“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.” – Ronald Reagan
Conservative Talk: What did they say?
Phyllis Schlafly | Good Advice Against a Con Con
Suggestions that the United States call a new constitutional convention, as allowed in the Constitution’s Article V, have popped up in some state legislatures and even on a page in The Wall Street Journal. No longer do these voices claim a convention can be limited to consideration of a single amendment (e.g., a balanced budget amendment) — grandstanding politicians are proposing a wide assortment of many amendments to produce big changes.
Speaking to us from across the years, the father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on Nov. 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention.
“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.
“Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”
Madison’s prophetic warnings against a general convention to amend our Constitution (now colloquially called a Con Con) are even more compelling today.
David Limbaugh | Read the Transcript and Freak
Until I read the transcript of President Barack Obama’s rambling, incoherent 2,600-word answer to a simple question from “Doris” at an appearance in Charlotte, N.C., about how we can afford Obamacare when we are already overtaxed, I dismissed as absurd the notion that he’s a Manchurian candidate — a plant. I still do, but after reading his response, I seriously almost have to question his competence.
I didn’t watch the video, but the unscripted answer — no disrespect intended — sounds as if it was delivered by a drunk on an ideological mission. His answer was a veritable clinic in narcissistic circumlocution, a mishmash of barely related talking points about his health care plan — not about taxes, as Doris had requested.
Where are all these liberal elitists, including those masquerading as conservative intellectuals, who told us they voted for him largely based on his intellectual acuity? Pride means never having to say you’re sorry. But you should be.
It’s obvious how disorganized his thinking is when you read his answer. I encourage you to follow this link and see for yourself.