we the people need to take the supreme court judges and reacquaint them with such colonial niceties as "tar and feathering " and riding out of town "on a rail " ..the odious bloodsuking class ..ie LAWYERS in the bottom crawling larva stage ,sometimes morph into the dangerously self important "robas despictibus " or "MOTHRA " the destroyer of civilizations ...
please note there are virtually NO lawyers in japan .
@N330AA Then change it through the amendment process. That's in there too which is why women can vote, we don't have slavery, and unfortunately have income tax.
@N330AA Why, it's almost as if the Left wants to throw the Constitution out - the only difference being that some are better at hiding their intentions than others, with some of the "better liars" using canned tripe like "living document" to support unconstitutional bullcrap (while claiming otherwise) while others just come right out and say it. (Numerous examples can be provided.)
@canofsand Are you stalking me? My country doesn't have a constitution and it has not caused it any problems - common sense prevails. It suffers from the same problems any other country has, idiots who pay fuck all tax vote for parties that will give them more of somebody else's money. And no, i am not a leftist.
@N330AA Oh yes, I'm "stalking" you, cuz there's no other reasonable explanation for my replying to you on a whole TWO different videos... both of which feature the same person.
"common sense prevails"
I doubt it. What country are you in/from? You aren't ruled by "common sense." You're ruled by politicians, as all countries are, only you have nothing to point to when they get out of line. Do you even understand the purpose of the U.S. Constitution? Of separation of powers? Limited govt?
@canofsand I'm from the UK. The US seems to share our problems at the minute. A constitution has not prevented us gaining a cost effective healthcare system and having sensible gun control though. The only area we have a problem in my opinion is that there is little written down about the relationship and rights of the 4 constituent countries.
@N330AA Ahahaha! You think the UK's healthcare system is cost effective? More importantly, do you think it's effective in any other sense given the unending horrors reported about your horrible system day after day? You think being stripped of rights is "sensible" gun control? You've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about, and to top it all off, you live under a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Get a clue. Several of them.
@N330AA (Note: Constitutional Monarchy doesn't necessarily mean you've got a written, unified constitution; in fact, the UK doesn't - it's got a hodgepodge mess. This allows your politicians to oppress the people, which they do whether the dimwits who elect them realize it or not. (more)
@N330AA (continued) You could counter that the U.S.'s politicians are out of control, too, but the root problem is Progressivism - people who want to twist the Constitution to mean whatever they want instead of what it PLAINLY says, so the fact remains that if they were ACTUALLY following the Constitution, they WOULDN'T be nearly so bad whereas YOU don't even HAVE a Constitution to point to.)
@canofsand I said earlier that both countries have the same problems and that is lefties just voting in the party that will give them more money they didn't earn. Thankfully the Conservatives are back in power here.
I would like to add to that ideally one day, health care could be completely private here, that's when the costs come right down so it is affordable. Until i see an example of a better run system which is privately funded i'd be inclined to stick with the current one we have though.
@canofsand If you're suggesting that our modern day politicians are intimidating your bureaucratic politicians into doing things that aren't right. But yet beneficial to us as Americans. Well, you're half right...in that we do have bureaucratic politicians who are hell bent on getting THEIR way. These are the very politicians we're trying to get rid of. Namely, Harry Reid, Obama, Poloci, and the list goes on.
@canofsand Ignore the horror stories, they are not representative of the norm and there are plenty of horror stories from the US too. Britain pays half of what the US does on health care per person and yet we have a 2 year greater life expectancy. The trend is similar in most of western Europe and other developed countries like Austalia. The US's system is a staggeringly cost ineffective system - that's not even up for debate.
@N330AA Life expectancy does not mean you have a better medical care system.
We AMericans are naturally going to be lower since we our Obese. We dont really care about our health. We dont take care of ourselves like jogging or eating healthy foods.
Go compare the cancer survival rate of Britain to the United States. Ours is higher. That is proof of a better medical care system.
Now should the cost be lower? Sure why not. Have a free market.
@superlucci I'm aware cancer survival is very good in the US. Cancer is just one thing like LE so it's no point rejected one and choosing the other though. In general the UK system is ranked slightly better all things considered (too long to explain). Either way, if you're paying twice as much, you'd hope for significantly better really wouldn't. From what i have read though a lot of poor regulations in the US make it's health care not exactly free market.
@canofsand And yes a few more annoying statistics for you to absorb. In the US the murder rate is 5 times (That's right, 5 times) of what it is in the UK and most of Western Europe. No one's saying ban guns outright in the US (and they're not banned in the UK btw). But can you really sit there and say your gun laws are fine, whilst at the same time the country has a murder rate way way ahead of any other developed country in the world?
As talking with the left is like talking with a brick, lets see if the american right is more clever or if it just the same thing and now that it came out on the open that their "power" is built upon borrowed money.
You are aware that what is causing the deficit is not welfare but the useless bases on useless countries wasting useless budget, right?
That even if you cut the military budget by half you would still be 3.5 times bigger than the second military in the world, right?
@theawesomebeliever You've got to be kidding. You're using the SIZE of the military to say that what's causing the deficit is the military budget instead of, oh, I don't know, the ACTUAL figures that factor into the deficit? But no, you couldn't possibly do that, as it wouldn't support your specious argument! You can cut the military ENTIRELY and it wouldn't fix things. Entitlements DWARF other spending! Clearly you're an intellectually dishonest agenda pusher.
@canofsand When you call me all this bullshit (and you know it is bullshit) and simply lie your ass off you make a conversation about the issue impossible. (and it is an issue, as the american economy is, in a language you can understand: fucked fuck fuckety fucked)
Do you know how much the american military spends? 660 billion! (and rising)
You cannot afford it! Broke!
It does not dwarf other spendings, dont be ridiculous.I want proof of what you are writing or admit I am right.
"As this chart illustrates, completely eliminating vital defense spending would still not solve the entitlement spending problem. [chart at URL] And, as this second chart illustrates, entitlement debt dwarfs other spending. [another chart]"
Now crawl back under your rock, vulgar little troll.
@theawesomebeliever It's like talking to a wall, with you. I provided FACTS that you CANNOT counter. CANNOT. So you don't even try. You just repeat the same old nonsense as if nothing - no charts, no data - was ever cited to you. You're hopeless. And then you characterize my position as "bending over to Obama and big government"? Sheer idiocy.
The Constitution finds its strength in its ability to conform to interpretation of generations. Our Foundation is dedicated to placing the Constitution and Bill of Rights in every school in America. We need your support. The American Constitution Spirit Foundation's, National Constitution Plaque Initiative. at plaqueinitiative . org .
I choose a return to the law, as do those who wrote "A Declaration to Restore Our Constitutional Republic" Sent to all members of Congress and calling patriots and veterans and all who have taken the oath to
read it, sign it and do what it instructs us to do. It may be found on the veteran defenders org site. with veteran and defenders as all one word.
The "general welfare" clause is actually more of a summation of the enumerated powers. Congress would be acting in the general welfare by carrying out its enumerated powers. Things like highways are to be left up to the states and localities.
I remember how disgusted I was when I took con law in law school and I saw how those idiots on the Supreme Court parsed these clauses. I wish my con law prof taught the way you do it.
@DoctorTopper Get involved in politics at your local precinct level in the party that comes closest to matching your views. Get involved with political campaigns (donate your money time and reputation) to help get people who believe as you do elected to office at the local level. Do this for the state level also. Hold these people accountable. Eventually, they'll run for Congress.
I call it Electoral Revolution from the Grass Roots Up.
VERY NICE SHOW GUY " YOU HAVE A NICE LOOK ABOUT YOU AND VERY GOOD VOICE BUT " YOUR SHOW NOT BECOME THAT BIG EVER " WHY YOU SAY ? IT'S 100% ONE SIDED BUT GOOD JOB ANYWAY "
The one problem I have with this is how he says conservatives view the Constitution as the law, implying they think of it as absolute law in all cases. Things like the Patriot act have things that violate the Constitution, but still enjoy popular support among conservatives, which says to me they're just as guilty of saying "special circumstances" apply here. Same goes for fighting wars that are not declared by Congress.
@GlassAgate If we assume marriage to be a right. Then this is how it works.
Straight people have the right to marry somebody of the opp sex.
Straight people do not have the right to marry somebody of the same sex.
Gay people have the right to marry somebody of the opp sex.
Gay people do not have the right to marry somebody of the same sex.
So this is not a case of 1 group of people having a right that another group doesnt have, this is 1 group using their right more often than another group is
@GlassAgate Once again, you can start a union, but dont think you get any rights because you are now a collective body. All it does is to try and enforce contracts.
Bargaining simply means that, bargaining. Using your freedom of speech to try and persuade the other person to get what you want. Collective bargaining simply means that somebody is speaking for your collective, it doesnt mean you get any extra rights. Its just enforced by contract.
@superlucci This would be defined as free commerce and protected. If I want to pay for an organization to bargain on my behalf that is my right. By the same token the payment is for the service provided not for political contributions on my behalf for candidates I do not support.
@GlassAgate Freedom of worship is freedom of speech. If you deny somebody the freedom to worship a religion, you are denying them freedom of speech.
Whether you think it should be protected or not matters not, because its in the Constitution, and whether we like it or not, it will stay.
If your boss fires you over Religion, then he is losing out in his self interest, because he was going to hire you for the cost benefit, but now religion steps in and makes him not earn the most he can
@GlassAgate Im not saying Christians should either, not sure where your going with this. Marriage is marriage, whether you think it derived from a specific location or not doesnt change the principle.
Gay marriage was never in this country until recently, its not like it was banned, it was just never done before. But yes, now we have totally enforced it, as we should.
Its impossible to actually prove somebody was fired over a particular thought, its only thought controllers who try that
@GlassAgate Actually marriage is historically a religious sacrament that the federal government should not have authority to regulate in any way. The government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. A contract of civil union would suffice as the government's only role in this matter. If you want the church's blessing conform to their doctrine.
@superlucci FINALLY someone who gets the point. I've been saying that since the first passed Proposition 8. A lesbian woman has the same right as any other American woman, to marry any man of her choosing. And vice-versa. Yet they call it equal rights. That is a right that I simply do NOT want to have personally. Thanks for your comment.
He's right. The government has broken many tenents of the social compact - including corporate welfare with GE and Google, bank bailouts with Bush and Paulson, crony capitalism with Solyndra, and Obamacare which has over a thousand exemptions but none for ordinary citizens. Flush and start over.
@IzzySpeaks Not in so many words, no. But he did talk about the injustice of taking from one group of people to provide help for a limited group of others - one method of which is corporate welfare. Maybe if you opened your ears, you wouldn't look so stupid.
@somercet1 No, they aren't. Libs are usually in what I call the "Chris Matthews" state of conversation - snide remarks and eyerolling looks, talking over others, and generally shoving their fake, useless college degrees in your face. Conservatives like Bill Whittle would rather use facts and discuss issues calmly and reasonably - things libs know and have very little experience with.
Bill, they're not going to leave their nice, comfy, wealth-gathering chairs by themselves. Much as I'd like to believe it, it's never happened in history, and it's not going to happen in the future.
Bill Whittle is THE MAN. It is time to put a bullet in some of the assholes on the Supreme COurt, including the tw dikes that Obama appointed. They are not Americans.
liberals lie, we will do ourselves a favor if we recognize this right off the bat when talking with one, they are lairs and only care about power, no morality
"The People" as used in the Constitution, means the people of the states RESPECTIVELY-- not COLLECTIVELY.
That means that the people of INDIVIDUAL states can pass laws through plebiscite; but there is no provision for a majority of state-citizens to pass FEDERAL laws, since the US is not a nation.
Likewise, the people of each state RATIFIED the Constitution via their respective sovereign power, but did not RELINQUISH that sovereignty; on the contrary, they only DELEGATED power to governments.
Bill Whittle inadvertently skirts the truth when he says that the Constitution mentions "national defense." It doesn't.
On the contrary, the Constitution mentions the COMMON defense, because each state is a separate nation under the Constitution, and that's how they were to ENFORCE the Constitution against the federal goverment-- i.e the states were nations, NOT the Union, and thus they could simply OVERRULE federal law.
So until this once again becomes common knowledge, we're screwed.
@SovereignStatesman Wow ... again, you're obviously either a troll or one of Obama's daughters banging away on the keyboard. Are you really saying that the "common" defense doesn't mean a "national" defense?? Seriously????
And if each state is a separate nation according to you, then why are states suing the federal government over Obamacare, instead of simply saying they won't enforce it as law? Why do states not refuse to send troops from their territory when the nation goes to war? Please use your brain for something more than a hat rack.
@SovereignStatesman So ..... this is all some sort of marketing ploy - instead of you just simply giving at least one example, I have to waste time watching your work? No thanks, I'd rather use my time positively, like watching the World Series.
When you get some passion to defend your points, let me know.
@SovereignStatesman Oh, nice! When you don't have facts, reply like a "sovereignstatesman"! Well, here's a FACT: "Examples, please?" See - that's called a direct quote, meaning that I DID ask for at least ONE example. So, we'll pray for the college your degree came from, as well. Now ... will we see defense of points, or no?
@SovereignStatesman You think conservatives are the only pols who do that? Look at the specifics of the first bailout -- it's infested with nothing with pork. Who put that in place? - a DEMOCRATIC President and a DEMOCRATIC Congress. You need to study some more.
Actually interstate highways do benefit some people and not others. Else I'd have to ask: through which state should the government built an interstate highway and how many? Should each state have the same number of interstate highways or should it depend on geographical extend, population density and/or difficulty of terrain? How many lanes should each interstate have? Should they be lighted? etc...
You say that progressives tend to interpret the General Welfare Clause as a blank check. But the same is true with the Interstate Commerce Clause. We need a principled approach to this issue. Either we have an absolute separation of state and economics, with no loopholes and no exceptions, or we don't. Allowing the federal government to be active in any form of infrastructural activity is the most obvious loophole and blatant blank check to widen its power and authority in all directions.
@PhilosophyAtWork We don't need a principled approach on its' face - we need to decide, as citizens, whether we're going to vote for people who have read and know what the Constitution means and says, or not ... and who will abide by it as law. Period.
@PhilosophyAtWork Doesn't matter - "Sovereign" thinks that states are nations in and of themselves, so those questions are all moot. Of course, he (or she), like Obama, is a fake Constitutional scholar, so .......
This guy doesn't have a clue. There is no "we the people" of the United States as a single group, because the US was never a single nation. Each STATE is a single nation, and the phrase "we the people" refers the states BEFORE they ratified the Constitution-- i.e. RESPECTIVELY.
@SovereignStatesman Well, obviously Bill Whittle was talking about someone exactly like you when he talked about five Supremes who say a sentence doesn't mean what it says -- if there is NO "we the People," then WHO fought in the Revolutionary War? Who selected leaders to convene a Constitutional Convention? "We the People" existed before that phrase was written!!!!
Are you wholly ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was RATIFIED by the Peoples of the states RESPECTIVELY, not as a single group?
Seems so.
I''ve already referred to you my informational channel-video; but it seems you're too far up your own ass to be troubled to come out and actually lift a finger to learn something.
So I just have to bid you to piss off, arrogant fuck.
@SovereignStatesman LOL Not very good in business, are you? If you want me to check out your "informational" videos, then please know your stuff. Be able to defend your stuff from contrary points of view. Otherwise, you'll turn into ..... someone who defends themselves by asking people to watch a video.
By the way, read Article 7 of the Constitution, if you want to really learn the mechanism by which it came into being. Who knows - maybe you can make a video out if it somehow.
Respond to this video... The Constitution doesn't CHANGE anything you've said -- it completely disowns what you've said. Here's a clue -- read and study the Constitution based on what it SAYS, not what you THINK it means. Base your points on THAT, and we'll talk. If you don't, keep on walkin' down the road, pal.
@SovereignStatesman you mean "we the people of the united states of america"? you mean the people that ratified the constitution thus giving weight to the phrase "we the people" yeah that people represents the the citizens not the states. you should actually use logic
>>"you mean "we the people of the united states of america"? you mean the people that ratified the constitution thus giving weight to the phrase "we the people"
Keep chasin' your tail, puppy-dog; hope you catch it someday.
The compromise clowns and "independents" will call at every corner not to block judges appointed by a marxist president while only complaining that the progressives block any conservative judge. Then they will call every right-wing judge a phony because he doesn't judge perfectly, while ignoring the really crazy judges. So the Supreme Court will be last entity taken back.
That's the Paulista legacy. Reagan was a fascist big-spending neocon to them, while Carter and clinton are ignored.
I don't have enough fingers and toes for the number of times I've heard the "general welfare" argument shot back at me as a reason we need welfare programs. It's almost as bad as their interpretation of the first amendments part about "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to mean "separation of church and state." It's sad and predictable and liberals seem to think it's fact.
I swear, the Living Constitution idiots seem to operate by the logic that every action is justified or can be regulated by dictate of the butterfly effect - which of course will always benefit the general welfare in the case of the former.
@AnEducation They ARE being manipulated - the OWS is a means to get Obama re-elected again, that's all. It is a plan that's 180 degrees opposite of what the Tea Party stands for ... and Obama knows it. That's why OWS doesn't have to worry about permits to "occupy," while the Tea Party gets them legally to assemble. Plus, we clean up afterwards.
Most Conservative Presidents have ignored the Constitution just as much as most White House Democrats (though not FDR, Johnson or Obama) - the difference is that when you challenged Dubya on a Constitutional matter, he would be embarrassed and evasive about it, not brazen.
@SeatBill The Patriot Act, to begin with. Even if you ignore realpolitik shenanigans (which, either way, are despicable and/or dumb), Panama and Iraq are just as unconstitutional as anything Bill Clinton did (though at least they did bother with Congress's input a little bit. Yeah, Obama is revolting.) The War on Drugs. Faith-based initiatives. Reagan not actually cutting into the bureaucracy. Nary a peep about how federal enforcement chapters shouldn't exist. Pork outside the enumerated powers.
Bill, if you want to return to constitutional government, there is only one candidate to vote for in the upcoming election: Ron Paul.
All other candidates are invested in the status quo corrupt government.
HumbleWillis 1 month ago
we the people need to take the supreme court judges and reacquaint them with such colonial niceties as "tar and feathering " and riding out of town "on a rail " ..the odious bloodsuking class ..ie LAWYERS in the bottom crawling larva stage ,sometimes morph into the dangerously self important "robas despictibus " or "MOTHRA " the destroyer of civilizations ...
please note there are virtually NO lawyers in japan .
woodenmajor 2 months ago
Amazing video Bill.
Puglous 2 months ago 4
Maybe "General Welfare" was badly worded then. It's as if a 200+ year old document can't fully keep up with the ever changing world we live in.
N330AA 2 months ago
@N330AA Then change it through the amendment process. That's in there too which is why women can vote, we don't have slavery, and unfortunately have income tax.
65ronanderson 2 months ago 5
@N330AA Why, it's almost as if the Left wants to throw the Constitution out - the only difference being that some are better at hiding their intentions than others, with some of the "better liars" using canned tripe like "living document" to support unconstitutional bullcrap (while claiming otherwise) while others just come right out and say it. (Numerous examples can be provided.)
canofsand 2 months ago
@canofsand Are you stalking me? My country doesn't have a constitution and it has not caused it any problems - common sense prevails. It suffers from the same problems any other country has, idiots who pay fuck all tax vote for parties that will give them more of somebody else's money. And no, i am not a leftist.
N330AA 2 months ago
@N330AA Oh yes, I'm "stalking" you, cuz there's no other reasonable explanation for my replying to you on a whole TWO different videos... both of which feature the same person.
"common sense prevails"
I doubt it. What country are you in/from? You aren't ruled by "common sense." You're ruled by politicians, as all countries are, only you have nothing to point to when they get out of line. Do you even understand the purpose of the U.S. Constitution? Of separation of powers? Limited govt?
canofsand 2 months ago 2
@canofsand I'm from the UK. The US seems to share our problems at the minute. A constitution has not prevented us gaining a cost effective healthcare system and having sensible gun control though. The only area we have a problem in my opinion is that there is little written down about the relationship and rights of the 4 constituent countries.
N330AA 2 months ago
@N330AA Ahahaha! You think the UK's healthcare system is cost effective? More importantly, do you think it's effective in any other sense given the unending horrors reported about your horrible system day after day? You think being stripped of rights is "sensible" gun control? You've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about, and to top it all off, you live under a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Get a clue. Several of them.
canofsand 1 month ago
@N330AA (Note: Constitutional Monarchy doesn't necessarily mean you've got a written, unified constitution; in fact, the UK doesn't - it's got a hodgepodge mess. This allows your politicians to oppress the people, which they do whether the dimwits who elect them realize it or not. (more)
canofsand 1 month ago
@N330AA (continued) You could counter that the U.S.'s politicians are out of control, too, but the root problem is Progressivism - people who want to twist the Constitution to mean whatever they want instead of what it PLAINLY says, so the fact remains that if they were ACTUALLY following the Constitution, they WOULDN'T be nearly so bad whereas YOU don't even HAVE a Constitution to point to.)
canofsand 1 month ago
@canofsand I said earlier that both countries have the same problems and that is lefties just voting in the party that will give them more money they didn't earn. Thankfully the Conservatives are back in power here.
I would like to add to that ideally one day, health care could be completely private here, that's when the costs come right down so it is affordable. Until i see an example of a better run system which is privately funded i'd be inclined to stick with the current one we have though.
N330AA 1 month ago
@canofsand If you're suggesting that our modern day politicians are intimidating your bureaucratic politicians into doing things that aren't right. But yet beneficial to us as Americans. Well, you're half right...in that we do have bureaucratic politicians who are hell bent on getting THEIR way. These are the very politicians we're trying to get rid of. Namely, Harry Reid, Obama, Poloci, and the list goes on.
realworldbycj 1 month ago
@canofsand Ignore the horror stories, they are not representative of the norm and there are plenty of horror stories from the US too. Britain pays half of what the US does on health care per person and yet we have a 2 year greater life expectancy. The trend is similar in most of western Europe and other developed countries like Austalia. The US's system is a staggeringly cost ineffective system - that's not even up for debate.
N330AA 1 month ago
@N330AA Life expectancy does not mean you have a better medical care system.
We AMericans are naturally going to be lower since we our Obese. We dont really care about our health. We dont take care of ourselves like jogging or eating healthy foods.
Go compare the cancer survival rate of Britain to the United States. Ours is higher. That is proof of a better medical care system.
Now should the cost be lower? Sure why not. Have a free market.
superlucci 1 month ago
@superlucci I'm aware cancer survival is very good in the US. Cancer is just one thing like LE so it's no point rejected one and choosing the other though. In general the UK system is ranked slightly better all things considered (too long to explain). Either way, if you're paying twice as much, you'd hope for significantly better really wouldn't. From what i have read though a lot of poor regulations in the US make it's health care not exactly free market.
N330AA 1 month ago
@N330AA Oh I agree with you. We dont have a free market, and I would probably say its very far from it.
I wish it were though
superlucci 1 month ago
@canofsand And yes a few more annoying statistics for you to absorb. In the US the murder rate is 5 times (That's right, 5 times) of what it is in the UK and most of Western Europe. No one's saying ban guns outright in the US (and they're not banned in the UK btw). But can you really sit there and say your gun laws are fine, whilst at the same time the country has a murder rate way way ahead of any other developed country in the world?
N330AA 1 month ago
As talking with the left is like talking with a brick, lets see if the american right is more clever or if it just the same thing and now that it came out on the open that their "power" is built upon borrowed money.
You are aware that what is causing the deficit is not welfare but the useless bases on useless countries wasting useless budget, right?
That even if you cut the military budget by half you would still be 3.5 times bigger than the second military in the world, right?
theawesomebeliever 3 months ago
@theawesomebeliever You've got to be kidding. You're using the SIZE of the military to say that what's causing the deficit is the military budget instead of, oh, I don't know, the ACTUAL figures that factor into the deficit? But no, you couldn't possibly do that, as it wouldn't support your specious argument! You can cut the military ENTIRELY and it wouldn't fix things. Entitlements DWARF other spending! Clearly you're an intellectually dishonest agenda pusher.
canofsand 2 months ago 2
@canofsand When you call me all this bullshit (and you know it is bullshit) and simply lie your ass off you make a conversation about the issue impossible. (and it is an issue, as the american economy is, in a language you can understand: fucked fuck fuckety fucked)
Do you know how much the american military spends? 660 billion! (and rising)
You cannot afford it! Broke!
It does not dwarf other spendings, dont be ridiculous.I want proof of what you are writing or admit I am right.
theawesomebeliever 2 months ago
Comment removed
canofsand 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theawesomebeliever
hotair(dot)com/archives/2011/11/18/sen-barbara-mikulski-leads-occupation-of-the-super-committee/
"As this chart illustrates, completely eliminating vital defense spending would still not solve the entitlement spending problem. [chart at URL] And, as this second chart illustrates, entitlement debt dwarfs other spending. [another chart]"
Now crawl back under your rock, vulgar little troll.
canofsand 2 months ago
@canofsand
Explain to me the "discretionary" budget.
Its so in your face and you still cannot see it.
Cutting all military bases abroad and some of the fleets would save you all.
You cant afford playing empire, Washington would turn on his grave.
You (or at least your government) are the ones being intellectually dishonest.
Now back to bending over to Obama and big government, you flatbroke overworked money owning yeehaw.
Because there is really no other way to describe it.
theawesomebeliever 2 months ago
Comment removed
canofsand 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theawesomebeliever It's like talking to a wall, with you. I provided FACTS that you CANNOT counter. CANNOT. So you don't even try. You just repeat the same old nonsense as if nothing - no charts, no data - was ever cited to you. You're hopeless. And then you characterize my position as "bending over to Obama and big government"? Sheer idiocy.
canofsand 1 month ago
@canofsand You did not explain to me what the discretionary budget mean.
Also if you provided links they cannot be seen here, I believe I have asked you to send me in private to my profile.
Furthermore, if you watched any of my videos about this topic you would understand where Im coming from,.
And for fucks sake, stop trying to judge me when you do not know me, it is no argument and it does NOT prove you right.
As an american you are bending over to Obama and big government.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Constitution finds its strength in its ability to conform to interpretation of generations. Our Foundation is dedicated to placing the Constitution and Bill of Rights in every school in America. We need your support. The American Constitution Spirit Foundation's, National Constitution Plaque Initiative. at plaqueinitiative . org .
PlaqueInitiative 3 months ago
"stare decisis"
this should be given a second look.
/watch?v=d2K2d01l3vg
CRAPCANNONS 3 months ago
I choose a return to the law, as do those who wrote "A Declaration to Restore Our Constitutional Republic" Sent to all members of Congress and calling patriots and veterans and all who have taken the oath to
read it, sign it and do what it instructs us to do. It may be found on the veteran defenders org site. with veteran and defenders as all one word.
CEMF100 3 months ago
The "general welfare" clause is actually more of a summation of the enumerated powers. Congress would be acting in the general welfare by carrying out its enumerated powers. Things like highways are to be left up to the states and localities.
bsg1206 3 months ago
Obama broke social compact
JDPKRevolution 3 months ago
Excellent, thank you!
filmsforpeace 3 months ago
The problem is the extreme right and the extreme left both want to screw you over in some manner.
People need to wake up and realize we need someone who is a moderate vs voting in people from the two corrupt major parties.
Membrane556 3 months ago
That was amazing. I feel like I need a cigarette...
bobosharkey 3 months ago 5
Thumbs up if you subscribed to Pajamasmedia because of Afterburner.
Atreus21 3 months ago 43
@Atreus21 I subscribed to PJTV for many reasons, but Bill Whittle is definitely one of them! =)
GirlofAmerica96 2 months ago 4
@Atreus21 Well that and Zonation, and Klaven on the Culture.
realworldbycj 1 month ago
Social compact shmocial compact. Debunked in under 5 minutes.
/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
WideWorldOfWisdom 4 months ago
I remember how disgusted I was when I took con law in law school and I saw how those idiots on the Supreme Court parsed these clauses. I wish my con law prof taught the way you do it.
Arlemagne 4 months ago 4
As Claire Wolfe said ... It's too late to work within the system but it's too early to start shooting the bastards.
Hey Claire ... Is it still too early?
lobosolo0333 4 months ago 2
The National Firearms Act of 1934 the oldest firearms ban in history was justified under the commerce clause.
HeisenbergHyopthesis 4 months ago
I choose a return to the law. Any ideas on how to make that happen?
DoctorTopper 4 months ago
@DoctorTopper Get involved in politics at your local precinct level in the party that comes closest to matching your views. Get involved with political campaigns (donate your money time and reputation) to help get people who believe as you do elected to office at the local level. Do this for the state level also. Hold these people accountable. Eventually, they'll run for Congress.
I call it Electoral Revolution from the Grass Roots Up.
ThunderPigRemixes 4 months ago
VERY NICE SHOW GUY " YOU HAVE A NICE LOOK ABOUT YOU AND VERY GOOD VOICE BUT " YOUR SHOW NOT BECOME THAT BIG EVER " WHY YOU SAY ? IT'S 100% ONE SIDED BUT GOOD JOB ANYWAY "
stonethugmusic 4 months ago
The one problem I have with this is how he says conservatives view the Constitution as the law, implying they think of it as absolute law in all cases. Things like the Patriot act have things that violate the Constitution, but still enjoy popular support among conservatives, which says to me they're just as guilty of saying "special circumstances" apply here. Same goes for fighting wars that are not declared by Congress.
sgtbuckwheat 4 months ago
@sgtbuckwheat I don't know many conservatives that agree with the Patriot Act or a president declaring war, so don't worry.
DoctorTopper 4 months ago
When the Left uses the term "The People", they mean Government. When non-leftists use the same term, they actually mean We The People.
HayPennie 4 months ago
@ 540
So, you would ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court decision, if you
disagreed with it? Any or all of them? Loving vs Virgina? Roe vs Wade?
I'm guessing that he'd be support Loving vs Virgina, but not Roe vs Wade.
Hypocrisy.
GlassAgate 4 months ago
Where does it give conservatives the power to deny gay people marriage?
If gay people can't get married, I'll stand by if China comes in to repo this
country, in exchange for the debt we owe them.
Come in a take all the gold, silver, coal, oil, land, etc....in exchange for the debts.
If it becomes a military invasion, I'll simply dodge the US draft, just as Cheney
did for so many times...I won't help China, nor will I get drafted..
The American experiment will fail, because of Christians.
GlassAgate 4 months ago
@GlassAgate If we assume marriage to be a right. Then this is how it works.
Straight people have the right to marry somebody of the opp sex.
Straight people do not have the right to marry somebody of the same sex.
Gay people have the right to marry somebody of the opp sex.
Gay people do not have the right to marry somebody of the same sex.
So this is not a case of 1 group of people having a right that another group doesnt have, this is 1 group using their right more often than another group is
superlucci 4 months ago
@superlucci We're talking about losing the Republic, and STILL people are fussing about gay marriage?
DavidJBuchner 3 months ago 2
@DavidJBuchner
>> @ superlucci We're talking about losing the Republic, and STILL people
>> are fussing about gay marriage?
If gay rights are terminated, because it offends Christians, then beef and pork
should go, since it's offensive to Hindus.
The republic is doing just fine...just not for everyone..it's has been through many
changes...once, women couldn't vote. Once, only Christians were
allowed in. Once...I could go on for days with this. Times change..get used to it.
Can't? :(
GlassAgate 3 months ago
@superlucci That's like saying religion is a right: you have the right to go to an Anglican church, just like everybody else.
Tharkun 3 months ago
@GlassAgate There is no such thing as gay rights because there is no such thing as collective rights.
We all have rights as individuals living in the United States, we dont get any extra rights simply based on our sexual orientation.
superlucci 4 months ago 55
@superlucci
>> There is no such thing as gay rights because there is no such
>> thing as collective rights.
>>
>> We all have rights as individuals living in the United States, we dont get any extra
>> rights simply based on our sexual orientation.
(1) Why don't people have the right to collectively bargain, again? If you really don't
like the union...start your own. Individuals have no sway in enforcing their rights,
when faced against a large corporation.
GlassAgate 3 months ago
@GlassAgate Once again, you can start a union, but dont think you get any rights because you are now a collective body. All it does is to try and enforce contracts.
Bargaining simply means that, bargaining. Using your freedom of speech to try and persuade the other person to get what you want. Collective bargaining simply means that somebody is speaking for your collective, it doesnt mean you get any extra rights. Its just enforced by contract.
superlucci 3 months ago
@superlucci This would be defined as free commerce and protected. If I want to pay for an organization to bargain on my behalf that is my right. By the same token the payment is for the service provided not for political contributions on my behalf for candidates I do not support.
65ronanderson 2 months ago
@superlucci
(cont)
Wait, because one supposedly doesn't exist, then the other doesn't
exist?
If what you say is to be the law of the land...it could easily be applied
to...personally chosen religion....Just because you have a desire to
follow the Christian faith doesn't mean you should be guaranteed
any sort of protections. Loose your job because of the faith you
practice outside of work? Sorry, but you boss is of a different
branch of Christianity, and to him, you're a non-believer. :(
GlassAgate 3 months ago
@GlassAgate Freedom of worship is freedom of speech. If you deny somebody the freedom to worship a religion, you are denying them freedom of speech.
Whether you think it should be protected or not matters not, because its in the Constitution, and whether we like it or not, it will stay.
If your boss fires you over Religion, then he is losing out in his self interest, because he was going to hire you for the cost benefit, but now religion steps in and makes him not earn the most he can
superlucci 3 months ago
@superlucci
Freedom of worship falls under freedom of religion.
I'm not trying to deny Christians the freedom to worship, just make
the point they don't have the right to instil their beliefs into law.
Example: ban gay marriage because their interpretation of religion
objects to it.
If someone is fired because of their faith, the contact the ACLU,
and sue their boss; unlike being gay, you can't legally fire someone
because of their faith.
Society needs ENDA.
GlassAgate 3 months ago
@GlassAgate Im not saying Christians should either, not sure where your going with this. Marriage is marriage, whether you think it derived from a specific location or not doesnt change the principle.
Gay marriage was never in this country until recently, its not like it was banned, it was just never done before. But yes, now we have totally enforced it, as we should.
Its impossible to actually prove somebody was fired over a particular thought, its only thought controllers who try that
superlucci 3 months ago
@GlassAgate Actually marriage is historically a religious sacrament that the federal government should not have authority to regulate in any way. The government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. A contract of civil union would suffice as the government's only role in this matter. If you want the church's blessing conform to their doctrine.
65ronanderson 2 months ago
@superlucci FINALLY someone who gets the point. I've been saying that since the first passed Proposition 8. A lesbian woman has the same right as any other American woman, to marry any man of her choosing. And vice-versa. Yet they call it equal rights. That is a right that I simply do NOT want to have personally. Thanks for your comment.
realworldbycj 1 month ago
5:35 is hilarious.
aidengregg 4 months ago
He's right. The government has broken many tenents of the social compact - including corporate welfare with GE and Google, bank bailouts with Bush and Paulson, crony capitalism with Solyndra, and Obamacare which has over a thousand exemptions but none for ordinary citizens. Flush and start over.
QuestionAuthority2 4 months ago
Notice he mentions NOTHING about the corporate welfare paid for on your backs
IzzySpeaks 4 months ago
@IzzySpeaks Not in so many words, no. But he did talk about the injustice of taking from one group of people to provide help for a limited group of others - one method of which is corporate welfare. Maybe if you opened your ears, you wouldn't look so stupid.
mtanousable 4 months ago
@mtanousable End with adhom = you have nothing left. Nice that you too can twist his words the same way he claims that others twist the constitution.
IzzySpeaks 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IzzySpeaks "Notice he mentions NOTHING about the corporate welfare paid for on your backs"
You're barking up the wrong tree. Bill Whittle has spoken about "cronyism" many times.
rawREN 4 months ago
@IzzySpeaks That doesn't mean he isn't against it. Watch more of him.
Tharkun 4 months ago
Do libs really say, "You fiendishly good-looking..."? They're not that articulate.
somercet1 4 months ago 2
@somercet1 No, they aren't. Libs are usually in what I call the "Chris Matthews" state of conversation - snide remarks and eyerolling looks, talking over others, and generally shoving their fake, useless college degrees in your face. Conservatives like Bill Whittle would rather use facts and discuss issues calmly and reasonably - things libs know and have very little experience with.
SeatBill 4 months ago 4
Bill, they're not going to leave their nice, comfy, wealth-gathering chairs by themselves. Much as I'd like to believe it, it's never happened in history, and it's not going to happen in the future.
Plan accordingly.
Orion
OrionXIII 4 months ago
Bill Whittle is THE MAN. It is time to put a bullet in some of the assholes on the Supreme COurt, including the tw dikes that Obama appointed. They are not Americans.
666sigma 4 months ago
liberals lie, we will do ourselves a favor if we recognize this right off the bat when talking with one, they are lairs and only care about power, no morality
agnostaxian 4 months ago
"The People" as used in the Constitution, means the people of the states RESPECTIVELY-- not COLLECTIVELY.
That means that the people of INDIVIDUAL states can pass laws through plebiscite; but there is no provision for a majority of state-citizens to pass FEDERAL laws, since the US is not a nation.
Likewise, the people of each state RATIFIED the Constitution via their respective sovereign power, but did not RELINQUISH that sovereignty; on the contrary, they only DELEGATED power to governments.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
Do we choose lawlessness, or a return to the law? I suggest a third option: kick the blue states out of the union and start over.
bevo65 4 months ago
Bill Whittle inadvertently skirts the truth when he says that the Constitution mentions "national defense." It doesn't.
On the contrary, the Constitution mentions the COMMON defense, because each state is a separate nation under the Constitution, and that's how they were to ENFORCE the Constitution against the federal goverment-- i.e the states were nations, NOT the Union, and thus they could simply OVERRULE federal law.
So until this once again becomes common knowledge, we're screwed.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Wow ... again, you're obviously either a troll or one of Obama's daughters banging away on the keyboard. Are you really saying that the "common" defense doesn't mean a "national" defense?? Seriously????
SeatBill 4 months ago
And if each state is a separate nation according to you, then why are states suing the federal government over Obamacare, instead of simply saying they won't enforce it as law? Why do states not refuse to send troops from their territory when the nation goes to war? Please use your brain for something more than a hat rack.
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SeatBill
It's all explained on my channel-video. But you won't watch it.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman So ..... this is all some sort of marketing ploy - instead of you just simply giving at least one example, I have to waste time watching your work? No thanks, I'd rather use my time positively, like watching the World Series.
When you get some passion to defend your points, let me know.
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SeatBill
You didn't ASK for an example, dipstick. You asked a lot of stupid questions, "WHY, WHY, WHY?"
Good, go watch your ballgame, it's about your speed.
I'd ask YOU to use your head for something besides a buttplug, but I see it gives you too much enjoyment to hope for that.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Oh, nice! When you don't have facts, reply like a "sovereignstatesman"! Well, here's a FACT: "Examples, please?" See - that's called a direct quote, meaning that I DID ask for at least ONE example. So, we'll pray for the college your degree came from, as well. Now ... will we see defense of points, or no?
SeatBill 4 months ago
What about neoconservatives using the general welfare clause to give mass-subsidies, tax-breaks, bailouts and other PORK to select corporations?
It takes TWO parties to make an oligarchy, and it does no good just to blame the kettle.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You think conservatives are the only pols who do that? Look at the specifics of the first bailout -- it's infested with nothing with pork. Who put that in place? - a DEMOCRATIC President and a DEMOCRATIC Congress. You need to study some more.
SeatBill 4 months ago
Actually interstate highways do benefit some people and not others. Else I'd have to ask: through which state should the government built an interstate highway and how many? Should each state have the same number of interstate highways or should it depend on geographical extend, population density and/or difficulty of terrain? How many lanes should each interstate have? Should they be lighted? etc...
PhilosophyAtWork 4 months ago
You say that progressives tend to interpret the General Welfare Clause as a blank check. But the same is true with the Interstate Commerce Clause. We need a principled approach to this issue. Either we have an absolute separation of state and economics, with no loopholes and no exceptions, or we don't. Allowing the federal government to be active in any form of infrastructural activity is the most obvious loophole and blatant blank check to widen its power and authority in all directions.
PhilosophyAtWork 4 months ago
@PhilosophyAtWork We don't need a principled approach on its' face - we need to decide, as citizens, whether we're going to vote for people who have read and know what the Constitution means and says, or not ... and who will abide by it as law. Period.
SeatBill 4 months ago
@PhilosophyAtWork Doesn't matter - "Sovereign" thinks that states are nations in and of themselves, so those questions are all moot. Of course, he (or she), like Obama, is a fake Constitutional scholar, so .......
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SeatBill
I see you never get tired of being full of shit.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
Don't forget YouTube
jaythizzle1969 4 months ago
Another homerun
rockinandout 4 months ago
@rockinandout
Yeah for the other team.
This guy doesn't have a clue. There is no "we the people" of the United States as a single group, because the US was never a single nation. Each STATE is a single nation, and the phrase "we the people" refers the states BEFORE they ratified the Constitution-- i.e. RESPECTIVELY.
And the Constitution doesn't change this.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Well, obviously Bill Whittle was talking about someone exactly like you when he talked about five Supremes who say a sentence doesn't mean what it says -- if there is NO "we the People," then WHO fought in the Revolutionary War? Who selected leaders to convene a Constitutional Convention? "We the People" existed before that phrase was written!!!!
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SeatBill
Are you wholly ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was RATIFIED by the Peoples of the states RESPECTIVELY, not as a single group?
Seems so.
I''ve already referred to you my informational channel-video; but it seems you're too far up your own ass to be troubled to come out and actually lift a finger to learn something.
So I just have to bid you to piss off, arrogant fuck.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
Comment removed
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman LOL Not very good in business, are you? If you want me to check out your "informational" videos, then please know your stuff. Be able to defend your stuff from contrary points of view. Otherwise, you'll turn into ..... someone who defends themselves by asking people to watch a video.
SeatBill 4 months ago
By the way, read Article 7 of the Constitution, if you want to really learn the mechanism by which it came into being. Who knows - maybe you can make a video out if it somehow.
Objection denied.
SeatBill 4 months ago
Respond to this video... The Constitution doesn't CHANGE anything you've said -- it completely disowns what you've said. Here's a clue -- read and study the Constitution based on what it SAYS, not what you THINK it means. Base your points on THAT, and we'll talk. If you don't, keep on walkin' down the road, pal.
SeatBill 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman you mean "we the people of the united states of america"? you mean the people that ratified the constitution thus giving weight to the phrase "we the people" yeah that people represents the the citizens not the states. you should actually use logic
rockinandout 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockinandout
>>"you mean "we the people of the united states of america"? you mean the people that ratified the constitution thus giving weight to the phrase "we the people"
Keep chasin' your tail, puppy-dog; hope you catch it someday.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
The compromise clowns and "independents" will call at every corner not to block judges appointed by a marxist president while only complaining that the progressives block any conservative judge. Then they will call every right-wing judge a phony because he doesn't judge perfectly, while ignoring the really crazy judges. So the Supreme Court will be last entity taken back.
That's the Paulista legacy. Reagan was a fascist big-spending neocon to them, while Carter and clinton are ignored.
scepticsteve 4 months ago
I don't have enough fingers and toes for the number of times I've heard the "general welfare" argument shot back at me as a reason we need welfare programs. It's almost as bad as their interpretation of the first amendments part about "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to mean "separation of church and state." It's sad and predictable and liberals seem to think it's fact.
MovieCompoundBoat 4 months ago 2
Don't forget Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: "Neccesary and Proper."
That has spawned all kinds of government crap.
evildude109 4 months ago 2
I swear, the Living Constitution idiots seem to operate by the logic that every action is justified or can be regulated by dictate of the butterfly effect - which of course will always benefit the general welfare in the case of the former.
Tharkun 4 months ago 3
The status quo with it's endorsement of OWS looks to be siding with lawlessness, probably because it thinks they can be manipulated toward it's ends.
AnEducation 4 months ago
@AnEducation They ARE being manipulated - the OWS is a means to get Obama re-elected again, that's all. It is a plan that's 180 degrees opposite of what the Tea Party stands for ... and Obama knows it. That's why OWS doesn't have to worry about permits to "occupy," while the Tea Party gets them legally to assemble. Plus, we clean up afterwards.
SeatBill 4 months ago 4
Most Conservative Presidents have ignored the Constitution just as much as most White House Democrats (though not FDR, Johnson or Obama) - the difference is that when you challenged Dubya on a Constitutional matter, he would be embarrassed and evasive about it, not brazen.
Tharkun 4 months ago
@Tharkun Examples, please? I'm armed and ready to smackdown each and every point of yours, but I'd like clear examples. Proceed.
SeatBill 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeatBill
Yep you're a legend in your own mind.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SeatBill The Patriot Act, to begin with. Even if you ignore realpolitik shenanigans (which, either way, are despicable and/or dumb), Panama and Iraq are just as unconstitutional as anything Bill Clinton did (though at least they did bother with Congress's input a little bit. Yeah, Obama is revolting.) The War on Drugs. Faith-based initiatives. Reagan not actually cutting into the bureaucracy. Nary a peep about how federal enforcement chapters shouldn't exist. Pork outside the enumerated powers.
Tharkun 4 months ago
Both of those "Clauses" have been so distorted as to be making the Constitution virtually invalid.
Leavon 4 months ago