Office 2010 Professional Plus Product Key stop acc

[tools514]

the whole level of [the new deal ] with fdr was to ensure never-ending strength for that democrat party by identifying it as the get together that cares even more about you and is also going to make sure you never should experience at all at any time for just about any valid reason – and persons bought it.~ rush limbaughconstitutional scholar and historian david barton appeared in recent times on the glenn beck display and urged viewers not to “fall into progressives’ traps.” barton continued: “on my property in texas i should set traps for skunks. i can only catch them if they don’t recognize my traps; therefore, don’t accept progressives’ paradigms.” barton’s comments reminded me of something rush limbaugh has been saying for years but few republicans seem to take heed – “don’t accept the premises of liberalism.”i believe that barton and limbaugh want americans to question all of what we accept as normal in modern society – from abortion, the welfare state, universal health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, department of education, to the federal reserve, the irs, income tax, death tax, separation of church and state and thousands of other examples. these progressive policies are the results of democrats using the techniques of fabian socialism (gradualism).that said, how many times have you and i watched the state-controlled media sponsor a debate between the left and the right when any one of the progressive policies cited above is ipso facto assumed to be constitutional and viewed by both ideological sides as for your common good? the debate usually follows that the democrat wants even additional money for government programs and entitlements and the so-called republican candidate wants to tweak liberal entitlement programs (mend it, don’t end it).like any tyranny, progressivism always starts off with a pretext – here, the economic collapse of the banking industry and free market in october 1929. in the early 1930s, many people were unemployed at unprecedented numbers, starving, suffering and didn’t care about the constitution, limited government or natural law. therefore, the great depression was music to fdr and socialist democrats’ ears.for example, judge andrew napolitano wrote in his outstanding 2006 book, “the constitution in exile,” about an fdrnew deal 1934 landmark case, “home building & loan association v. blaisdell,” being responsible for multiple liberal democratic boondoggles that have plagued america to this day, including: the home mortgage collapse, destroying separation of powers and the contracts clause,Office 2007 Product Key, while promoting the big socialist lie that you can live outside your means because the government will provide all your needs.in the blaisdell case, the supreme court upheld a minnesota law that prevented mortgage holders from foreclosing on mortgages for a two-year period. sound familiar? i recently came across this article in chicagoland: “chicago sheriff says no to enforcing foreclosures.” this law was exactly the kind of legislation the contracts clause was written to stop, as it kept irresponsible borrowers from defaulting on their home mortgages and relieved them of their contractual obligations – entered freely under agreement – to their lenders. the court allowed the minnesota law under the pretext of “emergency legislation.”blaisdell started the court down the slippery slope of anti-business judicial policymaking. once achieved,Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit, the court and the legislature would deem whatever they viewed was a “valid police purpose.” it also ended the founders’ intent for the contracts clause, rendering it a dead letter by 1937.remember that progressives love a crisis and thrive under controlled chaos and trotskyite “perpetual revolution.” progressives like obama and liberal democrats are masters at using the government as a means of helping the persons by way of an “emergency,” when in reality they are unconstitutionally seizing a great deal more electrical power for the federal government while depriving power from we the many people.the blaisdell court showed utter contempt for your constitution by rendering the founders’ original intent to be irrelevant in the interpretation of constitutional language. chief justice charles evans hughes (a progressive republican) said as early as 1907, “we are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges says it means.”liberal arrogance and hatred of the constitution wasn’t always so evident. in 1802, president thomas jefferson repealed the judiciary act of 1801 and removed 18 out of 35 circuit court judges from the bench when these judges demonstrated derision of the constitution in their rulings. judge napolitano notes that judges must be made to learn that “the constitution is not some guideline to be consulted from time to time by politicians, lawmakers and judges. it is the supreme law of the land.”the blaisdell case notwithstanding, fdr wanted even a lot more control over american businesses. in 1935, the high court had invalidated the nira (national industrial recovery act) and in 1936 the aaa (agricultural adjustment administration). fdr was acutely aware that the court, through the so-called “four horsemen of the apocalypse” – james mcreynolds, pierce butler, willis van devanter and george sutherland, with owen roberts because the swing vote – could well invalidate the social security act and the national labor relations act, two pillars of new offer legislation.flushed with his second-term victory, fdr resolved to control the court through increasing the bureaucracy, so in 1937 roosevelt crafted legislation innocuously referred to as the “judiciary reorganization bill.” fdr had the hubris to threaten the court with six addition members if they didn’t rule his new offer legislation constitutional. the court caved in to fdr’s fascist tactics, thus in effect killing the constitution and delegitimizing the court.if you think i write from hyperbole,Office Home And Business 2010 64 Bit, please read some of the majority and dissenting opinions of progressive justices like william brennan, thurgood marshall, william blackmun,Office 2010 Home And Student 32 Bit, ruth bader ginsburg, sandra day o’connor, stephen breyer, david souter, john paul stevens and sonya sotomayor. all of these consumers (some appointed by republican presidents) have done great harm to the constitution, violating natural law and our unalienable natural rights. therefore …america must stop accepting progressive premises.(c) ellis washingtonellis washington is former editor of the michigan law review and law clerk at the rutherford institute. he hosts a radio program thursdays at 11 a.m. eastern on 1620 am in atlanta. it can be heard online at the radio sandy springs website. his weekly podcasts are available mondays at the conservative beacon. washington is a graduate of john marshall law school and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history and critical race theory. he has written over a dozen law review articles and several books,Office 2010 Professional Plus Product Key, including “the inseparability of law and morality: the constitution, natural law and the rule of law” (2002). washington’s latest book is “the nuremberg trials: last tragedy of the holocaust.”