Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, please Rodney. You have a right to spend money the people don't have, to consign their unborn children, entities with no right to make or break a contract to contractual obligations for your living constituents and the lobbyists who keep you in office?

Please, please, you can beg better than this.

Have you ever really read the Constitution?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 4:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill...we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one."
---Plato

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 4:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thomas Jefferson's Opinion on where you are getting this money you claim you have a right to:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 4:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Representatives have no right to appropriate funds Rodney. What you are ciiting as a right is actually a limit listed under Article 1 Section 9:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriatons by Law:

There are even restrictions on this restriction, not that you would be aware. The Appropriations are supposed to be by Law, and that Law describes money as gold and silver coins.

Regarding Money, which the Treasury has none of, Congress is empowered to borrow money on the credit of the United States, yet is evident you don't understand what credit is.

Credit is the faith that a loan extended will be paid back; forced repayment of debt is not credit, it is coercion.

You are so far off base on your Constitutional understanding you are a poor excuse for a Republican. Or a Democrat for that matter. Please go ask Mr. Kucinich to tutor you at least until it is determined whether you have the aptitude to learn or not.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enkik, despite your considerable powers as a wordsmith, do you think you will make a good fossil?

I mean in the eventual layer of earth that is our civilization do you think those who rail on the illegitimacy of spending as you do will be a millimeter thick in the leavings of the rest?

Look I know it would be a different system if we stuck by those old rules. The FED and "money" management are not going away. Congress taketh away and congress giveth. There is still a system and those that work it are to prevail and manage our course of events to their liking.

Don't you think you would be better applied tweaking what is rather than insisting on something that is not and will not be in our lifetime? I mean Plato and Jefferson don't get to vote any more, and a lot of people do select a doctor by his eloquence and his looks.

It already takes an act of congress -- if only by a line of it -- to allocate funds. And considering, unfortunately, it is among the more representative ways to distribute what will be taken from us.

Like you, I have little faith in government. But I do not consider the constitution to be perfectly designed either, except maybe for a land that was -- where a man could own a man, the consequences of actions were less fully known, and if you couldn't summon a militia out of the people who heard you speak you weren't much of a politician.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The constitution didn't have to be perfectly designed Yeahuhuh, it only had to be good enough.

Part of that good enough was laying out a system of weights and measures, something any civilization must have. Fiat money is a centuries old tool, born in Babylon, for deceiving the people engaged in commerce.

The Fed will eventually go away because it will implode in the same hyperinflation spiral ALL previous fiat money systems have imploded in and that ours rests on the brink of.

Jefferson merely attempted to save us the grief of learning that for ourselves.

Tweaking the current misapplication of Constitutional powers is tantamount to treason, so I will decline to participate.

If I am a fossil we all are; there is only one story told on the face of the earth. The part of that story Rodney Alexander is telling was told in the destruction of all empires.

The story Rodney tells is the story of one man owning another; it is only through the illusions of freedom and the use of debt as currency that the people do not realize they are owned. Having become so fond of illusion and so unable to distinguish the real from the unreal the people happily accept their slavery and eagerly implore the Rodneys of the world to enslave them more.

I expect that on my death I will dissolve back into the elements of the earth, having no more nor less volume than anyone else of my mass.

"As a member of the House committee, I have been dedicated to preserving the integrity and the efficacy of the federal appropriations process."
- Rodney Alexander

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
- Congressional Oath of Office

As has been said before, you can't serve both God and Mammon; it is apparent who Rodney Alexander gives his allegiance to.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I doubt that God is represented by either side in that choice.

People live out their economic lives here, some prosper incredibly and some don't. As long as we do better than most of the rest of the Earth that is good enough for most -- just like good enough is fine for a constitution.

It occurs to me that our rights in participation in an economic system are to be defined by the participants in their acceptance and the tweaking upon which they insist. We will be fooled for sure by accepting other people's versions of what is most right. Again if we succeed in advancing to pay for our real needs as individuals, perfection is not necessary -- only a high relative success rate.

While the most wise of pundits constantly see and discuss the biggest picture, that is also the realm of the insane and I myself have been warned of that. The adjustments happen at the hands of people like Representative Alexander more than at the hands of internet posters.

Instead of pushing for the abolition of federal banking I would think it much more movement oriented to convince Rep. Alexander that his party has become the poster child of deceit in government, and that by their own measures they have dashed the ship of state on the rocks.

Most refreshing of all would be an admission from him that the error of overspending and abuse of earmarks at the hands of his party has been a travesty that might reasonably dictate their demise. Getting molested by your hard-partying uncle (Democrats) is one thing, but having the preacher (the GOP) do it is another thing entirely.

THEN he could better talk about the legitimacy of earmarks. But I don't think the existence of the FED is on the table for him.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know Yeahuhuh, lately Alan Greenspan has been quietly suggesting that maybe we ought to go back to sound money. I think the Fed chiefs are getting freaked out over the precarious balance of the system.

In a 1995 series of hearings the Fed explained to Congress that overspending was the fault of Congress, that all the Fed did was supply the money and set the interest rate. The Fed is faultless, and Congress blames everything on the business cycle, which is created by the Fed.

We are out of cash, and I recently heard that for the first time interest payment on the national debt has exceeded the GDP. That means we have no credit either. That is the cause of the recent inflation, the only tool the Fed has left is the creation of more money and that is what created the problem to start with. I'm glad I'm not Ben Bernanke. It can't be fun waking up each morning knowing this could be the day America leads the world into the next great depression.

Greenspan is in a much better position, having retired. Now he can say "I told you so- didn't you read Gold and Economic Freedom that I wrote way back in 1966?"

Posted by Username (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

U.S. Rep. RODNEY ALEXANDER (my rep)is a co-sponser of "House Concurrent Resolution 362"
I oppose this outragous resolution that will....

*Create an international blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing the refined gasoline it needs to run its economy
*Subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspections
*Tighten economic sanctions against Iran
*Violate international treaties by prohibiting Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travelling abroad.
If another country took such actions against us, we would consider it an act of war. In addition, passage of this resolution would end negotiations with Iran in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume.

House Concurrent Resolution 362 is a major step toward war. It would reduce the opportunity for a negotiated settlement with Iran, and even worse, President Bush could take this resolution as a sign that he has Congressional support to attack Iran before he leaves office.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the Username. If we don't end up in another war it will be a miracle.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnK...you should have gone to law school, then you would have the credentials to interpret the Constitution, otherwise, it's just your quite long winded opinion and just like mine, it doesn't count for much.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Username...you're right, a blockade, or sanction (which is the same thing), is considered an act of war under international law. That is very well known. The difference here is that it is part of the enforcement of U.N. resolutions which Iran has repeatedly violated.

You fail to recognize that Iran has continuously supported terrorism and incited war against the western democracies...what do you want to do? You can do something now to get their attention or you can wait for the first nuclear suicide bomber to launch a real World War.

The strategy seems to be working with North Korea, they took down a nuclear cooling tower today. We were tough and they backed down.

If the Iranians don't have gasoline or anything better than a subsistence economy they can't very well continue their terrorism efforts or their nuclear weapon aspirations can they. I'd rather starve them than meet them in battle because we didn't do anything until it was too late.

I only hope the Iranians aren't as stupidly fanatical as their government seems to be.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, Sam, the constitution is self evident. Jefferson's explanation regarding money is easy to follow as well. It was intended that everyone understand the constitution. You don't need a lawyer or law degree for that.

My opinion does count because it is a literal interpretation of the constitution. I merely restated it.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, that resolution contained within it that one of the fears of the sponsors is that Iran will develop regional hegemony. Not surprising, since that was in Rebuilding America's Defenses written in 1997.

The irony is that this resolution is made by representatives
of a federal government that has established regional hegemony over the fifty nation states signatory to its constitution; this same government itself seeks to establish regional hegemony in the middle east, the very place it accuses Iran of wanting to establish hegemony.

You fail to recognize that it was western democracies that created the current regime in Iran. So who created the terrorism?

Posted by Swapmeet (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enk,

Didn't the United States back the Shah? I thought the islamic revolution in, was it '78, that placed the Grand Ayatollah as the spiritual head of the nation overthrew the Shah's government. Just wondering.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam,

You like kinda disingenuous listing Iran's support of ire against the US but failing to mention that the US overthrew their government and installed the Shah at the request of British officials in the 50's that sought to preserve Iran as an oil source. We installed the Shah, installed Savak their political police bureau to stifle dissent, and kept the whole country as a pet for 25 years.

Eisenhower did this as part of his imperial destabilization campaign in Guatemala, Iran and Africa. Word was he giggled at how easy it was to change a government without a military.

If Bush had the courage to remind folks of that, he would be honest. Instead, he creates mostly untrue talking points for parrots and idiots to repeat as they wave the flag.

Actually, if they were an ally, we would probably supply Iran with nuclear weapons like Israel has. They certainly have good reason to go out and get a gun.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh...from an historical perspective you are correct (EnKiKur wasn't) the Shah was placed in power with the help of the CIA in order to stop a communist takeover...unfortunately, the Shah was hated by his people, which allowed the Ayatollahs to take over. During the Shah's reign, the people generally looked favorably upon the US...it was only when Carter tried to prop up the failing regime that the people of Iran turned on the US.

All that being said, it is still no excuse for Iran to do anything other than defend it's borders. They have no legitimate reason to support Hezbollah or Hamas. They have no legitimate reason to covertly destabilize other Middle Eastern governments. They have no legitimate reason to develop nuclear weapons.

In fact, it has repeatedly been made clear that if they stop their warlike activities ours would cease as well and additionally they can expect quite generous treatment from the US, NATO, UN and the World Bank.

What is their reason for persisting? It has nothing to do with self defense. It is all about establishing a Shiite muslim caliphate, i.e. it's an islamo-fascist jihad against anyone who opposes their hijacked religion. They simply use the Israel and the US as tools to rally the other muslim states to support them. So far, while they have received some sympathy for their efforts in and around Israel, the Sunni states are more afraid of Persian hegemony than they are of a US presence.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Declassified documents have revealed that it was the CIA that portrayed the democratically elected leader of Iran as a communist.

Others reveal that the US promoted radical Islam.

Iran, being an Islamic state, does not want World Bank help because under Islamic banking law it is forbidden to take or pay interest.

Islamo-fascism is a buzz word but it is at odds with Suriya. It is not possible to be both a fascist and a fundamentalist Islamic. Confidence in lack of knowledge of both fascism and Islam allows the myth of islamo-fascism to be perpetuated.

When I have time I will email the declassified documents that prove what I am saying Sam.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding your statements about needing a law degree to interpret the constitution Sam, I point you to the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville touring in Kentucky in the early days of the country:

"These men . . . belong to one of the most civilised and rational peoples in the world. Their manners have nothing of rustic naïveté. The philosophic and argumentative spirit of the English is found there as in all America. There is an astonishing circulation of letters and newspapers among these savage woods. . . . . I do not think that in the most enlightened rural districts of France there is intellectual movement either so rapid or on such a scale as in this wilderness."

In this same book he goes on to say that no where had he seen a population so well versed in the law as the American citizenry.

How then do we come to a time when those such as you hold that law is beyond the common understanding? It is only through a long and concerted effort at undermining true education in this country.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think the newspapers he was referring to were of the quality of the Democrat though.

Posted by Username (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam- I'll quote you...

"You fail to recognize that Iran has continuously supported terrorism and incited war against the western democracies...what do you want to do? You can do something now to get their attention or you can wait for the first nuclear suicide bomber to launch a real World War."

...think about what you just said.
It sounds to me like you have your Middle Eastern borders mixed up, don't you mean Saudi Arabia and not Iran?
How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iran?(or even Iraq for that matter?)
Do you realize the suicide bombers don't come from Iran?

And another point is... where do you get your info that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon? In december 2007 the NIE says that Iran discontinued it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not resumed it.
There is still NO evidence that Iran,a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Username-How would you handle Iran? Give me a good Common Sense answer! Not a long winded EnK theory? Remember The United Nations is a JOKE! Remember, Alexander was once a DemocRAT!

Posted by Username (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rushing, that's a stupid question that you ask me.
How would "I" handle Iran?
What needs to be handled about Iran?
What has Iran done to America's homeland?
Are just guilty until proven innocent?

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

User-That's just a smart question that you can't answer? You sound like you are "kin" to Owhampy! All mouth?

Posted by Username (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mitch,you're an IDIOT
Iran is not mine or yours to do anything with!
What is to be done?
What would I do?
What would you do?
What would jesus do?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

World Wars are made of opposing teams of idiots led by bankers and arms merchants.