Seein' as how we just had to go through that whole State Of The Union Lie To The Country address BS yet again (with entirely predictable results), it seemed fitting to remember one of those we rejected a way back, in such a bloody hurry to get down the road to this sorry pass.
Imagine, just for a moment, hearing this from your president:
"I have little interest in 'streamlining' government, nor in making it ' more efficient,' for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to ' promote welfare,' for I propose to extend Freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is Constitutionally permissible. And, when attacked for ' neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is Liberty, and in that cause I am doing the best I can."
One might be forgiven for having to read that twice; you'd never hear such things from inside the Beltway now (well, save that one guy who actually tries, but he got run off by all the Establishment players for being, uh, inconvenient too). Man, what a dolt, eh? Apparently the majority thought so too, pushing him aside by a huge margin in favor of--get this--Lyndon Johnson. (Even Alaska went with LBJ.)
Consider, for just a moment, where we might be now if we'd made a different choice in 1964. Actually different.
(Yeah, I know I'm askin' you to dream. I figure I'm doing you a favor, since the alternative is to focus on the fraudulent tripe that we did and do get from the heads of state we anoint over anyone who is actually committed to liberty. And while I may get grumpy, I'm not mean.)
(And by the way, a truthful State Of The Union could have been delivered in one word: SNAFU. (A case might also be made for illegitimate, as an alternative.))
Comments
How much has Israeli control of American foreign policy cost the people of the United States?
The government and media has worked mightily to keep the American people from fully realizing that the Zionist domination of our politics and support for the murderous Israeli regime, has directly led to 9/11 and other acts of terrorism against Americans around the world.
Their power in media and politics has also led us into catastrophic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with thousands of American casualties and billions of dollars spent, for what? For Israel, that's what.
The DOW slumped, as did Gold. (manipulation anyone?) Yet his points go up? Must be a new additive in the Kool-aid.
Times like this when I go out and buy more ammo and silver.
Getting a nice collection since He took office.
Notice:
Forthcoming will be an article stating a policy for comment trolls spouting nonsequitur, red herring crusades, from anonymity, using keyworded language right out of the Provocateuring Playbook, Ad Nauseam Edition. To wit: a linkable explanation for why such will simply be removed.
Ah-gain: I have no need to chase imaginary bogeymen, or give the real ones (operating quite openly in positions of prominence, thanks) irrelevant names. Tyranny--naked aggression--does not need another name, and to insist on such is to admit that liberty is not the real goal.
Sorry, troll(s). We'll be staying on target here.
(BTW, just to be clear: not you, Diogenes. :-)
He got "the ugly" right but he sure missed on the truth part. I suspect he may be one of our enemies in terrycloth headgear.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!