GOLDWATER AND THE CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS.

[Lock Piatt]

Barry Goldwater believed that the Constitution meant what it said and did not need to be revised reviewed or changed. He supported low taxes and a strong defence. He also railed about the thought police in our bedrooms and schools where to quote him "They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."

He fought wasteful spending because it was our money not the governments. Progressive taxes were wrong and not allowed in the Constitution. All taxes and levies must be as to population or equally divided equally amongst the citizens based on a head count. There are many ways the Forefathers tried to protect the citizens from wealth removal from citizens for government purposes.

These unfair actions started the Goldwater conservative movement that carried the country through the Reagan Presidency. Goldwater was the father of the party not Reagan.

[Larry Puckette]

United States Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its juridiction the equal protection of the laws.
-------------------------
- this clause says 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its juridiction the equal protection of the laws.' This usage of the word person instead of citizen I think has significant effect.

I read relevence to several current events in this.
.health bill -- whatever becomes law for the citizens will constitutionally have to apply to 'any person'. We are constitutionally obligated? So, omitting illegals from universal health care is unconstitutional??
. The states are not allowed to subvert the constitution any more than the federal level is. -- so, the sheriff in Arizona has to provide due process to every illegal he arrests-deportation without due process is unconstitutional??
. as much as I have always felt that our Constitutional rights were not automatic to non-citizens, I may have been mistaken. The usage of 'any person' makes it clear that constitutional rights are applicable to all within our borders??

[Marlene H. Klim]

I cannot agree though can see wherefrom you are coming.

Try and get anything like that in any other country on the planet. If you are not a citizen, you are a visitor AND YOU ARE A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY FROM WHENCE YOU CAME. Dual citizenship is a no no.

[Marlene H. Klim]

Equal protection of the laws doesn't have anything to do with health insurance. Equal protection of the laws means exactly that. If a person is arrested, innocent til proven guilty, if unable to pay for legal representation, atty is provided. It neither says, nor implies, that 'person or persons' are entitled to universal health care. What you are saying, in effect, would be that any person within our borders is a citizen of our country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our forefathers would be holding another tea party at even that suggestion.

[Larry Puckette]

I'm glad somebody is discussing this Marlene, ty. you know my bias is on your side - but I feel compelled to discuss the literal interpretation and it's effect.

you say - "It neither says, nor implies, that 'person or persons' are entitled to universal health care." and I totally agree. The Constitution doesn't allow for UHC for citizens either, so it should be a mute point because UHC should never become law. But if it does, then does that clause say all within our borders are entitled to it,because it is now federal law?? I surely hope not, but can see how the letigious world can take it there - and win.

So - there's 2 things that 'should be'.
.no UHC period for obvious constitutional reasons. it's just not allowed - and definitely not within natural law freedom concepts.
.illegal aliens should not be here in mass, presenting such problems should UHC become law. the federal level's few real responsibilities include keeping them out and intent to do so would result in so few illegals being here that it wouldn't be a financial threat to cover them. (with the horrible assumption that UHC becomes law)

I can see how our founders would have seen natural law/natural rights applying to everyone within our borders. It was these rights that the clause refers to, I understand. But under the guise of federally granted rights - rights have become written law rather than God given. In this written law rights concept - 'every person' has its impact. So - I guess my unspoken point is that in knowing about this clause's possible impact we have reason to reject future compromises in trying to pass UHC. There is reason to doubt that the Constitution allows UHC to omitt illegals-no matter what slimey politicians promise us out loud.

[Larry Puckette]

As always, when conservative insurgencies fall short, as happened with Doug Hoffman’s monthlong quest to win in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the establishments of both national parties fail to comprehend the meaning of it all.

Forget that Hoffman was a neophyte or that he was badly outspent by his Democratic opponent or that the national Republican establishment forked over $1 million to the most liberal candidate in the race, Dede Scozzafava, or that Hoffman was viciously attacked by her and that same Republican Party establishment. His race was nonetheless a victory for populist conservatism, disgusted with the “insiderism” and corruption of both political parties.

Republicans, meanwhile, are high-fiving themselves over their wins in Virginia and New Jersey. But in both cases, voters were faced with the choice of two parties they have come to loathe. Last year, the nation picked Barack Obama because he wasn’t George W. Bush, and this time, voters chose Republicans not because of them but in spite of them.

These GOP apparatchiks are whistling past what could be their own graveyard.

A message has been sent, but if the reaction of former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis — a self-described “moderate” — is any guide, then the Republican house is still not answering its front door, instead wishing conservative populists would go around to the back entrance.

On the Wednesday after the election, Davis appeared on Laura Ingraham’s national radio show and proceeded to brand the tea party protesters, conservative activists and those sickened by the behaviors of the governing elites as “unsophisticated.”

Ingraham, as a Reaganite, has as good a finger as anyone (and better than most) on the pulse of the people of this country and was aghast at Davis’s dismissive comments.

From experience and observation, it is the commentariat, it is the intelligentsia, and it is the “beautiful people” of Washington, Los Angeles and New York who are the unsophisticated, who are the anti-intellectuals, who are the ill-mannered and who are the rude.

Money, celebrity and access are no substitute for common sense, timeless values and decency.

Only among this group came the cocktail approbation when President Obama claimed that he inherited a huge deficit and the only way to shrink it was to grow it. The beautiful people all cooed while the rest of the country scratched its head and said, “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Of course, the “common-sense people” have been proven right.

Obama (and the Republicans) are sailing into dangerous waters. The GOP continues to be dense about the populist anger out there, not just at the überelitist Obama playing George to the clueless GOP, aka Lennie. Of men and mice, indeed.

Under Obama’s policies, he is reorganizing the Democratic Party into the elitist coalition, representing Big Government, big bankers, big Wall Street, big universities, big Hollywood — all protected under the mantra of “too big to fail.” However, the mantra for the rest of America is “If it is too big, then it should fail.”

They know what the elitists refuse to understand. “Bigness” inevitably leads to corruption. Bigness inevitably leads to a diminution of personal freedoms. The rules that the rest of America abides by, whether paying taxes or not using cell phones while driving, are not followed by the elites. Indeed, at the elitists’ core is a fervent belief of themselves as somehow better — or at least more privileged — than the “little people.” They are getting the shaft while the elites are riding the elevator.

Ronald Reagan as early as 1977 took it to the tattered remains of the GOP, calling for a “New Republican Party” that was not the party of the country clubs and the corporate boardrooms but, rather, of the “individual” and not of the “group.” In order to win, the party needed to reach out to the men and women of Main Street — to the cop, the homemaker, the religious leader, the shopkeeper.

The GOP has a simple choice: Continue to be the party of “Big Government Republicanism” and of Bushism, or be the party of freedom, of the individual, of a community of shared values — and a party of the future.

Craig Shirley is the author of the newly released “Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America,” the first comprehensive story of the 1980 presidential election. His firm, Shirley & Banister, was retained by Doug Hoffman to organize his national media efforts.

[Marlene H. Klim]

Has anyone taken notice that the Bushes visited Ft. Hood last night WITHOUT ANY FANFARE OR PUBLICITY.

The HIP HOP, on the other hand, have announced they will take time out from their heavy party and golf schedules to visit four (4) days later amid as much hoopla as they can rally.
Similarly announced that NObama just got around to making his FIRST visit to Walter Reed Hospital ONLY A YEAR AFTER the so called election. THE ONLY MILITARY HOSPITAL VISITED BY THE MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO DATE IS THE ONE IN GERMANY.

Does anyone see any parallels with his failure to support the troops and the request for more troop support?

I have to agree with an e-mail read this AM, it read, 20 JANUARY 2013, THE END OF AN ERROR.

[Larry Puckette]

i guess my answer supports your point
no, I hadn't noticed that Bush had visited Ft. Hood.

[Lock Piatt]

Bush always went in to visit the troops without the press. It is becoming apparent that he was a strong quiet leader that did what he thought was the right thing to do given the situation. He could make the hard decisions unlike BHO.

Well Pelosi and the Socialist have won the first battle 220 to 215. Get ready to take out Ciro Rodriquez in San Antonio Texas, pick the target in your home areas because these are weak politicians that follow like sheep. 2010 must be a sea of change or the country is in real trouble which could lead to real revolution as more people in the middle class fall into the category of POOR. Many businesses will close reducing our choices and competition. This could be the worst thing that has passed a house of Congress in the history of America.

[I'm Back]

Larry, Lock, Marlene,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/george-w-bush-secretly-v...

The Man has class.

Obongo? He's still trying to make a deciscion on Afghanistan, and he certainly doesn't want to visit American troops in Ft. Hood who were blatantly attacked by one of his Militant Moocha Muslim Minions.

[Marlene H. Klim]

One has character, the other is a character.

More and more people are ready to revolt. I've heard a few vow that the nonAmerican sitting in the White House will not succeed in tearing down this country. People are awakening and the 'sleeping giant' is ticked.

On the jobs, 8500 jobs from Johnston and Johnson, inNJ ready to be let go. Merck is taking over Schering Plough, they are planning huge cutbacks as well (more than J&J). Yet the airheads keep on printing and spending, spending and printing. The credit card has almost totally melted and they continue.

Bama lama ding dong just make his first visit to a military hospital since the election. His only other visit, you might remember, was a much reported visit to Landstuhl to 'demonstrate' to potential voters what a great potus he would be.

Bush and OTHERS went quietly and without fanfare to attempt to help/ support the injured and their families within 2 days. Bama lama dipstick has to have the hoopla to take the time out of his partying and golfing to do something he CLEARLY DOESN'T WANT TO DO ANYWAY.

AMERICANS what were you thinking? DID YOU THINK AT ALL?

Almost ONE YEAR IN and this phony has yet to even THINK of anything that would help the economy OR ANYTHING ELSE. Supporting soldiers in 2 contingencies cannot be done by voting present. FAILURE TO DO ANYTHING IS NOTHING SHORT OF FAILURE.

Bama lama ding dong's ratings:

Economy FAILURE

Commander in Chief FAILURE

Political support for cohorts FAILURE

Maintaining the value of the dollar FAILURE

Campaign for 2012 FAILURE TO A HIGHER DEGREE THAN CARTER

[Larry Puckette]

flip the house movement has some legs-they're going after pretty well everybody. right now i can't remember the criteria-but it's something like 'if you have voted socialist once,we are coming after YOU,party affiliation be damned.'

bawney MUST go.. referring back to a previous chat- i see a little sick irony in the fact that FDA allows FRANKS ingredients to include rat turds.

[Marlene H. Klim]

Anybody that sits around with their fingers up the butt banking on 'Gram" being right on the DOA verdict and/or cap and tax is being a fool. If you don't want them, STAND UP, GO TO THE TEA PARTIES, GET ON THE PHONE, CALL TV AND RADIO TALK SHOWS because the b-stards aren't confined to the House. The Senate needs big reminders that they will be voted out of office for screwing the taxpayers over again on either issue.