the constitution, that’s why
it’s a good idea to have an understanding of what they wrote in its
entirety and in context unlike the ten quotes in this article which
have no context what so ever.

Hopper McMahan

liberals cain’t read! thanks Kyle

Emmy Dogg

too bad your leadership doesn’t think like that

William

If you’re right, why does NOT ONE Republican and/or Tea Party candidate
EVER advocate raising a tax, even to rebuild our infrastructure. You are
just wrong dear guest when you spout these untruths.

Herald Baldcock

First and foremost if the gov taxed everyone at 100% on their income it
doesn’t do anything to reduce government payouts and debt already
incurred. Have you ever looked at gov spending? EVERY DIME COLLECTED NOW
DOES NOTHING BUT PAY TOWARDS INTEREST OF B O R R O W E D MONEY!! AND line
these criminal pockets!! Jeez! wake up! 17 trillion of national debt, 85
trillion of unfunded liabilities.. do you even understand that? Go flush
and watch the terd swirling down. that’s where we are headed with this
corrupt gov..

smoochie

You should really stop pretending you know what you’re talking
about.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com TheLibertyDefender

Good post. As a libertarian, I agree 100% of the quotes listed above. I
have yet to find a quote by Madison, Jefferson, Jay, Washington, Franklin,
etc that I disagree with.

But since the progressives want to play this game, here are some Founding
Fathers’ quotes that absolutely decimate their entire political
platform:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents.” – James Madison (This would include almost
all government spending, especially all federal welfare, corporate
subsidies, etc.)

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good
to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them
out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the
poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer.” – Ben Franklin

Lefty2

You started off so well. And then, you took a sharp right turn to the
mythical land of Teabaggistan.

http://intoexploring.blogspot.com/ Lance
H

You beat me to it.

David Shaw Jr

Then why do conservatives fight so hard against regulating
corporations?

Ken Duerksen

Nice, shallow wordplay typical of Libertarians. “Liberal” at the time of
the Revolution, had to do with active participation in the Enlightenment,
which valued the progressive and objective pursuit of objective or
demonstrable knowledge through science or philosophy. In short, a
willingness to change ones’s opinions and positions based on empirical or
logical conclusions – in the face of hide-bound dogma and tradition. That is
also “Liberal” today.

Fossil Bob

If Jefferson had a talk radio show he would be telling us about the joy
of sex and impregnation of underage slaves. He would sound more moronic than
you.

jmtaylor700

Don’t fool yourselves libertarians, the Founders would not side with your
ilk

poster1a

The people often confuse the terms Liberal and Progressive they are not
one and the same.

Dave4088

For starters, none of the founders were ultra left wing/communist like
today’s Democrat party and so called liberals. Tell me any of our recent wars
that liberals collectively opposed? I agree with separation of church and
state, but that also means that liberals/left wingers shouldn’t impose their
beliefs and value systems on the rest of the nation when they have a
Congressional majority, a dictatorial president and/or through activist left
wing judges. Christian priests are no more fanatical and tyrannical than the
high priests of liberalism with their desire to control the thoughts and
behavior of every human being.

On taxes, Hamilton was referring to tariffs which was the primary revenue
stream for the federal government. He was NOT voicing support for crushing
income taxes to finance welfare, food stamps, medicaid, birth control and
everything else the left supports. Income taxes were anathema to the founders
and they weren’t introduced until 1913.

If liberals are so opposed to corporate power and wealth than why do they
accept donations from them and banking conglomerates in every election cycle?
Liberal is just a synonym for hypocrite.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

“For starters, none of the founders were ultra left wing/communist like
today’s Democrat party and so called liberals.”

For that matter, today’s liberals aren’t ultra left wing or communists
either.

” I agree with separation of church and state, but that also means
that
liberals/left wingers shouldn’t impose their beliefs and value
systems
on the rest of the nation when they have a Congressional
majority, a
dictatorial president and/or through activist left wing
judges.”

Are you saying that we have no right to tell you that you cannot
discriminate against people who’s beliefs are different from yours?

Property taxes have been around since the beginning of this country. Not
just tariff’s. Look it up.

Where, exactly, did you get the idea that liberals are against corporate
power and wealth?

Robert Kennedy

Once again you prove you have zero intelligence.

Pingback: 10 Founding Fathers’ Quotes to Make Conservatives’
Heads Explode | Worldwide Business Expansion()

samwolf78

I would love to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction?

Pingback: "conservative"-Heads; EXPLODING!!! - Defending The
Truth Political Forum()

CanResPub

And we should’ve remained being cruel to
conservatives.

Sam Graham

You wouldn’t recognized a fascist if one slapped the taste out of your
mouth.

Valk-Orion Yoder

Your right cause he stares one down everyday when he looks in the mirror
in the morning!

Robert Kennedy

All he needs to see a Fascist is a mirror.

terry mcclinton

Perfect reply from s Facist. God, you people are painfully
predictable.

Calamity

I wouldn’t bring God into this. You aren’t on very steady
ground.

Sam Graham

I understand. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they are a fascist.
Standard accusation from the dimwitted.

Calamity

Uhm, No! If they are Fascists, you call them Fascists. If they don’t
know what one is, you educate them and then correct them. You are simply
making an absurd comment and then using it as a stick beat a stranger.
What does that make you? Ya, more than a little dimwitted.

muttkat1 .

Use your daddy quote on em. That’ll show them.
lol

Sam Graham

Um, no, I’m done explaining the difference between political
ideologies to people on the internet. That person has no interest in
being educated or hearing the truth. How curious you would berate me for
insulting someone and promptly do it
yourself.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

Or liberal, communist, socialist or marxist. In any event, the labels
and name calling are childish.

http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family TerriGeer

Or a liberal.

muttkat1 .

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government.—Edward Abbey

kaijoli

He was not a founding father! I guess that’s what Timothy McVie thought
when he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma. He was not a patriot. He
was a murderer. Please try and reread what the founding fathers
said.

Calamity

and a paranoid moron should have had a check done before he got the gun.
– Mark Smith

David J. Gill

You need to rise above putting labels on ideas for anyone to understand any
insight you have to offer.

Robert Kennedy

Sigh. More proof of the illegitimacy of conservative thought. Remember that
the conservatives supported and fought for the British and as such should
never have a say in what we do. And if the shoe were on the other foot, they
would probably try to actually do that to liberals. They hate anyone with good
ideas since all of theirs are bad.

Savante Artemis Robello

DAMN RIGHT WHAT YOU SAID

David J. Gill

I basically agree, but I don’t think you can label a conservative on the
American scene today as the same as a British loyalist Colonial American
during the Revolution.

kaijoli

Conservatives today are worse

terry mcclinton

No…its the way they are perceived and the media’s pornographic love
for anything treasonous that y’all buy like cheap shores on a Sunday
night. You are fighting the same monster fools…

Calamity

beeble beeble? Terry, think it through. Rewrite it and try again.
nothing you wrote makes any sense! I’ll give you your first clue.
“Y’all” is to be spoken, only! never written. It’s not a word. It’s a
Southern contraction. As such it is a colloquialism. When writing in
public forums, try to write as if your English teacher were reading
over your shoulder. Writing like you do makes you sound like you might
have your trailer blown away by a tornado at any
second.

Jax
Rabbit

I’d much rather see “y’all” written than your idiotic, asinine
final sentence.

Derek
Nelson

In a world where “bootylicious” and “twerk” exist in a printed
dictionary, y’all is the least of your worries. That said, y’all is
also in the dictionary as it is not vernacular pertaining to just one
area (vernacular, like colloquialism, means a common language used in
small subsets of society where words differ depending upon context).
People from all over North America say y’all. I bet you don’t believe
ain’t is a word, either. As a contraction of am not, and also being in
the dictionary, it is indeed a word as well. My, my, all these things
you’re learning today! Tomorrow we’ll cover politics. I’d recommend a
dose of humble pie.

Billy
Howell

I disagree. If “twerk” is in the dictionary, then – by Bob –
“y’all” should be too! I commend her on using the proper spelling as
well. I cringe when I see people spell it
“ya’ll.”

Valk-Orion Yoder

Yes you can for it is the base mentality of keeping the status quo that
motivated the conservatives to support the crown. Just as today its the
loss of the status quo that animates the conservatives against marriage
equality, contraceptives, et al.

David J. Gill

Yes, good point. But the Republican is more insidious that merely
opposing change. I bet you would agree.
It’s awkward to equate
conservatives today with royalists. I don’t think Republican’s are
disloyal to the nation. I say that despite the fact that they make
outrageous accusations that liberals are
disloyal.

Robert Kennedy

True to a point. The reference was to the fact that they have always
worked against the good of the country.

Calamity

I would content that the discussion you are all having sounds like
intelligent people having a respectful dialogue. While in Politico and
Fox it sounds much like this. “When they say this, you say that. If
there’s a question, refer to Fox news and listen to the leadership of
Karl Rove. Don’t go making up your own stuff. Stick with what we tell ya
to say. It’s a more powerful, unified message. Now,m make your checks
out to…….”.

http://www.thelibertydefender.com
TheLibertyDefender

Are you kidding me?
It is easy to cherry-pick quotes that you think
support your position, but history says otherwise. Further, when Washington
and the Founders refer to “liberals”, they are referring to classical
liberals, NOT modern-day liberals. Classical liberals, as in that time
period, were libertarians. (LIBERal =LIBERTY). Every one of their positions
on government and liberty supports this.

Your Hamilton quote on taxes is taken out of context. (As noted below by
the NUMEROUS quotes about taxes/welfare.) The Founders did NOT advocate an
income tax. A majority of the revenue they believed government was
authorized to collect came form tariff duties on imports. (Which
progressives have essentially whittled away with free trade agreements, such
as NAFTA implemented under Clinton.)

Your quote about corporations and banks is not used in the correct
context. When the Founders mentioned “banks”, they were referring to central
banks. (ie the Federal Reserve, as created by progressive hero Woodrow
Wilson.)

Regarding your quotes on war: real conservatives/libertarians are NOT
advocates of war. Bush’s wars were BS, but Bush was NOT a conservative, so I
digress. However, must I remind you that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and
Harry Reid voted for the Iraq War? My views on war would be called
isolationist, like Rand Paul’s. Do you progressives support Obama’s drone
wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia? Do you think they’re any better,
because only foreigners are killed? (vs a ground war where both sides lose
life.)

As far as the quotes on religion, I agree. Religion should not be used as
a basis for law. (Gay marriage should be legal in all states.)

The following quotes will show that a vast majority of modern progressive
policies and views on government go against everything the Founders believed
in. (including progressive republicans like Bush, McCain, Graham, Boehner,
Cochran, etc.)

On the right to keep and bear arms, and the militia:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials.” -George Mason (the Bill of Rights was based on his
draft of the Virginia Bill of Rights)

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the
injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in
their right to keep and bear their PRIVATE arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in
Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms. ” — Samuel Adams

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how
to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

(I could go on, but I think you get the point: the people should be
armed, and the militia is EVERYONE; not the National Guard, as you
progressives allege.)
———————————————–
On welfare and income
taxes:

“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that
of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or
whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate
arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one
of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by
it.’”
-Thomas Jefferson

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good
to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them
out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the
poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for
themselves, and became richer.” – Ben Franklin

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
herald the end of the republic.” -Ben Franklin

——————————
On trusting government, and believing that government can
solve our problems:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a
troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be
left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington
—————————————
On
equality and rights:

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You
have to catch it yourself.” -Ben Franklin

————————

On the size and scope of laws: (Obamacare and ever other hundred page
law)

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men
of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” -James Madison

———————————

On moral relativism:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution
indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” –
George Washington
—————————
On public debt:

“We are bound to defray expenses within our own time, and are
unauthorized to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves
morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life
[expectancy] of the majority.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public
debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence,
we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such
debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our
comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the
government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of
caring for them, they will be happy.”
– Thomas
Jefferson
———————————-
On central banks (Federal Reserve):

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that
has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be
taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly
belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson

—————————————–

On “multiculturalism”, diversity, and the importance of speaking one
language:

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has
been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a
people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language,
professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government,
very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels,
arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war,
have nobly established general liberty and independence.” -John Jay in
Federalist No. 2
——————–

CONNECT WITH AATTP

NEW ON AATTP:

Breitbart,
Limbaugh, and Fox News All Fell for That Hoax Story About Harry Reid Getting
Beat Up
April 26,
2015

CBS
Host SLAMS Tony Perkins as Leader of ‘Anti-Gay Hate Group’, says ‘You Don’t
Speak For Christians’
April
26, 2015

Fox
Priest Says It’s ‘Hard to Trust’ an Atheist as President Because They’re not
Afraid of Hell
April 26,
2015

President
Obama Tells Press Corps He Has ‘Something That Rhymes With Bucket
List’
April 26,
2015

Dog
the Bounty Hunter Announces He’s Ready for Clinton; Fox ‘News’ Experiences
Full Meltdown
April 26,
2015

Watch:
Swedish Police Officers Vacationing in New York Show the NYPD how to do
Effective Policing
April
25, 2015

Bill
Nye and Obama Slam Climate Change Deniers and the ‘I’m Not a Scientist’ Excuse
(Video)
April 25,
2015

Will
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder Join GOP Clown Posse in 2016 Presidential
Bid?
April 25,
2015

Insane
Teabagger Michele Bachmann: Obama Will Cause the Biblical End
Times
April 25,
2015

In
the ‘Guns Everywhere’ State of Georgia: Man Guns Down Entire Family,
Self
April 25,
2015

TRENDING ON AATTP:

Dog the Bounty Hunter Announces He's Ready for Clinton;
Fox 'News' Experiences Full Meltdown

Watch: Swedish Police Officers Vacationing in New York
Show the NYPD how to do Effective Policing

Bill Nye and Obama Slam Climate Change Deniers and the
'I'm Not a Scientist' Excuse (Video)

Fox Priest Says It's 'Hard to Trust' an Atheist as
President Because They're not Afraid of Hell

Watch This Totally Unhinged Tea Partier Rant About
'Liberal F*cking F*ggots' Who Can 'Drop F*cking Dead' (Video)

In the 'Guns Everywhere' State of Georgia: Man Guns Down
Entire Family, Self

10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives'
Heads Explode

20 Jesus Quotes That You NEVER Hear a Right-Wing
'Christian' Repeat -- EVER!

Insane Teabagger Michele Bachmann: Obama Will Cause the
Biblical End Times

New Texas Open Carry Law has a Convicted Felon and
ISIS-Supporter Very Excited

Join AATTP on
Facebook!

ABOUT AATTP

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea
Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist
fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process.

We support freedom and equal rights for all Americans, income equality and
closing the gap between ultra-rich and poor. We believe that a strong vibrant
middle-class is essential to a thriving economy and that the American People
should come first in terms of policy and legislation -- especially the young,
elderly, weak, sick, vulnerable, marginalized, and exploited.

And with your help, we are organizing to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on
ballots everywhere!

MORE INFO

ABOUT US

CONTACT US

SHOP AATTP

PRIVACY POLICY

WORK FOR
AATTP

AATTP Archives

Select Month
April 2015  (110)
March 2015  (167)
February 2015  (160)
January 2015  (173)
December 2014  (207)
November 2014  (277)
October 2014  (373)
September 2014  (484)
August 2014  (685)
July 2014  (736) June
2014  (609) May 2014
(496) April 2014
(742) March 2014
(660) February 2014
(397) January 2014
(456) December 2013
(452) November 2013
(503) October 2013
(570) September 2013
(328) August 2013
(191) July 2013
(181) June 2013
(162) May 2013
(179) April 2013
(155) March 2013
(147) February 2013
(126) January 2013
(152) December 2012
(84)

News in Pictures

Americans Against the Tea Party © Copyright 2014 All
Rights Reserved

Scroll To Top