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

Archive for the ‘liberals’ Category

>Obama Has Deliberately Destroyed U.S. Economy

>

How the US economy is
being deliberately destroyed

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-6806835162578064&output=html&h=60&slotname=9752661045&w=468&flash=10.1.53&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brasschecktv.com%2Fpage%2F897.html&dt=1279633052620&shv=r20100711&prev_slotnames=9752661045&correlator=1279633052556&frm=0&adk=2705802043&ga_vid=221920375.1277040851&ga_sid=1279633053&ga_hid=570974270&ga_fc=1&u_tz=-240&u_his=1&u_java=1&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=768&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&u_nplug=14&u_nmime=55&biw=907&bih=628&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fus.mc513.mail.yahoo.com%2Fmc%2Fwelcome%3Faction%3D%26YY%3D550824172%26.rand%3D54ca4n8gs0217%26noFlush%26mcrumb%3DuHmjpGzAHg3&fu=0&ifi=2&dtd=88&xpc=bF57HoA5TZ&p=http%3A//www.brasschecktv.com

Home     More videos like this


“How can you have an economy without jobs?”

Good question.

Where have all the US jobs gone and why? And what are the long term consequences of this?

The US a Third World nation? For a lot of its citizens it’s become so.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, then maybe it is a duck. 

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-6806835162578064&output=html&h=60&slotname=9752661045&w=468&flash=10.1.53&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brasschecktv.com%2Fpage%2F897.html&dt=1279633052868&shv=r20100711&prev_slotnames=9752661045%2C9752661045&correlator=1279633052556&frm=0&adk=2705802043&ga_vid=221920375.1277040851&ga_sid=1279633053&ga_hid=570974270&ga_fc=1&u_tz=-240&u_his=1&u_java=1&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=768&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&u_nplug=14&u_nmime=55&biw=907&bih=628&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fus.mc513.mail.yahoo.com%2Fmc%2Fwelcome%3Faction%3D%26YY%3D550824172%26.rand%3D54ca4n8gs0217%26noFlush%26mcrumb%3DuHmjpGzAHg3&fu=0&ifi=3&dtd=14&xpc=FsXNun69mD&p=http%3A//www.brasschecktv.comSee the complete catalog of
free Brasscheck TV videos

Want to see more videos?
Subscribe to Brasscheck TV
Every time we post a new video,
we’ll send you a notice by e-mail.
No spam ever and you can easily unsubscribe at anytime.

First Name: E-mail address:

Notice
The videos that are linked to from BrasscheckTV.com represent solely the opinions of their producers.

Links to these videos are made available to you as a resource for your own research and evaluation not as an endorsement.

BrasscheckTV is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe anything that that is linked to from this site, but it does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own judgement about important things that affect your life.

>Are You Conservative Or Liberal?

>If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! 
  
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.  If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. 
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him. 

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down. 
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!) 
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his. 
If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”. 
  
Well I forwarded it to you, so you know where I sit! 
  
  
‘Do not ask the Lord to guide your footsteps if you are not willing to MOVE your feet’ 
  
  
 

>Tea Party Patriots Are The Good Guys – New York Times Libs The Bad Guys

>

Yesterday

  • Patrick
    The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots “tea party” surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Cente…

    14 hrs ago

Sunday, April 11

>Bush Was A Damned Liberal, Let’s Face It!

>I made a comment after reading columnist Byron York’s fine article found in the Washington Examiner.com. I said Bush was a “damned” liberal on Constitutional freedom, the economy, and the borders. He was only conservative when it came to attacking the people who knocked down the Trade Centers in New York. Or was he, because if he was he should have attacked Saudi Arabia and looked for WMDs there. Don White

The following Noah Webster quote is even better:

Wise Words: 2nd Amendment

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. 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”. Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 15, 2009

Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla., Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush’s governing philosophy.
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror — to use that outlawed phrase — and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn’t with them.
You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.
Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.
The revealing moment, described in “Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor,” occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.
“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”
The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party — or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word “conservative” only once, in the last paragraph.
Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer’s criticisms in “Speechless.” As an observer of it all, I certainly don’t agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.
Right after the Republican Party’s across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.
Bush’s words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn’t in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.
Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we’re seeing spending that makes Bush’s record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on http://www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

>Republicans Are The Party of "Getting America Right," Not The Liberal Left-Wing Democrats

>Barak Obama has his sights set on reversing all of George Bush’s moderate and conservative actions, changes so startling and aggressive it is as if he were taking a knife to the white man’s throat, “setting thing right”

You can sense the pent-up Democrat frustration now focused on making those who support conservative measures bend their knees as never before, and it is about these liberal, self-defeating actions by the Democrats that conservatives think of their mission in life as “Getting America Right” after Obama has ruined it, and, hopefully, no later than 2012.

A team of four dozen advisers worked for months in virtual solitude, consulting with liberal advocacy groups, identifying regulatory and policy changes Obama is now implementing.

Transition advisers compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that are being swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats.

“The kind of regulations they are looking at” are those imposed by Bush for “overtly political” reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget.

Here are some of the actions the black president is taking to put down the hated white man. Such hatred should be reserved for terrorists, not a president who kept us safe for eight years:

1. Abortion — Funding for abortion literature and help to abortion clinics. Remember, this is the same Barak Obama who told the Pope recently that he was against abortion. The man cannot be trusted. When he’s in Israel he assures Olmert that he is on their side. When he is visiting with Plalastinian Muslim and the Hamas he assures them he is not their enemy. Whose side is he on, anyway? Probably neither, which is a dangerous foreign policy position.

The new president has lifted a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion.

2. Repeal the Ronald Reagan Star Wars Defense System. This is an insanely dangerous move, but it will also likely be followed up by an announcement that Obama will not carry out Bush’s plans to ring Eastern Europe with defensive missiles. That would be a foolish mistake, a sure sign of weakness that could invite Vladimir Putin to attack more Baltic States to gain back lost Russian territory. And how can The Ukraine, Finland and Poland feel good about that kind of misdirection which will be interpreted as weakness in the Kremlin?

3. Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — controversial only in liberal views and accepted broadly in America where 90 percent of the people say they believe in God– a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s. Since anti-God people are in the minority in the U.S., Obama’s views on this and other issues is the one that may be viewed as the most highly controversial.

4. Environmental control. The “Green” movement.

As late as a month ago a spokeswoman said that “Before he (Obama) made any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he would confer with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups.” The bipartisanship on which Obama ran has already been breached. Republican congressman John Bahner of Michigan said much of the Rupublican House opposition to the $825B bailout bill is because Democrats in the House did not consult with Republicans and allow them to offer counter proposals in the spirit of bipartisanship, but forged ahead alone, drafting a bill that they hoped to stuff down the throats of Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats.

Blue Dog Democratic Coalition is a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives.[1] The Blue Dogs promote, among other things, fiscal conservatism and accountability. Many members come from conservative districts, where liberal Democrats comprise a decided minority of the general population.[citation needed] In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

The Blue Dogs are the political descendants of a now defunct Southern Democratic group known as the Boll Weevils, who played a critical role in the early 1980s by supporting President Ronald Reagan‘s tax cut plan. The Boll weevils, in turn, may be considered the descendants of the “states’ rights” Democrats of the 1940’s through 60’s.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1994 during the 104th Congress to give more conservative members from the Democratic party a unified voice. The Blue Dogs are viewed by some as a continuation of the socially conservative wing of the Democratic party prominent during the presidency of Harry S Truman. But the only stated policy position of the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism, and many of the members of the coalition hold liberal views on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay rights.

Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in Abortion.

Obama is trying to walk both sides of the moral issue street, having had the first openly gay Episcopal bishop offer a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at an inaugural event, for example. This choice was likely a political response to criticism of Obama for selecting anti-gay marriage pastor Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his January 20 inauguration, according to Western Standard.ca blog.

Warren backed the ban on same-sex marriage that passed in his home state of California on the November ballot, said Newsmax. In trying to keep social conservatives and social liberals happy simultaneously, Obama will likely come to look weak and indecisive.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This is part of the “real change” promised by Obama during the election.

While Obama maintains that his top priority is to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. “Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer,” Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country. However, Detroit has already signaled difficulties coming in maintaining their auto production while trying to produce more gas efficient and less polluting cars.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and directed EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding, but that doesn’t make it true. Others have written opposite position papers. It as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with his brand of scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled “Change for America,” published by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, recommends, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff was swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

“It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction” — actually the direction would be due left — “and ensure that climate change policy “gets lots of attention inside the White House,” said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center’s new book urges Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have already embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center’s senior vice president for external affairs.

A large part of the Democrats’ frustration is their self-imposed hatred for George Bush and the conservative Republican agenda. They have told themselves for so long that Bush was doing a bad job that they have started to believe it. Unfortunately, some Republicans bought onto that line also, and apparently, like sheep, voted for Obama, which is unfortunate.

“It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it,” Stachelbergerg said. But not as long as they think, especially if Obama continues on the torrid pace he has set in turning over conservative policy.

>Help Defeat Obama and Elect McCain

>

In case you missed this … The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today, The National Republican Trust PAC, reveals that Hillary Clinton‘s hardball strategy against Obama actually worked — though it was implemented too late.

Dick Morris says “The National Republican Trust is a very effective organization that can make a huge difference on election day.”

Please read their full message below — and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.

Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed

c

An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC

Dear Fellow American:

Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.

That man is Barack Obama.

He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways
you may not like.

Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.

If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.

He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.

In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.

The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.

Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.

However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.

Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.

No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.

In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.

Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.

“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.

Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about ObamaGo Here Now

Dangerous Economic Plan

And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.

He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.

He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.

He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”

Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now

Exposing the Truth

Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.

When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.

Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.

And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.

How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?

Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.

But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.

Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!

But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.

We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.

Send a donation today to help our cause – Go Here Now

You Can Make a Difference

This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.

We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.

We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.

As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.

A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.

But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 —Any amount you can afford will help.

Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.

Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.

Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now

It will most certainly help our great nation.

Thank you.

Yours for America,

Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today — Go Here Now

Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233

Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
The National Republican Trust PAC is not affiliated with the Republican National Committee


__________________________SUBSCRIPTION INFO__________________________

WERE YOU FORWARDED THIS EDITION OF THE TOWNHALL SPOTLIGHT?
You can get your own free subscription by visiting here. This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. It was sent to you because you signed up to receive this newsletter on the Townhall.com network OR a friend forwarded it to you. We respect and value your time and privacy. If this newsletter no longer meets your needs we will be happy to remove your address immediately. You can unsubscribe from this Townhall Spotlight here. Send postal mail to:
Townhall Spotlight Unsubscribe
1901 N. Moore St – Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209


* Copyright 2006 Townhall.com, Salem Communications and its Content Providers.
All rights reserved.


hasEML = false;

ReplyReply All

JSifyForm(“forward_bottom218127002”);

>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.