ledeagenda.com

Google: Dow Jones Industrial Average

Way to go Obama voter. Way to freaking go.

Related: LedeAgenda.com: Obama’s Market Panic

How much more are we in store for?

Consider what would happen if people suddenly decided that cooperating with insane taxes and regulations is no longer worth the results. Consider what would happen if 50% of the people in any industry suddenly said, “enough is enough”.

We may soon well find out if Barack Hussein Obama has his way with the liberal socialized medicine agenda.

We cannot exclude the possibility of a mass industrial and economic exodus should the trends continue for mass socialism.

A key line from the CNN article:

Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they’d consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there’s too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.

Something to consider anyway, I believe the same holds true over most industries at the moment.

________

Related- RedState.com: Republican leaders MUST put principles over politics

From Tulsa World:

“I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth,” he said.

“And this is one of those nine times.”

Related: WSJ: Paulson will keep “reserves”

Congrats to the 2008 National Cheer Champs!

ESPN: College Football Scoreboard

A look into what we are in for with Obama’s one-sided government. Spooky.

The key to the Ron Paul Revolution:

During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.

I am so tired.

It is becoming impossible to take a stand for the constitutional principals of limited government, smaller taxes and personal freedoms.

George Washington once wrote, “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness”(Circular to the States, May 9, 1753). How far have we fallen.

Government is acting without restraint and without respect for the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.

James Madison summed up the powers granted to the Federal Government in Federalist #41:

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:

1. Security against foreign danger;

2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;

3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;

4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;

5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;

6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

Correct me if I am wrong, but among the powers Madison listed the themes of restraint and diligence bear strong weight. We are blazing an unforged and unencumbered path to audacious federal power. I am afraid the rule of law is no longer written, no longer tested and no longer universally accepted as what is necessary to protect our inalienable rights. Government power is, as it seems now, all about protecting us from failure.

Lets be quite clear, Federal taxation must be consistent with specific listed and delegated powers of the Federal Government. Again, from Federalist  #41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.

So I ask simply, to those who voted in favor of this and other coming bailouts: Where does the Constitution give you the authority to use taxpayer money to bail out privately held companies?

We need to be very concerned over this assumption to act on the Federal Government’s part, to not question the underlying premise of authority is to ignore the very arguments Madison made in favor of ratifying the Constitution and granting the Federal Government powers of taxation. 

Some more resources:

CATO: Is The Bailout Constitutional?

The Heritage Foundation: The Housing Bailout: Constitutional Infirmities Remain, but a Ray of Hope