Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

>I Follow Freedom Dictates of Thomas Jefferson

>What A Great Day – With Glenn Beck At The Helm We Shall Not Fail!

Both Democrats and Republicans have noted the change in attitude by Americans. Most polls show that Americans are not satisfied with the performance of Congress and the presidents these past one hundred fifty years.
Ever since 1913 when Progressive President Woodrow Wilson signed bills to institute a national bank, The Federal Reserve System, and start collecting income taxes, people have been unhappy. Why? Because it made government king. It enlarged the size of government and took control of things away from the people and the states.
Big government is a political disconnect by definition. Having someone go to Congress and spend twenty to forty years there is an abomination. We drastically need term limits to bring government back to the people. When you have someone in office for all that time you get rampant spending, budgets that are broken yearly, big unaccountable spending – and lately with Barak Obama it has been trillion-dollar deficits.
I hope that you agree with me that the Tea Party Movement is the best thing that has happened to America for a long, long time. I am praying that the Conservative Congress we have elected for 2011 and 2012 will get the job done for America. It doesn’t mean passing more new laws that require massive regulations. Just the opposite. They need to wind down things Obama and his communist friends have done to this country. Good luck, and God bless.
Both Democrats and Republicans have noted the change in attitude by Americans. Most polls show that Americans are not satisfied with the performance of Congress and the presidents these past one hundred fifty years.
Ever since 1913 when Progressive President Woodrow Wilson signed bills to institute a national bank, The Federal Reserve System, and start collecting income taxes, people have been unhappy. Why? Because it made government king. It enlarged the size of government and took control of things away from the people and the states.
Big government is a political disconnect by definition. Having someone go to Congress and spend twenty to forty years there is an abomination. We drastically need term limits to bring government back to the people. When you have someone in office for all that time you get rampant spending, budgets that are broken yearly, big unaccountable spending – and lately with Barak Obama it has been trillion-dollar deficits.
I hope that you agree with me that the Tea Party Movement is the best thing that has happened to America for a long, long time. I am praying that the Conservative Congress we have elected for 2011 and 2012 will get the job done for America. It doesn’t mean passing more new laws that require massive regulations. Just the opposite. They need to wind down things Obama and his communist friends have done to this country. Good luck, and God bless.

>Let’s Get Back To Basic Constitutionalism In America


Deseret News

Founding Fathers would have contempt for vision of today’s Americans

Published: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT
The celebration of our founders’ 1776 revolt against King George III and the English Parliament is over. Let’s reflect how the founders might judge today’s Americans and how today’s Americans might judge them.
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

He later added, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multitrillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or “objects of benevolence.”

What would the founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule? Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said: “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” John Adams advised, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” The founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

What would the founders think about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision where the court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to hand over to another American? Adams explained: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Thomas Jefferson counseled us not to worship the U.S. Supreme Court: “(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for theLegislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

How might our founders have commented about last week’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding our rights to keep and bear arms? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, said, “Individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment.” The founders would have responded “Balderdash!” Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

George Mason explained, “To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

” Noah Websterelaborated: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. … The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Contrary to Alito’s assertion, the central component of the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from U.S. Congress, not street thugs.

Today’s Americans have contempt for our founders’ vision. I’m sure our founders would have contempt for ours.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

>Reverse Discrimination: About Time For Some Justice and Sonja Sotomayor Won’t Bring That

>Reverse discrimination is what Sonja Sotomayor is about.

She discriminated over those dozen or so white (one Latin) firemen who passed all the tests for administrative promotions and were refused. This is outrageous and, alone, should be cause for the U.S. Senate to reject this Obama nominee.

When the firemen went into Judge Sotomayor’s appeals court, she turned them down because there weren’t any black men in that group.

That’s reverse discrimination of the worst kind. When people are prepared, pass a test, and meet every requirement including having the necessary time in position, they should get the promotion regardless of skin color. Most blacks agree with that statement. Discrimination is not the job of the court.

It’s been too long since the Civil War for the U.S. to still be discriminating against white folks just to salve the injustices of the past. All of those people have long since passed on, and you can’t take care of them in their graves.

How long must we put up with this kind of injustice? Well, Barak Obama believes we white people haven’t suffered long enough because now he’s nominated a Latino who is going to rule just as he would if he were on the Supreme Court. George Will wrote about this nominee, Sonja Sotomayor, in this morning’s Washington Post. I wrote a comment, which I’m including below along with several other comments.


dusanotes wrote:
Will’s third graph stops me cold. In their search for how the nominee will rule, Senators must discuss her desire to interpret the Constitution – strictly or loosely – and I think we know that answer.That must include jurisprudential unless we’re no longer a common law country. Doesn’t precedent mean anything? What are senators supposed to do, ask her how the Yankees did last night? No judge should be approved who is there to write new law.Congress does that. To merely judge by asking yourself what’s right and letting the law play catch up is wrong. May as well restrict nominees to members of the clergy. Sotomayor already thinks the High Court’s job is “policy making.”
5/27/2009 8:48:22 AM

Csmith5 wrote:
Yes George Will is a conservative, but he calls it like it is. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers for the SC, he wrote:

I wonder if we will read any op-eds from liberals criticizing Sotomayor’s judical activism or racism from the bench. Doubt it!!! Also, since some of you posters believe the U.S. is no longer a white christian country, can white males get away with making racist comments and use our status as a minority to get away with it, like so many other minorities have in the past? Can we receive some affirmative action? Me personally, I would love the opportunity to become an 8(a) business.

5/27/2009 8:46:37 AM

Georgia10 wrote:
At one time I thought that George Will’s historical references were meaningful. They were certainly amusing diversions. But now it clear that these are just a writer’s technique for avoiding inconvenient facts (for example, Judge Sotomayor’s exceedingly moderate record overall or God forbid, climate change) that might cause an intellectually honest writer to reach different conclusions. Mr. Will you have become sadly irrelevant. Perhaps it is time to concentrate solely on baseball.
5/27/2009 8:46:09 AM

jaysit wrote:
Not unexpectedly, Will shrieks on about “identity” justice, as if “identity politics” only raises its head when minorities or women are involved, and that somehow white men exist in a realm where only pure rule of reason applies. Poppycock. Will lives in a world where to be white is to be the normative, and where everything else is the exotic suspect (in Will’s own bubble, that normative is further restricted to”conservative white male). Is it no wonder that he makes the foolish “what-if” comparison between Sottomayor and Alito. I would reckon that Samuel Alito would need no reason to articulate that his decision-making stems in part from his perspective as a white male (a conservative, Christian with a capital “C,” white male no less). Why would he when Will and much of American society see that as the normative standard? Sottomayor’s only sin here is that of honesty. She knows that ethnicity, gender, race, experience, socio-economic background and, yes, religion affect the way we view the world. Its a pity that Will can’t accept that his own background and sum of his own experiences color his own perspective too. He’d also be advised to look at the record of Scalia who, in spite of the textualist babble he wraps himself in, brings the reasoning and sense of justice of a conservative, Catholic, white male. There is nothing wrong per se to this reality. However, its time that Will and his ilk recognize that they too are perpetrators of the same crimes they accuse others who aren’t of their “tribe.”
5/27/2009 8:45:20 AM

“Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?”

With pleasure.

Because for 240+ years up to and including today, old rich white men have owned the vast majority of resources, both in America and abroad. That’s who made the decisions regarding those resources, and more importantly, created the power structures – those I mentioned and others – to preserve those power structures. It was rich white men who have, for the last 500 years at least, plundered the rest of the world including this country. That’s an irrefutable fact. Ask a Native American…if you can find one, that is. Ask an unemployed African American male descended from stolen slave labor who can’t get a job because he has a non-violent felony drug conviction on his record. Ask a poor white person who owns the factory from which he just got laid off. Ask anyone other than a rich white man above his or her experience in America, and I guarantee you the stories you hear are not what you learned in class or see in the so-called “liberal” media.

I also have no guilt. I’m descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence (Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia), Scots-Irish hillbillies of Appalachia, and German and Irish immigrants who mined the coal, farmed the food, drove the trucks, fought the wars, fixed and built the mansions, roads and railroads that allowed rich white men to be where they are today.

It’s not guilt upon which my opinions and observations are founded. It’s the vivid 250-year experience of my ancestors and extended family – and the millions of others just like it – that has brought me to my conclusions. It’s reading history, and not just that presented by rich white men’s power structures. It’s getting out and seeing the rest of the world and listening to what people other than the white moneyed elite think about America and what it means to be American.

Turn off Rush, Hannity and Faux News and open your eyes to the 90% of history and reality you’re willingly disregarding so as to avoid testing the hypotheses that someone else has spoon-fed to you in order to preserve his/her their power and privilege. Leave the comfort of your upper-class suburban/exurban enclave or gated community and get out there to see with your own eyes what has happened and is happening in this country and why.

In other words, wake up.

5/27/2009 8:44:04 AM

Tell us, Mr. Will: Do your GOP talking points arrive each morning with a check? Or are you on a monthly Repuglican stipend?
5/27/2009 8:42:01 AM

George Will, you forget that the conservative justices never side with the individual over the corporation or the defendent over the prosecutor – never. Isn’t this just a different side of the same coin you are accusing the liberals of? I am not a journalist so I only have a personel interest in the truth – you however should have a public responsibility for the truth – a responsibility you seem to ignore consistently. Your truth seems one-sided and only black and white. No grey allowed or desired. It is this authoritarian absolutism that has caused conservatives to be thought of as intellectually bankrupt. If you are unable to understand why it is important for a supreme court nominee to have experiences outside yours then you are as devoid of any true reasoning. Your little history lessons are amusing, do the same research on the reasons for Sotomayor’s ruling in the 2nd circuit (precedence), report it factually and apologize for your misleading all of your readers.

Look into the context of Sotomayor’s “racial” speech with as much zeal as you looked into your history lesson and you may find that a quote taken out of context is misleading your readers.

I love your work on baseball and you are a wonderful historian but it seems to me you have let your conservative beliefs and priveledged upbringing blind you to seeing both sides of issues.

5/27/2009 8:33:44 AM

swanieaz wrote:
Now, if only you would pull the wool from over your eyes.

That wool, is your biased, bigoted, pejorative, condescending way you write – if you call it that!

Go back to jeans ! ! !


5/27/2009 8:33:43 AM

razzl wrote:
Ho hum, another day, another attempt to write an essay around some esoteric old-school movement conservative’s doctrinaire point. If movement conservatives were never willing to admit the validity of taking measures to relieve discrimination against racial, ethnic, or religious minorities when such discrimination was demonstrably systematic and crushing, then why should we worry about Will’s timeline for ending antidiscrimination measures? Those who fended off correcting the wrongs of the past are not at the head of the line to be listened to in the future…
5/27/2009 8:32:37 AM

jsc173 wrote:
Let’s face it. The Democrat party decided years ago that the most reliable, consistent approach to changing policy was control of the federal judiciary.

Presidents can only rule for 8 years. Members of Congress and Senators can rule indefinitely but run the risk of being fired every 2 to 6 years.

Judges, however, are there for life and salting the judiciary with judges who have a predisposition (uh, some would call it a bias) to view certain issues in a manner that runs counter to current judicial opinion can result in change over time.

The legislative process is now too slow and too burdened with back scratching, earmarking and other nasty little unpleasantries.

It’s so much easier to be able to control a handful of important appellate court seats, especially the Supreme Court, if you want to advance your political views.

5/27/2009 8:30:30 AM

Bugs222 wrote:
Will parrots standard GOPosaur talking points. As if the decisions rendered by white guys on the Supreme Court are somehow “objective” and not informed by their life experience. Well, here’s one white dude who is DELIGHTED with Obama’s pick of Sotomayor.
5/27/2009 8:30:14 AM

wdjrel wrote:
This kind of identity based appointment is exactly what I expected from Obama. He is an ACLU Democrat. All the words they use, like the rule of law, is double speak. They are interested only in getting even. I don’t even understand why they go to law school since their goal is to destroy the constitution and replace it with themselves.
5/27/2009 8:29:14 AM

Is it that big of a deal for us to have a few women on the court, and a few more people with dark skin? Are white conservative men the only humans who can dispense justice in this nation?
5/27/2009 8:25:37 AM

klcscott wrote:
“…and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.”

Of course, to support this preconception, Mr. Will must ignore that in the same speech, Ms. Sotomayer went on to say:

“We should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.”

In all fairness, I don’t think George is being so much dishonest, as he is just being lazy, again.

5/27/2009 8:22:33 AM

jjhare wrote:
Weak sauce, Will. What happened to deferring to the Presidents’ wisdom on these decisions? Wasn’t that the whole “elections have consequences” bit?
5/27/2009 8:20:47 AM

longbow651 wrote:
Americanitis wrote:

People like George Will make me laugh. He – like other conservative white males his age – thinks that the country belongs to white christian men of capital….”


A little reverse bigotry from a guilt ridden member of the majority. You seem to have the problem worked out to your satisfaction. I agree the corporate and government minds are not up to par but what I have problem with is your rationale for the reasons. Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?

5/27/2009 8:19:01 AM

Psalm9_17 wrote:
Why do conservative judges always have to swear that they are unbiased, yet liberal judges while openly biased and praised for it in the mainstream media? Never trust the mainstream liberal media and the judges they support.
5/27/2009 8:18:44 AM

pihto999 wrote:
ull disclosure – I’m a 31-year-old white male. And I for one think that old white men like George have screwed up America quite enough, thank you very much.


Maybe you need to look around, countries not govened by white males. Like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Kim of North Korea, Chavez of Venezuela. What are other better choices in you racist book?
5/27/2009 8:16:51 AM

pihto999 wrote:
Listen to libtards! They keep talking about what ethnic and religious background the Justices have, NOT how they judge or what their judicial convictions are! Thanks for proving WIll’s point :


And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity


So much for colorblind society! Libs are patronizing racists
5/27/2009 8:11:35 AM

On the surface, Sotomayer looks like an excellent choice; she has great credentials and experiences. However, if the Supreme Court overturns her decision in the New Haven firefighters case for the reasons stated in this article, then Sotomayer is a dangerous activist making social policy from the bench and then it is no wonder that Obama selected her. This needs further investigation but in the end, it is highly unlikely she will be blocked from appoinment. the Reubicans don’t have the votes. Also, the Republicans don’t want to alienate the Hispanic community, ost of whom will not care about Sotomayer’s social activism compared to getting an hispanic on the Supreme Court.
5/27/2009 8:09:08 AM

>Contact Your Representative And Ask Their Opinion


For Email addresses & voting record of your congressmen.  and type in your zip code.



Published on on April 6, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version

On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London.  The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States.  Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.
The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness.  It is to set a “framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires.”  These standards are to include the extension of “regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets…[including] systemically important hedge funds.”
Note the key word: “all.”  If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company “systemically important”, it may regulate and over see it.  This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be “too big to fail.”
The FSB is also charged with “implementing…tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms.”
That means that the FSB will regulate how much executives are to be paid and will enforce its idea of corporate social responsibility at “all firms.”
The head of the Financial Stability Forum, the precursor to the new FSB, is Mario Draghi, Italy’s central bank president.  In a speech on February 21, 2009, he gave us clues to his thinking.  He noted that “the progress we have made in revising the global regulatory framework…would have been unthinkable just months ago.”
He said that “every financial institution capable of creating systemic risk will be subject to supervision.” He adds that “it is envisaged that, at international level, the governance of financial institutions, executive compensation, and the special duties of intermediaries to protect retail investors will be subject to explicit supervision.”
In remarks right before the London conference, Draghi said that while “I don’t see the FSF [now the FSB] as a global regulator at the present time…it should be a standard setter that coordinates national agencies.”
This “coordination of national agencies” and the “setting” of “standards” is an explicit statement of the mandate the FSB will have over our national regulatory agencies.
Obama, perhaps feeling guilty for the US role in triggering the international crisis, has, indeed, given away the store.  Now we may no longer look to presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, to make policy for our economy.  These decisions will be made internationally.
And Europe will dominate them.  The FSF and, presumably, the FSB, is now composed of the central bankers of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus representatives of the World Bank, the European Union, the IMF, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Europe, in other words, has six of the twelve national members.  The G-20 will enlarge the FSB to include all its member nations, but the pro-European bias will be clear.  The United States, with a GDP three times that of the next largest G-20 member (Japan), will have one vote.  So will Italy.
The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades.  It is essential to them that they rein in American free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive.  Now, with President Obama’s approval, they have done it.

Go to to read all of Dick’s columns!




You are currently subscribed to dick_morris_reports as:
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to

>Obama Cannot Revoke Runnymede


Can Barak Obama Abolish The Magna Carta?
                                         By Don White
It was the fifteenth of June,1215 when men rode over the long sweep of the Meadow of Runnymede beside the placid river where mail rang, swords, lances, shields and spears flickered and flashed in the glancing morning sunlight.
There were more than forty noblemen that formed an advancing front stretched across the width of the meadow. There in the center was Robert FitzWalter and beside him rode Eustace de Vesci. Both had been exiled but had returned to England to fight for freedom. 
All forty were rebels who had drawn up the Articles Of The Barons – the great earls of Norfolk, Hertford, Essex, Oxford, Hereford and Winchester. The group included the Barons de Lacy, de Bruce, de Percy, de Stutville, and the scowling and once-outlawed FitzWarrin.
All kept their eyes fixed straight upon the objective at the opposite end of the field, a short, broad-shouldered man standing slightly ahead of the party.
As they approached FitzWalter raised his arm and the company came to a stop and dismounted, continuing toward their objective on foot. When Baron FitzWalter was standing directly in front of King John all eyes were on him. If some of the barons thought he would kneel, he did not.
As Clifford Lindsey Alderman tells of this epic meeting in his book That Men Might Be Free, FitzWalter “proffered the roll of parchment to the king. “Here, Sire, are the demands which you have signified you are willing to grant us.”
Behind the Barons, at the upper end of the meadow, the rebel army of knights, foot soldiers and crossbowmen were massed. “All stood motionless,” said Alderman, “but their every immobility spelled readiness. And this was heightened when here and there a knight’s charger pawed the turf impatiently. The king knew that FitzWalter had only to turn and raise his arm to bring down the might of that phalanx upon him and his party.” 
King John had suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the rebels so that this final act of granting to the rebels the freedoms written on the parchment was John’s way of preserving his weakened kingdom.
“It is true,” he said, “for the sake of peace and the good of our kingdom we are willing to grant certain laws and liberties.” Behind him stood by his faltering kingdom: William Marshall, the Earl of Pembroke, finally forgiven by the king; the Earls of Surrey, Arundele and Salisbury and lesser nobles such as Warin FitzGerald, Peter FitzHerbert, Hubert de Burgh, Hugh de Neville, and William Marshall’s nephew John.
King John’s entourage, for his own protection, included the Arch Bishop of Dublin and Bishops of London, Winchester, Bath, Lincoln, Worcester, Coventry and Rochester. To protect the interests of Rome was Cardinal Pandulf, while the influential Order of the Knights Templar was represented by its master in England, Brother Aymeric.
For the reading and negotiation of the agreement, tables had been set up in tents and though the king “raised a storm of objections to almost every point of the Magna Carta, by the time long shadows had begun to steal over the meadow of Runnymede in late afternoon, the King had agreed in principle to the baron’s demands.
In fact, his majesty granted all the demands. But in order to retain the kingdom in England, the barons had to agree that if they were forced to make war to enforce the Magna Carta it would not be upon the king or his family. And this is the weak, symbolic kingdom John preserved. Subsequent tyrant kings such as Edward I, it is true, acted as if there was no Magna Carta, especially toward the Scots, and this became the reason for the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and the overthrow of England in Scotland by Robert de Bruce resulting in his being crowned king of Scotland. 
While we see the Barack Obama administration chipping away at the freedoms we enjoy by excessive taxation and spending, America is reminded that its cherished privileges, inspired by the Magna Carta, that came to us via the Bill of Rights are fragile at best.
These principles were first conceived in a remarkable document called the Magna Carta more than five centuries before the American Revolution.
Just as today with ‘King Obama’ in power trying to make America egalitarian at least and communist at most, King John and his predecessors “by continual extortion of money and violations of federal customs aroused the wrath of the barons who, though they lived in relative luxury, objected to being subject to the king’s whims. 
“When John openly opposed the Church, the noblemen revolted. At the center of this conflict stood one of the unsung heroes of history, Stephen Langton, Arch Bishop of Cantebury. He helped the noblemen draft the Magna Carta which granted men rights that were later considered inalienable. How these rights were threatened and how men have battled and died for them throughout history is part of the story that has never been asked.”
Free men believe government is the servant of the people and that freedom to think, act, worship God, and carry on free enterprise was given to man by God. Men assigned, in a limited way, some of these rights, but not absolute power, only partial and temporary power to pass laws to govern the country, laws that never can wipe out our rights to be master, not servant, of elected officers and governments.
When government raises taxes as Obama is doing, the power of people erodes. At one point – probably fifty percent – when aggregate local, state, and federal taxes approach or exceed fifty percent, men revolt, at the ballot box and in the streets, and the reigns of government are pulled, reversing its tyrannical actions.
Large government is antithesis of freedom. Obama’s plan to seize companies, even financially sound firms and those that government has not bailed out, is a power grab and must be stopped.
For example, if a prominent Republican owned a thriving private company that the Democrats were envious of because it produced war material for the Pentagon, for example, under the pretext of a trumped-up emergency Obama could seize this company without excuse and wouldn’t have to answer to anyone. This is abuse of power at its worst, but with the passive acceptance of a sycophant Congress, this kind of nonsense could become the order of things for the next four years.
Some who have fallen asleep call it a “soft” challenge to our Constitution, but I know it is a well orchestrated “hard” challenge designed to systematically dismantle our Constitutional rights. It’s Obama making a “run at Runnymede” and Constitution Hall.
His penchant for high taxes must stop!
His discriminatory super high taxing of the rich must stop!
There are only three nations on earth with higher business taxes than America and Obama wants the U.S. to be number one. He’s not stupid. He knows that while raising taxes is the wrong thing to do during a recession because real jobs are created by business profits and wealth management, not by Washington.
This is not a socialist or communist state. Government should not exist to make one strata of hardworking Americans lift up another. Helping the poor is the work of individuals, churches and other philanthropic groups. By definition, charity cannot come from government, it derives from the free will of individuals living in a free society, donating resources to those churches and other charitable institutions who, in turn, become the mechanism of giving. Free men, of course, can and do give millions of dollars each year to the less fortunate. But that isn’t good enough for the liberal far right – they want to compel a righteous endeavor, but it becomes self-defeating if it is done by Satan-inspired compulsion that from the foundations of this earth has been frowned upon by our maker because it eliminates man’s agency.
True charity is often encouraged, but cannot be forced. It must come from the heart or it ceases to be charity. Therefore, it is impossible for government to be charitable. It is actually evil when government taxes church donations with the intent of taking over the Church’s role of giving to the poor.
An important lesson Obama and his kind seem incapable of learning is that you can’t permanently lift up the poor with money or with the proverbial fish – unless the poor wants to “learn to fish.” 
President Obama can never abolish those God-given rights agreed to at Runnymede and known as the Magna Carta. They are inalienable. Neither can he reject, or with impunity abolish – even “softly” – the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. Only the electorate can do that, and are doing that every day by indifference and inaction each time we allow people like Obama and Putin to lull us asleep while quietly expropriating means of production and taxing us to death – and in Putin’s evil revanchist way, seizing neighboring territories.
Obama can try, but as long as free men everywhere speak up and fight against such tyranny he will fail.

>Start Speaking Up For America — The United Nations and Foreign Countries Don’t Espouse The Right Principles


A Politically and Socially Correct Life

What bothers me most is that many American institutions no longer promote Americanism.
They don’t even require immigrants to sing the national anthem or root for the home team.
The Pledge of Allegiance is passé.
Hey, what’s that, is what immigrants say. They don’t care about reciting some allegiance pledge.
They don’t know about Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. They’re just here to make a lot of money that they can send back to Mexico or some other Spanish-speaking-poor country.
I don’t look down on them. I think it’s admirable that they care for their people.
Well, I care for my people too, and they are called legal, full-fledged Americans, not those who don’t build up this country, but just take from it – and many of them illegally because they didn’t even bother to wait their turn to come here legally.
A noted conservative William E. Simon Jr. said, “There are disturbing signs that here in America differences and separateness are becoming more pronounced than unity and harmony. In his book, Who Are We, historian Samuel P. Huntington, warns that citizenship has been devalued, and a revival of national identity is critical to America’s very survival.
We who lived through the sixties remember the riots in Watts, California. We remember the rebellious times when even kids from the best families, like George W. Bush, took up with marijuana and we saw the city and flag burnings in Detroit and Chicago and other major American cities. We didn’t like it when such notables as Bill Clinton escaped the draft by going to England to smoke his pot on an expensive Oxford campus.
Obama followed, developing both smoking and drug-using habits. Sadly, we witnessed a dishonest Dick Nixon give up his office rather than be impeached for allowing the Watergate break in. Those that followed had to learn from their older brothers and unrighteous peers. One such was Barak Hussein Obama, who now seems to have no love at all for America. He was elected on the mantra of “Change”, but at first even conservatives for awhile tried to think the best of him, that he really wouldn’t attempt to take away our conservative trappings and steal the country away from capitalism. Well, he did and he is.
Over the years we have failed to defend the flame of freedom. We have become so lax. I used to dislike liberal Ralph Nader. But at least he had the wisdom to suggest to America’s top 100 companies that they should have their employees recite the Pledge of Allegiance” each morning vocally. He was rebuffed and criticized. Half never responded. Only one agreed to do so. One large firm, Aetna Insurance, blatantly and figuratively spat at him and our American ideals, with the Aetna CEO stating: “This idea is contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded.”
The government of Illinois has not set down any guidelines on the need for, or how to teach American history. But they have done so when it comes to teaching Mexican history. They printed a 163-page guide so that students would remember Mexican names and places.
In their book Getting America Right, Doug Wilson and Edwin Feulner said vocal interest groups have hijacked our nation’s curriculum and turned it into a mishmash of politically correct identity policies. It’s time for Americans to reclaim our children’s education from those who seek to divide our country by focusing on differences rather than uniting it. If Al Gore has his way, the United Nation’s standards will give sway to our educational system. In fact our system will give way to the things being taught in Europe, making it impossible for an American parent to discipline their children or direct their education. Home schools will be banned.
Obama wants to let the floodgates of harm to children and families rush in. Parents, naturally want to protect their children from the evils of this day: from porn and the gay movement, and from the abortion movements which have engulfed Europe. In fact, the European standard will become our standard unless we stop him. Obama just signed an executive order that gave millions of dollars of our hard-earned tax money to the abortion clinics of Europe. Almost directly, he has said: Take that, Pope and all you misguided conservatives and religious nuts. Barak Obama is complicit in all of this. He agrees with abortionists and he sides with the gay movement.
His Attorney General Eric Holder has nominated as his deputy attorney general. David W. Ogden. This man could be the devil dressed in a $1,500 suit to all conservatives. He is a believer in all of today’s evils. He has filed briefs for continued racial preferences, gays in uniform, and for a virtually unlimited abortion license. He has litigated numerous obscenity and pornography cases for clients like Playboy and Penthouse magazines and the ACLU; he has filed briefs opposing parental notification before a minor’s abortion; opposed the military’s policy against homosexuals serving in the armed services; opposed the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Child Protection and Internet and Obscenity Enforcement Act. 
David Ogden will advance Obama’s interests. Now do you see, Americans, why we didn’t want Obama in the Oval Office? If Ogden is the Devil, the real Satan is Barak Obama, a man who endangers all American children including his own with his far left liberal policies that will soon change America, he hopes, forever.
Perhaps worst of all, Ogden is not a strict constructionist. He supports a “living Constitution” that changes to the latest fad of the day. He believes that judges should consult worldwide law when making decisions and should not be restricted to our Founders intent when deciding important issues. In other words, that it’s okay for a Muslim in Texas to kill his two daughters because they’re dating guys in high school because that’s the law in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. In other words, the law can be anything the judge says it can be. That kind of law leads to tyranny and the buying of favors, one reason the Pilgrims and our forefathers came to America in the first place.
The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) used to live by the rules: five years residency, speak and write English well, answer an oral test including American history and general knowledge, not be a felon, hardworking, a good fit for America, leave the old country’s ways behind. But today, immigration officials don’t have standards that fit all immigrants. Some are lax, while others are not, even to the point where immigrants were complaining. To meet this, the INS revised the standard textbook for immigrants. Now there were three levels of texts – the highest aimed at fourth to sixth grade reading standards. A simplified written test of a hundred questions was created for the amnesty class. It wasn’t supposed to be used for nonamnesty applicants – but it often was. Now it’s so easy, examiners see themselves not as guardians of the gates but people who should help immigrants pass over the hurdles. Now the tests are easier than ever. All some examiners do is to ask those same 100 questions to quickly get the regular immigrant past the gate, causing the “dumming down” of the process. Investigations have led to the conclusion that some examiners hand out the answers with the tests.
How important is citizenship? It’s a ticket to welfare, Medicaid and Social Security. Citizenship is almost handed out freely – to people who know next to nothing about the importance of American history, our legal and social concepts, and the importance of learning the language.
How can people who don’t understand what we’re debating know enough to vote? But think about it – their vote counts just as much as yours. In essence, a political party like the Democrats who want to lower immigrations standards and give amnesty to all illegals are really only buying votes. Their goal is to cancel out your independent or conservative vote with that of an illiterate, uninformed – and perhaps militant terrorist — newcomer.
Obama is no dummy, he’s thought about it a lot. In the last election, did you hear him speak for or against against amnesty for those 13 million illegal immigrants, or did he say he wanted to ship them all back to South and Central America? Certainly not the latter.
They are the kind of people Democrats want in their party because, first of all, they are mostly illiterate and, secondly, they usually are not well educated and make up the working class of society, the very people Obama wants to bring up into the middle class while he levels the upper group back down to that low middle. It’s easier to mold the minds of a subservient, dependent middle class than an independent, thinking upper class. Congresman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd wanted the same for people who couldn’t afford houses. What they did backfired. Now all those houses are being taken back by the banks, and this has weakened our country financially to the point that we’re fighting a serious recession.

My observation and advice for Obama: When you abandon freedom and free enterprise you weaken the country. Government doesn’t make worthwhile, long-term jobs, only more bureaucracy and inefficiency, lowering the standard of living for all.

>Word On Middle East Streets American Liberals Can Be Bought.


Defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil is called theodicey. Somewhere in the history of America, politicians have lost that desire to defend that which is most sacred, their religious views concerning marriage, family, and the sacred nature of God.

Joseph Smith gave us the best description we have ever had about what God looks like because God appeared with The Son to him in the sacred Palmyra, New York grove in 1820. “If you have seen the me, you have seen the Father,” the Savior said. Why don’t many Americans take that for what it literally means?

It is America’s challenge to defend righteousness and decry evil at every turn. Evil seems to getting the upper hand over what is basic, what is good, and those tenants of truth the founding fathers left us with. Of course, what today’s liberals are trying to do is re-write the U.S. Constitution.

But it can’t be re-written, as Justice Scalia so eloquently said: It is a dead document as opposed to those left-wing liberals who say it is a ‘living document’ which should and can be reconfigured, changed, reduced, and re-interpreted by men many different ways. The liberals would like us to believe that nothing is worthy of keeping, even our Constitution which, along with the Bill of Rights, guarantees rights and privileges of free men living in a free country. They’re selling our freedom down the river.

Scalia says he believes the Constitution’s meaning cannot change over time. It was meant, he says, to impose rigid rules that cannot be altered, except by the difficult process of constitutional amendment.

“If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather, it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say — which is probably whatever the people would want it to say — you’ve eliminated the whole purpose of a constitution. And that’s essentially what the ‘living constitution’ leaves you with,” Scalia says.

Although he takes an “originalist” view of the Constitution, that its meaning today is the same as when it was drafted, Scalia says this doesn’t mean he wants to undo past Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees.

“You can’t reinvent the wheel. You’ve got to accept the vast majority of prior decisions. … I do not argue that all of the mistakes made in the name of the so-called living constitution be ripped out. I just say, ‘Let’s cut it out. Go back to the good, old dead Constitution,” Scalia says.

This attitude puts him in a decidedly different camp than fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who Scalia concedes is far more willing to reverse past precedent.

“I am a textualist. I am an originalist. I am not a nut,” he says, underscoring that he generally doesn’t favor undoing old rulings. He also notes that the idea of a living constitution places no restraints on judges.

Scalia has surprised some critics with his hard-line view on what he sees as the excesses of the Bush administration in at least one area — the imprisonment without charge of U.S. citizens accused of being enemy combatants.

“As with anybody arrested, you bring them to trial or you let them go,” Scalia says.

Notice that he said “U.S. citizens accused of being enemy combatants.” That is much different from imprisonment of foreigner combatants, who should be subject to Martial Law meded out by the military. This is part of the great debate taking place in America today by liberals and conservatives. Liberals love foreigners. In fact, in some cases they prefer them and legally defer to them over citizens of the U.S. To each his own,

I suppose. But when you see a liberal doing this, look for the money. There’s always a money trail, and conservatives are on the nasty scent of Barack Obama in his apparently easy desire to take money from the likes of Tony Rezko—and trade future governmental favors for campaign cash donations from foreign countries like Pakistan that would prefer a softy president like him over a tough-minded president like John McCain . In other words, the word on Middle East streets is the American liberals can be bought.

Where have the liberals in America gone wrong? They have lost their religion—not all of them, but as a whole. They no longer prescribe to the good old-fashioned ideas of families, honor, patriotism, and love of country that conservatives have. I will write more about this, becoming far more explicit in the next blog.