“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal.
If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative.
If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate.
If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
~ Joseph Sobran (1946- ) American Journalist
The obstructionist, extremist big-spenders in Washington today continue to block measures for the United States to live within its means. The extreme spenders in Washington continue to believe that they know better than you what to do with your money. The power-hungry extremists are willing to spend the United States off a cliff by spending irresponsibly in order to buy your votes with your money. This puts the power-hungry politicians in a position of control over you by control of the purse. Instead of Freedom and Liberty, the extremists prefer power – their power over you.
Instead of a compromise that involves freedom, the power-hungry extreme spenders want more control over you and your family. No compromise on spending with them, just foot-dragging and blaming others for 4 years (2006-2010) of Democrat Controlled Congressional spending.
Will the extremist Democrat obstructionist compromise and let the United States live within its means? Or will the extreme spenders insist on their own power-grabbing schemes until it is too late for the programs they claim to support (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)?
“the president would use an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature [on the renewed Patriot Act]. ” the White House said.
Article 1, Section 7 of the United States says: “If he approve he shall sign it…” regarding the “Legislative Process”. Clearly the Constitution intends the President to sign a bill, not have a machine sign Bills. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Yet another example where expediency has trumped the Constitution. Opinions to the contrary are useful to mask the issue and create confusion. The Constitution is clear here and treating it otherwise is disingenuous at best, and treasonous at worst.
This discussion is ignoring the problems with the Patriot Act itself.
Update 5/28: The rational that the President “authorized” it means that ANYONE could sign bills for the President if he “authorized” it. A dog’s muddy footprint would work if it was authorized presumably. What exactly is required to “authorize”? A verbal statement – what about someone faking his voice? A wink – or was that a twitch? Something signed – oh wait, that is what we’re talking about?
The signature of the President IS the authorization for a Bill and it makes no sense to authorize the authorization. Just stating that makes it obvious how crazy the entire idea is.
As an attorney, all the legal memorandums that have been rolled out trying to justify the action are nothing more than ex post facto attempts to justify the autopen.
When President Obama comes home, he should sign the Bill in person and never use the autopen again. The use of the autopen is a farce.
The signature of the President IS the authorization for a Bill and it makes no sense to authorize the authorization.
“…we are working on [gun control] … under the radar.” – President Obama, March 30, 2011
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): “With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.” May 12, 2011
Why you should never talk to the police:
Austerity for government means prosperity for people due to freedom.
When characterize more freedom for people as race to bottom it says a lot about your morality. None of it good.