GOVERNMENT - RushOnline.com
High treason?
One of the topics on your visitor's list asks whether the transfer
of American high technology to the PRC constitutes high treason.
That transfer was certainly outrageous and flagrant enough to warrant
the designation, but you could make a legal argument, based on the
definition of "treason" in our U.S. Constitution, that
it was not, but rather that it certainly would fit the definition
of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Problem was of course
that too many other Democrats and some Republicans had their hands
in that can of worms, and so the Congress did not deal with it during
the impeachment
That said, there's something even more ominous that is afoot, one
that I believe the Democrats by and large favor, and that the Republicans,
either brain-dead or asleep at the wheel, let pass within the last
few days, with the budget accord! The Congress has dismantled the
patent system of the United States, so that very soon your patent
may not be worth the paper it's written on. The patent laws have
now been altered so that a) the inventor now has 20 years from the
date of application, not issue, to enjoy exclusive profits from
his or her invention. Some inventions take 20 years or more to be
issued (no kidding!), and b) the patent proceedings are no longer
confidential, so that anyone has a right to look over your shoulder
while your invention is being reviewed. They also want to make the
head of the patent office into a czar who is answerable only to
the president, and to take away the oversight that Congress now
has.
If you think I'm making all this up, I urge you to have your researchers
check out the Web site trudelgroup.com, and click on the topics
"patent wars," and "current status." They can
also get the current (January 2000) issue of Analog, and check out
Trudel's article therein.
Trudel makes the point that it is the unique U.S. patent system
that heretofore has brought such remarkable prosperity to the United
States. Now, the Japanese, Chinese, Swedes, or any other country
can watch what you the inventor are doing right from the gitgo and
can swipe your patent before you get to profit from it.
Sincerely yours,
Don
* * *
The Moral Absolutes of Political Correctness
-- Poverty will end when government is able to redistribute all
wealth.
-- Diversity only need include those who agree with us.
-- The non-PC (both men and women) are irrelevant.
-- God is relevant only if we define (Him).
-- Choice takes precedence over human life, unless we say otherwise.
-- All children need our protection and therefor belong to us.
-- Only PC-supported causes can demand fairness.
-- Gay is OK. Any other view is Homophobia and therefor irrelevant
or
extreme.
-- All other absolutes are extreme.
-- All extremists are hateful.
* * *
While you deserve much credit for continuing to expose the treasonous
demagoguery that is the essence of the Democratic Party and the
damage that it wreaks; that is a very tired story known even to
the most naive; and unacknowledged only by disingenuous promoters
of the Democrat agenda.Where do you stand on the more serious sins?
The feigned indignations of the grand old party? Once wrote a man
named Graham Green: "...And communists have committed great
crimes, but at least they have not stood aside, like an established
society, and been indifferent. I would rather have blood on my hands
than water like Pilate."
Can we really tell ourselves that we do the right thing when we
vote for candidates, even very good candidates, but in a party,
which will not deliver? Does not our two-party system seem to function
as a good-cop-bad-cop shakedown while it continues to grow a socialist
bureaucracy? Has it not given us debts and deficits and programs
and departments that are not popular with the general public, while
involving us in conflicts and treaties that are neither popular
nor in our long term best interests? Though a Republic form of government
is to temper populist emotion, should we acquiesce to one that repeatedly
thwarts the reasoned will of the majority?
I really believe that most of us who have supported the Republican
Party over the last half-century have most often done so begrudgingly;
hoping to assemble there enough moral fiber to preserve, at least,
the bones of our constitution. Please don't say it's worked and
we're prosperous and all of that. Of course we are prosperous and
that has not the least to do with the price of eggs. We don't ditch
our health insurance when we seem healthy or put all our savings
in the best-hyped IPO, and we should not allow our congress to cede
its responsibilities regarding trade and tariffs to foreign adjudication,
upon the premise that a WTO will lead to future riches. I think
your prediction that this thing in Seattle is a prelude, might be
correct. But if the U.S. Congress continues to cause taxpayers to
subsidize imports, I think it may be difficult to convince anyone
that the ruckus comes only from the left.
* * *
From one rationalist to another...
Sex...is not an exception found within the elements of perjury,
nor does the constitution allow the president to act in any manner
in his (or her) pursuit of it. In a country of laws, no one person
is above those laws, particularly the person employed by the people
of that country to executed those laws.... The constitution of this
country can only exist and be a viable document as long as we, the
people, allow it to do so....it has worked for over two hundred
years, if we make exceptions for conduct where there is no exception
we question the very document that allows us to do so.
If the president is not held to the same standards of conduct that
we expect of "lower" officials, then it can not be justice,
for justice is level handed, dispite office. It would rather be
an exception made for one president. And this, I'm sure, would have
been found to be an impossible and outrageous adaption of the constitution.
From a common sense stand point, would any rational person think
for one second that the founding fathers would ever allow a president
(or any other elected official for that matter) perjure him (or
her) self (for sex, or any other reason)? I would hope that the
answer would be no, of course not.
Maybe this country needs to make sure that its citizens fully understand
what this country is, and what makes this country so great. I guess
that high school civics classes just aren't doing their job. After
all, a politically educationed citizen was the founding fathers
ideal, not an entertained mass. One needs to remember, rights may
be freely given up to a government, but not easily gained. Did we
not learn from our own history?
May God continue to Bless America and the freedoms which the Constitution
allows us, the fortunate citizens of this country. I'm sure that
this email is nothing but "typical" "Rock on Rush"
email, but I am but a first generation, former Marine, twenty-something
year old, who trully understands your veiws and believes in America.
Above all, I am an American, and just wanted to voice my humble
opinion.
Thank you for your time, and for making America work.
Antonio
* * *
Subject: Articles For The Constitution
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any
more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and
secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-
great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and
establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny,
guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people
were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require
a Bill of Non-Rights.
ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other
form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them,
but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just
you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
will be.
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver
in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer
to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are
the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone
in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation
after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing
more than the creation of another generation of professional couch
potatoes.
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice,
but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested
in public health care.
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you
kidnap, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if
the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob,
cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't
be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in
a place whereyou still won't have the right to a big-screen color
TV or a life of
leisure.
ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their
lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate
oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from
going to fight if you'd like; however, we do not enjoy parenting
the entire world, and
do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every
little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you
to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we
expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and
vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means
that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way,
is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of
idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill
of Rights.
If You Agree, We Strongly Urge You To Forward This To As Many People
As You Can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall
youshould you not forward it. We just think it is about time common
sense is allowed to flourish.
Written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye of Cobb County, GA.
* * *
25 Dead Children, One Taken By Federal Bureaucracy
The thing that ties together the stories on Elian Gonzalez, Ruby
Ridge, Waco, the Clinton cover-ups, deaths of those who could hurt
the Clinton administration and the victimization of thousands of
other innocent people with laws like project exile (as applied to
solely gun laws) are a worship of power by federal bureaucrats and
politicians. The key part of that puzzle is in place. That is the
unwillingness ofmidlevel bureaucrats to blow the whistle on operations
they know violate the rights of others, the lying of one agency
to another and even the involvement of the federal judiciary and
the media. Such a climate allows the Hitlers and Clintons of the
world to operate.
* * *
How long I've wanted to say how much I appreciate your vast knowledge
of history and current events. Now is it not interesting how we
can take a very real concern and make it a dividing issue. This
can be contributed to the THE MEDIA,THE GOVERNMENTand RUSH. Lrt
me tell you why; As a mother, grandmother and citizen I do not want
anymore children or adults murdered by guns and all the mothers
that are going to march do not want to lose there constitutional
rights but you and all the others try to make an either or.
I can tell you that as a long time Social Worker and to see all
thedamage that the gov. has done to children and families under
the guise of saving the" children and families" I want
a spokes person that talks about the true issues. Alcohol and Drugs
no Ethics and no HONESTY. SS covers a multitude of programs not
just old age so there are a lot of issues not just ISA's, lets see
SSA,SSD,SSI? It goes on and on and I am not sure the general public
any longer kows how gov. is run. I want my Grandson to have his
guns because he loves to hunt. I want him to have his fishing pole
so he can continue to fish. Thank you.
"Marje Cochren
* * *
HOW TO BE A GOOD BUREAUCRAT / PREREQUISITES TO BEING A MODERN LIBERAL
DEMOCRAT
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can|t teach 4th
graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids
about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the
hands of Chinese communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected
by cyclical documented changes in the earth|s climate, and more
affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion
on demand; in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing
the innocent.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but
loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start
wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports
certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are
too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinemare
more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General
Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.
15. You Have to believe that standardized tests are racist but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't. Because the right people haven't been
in charge.
16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn|tworked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been
in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail but a liar and probable sex offender belongs in the White House.
19. You have to believe that a homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected
and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by
the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.
* * *
Hello, George Orwell...... In London, England. Is America heading
in this direction?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/05-22-2000/insider/vo16no11_thought.htm
Vol. 16, No. 11
May 22, 2000
INSIDER REPORT
Thought Police on Patrol "Restaurant-goers who suspect the
couple at the next table are eavesdropping on their conversation
may not be far from the truth," advised the March 15th issue
of The Times of London. "Police in Gloucester have begun a
crackdown on racial abuse in ethnic restaurants by going undercover
to make sure that diners keep unpalatable opinions to themselves."
"Racist behavior is unacceptable," sniffed Chief Inspector
Dean Walker of the Gloustershire police by way of explaining "Operation
Napkin," in which undercover police officers are dispatched,
two by two, to police "hate speech" at ethnic restaurants.
According to Walker, "The constabulary is now taking a proactive
stance in relation to racist offenses rather than waiting for people
to report them to us. We want to encourage the reporting of racial
crimes." Two days after initiating the hate-speech patrol,
the police netted a 51-year-old man who was arraigned for "racially
aggravated harassment" in an Indian restaurant.
Undercover officers also overheard another man mimicking an Indian
waiter, but "police decided that his behavior was not bad enough
to warrant prosecution" yet. A February 23rd Times story described
a similar operation carried out by Scotland Yard in Londons Greenwich
borough. The operation deployed an undercover couple "from
ethnic minorities" to live on an estate "in an operation
to trap racists." No local bigots rose to the bait, but Detective
Inspector Darren Curtis remained optimistic: "Sooner or later
we will get a bite." Such operations are valuable, according
to Curtis, because racists "would now fear that their victims
were police officers and that they were under surveillance."
Since "racism" is a term of almost limitless flexibility,
and is deployed by the left with promiscuous abandon, residents
of London can never know when a previously inoffensive remark might
be construed as "racist" and, therefore, criminal.
In totalitarian London as described in Orwells 1984, subjects of
the regime policed their remarks carefully, since they never knew
when the Thought Police had them under surveillance. Under the neo-Leninist
Blair regime, Orwells fiction is rapidly becoming reality.
* * *
THIS IS FROM AN ACTUAL TRIAL IN THE UK.
A young woman who was several months pregnant boarded a bus. She
noticed a young man smiling at her and she began feeling humiliated
on account of her condition. She changed her seat and he seemed
more amused. She moved again and then on her fourth move he burst
out laughing.
She had him arrested for molesting her.
The case came before the court; the young man was asked why he
acted in such a manner. His reply proceeded along the following
line:
"When the lady boarded the bus I couldn't help noticing she
was pregnant. She sat under an advertisement which read 'Coming
Soon: The Gold Dust Twins'. Then she moved under one that read 'Sloan's
Liniment to Remove Swelling'. I was even more amused when she sat
under the shaving advertisement which read 'William's Stick Did
the Trick'. Then I could not control myself any longer when on the
fourth move she sat under an advertisement which read 'Dunlop Rubber
would have prevented this accident'."
The case was dismissed.
* * *
Confederate Flag
It in my opinion that NO Confederate flags should be flown over
any public building. The bases for my opinion are no ethnic group
should be offend by a public or government agency. I am a strong
supporter in America heritages, my great grandfather service in
the confederate army, but we must respect our fellow Americans.
If a governor of any state (New York) who's ancestors were from
Germany and decide to fly the NAZI flag over his state capital,
I do believe Jewish America's would be offend. What a field day
the press would have!
Good Luck,
Paul
Auburn CA
* * *
* Remember the other day, while the Gore/ Lieberman campaign started
its Three Stooges stage and Gore said Governor Bush should "put
up or shut up?" Wednesday, scholar Joe Lieberman, reached into
the Biblical texts and said "It's just this simple: We as a
nation cannot afford to make Barney Rubble investments in a George
Jetson world." (Brigitte Greenberg, AP August 29, 2000)
Lieberman was, of course, trying to poke fun at George W. but what
he actually did
was precisely describe the Gore (and, as of last month, the Lieberman)
position on Social Security: Barney Rubble investments in a George
Jetson economy.
Public Opinion Strategies is the leading Republican political/public
affairs survey
research firm. Click here to see why we poll for 7 governors, 9
Senators, 40 members of the House, and for legislators in more than
18 states.http://www.pos.org
* The Department of the Interior is resorting to intimidation tactics
by engaging in a full-blown man hunt for any employee who maintains
ties to that most subversive of organizations: the Boy Scouts of
-America. The Supreme Court, remember, decided that the Boy Scouts
could deny scoutmaster status to individuals who are openly gay
as part of its First Amendment rights.
* You don't have to agree with that ruling, but it WAS handed down
by the Supreme Court of the United States.* The Department is using
a Presidential Executive order (13160) to demand that Bureau Directors,
"Identify and explain
in detail all activities, events, or programs that each of your
Bureaus has with the Boy Scouts of America."
* To see the entire memo and the level of detail the Department
of Interior is demanding go here:http://www.mullings.com/doi.htm
but beware: You will find yourself gritting your teeth by the end.
* The memo requires a response by "no later than Monday, September
4, 2000.Which would be Labor Day.
* One last point: The First Amendment exists specifically to protect
a person's or organization's right to take a position with which
the government does not agree.
* Bill Clinton vetoed a bill which would have repealed - over time
- estate taxes or, as the GOP likes to call them, "Death Taxes."
These are the taxes which are paid by someone for the privilege
of passing away while owning property in the United States.
* Estate taxes are another left-over from the class warfare days
of an earlier era when it became conventional wisdom that inheriting
a large estate was somehow unfair to people who did not inherit
a large estate. That having paid taxes on property and income throughout
one's life was not enough - it had to be taxed again after someone
died.
* In the current instance, 65 Democrats in the House voted with
the majority to pass the bill. House leaders will, of course, force
them to over-ride the Clinton veto - voting as they did the first
time - or to cave into Democratic House leaders to side
with the President thus switching their vote and giving the House
Republican campaign committee a reason to crank up its fax machines.
* Now, THAT's unfair!
From: Bill Clark
* * *
LIBERALS/SOCIALISTS ARE TERRIFIED YOU WILL FIND OUT WHAT THEY HAVE
PLANNED. CONSERVATIVES/CAPITALISTS ARE TERRIFIED YOU WON'T FIND
OUT WHAT THEY HAVE PLANNED.
YOUR CHOICE: CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM, IF YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
IT THEN MOVE TO CHINA OR CUBA. YOU'LL CHANGE YOUR MIND REAL FAST!!
IF YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE THEN CHOOSE BIRTH CONTROL!
IF YOU ARE A PRO-CHOICE WOMAN THEN CHOOSE BIRTH CONTROL & AVOID
THE LIFE LONG GUILT.
JACK NICHOLSON SAID CASTRO IS A HUMANITARIAN.
HE STILL BELIEVES HE'S THE JOKER. BAD JOKE!!
AUTO WORKERS #1 ENEMY: OWL GORE SAYING YOUR AWESOME ENGINES ARE
MAN'S SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT!!
TEAMSTERS #1 ENEMY: OWL GORE SAYING YOUR AWESOME ENGINES IN YOUR
AWESOME VEHICLES ARE MAN'S SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT!!
AL GORE IS NOT A UNIONS FRIEND!! HE'S AGAINST ENGINES THAT HELP
FUEL CAPITALISM (UAW) & VEHICLES THAT DELIVER PRODUCT ACROSS
THE COUNTRY FOR CONSUMERS (TEAMSTERS) THAT PUTS THE WHEELS OF CAPITALISM
IN MOTION!!
WARNING!! ITEMIZING YOUR TAXES WILL DISQUALIFY YOU FROM YOUR MIDDLE
CLASS TAX CUT!! DO THE MATH!!! MAO TSE GORE'S PLAN EXPLAINS IN DETAIL
AFTER DETAIL DETAILDETAILDETAIL. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!
QUESTION: DO YOU HONESTLY KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRAT
& REPUBLICAN ARE? ANSWER: DEMOCRAT=SOCIALISM & REPUBLICAN=CAPITALISM.
ANY QUESTIONS?
QUESTION: ARE THE REPUBLICANS REALLY FOR THE RICH? ANSWER: YES!!!
WE WANT EVERYONE TO BE RICH!!!
QUESTION: HOW DOES THE RICH & WEALTHY NOT GETTING A TAX CUT
MAKE ANYONES LIFE BETTER?
ANSWER: IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!!
BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
IT'S MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT THEY INTRUDE IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES.
QUIT LOOKING AT YOUR $ AMOUNT OF YOUR PAYCHECK & START ADDING
UP THE $ TAKEN OUT!!
sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, phone tax, water tax, electric
tax, natural gas tax, state tax, county tax, city tax, vehicle excise
tax. ADD IT UP!! IT'S A LOT!!
(From Andrew)
* * *
How To Destroy a Democracy (or ruin a republic):
Destroy confidence in any old laws, judicial systems, constitutions,
and citizen rights, by trivializing them and consistently ignoring
them. It will also help if the leaders break oaths, dodge the draft,
or just generally are unethical.
Prove to the countries citizens that their leaders are not to be
expected to obey laws like they are. That their leaders are above
the law. This will instill in their minds the fact that government
is all-powerful and that it can rightfully get away with anything.
It will also discourage any resistance to the government's pollicies.
Deny any personal wrong doings over and over despite proof to the
contrary. Say anything, promise anything, and do anything. Remember
that leaders can do no wrong and it is best to instill this in the
minds of the people as soon as possible.
Diminish the value of life itself by encouraging abortion. Especially
at the last minute of birth. Disguise the brutality of this by calling
it "PARTIAL" birth abortion.
Destroy the concept of voting. Implement a substitute that can
be manipulated and is open to interpretation. Something like "polls"
or "citizen roundtables" should work fine.
Insure that the federal government receives high visibility when
giving away tax money for social programs. This will achieve two
purposes. It will make the people totally dependent on the government
and give the appearance that their leaders are charitable. This
will in turn help the federal government look good, allow it to
raise taxes, and will undoubtedly improve poll results. Never let
the people realize that to give it to them you first had to take
it away from them.
Pick some popular topics like cigarette smoking, gun control, safety
restraints, and environmental conservation that sound good, play
them up, and use them to slowly pass restrictive laws and tax codes.
Each of these laws and codes should take away just a few small freedoms.
People will eventually become accustom to loosing a little freedom
"for their own good" and the federal government can then
parley this into eventual total freedom elimination.
Obtain the names and addresses of everybody who owns a firearm.
This can be accomplished through such scams as gun registration,
and gun purchasing checks. When the gun purchasing checks fail,
blame it on "intermediary purchasing" and pass additional
restrictive, freedom removing laws.
Slowly remove all firearms from the populace. Best to claim this
is for their own good because they do not know how to control their
usage. Without weapons their alternatives will be limited and they
will be forced to accept the federal government's will.
Insure that all education facilities become dependent on the federal
government. Provide funding for programs and then use threats of
fund withdrawal to achieve the government's goals despite local
resistance. This will insure total compliance with federal directives
and
allow the government's socialistic policies to be forced into the
schools.
Slowly buy into the countries business through the stock market
with the intent to eventually have the government own and control
all the countries industries. Best to do this under the guise of
saving some popular public benefit program like health care or social
pension plans.
Never acknowledge that the local government has done anything on
their own. Insure that the federal government receives the bulk
of the credit for anything good that happens.
Be sure to insert the federal government into major debates and
arguments between unions and business. Force their compliance with
the federal government's ideas and policies under the pretence of
helping out. This influence can also be extended to sport activities,
air travel and eventually to almost anything.
Be sure to use the federal government's military authority to demonstrate
its power and to distract the citizenry from any federal government
mistakes. The target is unimportant and consideration for the lose
of life or military hardship is unnecessary. Just go bomb
somebody!
Do not let the local government tax the people to heavily. This
can be accomplished by over taxing the people with the federal government's
tax. To placate the people institute small subsidies that can be
given back to the people in the local government, but only if the
local government spends it as the federal government says.
Should the government end up with an excess of funds be sure to
immediately institute a propaganda campaign to name the excesses
as "surpluses" and never let the citizens know that it
is really over taxation. That way the government can claim credit
instead of being
blamed for unsound taxing policies.
If it becomes necessary to really cut spending, cut benefits to
specific minority groups such as the military. The military after
all can not criticize the government and are bound to strict obedience.
Essential military projects are also good targets. The cuts can
always be attributed to your opponents and later you can claim a
defense crisis and look like a hero by reinstating the programs.
Subsidize local police forces with the intent of achieving federal
influence at the local law enforcement level. This procedure will
make it possible for the federal government to use the local police
to enforce federal laws without remuneration. This added financial
burden would provide the added benefit of making local authorities
dependent on the federal government.
Demonize a particular group of citizens and place all blame for
the nation's ills upon their shoulders. You should pick some group
like the "Religious Right" or "Christian Conservatives".
This procedure worked well for the Nazi's with the Jews and the
tactic undoubtedly will work well again.
Ron Bill
* * *
The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal
perceives a problem, forms a committee and then expects everyone
else to pay for their ideal solution whether feasable or not and
then makes sure the whole world knows that they are responsible
for taking action. A conservative sees a problem fixes it and then
moves on.
Rick in Iowa City, Ia.
* * *
I think that more emphasis should be placed on the multiple layers
of the federalist system and the fact that vertical(local,state,federal)
checks and balances, rather than horizontal(federal legislative,
federal executive, federal judiciary) ones. It will do the American
people only a small bit of good to elect Bush to the presidency
so long as we allow our constitution to be sullied by a federal
government that determines its own soveriegnty. In the present system,
the federal government is sovereign, via the Court, over whatever
it so chooses. What we elect now are individuals who would use that
carte blanch power more to our liking. This is immoral. Federal
elections should not mean nearly as much as they do today. Gore
is dangerous, Bush is a good man, but, our present system of group-think,
nation-statism is an abomination and a perfect tool for the properly
charismatic leader to strip us all of our power. After all, is it
not true that, already, if we do not pay our rent(property tax),
our landlords(IRS) evict us from THEIR property.
Luke Gooch
* * *
Abraham Lincoln, 1838:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people
who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
* * *
End Government Control
For the last couple of years, I have been formulating a plan to
end the Federal Government's control of our lives. The key is money
(as usual). Take away thier ability to spend, and we win! How do
we do that? We mustamend the constitution as follows:
1. The power of the Federal Government to raise revenue, shall
be limited to no more than 18.5% of the Gross Domestic Product of
the United States, (note I didn't say "tax", but "raise
revenue" which includes all sources of income, taxes, user
fees, permits, property siezure) EXCEPT that the Federal Government
shall be empowered to raise additional funds through the sale of
government assets, however, the revenue from the sale of government
assets shall be used exclusively to pay down the national debt.(see
I knew they would think of selling our oil reserves to raise more
money
to spend!).
2. The power of the Federal Government to spend, shall be restricted
to no more than 95% of the income raised by applying 18.5% to the
GDP figures for the last year in which figures are currently available.
(No rosy estimates of what the GDP will be, base it on reality).
The remaining 5% of the income shall be used to pay down the national
debt, until such time as the debt is retired. At that point, the
5% shall be set aside for an emergency fund, until such time as
the fund is equal to 50% of the preceeding year's spending budget.
At that point, the 5% can be used to either increase spending, or
reduce taxes, as congress deems appropriate.
Congress shall be empowered to appropriate money from the emergency
fund at any time, by passage of a single item appropriation by a
60% majority of both houses of congress. The President shall be
empowered to veto such an appropriation. However, congress shall
have the power to override the veto by a 2/3 vote of both houses
of congress.
If the emergency fund has reached it's maximum funding, and the
5% has been used to either reduce taxes or increase spending, and
congress appropriates money, then the formula of 95% of income for
spending and 5% of income set aside for the emergency fund will
be reinstated until such time as the fund has been made whole.
3. Congress shall pass no law, The President shall order no regulation,
nor will any bureaucrat have authority to promulgate any rule or
regulation, that has an economic impact on the State or local governments,
unless such law, rule or regulation is completely funded by the
Federal Government.
4. The President shall be empowered to veto any single item of
spending from the budget that the President deems inapproprate,
however, the President's veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of
both houses of congress.
5. Both houses of Congress shall discontinue the practice of amending
legislation with items that are not related to the intial legislation.
I know this is somewhat simplistic, however, think of the benefits.
You know the libs are still going to want to spend, right? So once
they realize that they are restricted in thier ability to raise
revenue, they will realize that the only way they can increase spending,
is to somehow get more GDP, or take income producing activities
and return them to the private sector.
For example, FAA operates the air traffic control system, which
is funded by landing fees and taxes on airline tickets. SELL the
FAA and all of its equipment (remember sale of gov't assets pays
down the national debt), to a private corporation, who will invest
in the infrastructure, make it run more efficiently, and think of
ways to increase revenue (like encouraging more traffic by reducing
fees????). This will also raise GDP.
Another way to raise GDP? Cut taxes, allow growth to take hold.
They can't escape the logic!
Think of the effect that banishment of defecit spending will have
on our economy. Without the #1 borrower in the world competing for
investment dollars, there will be an abundance of captial out there
looking for a home. Interest rates will drop. Investment in private
industry will increase, *because interest rates will drop.
Critics will argue that taking 5% of our revenue to pay down the
debt will take forever to get rid of $6 trillion in debt, but look
at it this way. I bought my first house in 1972, my payment was
$200 a month, which was about 28% of my after tax income. I had
a 30 year loan. If I pay my $200 a month, it takes the full 30 years,
BUT if I pay 28% of my after tax income, as my income rose (to six
times what it was in 1972), you can see that the mortgage would
be paid off in less than 15 years, perhaps less than 10!
As our national debt is reduced, so is the amount of $$ we are
spending on interest. Currently we spend close to 1/3 of our annual
budget just to pay interest on the debt. So, if in 10-20-30 years
we pay off the debt, our spending ability will have increased by
1/3 because the money spent on interest can be re-directed to other
activities. It is not like this will keep the amount of money spent
on programs from growing.
Thats the plan. The real question is, will anyone actually pursue
making this change, NOT LIKELY! Love your show, keep up the good
work.
* * *
Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence contains a list of grievences against
King George III of England. These were considered by the Continental
Congress to be serious enough to declare independence from Great
Britain. Upon reviewing these points, I have found that most of
them could apply to President Clinton:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good. [Self-Explanatory based on the past few years]
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent
should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected
to attend to them.
[Substitute the word "his governors" for "members
of the Democratic Party"]
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right
of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them
and formidable to tyrants only.
[Will bargain with laws and add pork until they are unpassable.
Ex. Flood
Relief bills]
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public records, for the
sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
[Stonewalling and lying during the impeachment investigation, etc.]
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing
with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. [Anyone
opposed to him is destroyed]
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable
of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their
exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the
dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for
that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
[Land grabs in the West]
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his
assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
[Distortion of the rule of law]
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure
of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms
of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without
the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior
to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders
which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
[Did someone say "mock trial"?]
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
[Internet fees on our phone bills, Airline passenger fees, etc.]
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
[Jennifer Flowers, etc.]
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring
province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging
its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws,
and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
[Destroyed our Constitution. Impeachment is meaningless if it can
be controlled by Party solidarity]
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection
and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns,
and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries
to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already
begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled
in the most barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized
nation.
[Kosovo, etc.]
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high
seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners
of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction
of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[Substitute the word "Indian savages" with FBI or IRS]
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress
in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered
only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked
by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler
of a free people.
I am not advocating Independence from the Unites States, only pointing
out the similarities I have found in this document. I am certain
that you could add a lot more content to these points.
Dittos,
- C. Smith, MN
* * *
Subject: Government Defined
Socialism: you have two cows. You keep one and give one to your
neighbor.
Communism: you have two cows. The government takes them both and
provides you with milk.
Fascism: you have two cows. The government takes them and sells
you the milk.
Bureaucracy: you have two cows. The government takes them both,
shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours
it down the drain.
Capitalism: you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Corporate: you have two cows. You sell one, force the other to produce
the milk of four cows and then acts surprised when it drops dead.
Democratism: you have two cows. The government taxes you to the
point that you must sell them both in order to support a man in
a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your
government.
Robert Booth
* * *
JFK on Liberties
"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders,
and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same
extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people."
-- President John F. Kennedy
* * *
Subject: Please check this out: Government Waste of our Money?
I think that you should check up on spending of government money
of products. Here are two examples.
Example #1: The government spends over $100 for a bolt which you
can buy in the local automotive store for under $1.00.
Example #2: All Army airplane tickets are purchased through the
a company on the post. Which costs up to $$$$$. For example. I can
buy an airplane ticket on the Internet using Expedia Travel for
$175 and using the Army purchasing company on Ft. Bragg. Going to
the same location it would charge the Army over $900 for the same
ticket.
These are just a couple of examples and CAN SOMEONE CHECK ON THIS
PLEASE. I am a Retired Veteran. Thank you very much
Sincerely, Tony
* * *
Royalty vs. Merchants in West Richland, WA
About nine months ago I purchased an automotive garage on the main
street (Van Giesen) of the little town of West Richland, WA. For
40 years this shop has been commercial property with an apartment
in the back of the shop. The apartment has been lived in for 40
years. I purchased the property for my son, set him up in the apartment,
and made him manager of the automotive shop.
Soon after purchase, the royal members of the high and mighty West
Richland City Council notified us that we would not be allowed to
live on the property. After forcing them to read us the ordinance,
we pointed out that there was nothing prohibiting the owner of the
property from living on the property. They stated that unless the
ordinance specifically stated that we could live there then we could
not.
In other words, the only thing you CAN do with your property is
what they specifically SAY YOU CAN do with your property. We called
BS (Bovine Sauce) and stood our ground. They backed off. Now, nine
months later they are back and have changed the ordinance to state
that no one can live on commercial property. This has really got
my dander up. This new ordinance not only affects me, but about
a dozen other small business owners in West Richland. What can we
do? Is it possible to fight city hall? Tomorrow I will pay my taxes,
a portion of which will go to good ole boy Prince John at the West
Richland City Hall. I'm so mad I could just spit!
Lloyd
* * *
Rush, I am an avid fan of yours and since I retired from the government
this year I've listened to your weekly program almost every day.
Due to your program, I've had my eyes opened and been totally stupefied
at the Liberals and their lying, cheating tactics, and want to thank
you for steering us in the "truthful" direction on the
political path. However, may I exchange an idea with you regarding
one of your comments that I just heard on the radio--you made the
remark that President Bush's "government hiring of people from
outside", so to speak, was really going to rile up the government
union members, and that government employees belong to these unions.
That is true of some government agencies, but I worked for the
U.S. Geological Survey for 25 years, and no one in the USGS belonged
to a union or was influenced by one. The majority of the USGS employs
dedicated and hard working people, most of whom are doing research
and possess a PHD in their fields. If you really knew the rules
and regulations when it comes to hiring from outside, you'd be amazed.
One more thing--in 1995 the Geologic Division went through a Reduction-in-Force,
and in the team I worked in there were 36 employees out of about
150 who lost their jobs, mainly because the administration would
no longer fund the projects they were working in (for one, the Radon
Project). So, it's only partially true that it's virtually impossible
to get rid of a government employee. Please give some credit to
those Feds whom we all should be proud to have handling our tax
moneys.
* * *
RushOnline.com
Index * Visitor
Debate Index
Cartoons
* Hall of Fame * War
On Terror * Topic
Index
ElectionSpeeches.com
* MarineReunions.com
* UsedTrucks.com
