A Perspective that passes the Rational Basis Test

A Perspective on Proposition 8 that passes the Rational Basis Test

2010-08-05T19:43:00.001-07:00

Just when I thought I had lost all desire to dwell on the daily sins of an abusive regime (i.e. America's federal government), a federal judge struck down the will of the people and with it California's infamous Proposition 8 and in so doing, rejuvenated my hibernating passion, if only for a moment.

When I first heard the news today, I was surprised, but hardly shocked. After all, judges at every level have been legislating from the bench at an alarming rate since 1962; if you need a memory refresher, that's the year the Supreme Court outlawed prayer in public schools. But, seeing as I, along with 13-14 million of my fellow Californians, actually had the opportunity to vote on Prop. 8, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's decision held a significant interest to me.

So, last night, after listening to what pundits on both sides as well as my parents and grandfather had to say on the matter, I decided to do what none of them had done or most likely will do; read Judge Walker's decision in it's entirety. Let me tell you 130 some pages of legal speak is definitely not a walk in the park, but I navigated through every word of it and arrived at a more enlightened place then I had been before I embarked (and no, that does not mean that I agree with the judge's decision).

Examining Judge Walker's decision brought to the forefront of my mind an issue that I had, up until that time, failed to give proper weight to when analyzing gay marriage. This issue's importance is undeniable and yet, you won't here Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity discuss it, you won't read about it in the NY Times or the Washington Post. No, incredibly, this particular issue has maintained a low profile and sailed under most people's radar.

So, what is this little known, but powerful contributor to a proper understanding of gay marriage, Prop. 8 and the future of marriages in this country? The redefinition of gender roles. Now, I know what you're saying; “No duh!” But, hear me out on this one. As we all know, the redefinition of gender roles is clearly a key factor in homosexual relationships, and especially in homosexual marriages. But, I'm not referring to the reshaping of gender roles that inevitably takes place when two men, or two women, unite in a “loving relationship.” No, I'm talking about the redefinition of gender roles in heterosexual marriages that has been going on in this country since the late 1800s and continues to go on to this day.

Throughout his decision, Judge Walker referenced and discussed heterosexual gender roles and used them to justify his ruling that, under the Equal Protection Clause contained within in the 14^th Amendment, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As I evaluated Judge Walker's argument (putting aside for a moment the fact that the major reason the judge disqualified Prop. 8 was because it did not meet the rational basis test, which, as anyone even remotely familiar with Constitutional Law knows, is a preposterous ruling; I'm also blocking out the judge's comparison of gays to African-Americans and Hispanics, which I find comical) in defense of gay marriage, I found that, to my amazement, he actually hit on a valid point.

The recent evolution of gender roles within the seemingly immutable confines of heterosexual marriages has done more to undermine the institution of traditional marriage and healthy families than any polygamist or homosexual could ever hope to or be accused of doing. Judge Walker's decision brings this point home, as one of his basic premises is that America's progression towards a genderless society has been a encouraging one.

Judge Walker surmised that the institution of marriage has undergone numerous and beneficial changes since the founding of America and that each of these changes has brought with it positive effects; thus, the legalization of gay marriage would simply follow in this advantageous succession (this reasoning is obviously flawed as it deploys the notorious logical fallacy of association - i.e. because all changes to marriage have been profitable, another change would also be profitable). These favorable marital modifications were: (1) the overthrow of male domination, (2) the legalization of bi-racial couples, and (3) the empowerment of women.

Now, let's attempt to get beyond Judge Walker's enormous fallacy of association and actually try to analyze what he is saying. Have these three changes truly been beneficial to the institution of marriage? I would say that at least 90% of American's would agree with the judge's conclusion in this regard. Of course bi-racial couples should be allowed to marry; of course women should be given equal rights and protections as men. And in these respects, I agree. Clearly a great sin of our nation's past was slavery and the racial discrimination that it engendered; another error, which I shall not go as far as to categorize as a sin and in so doing, place it on the same footing as slavery, was the inability of women to vote in this nation for some 140 years. There is no doubt that the practice of coverture (the wife lost her standing as a legal entity, as the husband absorbed whatever rights, property, or inheritance she once had) was an archaic one serving no tangible purpose within a marriage.

However, this being said (and assuming that the marital advantages of bi-racial freedom are indisputable), has the redefinition of gender roles within our society really been beneficial to the preservation and advancement of marriage? I would argue that, while some of these changes have indeed served that purpose, the majority of them have had a detrimental impact to the once sacred institution of marriage.

The overarching problem with my belief from a legal standpoint is that it emanates from a biblical perspective. The bible, a book which once held enormous authority in the American court system, has been all but thrown out and delegitimized. It, like a Christian worldview, is no longer welcomed, and in some cases, allowed in the court room. Judge Walker certainly did not allow it in his court room as he blamed religious fanaticism and moral prejudices for fostering discrimination and hatred towards gays and other minority groups. The judge's intellectualized secularism stands in stark contrast to the truth contained within the pages of the Bible, as it decimates the concept of God and objective morality by placing humanity at the pinnacle of creation. But, I'm going down on a rabbit trail, which I had not expected nor desired to tread upon (at least not yet).

Let's get back to why I believe that the 21st Century's reformation of gender roles in a pursuit of an asexual society has done more to harm than to help the institution of marriage. For starters, I believe that men and women, although both created in the image of God, were designed to fulfill different roles and perform separate tasks in their days upon this earth.

One need look no further than the second chapter of Genesis to discover this:

Genesis 2:20-22

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a man the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Clearly, the woman was created to fulfill the role of helpmate to Adam. In today's society the very mention of this concept or the insinuation that women were created to compliment men meets with utter disgust and repugnance. This "archaic" understanding of gender roles is viewed as oppressive and odious. Sadly, the secularized, feminized, and uninformed onslaughts against biblical womanhood have done more to discredit the accomplishments of women throughout history and destroy the very essence of what it means to be a woman than any chauvinistic pig could ever dream to accomplish.

Does anyone even know what it means to be a woman anymore? Judge Walker doesn't. Does anybody have a definition? Judge Walker doesn't. Is there any real difference between men and women? Not according to Judge Walker. Do men and women serve different roles within a marriage relationship? Not according to Judge Walker. Can we really blame Judge Walker his lack of knowledge when it comes to distinguishing and ascertaining differences between the sexes? After all, the overarching mission of the feminist movement since receiving suffrage in 1920 has been to remove and strip away each and every remaining gender "discrepancy" from the public conscience. It has used several strategies to accomplish this end, the most prevalent being to propagate the message that women have been mistreated and held down since the beginning of time by the tyrannical regime of men, who at their very core are all chauvinistic ogres and sexual perverts (thank you Dr. Freud).

As the years flew by and this message became more and more ingrained into the American psyche, the feminist movement turned it's attention to the "oppressive" institution of marriage. As prominent feminist author and activist Robin Morgan wrote, "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage" (quote taken from Sisterhood is Powerful). And so with this goal in mind, the feminist movement laid siege to the precipices and bulwarks surrounding humanity's most basic and essential institution.

It did not take long for the movement to make a dent in the once impenetrable armor of marriage. The initial attack sprung from the teaching that serving in the role of helpmate was somehow insulting, inferior and not fulfilling. Feminists deployed the idea that women were "forced" to take care of the house and watch the children, while men got to go out into the world and experience new and exciting things. They derided the job of homemaker attempting to attach with it the stigma of male domination. Being a homemaker and raising children was no longer viewed as an admirable and noble pursuit; becoming rather an embarrassing admission of one's own simplicity and backwardness. Feminists attempted to change the age old concept of motherhood to mean something completely different then it once had. A mother was no longer a woman who stayed at home with her kids and made dinner for her husband when he got home from work; no, she was an educated and independent woman, totally self-sufficient and in need of no one's help. Marital bliss and the joys of children became associated with shackles and chains. In order to fulfill her traditional role in marriage (i.e. homemaker and nurturing mother), the modern woman had to sacrifice her career, dreams and very identity and lay them at the feet of her husband and children. The biblical mandate of procreation (Genesis 1:28) became a tangible example of an outdated book governing an outmoded religion and moral code.

Sexuality became the feminists next target, as they worked tirelessly to portray sexual intercourse within marriage as a symbol of bondage, equating it with slavery and even rape. Devout feminist Andrea Dworkin summed up the view of many feminists as she stated, "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." This viewpoint was supplemented by other feminists and members of the 1960's hippy movement who proposed that free love, or more aptly put, irresponsible, emotionless, casual sex devoid of any true meaning or consequences, was the ultimate release from bondage that women had been searching for (predictably, it has been this very outlook that has led to a startling rise in single-mother homes; as there is no such thing as consequence free sex). The sexual revolution brought with it a disintegration in the long held belief that sexual intercourse should only take place within the framework of a committed marriage relationship; fidelity became a curse.

As these beliefs took hold, the idea of what it meant to be a woman, and likewise, what it meant to be a man in a marriage union underwent a dramatic change. The husband lost his God-given role as the leader, provider and protector of the family entity (Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:23-32) as wives threw off the "restraints" of traditional marriage and assumed an identical role. Mainstream pop culture jumped on the bandwagon and began to portray men as bumbling, sex obsessed idiots and women as their intellectual superiors and saviors; the term marriage became synonymous with a stupid dad and a smart mom. More and more men began to relinquish their role as the bread winner, as women rushed from their homes, as if escaping from prison camps, and into the work force. At first some men objected to this transition, but with the changing tide of public opinion (or more accurately, perceived public opinion) and the realization that two incomes could buy more toys than one, men soon were more than content to relinquish their marital responsibilities.

As a result, America's youth grew up as latch-key kids raised by TV and video games if their parents were lucky, and sex, pornography, gangs, crime and drugs if they weren't (needless to say, teenage pregnancies and abortions both increased spectacularly toward the end of the 21st Century). Stable and nurturing households and marriages slowly began to evaporate and dissolve as the stress of having two bread winners, no distinguishable leader, mutable sexual roles and dealing with disobedient, disrespectful, neglected and unruly children led to a skyrocketing increase in divorce rates. Surely a house divided against itself can not stand (Matthew 12:25); American marriages have proved this true countless times over the past 50 years.

And that pretty much brings us to the present; America in the year 2010 and Judge Walker's refutation of Proposition 8. In his decision Judge Walker described Proposition 8's exclusion of gays from marriage as “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage”; concluding, “That time has passed.” Who would dare dispute this claim? Who could?

In redefining the traditional and biblical roles of men and women, the feminist movement has created an inexplainable and laughable intellectual atmosphere in which clear sexual distinctions are intentionally dismissed and ignored in the name of equality. In casting off the “shackles” of male oppression, children and family ties, feminism has enslaved millions of women to their careers. Despite continually expounding asseverations affirming the power and prowess of femininity, the feminist movement has lost sight of what it truly means to be a woman and in so doing, it has destroyed the very meaning of the word (as it did with masculinity). In essence, the feminist movement has transformed women into men, the very creatures they purport to despise most, as it has created a post-gender asexual society. In this climate, the age old institutions of marriage, family and parenthood have been all but destroyed. The rise of divorce, single-parent homes, abortions, latch-key kids, neglected children, teenage suicide rates, teenage pregnancies, drug use, child molestation, depression, confused children, domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, crime, gang membership and murder can all be tied directly to the growth of gender-neutral heterosexual marriages.

I don't believe in homosexual marriage; I don't believe that it portrays a biblical and traditional view of marriage; I don't believe that it is morally acceptable; I don't believe that it is conducive to child rearing. That being said, until Americans return to a biblical understanding of heterosexual marriage (and a biblical perspective regarding all aspects of life for that matter), the institution of “traditional” marriage, and the very foundation of this society, will continue to crumble regardless of what happens in the Proposition 8 debate.

The Truth about Thanksgiving

2009-11-25T23:48:00.000-08:00

First off, I want to apologize for my recent blogging or lack there of. I'll be perfectly honest with you guys, it's been hard for me to find the motivation to blog about all the horrific things going on in our country's government every single day. I mean, there comes a point in time when one gets so fed up with the Fed that he just wants to quit caring and forget everything; it's easier that way. And I guess, that sort of explains my absence.

That being said, I have decided to emerge from my self-imposed cocoon of oblivious (well, that's not quite true, I haven't become apathetic to the point of ignorance) solitude and start blogging again. Since this is my first post in a long, long time, I decided to keep it simple (i.e. copy and paste somebody else's work).

So, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I give you the transcript of a 2006 pre-Thanksgiving segment of the Rush Limbaugh show (by the way, Rush Limbaugh is great - understatement -; if you haven't listened to him, you MUST check him out).

God bless America and happy Thanksgiving one and all!

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

RUSH: Okay, time for the real story of Thanksgiving. I want to precede this by sharing with you -- and I want to bounce off of our last call, Suzie. Sometimes she has trouble being optimistic. Now, I don't know that this would qualify as something about which you can run around and feel really optimistic about. Something struck me the other day. (It strikes me a lot, by the way.) I went to a dinner party on Friday night, and it was a buffet here where I live before I had to go over to the Breakers Hotel and introduce Ann Coulter and give her an award for David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend. There were a lot of people at this bash, and walking through the buffet and looking at all of the food, the shrimp, all the vegetables and everything, the desserts, it just struck me.

[]I started flashing back to my trip to Afghanistan. I saw some of the most unbelievable human living conditions I have ever seen, and I can tell you for a fact that the number of average Afghanis who eat food in the way we take for granted is just astoundingly high. We hear all day long pessimistic stories about shortages of this or that, we're going to deplete the oceans of all edible fish in 30 years or whatever the hell stupid notion it was, and we've been hearing these kinds of stories for years, that we're destroying species. It always amazes me when I actually stop to think about it. Just visit a grocery store. Imagine how many grocery stores there are in this country. Look at the food production in this country alone, and look at the relative cheap price that food is in grocery stores.

You can find high priced items in there, but bare essentials, market basket prices. People have to eat. There's not a whole lot of room for price gouging there unless you go to gourmet places and that kind of thing, but even at that, they're available, if you want it. The amount of food that is produced in this country, the plenty of it, is astounding, when you stop to think that wherever you are, in your one grocery store or at your restaurant when you're having dinner, imagine millions of such places, with the same stuff, and then put it all in somebody's home, where they're having Thanksgiving or what have you, or in restaurants or whatever, it's just astounding to me. The ability of the earth to produce and provide all this, against all these predictions that we're going to starve or going to have a famine, that the population explosion is going to wipe out all of these luxuries and opportunities.

It's just... I don't know. Sometimes it just blows me away, because I don't have anything to do with producing it. There are people that do, and I'm just in awe. When you asked me why I am optimistic and so forth, it's because I am in awe of the country.

Compared to the rest of the world and compared to the attacks that we endure and even our own internal bottles of people in this country that hate this country, still look at it, look at it, if you want just from the bare essentials. Look at how many automobiles there are in a used car lot, look at how many automobiles there are in junkyards. Those are the cars in junkyards that are being driven around in places like Afghanistan or Cuba, anywhere else.

We're just spoiled I think in so many areas that just the basics are often so taken for granted that their value in what they represent is overlooked on occasion.

We can even satisfy oddballs that don't want to eat meat or who don't want to eat fish, whatever your culinary peculiarities are, somebody's out there making sure that you can get what you want, even with all the assaults on the food business that there have been.

Anyway, leads me to the real story of Thanksgiving as written by me in my book "See, I Told You So!" We're on Chapter Six here: "Dead White Guys or What Your History Books Never Told You," page 70.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.

During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats." Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. "Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. "Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

"All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?

It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?

What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!

But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.

What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'

Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

"Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?

'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'

Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.

"Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.

And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"

Now, other than on this program every year, have you heard this story before? Is this lesson being taught to your kids today -- and if it isn't, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the pilgrim experience?

So in essence there was, thanks to the Indians, because they taught us how to skin beavers and how to plant corn when we arrived, but the real Thanksgiving was thanking the Lord for guidance and plenty -- and once they reformed their system and got rid of the communal bottle and started what was essentially free market capitalism, they produced more than they could possibly consume, and they invited the Indians to dinner, and voila, we got Thanksgiving, and that's what it was: inviting the Indians to dinner and giving thanks for all the plenty is the true story of Thanksgiving.

The last two-thirds of this story simply are not told.

Now, I was just talking about the plenty of this country and how I'm awed by it. You can go to places where there are famines, and we usually get the story, "Well, look it, there are deserts, well, look it, Africa, I mean there's no water and nothing but sand and so forth."

It's not the answer, folks. Those people don't have a prayer because they have no incentive. They live under tyrannical dictatorships and governments.

The problem with the world is not too few resources. The problem with the world is an insufficient distribution of capitalism.

A Poem for Contemplation ...

2009-10-29T23:48:00.000-07:00

... First off, what the heck is going on in Washington, DC with health care? Earlier this summer 60% of the American people rose up against Congress' pathetic health care plan. So what did Congress decide to do? Well, they decided to create a new, even worse health care bill. I mean you have got to be kidding me, 1990 pages, 400,000 words? Talk about red tape, taxes and tyranny. But, alas, I don't have the patience nor the time to discuss this atrocity further tonight for I am in quite a poetic mood. Today I composed a poem that I just had to place on my blog. Let me preface this by stating that I am not a professional poet (that's for sure), my poem does not subscribe to any particular rule (ex. foots, meters, etc.) save for an ABBA/10 syllable line structure, and it is the first poem I have written since I was in high school. Needless to say, it's not all that great; but hey, it's as good as anything else I post on here. Okay, enough said, here's the poem...

Heavenly Sign

Where shall thou turn in thy eternal quest,
Inverted truth Shadow Prince spread to all,
Nothing seems clear in his dull earthly hall,
Darkness pervades and yet light doth not rest,

Dulcet melody wafts through nature's whole,
Oak, pine, aspen, elm, willow, palm,
These and others, though subdued in the calm,
Hearken in tempest, speak life to the soul,

Sorrow and misery attend thy path,
How easy to deny, to go astray,
Overcome, tossed by doubt many of days,
What doth thou procure, but terrible wrath,

Mercy is given through heavenly sign,
All may observe, all too few understand,
Narcotic minds, damning errors command,
Swept through the air veracity divine,

Know this oh frail man thy Lord is revealed,
In bellow and blast, mistral and flutter,
Noisy gust, soft breeze, how He doth mutter,
Go to swaying forest, to windswept field,

God, though concealed, doth command and doth reign,
Although hidden, His ends or' man doth rule,
Oh attend the wind and act not the fool,
Lift praises, join in thy Maker's refrain.

Obamaisms

2009-10-20T23:04:00.000-07:00

"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." --after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008 (Obama later called Nancy Reagan to apologize)

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified (Watch video clip)

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

"Just this past week, we passed out of the, out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." --referring to a committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"Hold on one second, sweetie, we're going to do -- we'll do a press avail." --to a female reporter for ABC's Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers (Watch video clip)

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip)

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions." --exasperated by reporters after a news conference

"You're likeable enough, Hillary." --during a Democratic debate

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

"Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just, you, you just gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uh, uh breathalyzer, an, uh, intillater, not a breathalyzer. I haven't had that much sleep in the last 48 hours, so. What they'll say is, well it costs too much money, but you know what, it would cost about, it, it would cost about the same as what we would spend, it, over the course of ten years it would cost what it cost us, it, uh, alright, okay, we're going to. It would cost us about the same as it would cost, for about, hold on one second, I can't hear myself, but I'm glad you're fired up, I'm glad. Haha" -- Obama giving a speech on health care reform"

What a genius!

I Salute You, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina

2009-09-09T23:21:00.000-07:00

Tonight President Obama took center stage (which he all too often does) and delivered his much anticipated speech on "his" health insurance plan. I caught the vast majority of the speech (all that I could stomach) and I must say, Obama really out did himself.

Tonight's speech might have set a record for the most incoherently coherent speech of all time. Obama talked about, well, nothing for 50+ minutes, but by George he sounded good doing it. He rambled on and on and on without providing any real specifics. He denounced the public option and then five minutes later extolled it. If one was to count the lies and fairy tales that protruded from our President's lips, he would find that they numbered more than the pages in Tolstoy's War and Peace. Obama bashed Republicans, Radio and Cable hosts, and everyday Americans.

After 10-15 minutes of listening to this pointless dribble, I had seriously had enough, that is to say, I couldn't simply sit silently by and listen; I began laughing at Obama and denouncing his outlandish claims. I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one who had had enough of the crap (sorry to use that word, but it beats the alternative).

As Obama began lying about illegal immigrant coverage (i.e. he claimed that the "reform efforts" would not insure illegals), Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina stood up and shouted "You Lie!"

Obama's head snapped to look and see who would dare oppose him. Pelosi's eyes nearly popped out of their sockets and Joe Biden woke up. Here take a look for yourself...

Classic, truly classic. One man dared to stand up to the president and call him what he is, to his face, on national tv; a liar! Decorum be damned, Joe Wilson, like I, had had enough of Obama's lies and he couldn't sit on his hands any longer.

I read a story in the AP, which was released minutes after the conclusion of the speech and the whole tenor of the story was one of bashing Wilson and describing how inappropriate his comments were; how rude, how infantile, how childish, etc.

The story quoted John McCain as saying, "Wilson's behavior was totally disrespectful. There is no place for it in that setting, or any other, and he should apologize for it immediately."

House Majority Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, said that he would speak with GOP leadership to see whether or not Wilson should be punished for his "shameful" act.

Wilson was forced to apologize. He explained that "this evening I let my emotions get the best of me."

Well, let me say something to you Mr. Wilson...You sir, have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Yes, you broke protocol, yes, you interrupted Obama's speech, but, you only did what every other informed, patriotic, Constitutional abiding citizen would have done. You stood up to tyranny! Obama may be the president, but last I checked, he IS NOT our dictator. In my books, when a man stands in front of the Congress of the United States of America and more importantly, the people of this great land, and tells one lie after another in an effort to destroy the Constitution, something has to be done. You're two word "out-burst" was the only truthful thing that the cameras picked up tonight. John McCain is an irrelevant and timid coward and Hoyer, well, let's be honest, he's a communist. You sir are more honorable than either of those two men; you are a great American and for that I salute you. You have my full support and respect. Whatever the media created backlash is to your bold and honest assessment of the president's speech, I want you to know that millions upon millions of American are standing behind you 100%. Keep fighting for what is right Joe! God bless you!

What Obama's Student Speech Taught Me

2009-09-08T22:18:00.000-07:00

As most of you know a major crisis was averted today. Yep, that's right, the lunatic fringe of the right wing put enough pressure on Obama to change his speech to our children from a health care Hitler style indoctrination session to a conservative snooze fest of a motivational speech. And although all the dust has settled around yet another lack luster performance by our 45% popular president, I felt like I owed it to myself, and to you, to try and take something away from this speech; to be inspired if you will. I should have know that turning to Obama for inspiration is comparable to going to Ted Kennedy for advice on living a life of sobriety (too soon?); and yet, I tried.

As you might imagine, my quest was a fruitless one; however, my efforts were not entirely futile. Reading through Obama's speech just a few minutes ago, it suddenly struck me what is wrong with America. Let me give you a few quotes from the speech and then I'll explain . . .

"And I've talked a lot about responsibility . . . "

"But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools...and put in the hard work it takes to succeed."

"But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life - what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home - that's no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That's no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That no excuse for not trying."

"Where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. No one's written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future."

"But the truth is, being successful is hard."

Okay, these few quotes give you the basic gist of Obama's message. In his 10 minutes speech, the President told children from the ages of five to eighteen that their fate is ultimately dependent upon nobody but themselves; that no one has an excuse to be a failure regardless of race, birth, family life, poverty, etc. He told them that it's "hard" to be successful. He encouraged them to take responsibility for their own lives (the word "responsibility" appeared 8 times) and to strive to do their best. Basically, Obama told America's youth to grow up.

When I finished reading Obama's speech, to my utter amazement and bewilderment, I found myself in complete agreement with our President, which believe me was a first and, almost definitely, a last. I mean, I've probably criticized Obama as much, if not more than any other man in America outside of maybe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck (It's hard to compete with those guys seeing as they get paid to bash Obama and I don't). In all honesty, I was so surprised to be in concurrence with Obama that I had to double-check and make sure I had read the right speech and not one of Reagan's old speeches.

Although Obama's speech failed to inspire me (it's hard to be inspired when you read something that you yourself could have written), it did cause me to contemplate what's going on in this country. I found myself thinking, "where was the Obama who wrote this speech during the campaign and where is this Obama now"? I knew all too well the answers to these questions and yet I asked them.

Let's be perfectly honest, Obama doesn't believe a single word that he said today. The only reason the President's speech wasn't filled with his familiar partisan liberalism, catch phrases, talking points and agendas, is due to the fact that the political firestorm that surrounded it scared him straight. He couldn't afford to give Americans yet another reason to mistrust him. Not now, not when he needs all the support he can muster to shove through his atrocity of a health care plan. So he turned to the time tested strategy of extolling American values to garner support and esteem.

And now that I've given a little bit of analysis on Obama's speech, let me conclude this post by revealing my real purpose in writing it. Before I quoted Obama, I said that his speech showed me what is wrong with America today and that is this: In America Children are Treated Like Adults and Adults are Treated/Act Like Children. Before you simply dismiss this conclusion as the incoherent ramblings of a mad man, hear me out.

Our President tells school children to take responsibility for their lives and to work hard. He tells them that success is earned, not handed out. And then he turns around and tells America's adults that health care is a right. He bails out banks and other failing industries. He hands out cars and unemployment checks. He expresses strong support for the current welfare system and sympathizes with racists and poor people who blame their plight on everybody but themselves. It's as if Obama believes that elementary, jr. high, and high school aged children are more mature than their teachers, parents and grandparents (and, going by everything that the president has said in the past, it's as if he thinks that school children should be more mature than him).

As I thought about the absurdity of Obama's message, I began thinking about current trends in America and I came to the realization that the absurdity lies in the trends rather than the message; or more aptly, the absurdity of the trends leads to the absurdity of the message. Think about it, in America today millions upon millions of adults truly act like adolescents, which is a big reason why everything seems to be crumbling around us (ex. the dollar, the economy, society, etc.).

According to a 2005 study, 40% of American families spend more than their monthly incomes (I imagine that number has only gone up over the last four years). And yet we wonder why our government is $12 trillion in debt (as I argued in an earlier post entitled, Insights on Government from Common Sense, government is simply a reflection of the society over which it governs).

According to two studies, 41-50% of all first marriages, 60-67% of second marriages and 73-74% of third marriages in the US end in divorce. And yet we wonder why our children drop out of schools and have babies out of wedlock.

According to the 2002 Census, 15% of children can be considered "Latchkey kids." And yet we wonder how millions of kids get exposed to drugs and alcohol at an early age.

According to WomanSavers.com, the porn industry is a $12 billion industry in the United States and 22% of men and 14% of women have cheated on their spouses at least once. And yet we wonder why so many of our children are contracting STDs.

35% of our GDP goes to welfare recipients and yet we wonder why so many people live in poverty and fail to leave the ghettos.

Just over 50% of Americans take the time to vote in Presidential elections and yet we wonder why our government is out of touch and not doing what we want it to do.

The simple fact of the matter is that many adults in the United States are not behaving like adults. They are compiling debt, devastating their families with affairs and divorce, and/or living off the teat of the government. If America is to get back on the right track, she will need her 19-112 year olds (I checked, currently Walter Breuning, at 112 is the oldest known person in America, congrats Walter) need to grow up, not her 5-18 year olds.

If Obama was really serious about helping kids stay in school or showing them how to be responsible, he would enact laws to decrease the national debt and end the welfare state; he would encourage Americans to get their own health care and to take responsibility for their own lives; he would tell them to quit blaming their misfortunes on others and to stay true to their commitments (especially when it comes to marriage).

Of course he won't do this. But, can you really blame him? After all the president is merely a reflection of the people who voted him into office. Until a majority of American adults decide it's time to grow up, why should we expect our children or our president to?

Cash for Clunkers Finally Ends

2009-08-20T21:33:00.000-07:00

The longer one lives the more difficult it becomes for the sheer stupidity of others to surprise him. If that's true, I must not have lived quite as long as I thought.

Today the Obama administration announced that it will be doing away with the "popular" and "successful" Cash-for-Clunkers (C4C) government program. In a statement to the press, Ray LaHood (Obama's Transportation Secretary) said, "It's been a thrill to be part of the best economic news story in America...Now we are working toward an orderly wind down of this very popular program."

Sec. LaHood has had some kind of year, seeing as he's played a role in both "the best economic news story in America" and the worst (i.e. Obama's presidency). But, putting Mr. LaHood's busy year aside, I'd like to briefly address the C4C program.

I find it fascinating to think that most people actually believe this program was a sweeping success. Here's a quick paragraph from an AP article I read today,

"Through Thursday, auto dealers have made deals worth $1.9 billion and are on pace to exhaust the program's $3 billion in early September. The incentives have generated more than 457,000 vehicle sales. Administration officials said they have reviewed nearly 40% of the transactions and have already paid out $145 million to dealers."

Now this all sounds fine and dandy doesn't it? $1.9 billion in sales. 457,000 cars moved. But, then we come to the end of the paragraph; only $145 million has been reimbursed to dealers. Obviously, the AP tries to spin this like it's great news (note: Admin. officials have...already paid out $145 million to dealers), but think about it; C4C started on July 1, 2009 (that was 50 days ago) and the government has reimbursed dealers less than 7% of the total $ that it owes them. And people wonder why dealerships in New York haven't been honoring C4C for the past week. The dealers, like many of you, don't trust the government to honor it's word. Paper backlogs, lost paperwork, fine print, and a plethora of excuses have most dealers squirming.

Even if every one of those clunkers gets paid for by Big Bro., C4C still was a failure. It was simply another government bailout disguised as a rebate program. Oh sure, it moved cars, but it did so by creating a bubble in the car industry. I'm sure their were plenty of "unqualified" (i.e. poor/bad credit) individuals who used the $4,500 check from Uncle Sam to walk away with a car they had no business buying (i.e. a car they won't be able to pay off).

In effect, C4C took money from some (i.e. taxpayers) and shelled it out to others (as Bastiat would say, "the government employed legal plunder", in the words of Obama, the government "spread the wealth around."). C4C was the very definition of socialism.

Oh and did I mention that American car manufacturers like GM (Government Motors) and Chevy struggled, while foreign companies like Toyota and Honda cleaned up under C4C. Just a side note for you.

If C4C really worked (which it didn't), just think of what would have happened had the government decided to lower taxes, across the board, instead of printing $3 billion to cover the expenses of an ill conceived program...talk about a revitalization of the American economy.

If, by some miraculous occurrence, C4C turns out to be a success; if every clunker is paid for, if every car remains in the possession of its recent owner, if the American auto industry is saved, I'll be man enough to admit that I was wrong about C4C. But, for now C4C is just another example, in a long list, of government incompetence and market manipulation.

Meet John Holdren: Obama's "Science Czar"

2009-07-30T21:01:00.000-07:00

In his six month reign of debt and stupidity, the honorable Barack Obama (Sovereign Lord and King of the United States of America, in his own mind) has gathered a group of highly advanced (i.e. Ivy League educated) communists/morons together to keep the common people in their place. The president has conferred upon these individuals untold power and given them the title of "Czar." These Czars answer only to their Fuhrer and stand as the final authority on certain subjects. There's a TARP Czar, an Energy Czar, a Car Czar, a Climate Czar, a Green Job Czar, a Science Czar, and the list goes on. Basically the only Czars missing are a Common Sense Czar, a Capitalist Czar, and a Balanced Budget Czar.

Seeing as these unelected Czars possess undeniable power and influence, I thought that it might benefit us lowly peasants to learn from their wisdom. That is why I have chosen to focus tonight's post on Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren.

John Holdren's life story didn't start until he was 4 years old, at least that's the way he tells it. According to John, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect." I wonder what my sister would say if I told her that her 1 year old son, excuse me, her one year old fetus, isn't a human. Maybe I can return the birthday gift I bought him; I mean, do fetuses really appreciate presents?

Once he grew into a human being, Holdren received a BS from MIT and a PHD from Stanford. Smart guy right? Once he had his vaunted PHD in hand, John went to Cal Berkeley as a teacher with a mission to spread fear and panic among his students. Holden is what some might consider an environmental nut job (and that's putting it lightly).

Nestled in the Communist sanctuary of 1970s Berkeley, Holden began teaching his students that the world was on the verge of disaster. Holdren's most prominent babblings can be found in his 1977 book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which he co-authored with the tragically flawed catastrophe theorist Paul Erlich (author of, the Population Bomb). In this "scientific" book, John concluded that the earth was headed towards catastrophe due to overpopulation (human population of course, because you can never have too many polar bears) and polution. In order to fix this oncoming crisis, he expressed hopes that one day, "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion (as well as sterilization), could be sustained under the existing Constitution."

Yes, it seems as if all of earth's problems spring from us despicable humans. In order to save the world from impending doom, Holden proposed a radical restructuring of the family. In Ecoscience, Holden wrote, "Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not. Inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority, will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial. Thus, it is beside the point to object to population-control measures simply on the grounds that they might change the social structure or family relationships."

Holden went on to suggest ways in which the government could "motivate" individuals to not have children, if a country was unable to use force. "As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing...Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family."

As disturbing as these views are, they don't even come close to comparing with Holden's proposition that a "Planetary Regime", composed of an international police force, should be created to force people in nations throughout the world to submit to forced abortions and sterilization procedures.

In John Holden's world newborn babies possess less rights than tree saplings. Yep, that's right. Holden championed the notion of giving legal rights to trees as he wrote, “One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone (i.e. to give trees legal equality with humans) in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?'" Following this logic, a Lumberjack is a mass murderer and an abortion doctor is a harmless Gardner.

Although Holden has grown increasingly silent about his "past" views in recent years, he has never denied or refuted them. In fact, when questioned earlier this year in a Senate hearing about his tendency to overstate, exaggerate and spread fear and panic; Holden stated, "the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time."

It seems as if Holden is still keen on his motivational tactics as he went on to predict that global warming would take the lives of 1 billion human beings (1/6 of the earth's population) by 2020 (if that's true it's going to be a rough 12 year stretch) and cause a 13 foot rise in the sea level by 2100 (your run of the mill, Michael Moore/Al Gore type doomsayer predicts at most 13 inches).

So, there you have it. John Holdren, Barack Obama's Grim Reaper Czar, excuse me, "Science Czar." A man so obsessed with saving the environment from a fantasmic climate change, that he'd be willing to sacrifice your child to do it.

Here's the ugly truth about Holdren, Obama and their liberal friends. They don't think much of you; you're stupid; you're weak; you're irrational; and in Holdren's case, you're just an expendable piece of pollution. You don't know what's best for you. If left on your own you'll destroy the planet. You'll spend your money unwisely. You'll choose a bad health care plan. The world's a big bad place. You can't make it on your own. You need to have someone smart controlling you . . . someone like Obama.

Because, after all, security is more important than freedom.

You know, the more I find out about Obama and his cronies the more I start to doubt his omnipotent will and wisdom. Perhaps he doesn't have our best interests in mind after all . . .

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Happy 4th of July and May God Bless America!

2009-07-03T22:20:00.000-07:00

Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Democrats begin to Defect, while a Star Continues to Emerge

2009-06-27T11:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted in favor of one of the largest tax increases in US history. The Waxman-Markey Climate Control Bill, commonly referred to as the Cap-and-Trade bill, will undoubtedly bankrupt American companies, destroy American jobs, create an enormous government bureaucracy, strip away more of our freedoms and significantly raise energy costs on every single American.

Although, it is regrettable that such a bill could ever pass the House; I did take solace in two things. First, 42 Democrats voted against this legislation. That's right, 42 brave souls stood up against Nancy Pelosi, the wicked witch of Washington, and one of her most beloved henchmen, Henry Waxman (commonly referred to as the Rat Man by both his friends and enemies - and for good reason).
Now some of you might say, how is this encouraging? After all, the bill still passed. True, but when was the last time you saw 42 members of the Democratic party go against the wishes of Nancy Pelosi? Even more rare, when was the last time you saw a single Democrat vote against anything having to do with "saving" the world or putting an end to climate change (which, if I might inject here, has been going on since the creation of the world and will continue to go on regardless of what man does to prevent it). This vote shows that many Democrats are coming to the sad (sad for them only) realization that their party, controlled by socialist radicals and nut jobs (i.e. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, etc.), is overreaching (i.e. it's shoving too much down the throats of the American people too fast). As time goes by and the policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid continue to pit the United States government against the American people, I believe that we will begin to see more and more Democrats defect and go against the bidding of their former masters.
The second promising sign that I took away from last night's vote, is the fact that John Boehner, the House Minority Leader from Ohio, is continuing to emerge as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Last night, Boehner held the floor for well over an hour, discussing the energy bill and deriding it for the freedom grabbing, tax increasing atrocity that it really is. There were parts of Boehner's speech that were absolutely captivating. So much so, that a noticeably irritated Henry Waxman felt compelled to interrupt Boehner and complain that he was taking too long (heaven forbid anybody read or debate the largest tax increase in American history before voting on it).

As I watched highlights of Boehner's speech, I found myself thinking, "Finally, there's an articulate opposition voice to Obama's policies other than Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin." I first noticed Boehner's massive potential when he blasted Obama's stimulus package earlier this year in one of the most passionate and entertaining speeches I have ever seen.

These are definitely not the times for weak cowards, and John Boehner doesn't appear to be one.

Doesn't it feel good . . . isn't it refreshing to finally hear someone in America (the land of the free) clearly explain why socialism doesn't work?

What Happened to America?

2009-06-23T21:38:00.000-07:00

A great man once wrote the following . . .

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

As I look upon America today, I see a nation and a people who have lost their way. A nation and a people who have grown apathetic, shallow, superficial, silly, immoral and unappreciative of their liberties; a people who understand little of the preceding paragraph and understand what it takes to remain free even less.

Americans are on the cusp of losing everything. Every day the government; a government that is supposed to be the representative voice of her people; federal, state and local, steals away more and more of our precious freedoms. The government plunders our pocket books, strips us of our guns, brainwashes our children, censors our speech and subsidizes our sluggards and promiscuous. She spends our children into poverty, allows the murder of millions, rewards corruption, and puts the environment ahead of our futures. As if this systematic destruction of our liberties weren't bad enough, our cruel and insatiable mistress has the audacity to tell us that she has our best interests at heart; that all she does is motivated out of a deep commitment to our happiness and future wellness.

Any person with half a brain in his head can clearly see what is happening to us. And yet, he . . . we . . . sit idly by and do nothing. Oh, we might shake our heads and fists, we might let out a long sigh when tax season rolls around each year, we might attend the occasional rally and yell and complain, but that's about as far as it goes. Any talk of drastic action is quickly dismissed as foolish and unnecessary. "Things are bound to get better" we say; "the government can't keep her atrocities up for much longer." We know not what else to say for this is just what our parents said and what their parents said before them. You see, America's current plight is not a recent phenomenon; it has been building for sometime now. It began in the 1920's and 30's and has been growing ever stronger every day since then.

When Americans made the decision that they could no longer make it on their own; when they handed their futures, and in so doing, their lives, over to the government, the country was forever changed. When Americans allowed and even desired for their government to morph into a charitable organization, they opened the door to debt, poverty and eventual collapse. When Americans decided that the government knew more about what was best for them and their children than they did, they opened the door to illiteracy, stupidity, promiscuity and the disintegration of the family. When Americans decided that living moral, upright lives was old fashioned, they paved the way for tyranny to conquer their land.

Yes, America is heading in the direction of tyranny and oppression faster than most people realize. If this course is not altered, and soon, there will be no turning back. Mark my words, no single man or party can fix this inevitable shipwreck; rather, it will take a change in the hearts and souls of Americans. This is not the time for summer soldiers and sunshine patriots; this nation yearns for brave and heroic men and women as a deer longs for water. People who will stand up for freedom and morality; people who are willing to be counted on the side of liberty and self-responsibility; these are the soldiers that America cries for.

If these individuals do not step forward, America will soon be nothing more than a tiny blip on the time line that composes the history of man. Her memory will be a truly tragic one for she shall be remembered as the greatest failure in human history. For here was a nation; a glorious nation; a shining city on a hill; founded on liberty that crumbled from within when her people gave up their rights for a false sense of security.

The Elephant Man's Quote of the Week . . .

2009-06-21T22:56:00.000-07:00

. . . "A Nation is only as strong as her families" - The Elephant Man

(I know it might seem rather egotistical to quote myself in this section, but sometimes brilliance knows no shame . . . oh, and sadly, if you understand this simple quote, you can clearly see why America is in the lousy shape she's in . . . God help us).

The Elephant Man Returns . . .

2009-06-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

. . . If you've visited this blog at all in the last month or two, you know that I, the illustrious Elephant Man, have not been recording my brilliant incites, maxims and axioms with the same passion or fervor that I once did. My friends, let me explain this apparent lack of motivation.

Do not fear. I have not become apathetic, stupid, ignorant or foolishly idealistic (like most of my fellow 23 year old Americans). I just haven't had the time to blog in recent days. In case you missed it, my beloved Los Angeles Lakers put the finishing touches on its 15th NBA championship (10th in LA) last night, which means that I finally have some free time in my schedule. That's right, if there's anything that I love as much (or almost as much) as God, my family and my country, it's the Lakers (and the Dodgers, UCLA Bruins and Denver Broncos) and this love prevented me from missing a single playoff game. Working full time, studying for career advancement tests and watching the playoffs has consumed a large chunk of my life over the past two months. But, now that the playoffs are over, I can once again return to this blog with a renewed sense of urgency; and the timing could not be better.

Our infamous president and his cronies in Washington and across the fruited plains are attempting to ram nationalized (i.e. state controlled) health care down our throats, appoint a racist justice to the Supreme Court, weaken our military, and destroy the very fiber of this nation.

Now, is not the time to back down. It is not the time to become disinterested in government or to give in to the hypnotic tug of liberalism. It is not the time to lower our voices. We must stand up for freedom, truth and liberty while we still have them. We must explain to our friends, neighbors and co-workers that with great power/freedom comes great responsibility.

The fields are ripe for the harvest; the tides are turning; a new wind is blowing. The people of this great land are ready to embrace freedom; let us show them how. Let us put an end to the power hungry politicians and "do-gooders" who steal from one man to give to another. Let us take back control over our lives and the lives of our children. Let us stand for America; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!

Remembering the Greatest Generation . . .

2009-06-06T19:34:00.000-07:00

With president Obama going around the world on his second "USA Apology Tour", I felt that it would behoove us all to listen to a speech in which America is applauded. A speech that praises the brave men who gave their lives 65 years ago on a cold, stormy beach in France so that the world could be delivered from tyranny and oppression. May we never forget their sacrifice. May we never forget what they did there on that day. May their triumph, like a glorious amaranth, never fade from the front pages of our memories. God bless America, God bless her soldiers, God bless her liberty, God bless her freedom, and may God save her from the tyranny at hand

24 on Abortion

2009-05-18T22:21:00.000-07:00

I'm not a big tv fan. To be honest I think most tv shows are downright despicable and a big waste of time. I mean, if Americans spent half as much time using their brains (i.e. reading, writing, becoming informed, etc.) as they do vegging out in front of their tvs, things would be a whole lot better around here (i.e. socialists wouldn't be taking over every aspect of our lives).

That being said, I do watch a few shows (ex. 24, the Office, and an occasional Simpsons or Seinfeld); and, as you can see, 24 is first and foremost on that list. I enjoy the show because it's main character/hero, special agent Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland), is a patriot and a real man's man; you know, the guy who'll walk through fire or jump out of a plane to save the damsel in distress (only in Bauer's case, the damsel is always the United States of America). The show is intense, interesting, exciting, dramatic and of course unbelievable (to a comical extent at times). If you haven't watched 24, I would encourage you to try it out.

Now that I've provided you with a glowing review, I can get to the main point of this post. On tonight's season 8 finale, Tony Almeida (a series mainstay played by Carlos Bernard) finally comes face to face with his wife's murderer, Allan Wilson, after years of searching. Almeida's quest for retribution cost him everything; his friends, his identity, and his conscience. As he holds a gun to the head of his arch nemesis, Tony explains why he sacrificed so much to seek his revenge. In a moving speech, he tells Wilson that Michelle (his wife) was all he had; she was his whole world; when he lost her he lost everything.

After describing how precious his wife was to him, Almeida says something very interesting; he tells Wilson that Michelle was pregnant at the time of her death. He cries out in angst, "You not only killed my wife, you killed my son!"

The power and significance of this scene didn't hit me until the proceeding commercial break. Any reasonable person would say that Tony had every right to be angry at Wilson, after all Wilson murdered his wife and son; and there in lies the significance. There isn't a doubt in my mind that 99% of Americans, whether they be pro-life or pro-choice, would agree with Almeida's synopsis (i.e. that Wilson had murdered two people).

And yet, Tony's son, according to five Supreme Court justice, was nothing more than a collection of cells; he, excuse me, it, was merely a growth in Michelle's body. By calling this clump of inanimate matter his son, Tony shows a lack of intelligence and sanity. I mean, how can Wilson be accused of committing two murders when one of the supposed victims wasn't even a person?

If that last paragraph sounded absurd, don't worry, it was supposed to. You see, every single person who watches 24 felt Almeida's pain; they sympathized with him; they felt sorry for him; and above all they agreed with him. And that's why the pro-choice argument hasn't a leg to stand on. No person, no matter how pro-choice, can look Almeida (or any other person in a similar situation) in the eyes and tell him that the child he lost wasn't human. No pro-choicer can honestly tell a devastated mother who has just had a miscarriage that she should just get over it. No, when all is said and done, every person on earth has a conscience; they understand what life is; they know that it is precious; and they know when it begins.

In order for abortion to be morally acceptable, it must be assumed that the fetus is not a human. And yet, the average member of the pro-choice camp can not, with any conviction, defend this position as truth and irrefutable fact. No man can.

So, what does this mean? It means that, according to the pro-choice argument, life is decided by want (i.e. life should only be designated to fetuses that are wanted by their parents). What made Tony and Michelle's fetus human? The fact that Tony and Michelle wanted to have a baby.

If one were to follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, he would find that it sets a dangerous precedent. If human life depends solely on want, then what's to stop a person from murdering, excuse me, aborting their dependent child or elderly relative once they grow tired of them? What difference does one's age have in determining his humanity, if he is not wanted?

I'm sure the writers of 24 (who are probably all Starbucks liberals) didn't intend to rain on the abortion parade when they wrote this episode. But, that's what they did; and as we all know, when it rains it pours.

Jeb Bush = Bona Fide Moron

2009-05-03T22:40:00.000-07:00

If anyone has read anything that I have written on this blog within the last year, he knows that I am not one to rush to judgment or crucify someone over a single issue. Nevertheless, after reading some of the childish and asinine comments that Jeb Bush made this weekend, I could not let his stupidity simply slide by. In case you missed it; and believe me you probably did seeing how few people care to listen to the Bush's anymore; JB decided that, as one of the supposed "leaders" of the Republican Party, it was time for the Party to move away from the principles of Reagan.

Here's a section of the news story as it appeared in the Washington Times:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

The former president's brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama's message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it's great, but it doesn't draw people toward your cause," Mr. Bush said.

---------------------

Jeb, there's no easy way for me to say this, but you "sir" are a BONA FIDE MORON! Seriously! What the heck are you talking about? Really? The "nostalgia" of Reagan?

Jeb Bush and his ridiculous analysis of the Republican Party are so far off the reservation that you couldn't spot them with a Hubble telescope. Let me fill you in on something Jeb; the Republican Party didn't get overwhelmed in last year's election because it gloried in the nostalgia of Reaganism. No, it got owned by the Socialist Party, er, uh, excuse me, the Democratic Party, because it ran on a platform that Ronald Reagan would have, quite honestly, spat on. The Republican Party has fallen on hard times because it has Rhinos like you (and Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.) running it. You remember your good old brother? President George W. Bush? Well, in my humble opinion, he was a disgrace when it came to fiscal policy (his bailout, which started the ensuing bailout fiascoes, was repulsive and stood contrary to everything that the Founding Fathers believed in).

Let me clear the air here; the Republican Party lost because it has turned into the party of nothing and in doing so it has evolved into a party very similar to that of the Democrats. The Democratic Party didn't have "something", it ran on NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You hear that Jeb? NOTHING! Hope? Change? What does that even mean? Hope in what? What exactly are we changing? The American people turned their back on the Republican Party because they were sick of the lies; sick of Republicans promising to cut the deficit; sick of Republicans bashing everyday Americans; sick of all you elitist Rhinos turning your noses up at Reagan.

As far as relevance goes; how can you honestly say that Reaganism bears no relevance in America today? Do I need to remind you of what Reagan believed in? Since when did freedom, liberty, limited government, personal responsibility, lower taxes and national security become irrelevant issues?

If the Republican Party is ever to regain the trust and support of the American people, it MUST return to the principles of Reagan, which in essence, are the principles of this nation's founding. As long as Republicans, like Jeb Bush, continue to bash true conservatism (i.e. classical liberalism), they will never win the respect and confidence of the electorate. Jeb Bush, you need to shut your mouth and go youtube Reagan's classic speech, A Time for Choosing; it might teach you a thing or two about winning elections.

In closing, I have decided to include some of my favorite quotes from one of America's greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan.

If a tax hike makes it to my desk, I'll veto it in less time than it takes Vanna White to turn the letters V-E-T-O!

I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.

"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us.

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again — America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Obama's Genius Moment

2009-04-27T15:58:00.000-07:00

He's so eloquent isn't he . . . Geesh

Oh and for more Einstein-like Presidential behavior, read this story . . .

White Houses Apologizes for Fly-Over

Political Correctness Costs Miss California the Miss USA Crown

2009-04-20T22:18:00.000-07:00

Believe me when I say this: I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan, follower or interested observer of beauty pageants. To me they're just plain silly; not to mention the fact that the prettiest girl (i.e. my favorite) rarely takes home the crown.

This being said, when I heard the reason why Carrie Prejean, the lovely Miss California/runner up, lost to her identical twin Miss North Carolina (seriously, they look exactly the same) in the Miss USA pageant, my interest in beauty pageants hit an all-time high.

Miss California's only blunder came in the all-important final round, in which the contestant is asked to answer one "tough" question posed by a randomly selected judge. Not surprisingly, this is the only point in the program when the contestants are allowed to show off their intellectual beauty or lack there of (i.e. Miss South Carolina from a few years back).

Anyway, Miss California's question came from the infamous and openly gay celebrity blogger, Perez Hilton.

Unbelievable. Now, to be perfectly honest Miss California botched her answer up pretty badly; rambling on and on. But, how would you answer a question like that? Seriously? I mean, Miss North Carolina's question ("Do you think the US government should be bailing out private industries") was elementary compared to this one and her response ("No, um, no I don't . . . giggle giggle") left a lot to be desired.

Let's be perfectly honest here; Miss California didn't lose the crown because she stumbled over her words or because Miss North Carolina demonstrated a greater mastery over the English language. No, Miss California lost because she delivered a politically incorrect answer. If she had said something along the lines of, "Well, I have many gay friends and, um, I love them all, and yeah, I think that they should be, um, like allowed to, what's the word? Marry!" she would have been the next Miss USA. But, no instead of caving in to the militant (oh did I say that out loud?) politically correct movement, Miss California (God bless her) stood up for what she believed in; for traditional values and morals; and it cost her everything (well, as far as beauty pageants go).

A tiffed Perez Hilton admitted as much by telling Access Hollywood, "The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt! Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA." And the caring and compassionate, equality seeking, Hilton had more love to spread by calling Miss California a "dumb bitch . . . with half a brain." How tolerant and accepting.

Hilton failed to mention that Miss California's courageous response to his out of place question (I mean seriously, a gay marriage question at a beauty pageant? What happened to the days when really pressing issues like makeovers, illiteracy rates and world hunger took center stage?) generated more applause than boos. But, in the end it didn't matter because the judges weren't about to give the crown to a homophobic right-wing extremist like Miss California. How sad. What is this country coming to?

Miss California, or should I say Carrie, I know you probably don't read this blog, but if you do; I want to applaud you for standing up for what's right and having the guts to show a little back bone. I agree with you 100%; marriage should be between one man and one woman, period; end of discussion.

Oh and Carrie, one more thing . . . I'm single :)

I'm Sorry . . .

2009-04-18T21:57:00.000-07:00

. . . with President Obama going to every corner of the world fraternizing with socialist dictators and apologizing for America, I felt that it was only fitting for me, the Elephant Man, to provide our president (well, more specifically, whoever works his teleprompter) with a few suggested apologies.

Apology #1-2 : The United States would like to apologize for saving France (and to a lesser extent, England) from annihilation at the hands of the Germans, not once, but twice (I guess that counts as two apologies)

Apology #3 : The United States would like to apologize for the Monroe Doctrine, which effectively ended colonization by tyrannical European nations in South America.

Apology #4 : The United States would like to apologize to Japan for helping to rebuild her following World War II.

Apology #5 : The United States would like to apologize to Mexico for employing her citizens and allowing millions of them (a high percentage of which are illegal immigrants) to live in America where they are given welfare, education, and health care.

Apology #6 : The United States would like to apologize to Africa for donating millions upon millions of dollars worth of food, clothes and medical supplies to her each year.

Apology #7 : The United States would like to apologize to the people of Russia for winning the Cold War, which led to the demise of Communism in Russia (at least for the time being).

Apology #8 : The United States would like to apologize to Kuwait for saving her from extinction at the hands of Saddam Hussein during the Golf War.

Apology #9 : The United States would like to apologize to the people of North Africa for destroying the Barbary Pirates back in the early 1800s.

Apology #10 : The United States would like to apologize to Iraq for removing her genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein and seeking to introduce her people to true freedom.

Apology #11 : The United States would like to apologize to any terrorist (i.e. individuals who have killed, or seek to kill, innocent people) who was tortured in order to ascertain life saving information.

Apology #12 : The United States would like to apologize for taking in the poor, lowly, downtrodden and destitute people of this world and providing them with opportunity and hope.

Apology #13 : The United States would like to apologize for keeping China in business.

Apology #14 : The United States would like to apologize for demonstrating to the rest of humanity that democracy, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness aren't imaginary concepts; they are God-given rights.

. . . I could go on, but I think you get my point . . .

Texas Governor Rick Perry Destroys Obama and Federal Gov.

2009-04-14T09:34:00.000-07:00

Bravo! Texas here I come!

Obama: "We Are Resolved to Halt the Rise of Privacy"

2009-04-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

Today our brilliant president took a strong stand against everyone living in Somalia and the regions surrounding it. After praising the US Navy (a first for him) for saving Captain Phillips, Obama said the following, "I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region."

Now, I know that some of you might be willing to dismiss this comment as a simple mistake; but, I choose to view it as a Freudian slip. Think about it folks. Obama, and his buddies, want to take away your money and cars, your private schools and health care plans; in a nutshell, they want to control every aspect of your life; so in the end what right to privacy do we really have anymore? So much for the land of the free . . .

The Real Reason for Easter . . .

2009-04-12T16:58:00.000-07:00

. . . Matthew 28, Mark 16 . . .

----------

Matthew 28 - Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.

²And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.

³And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.

⁴The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.

⁵The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

⁶"He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.

⁷"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."

⁸And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

⁹And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

¹⁰Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me."

¹¹Now while they were on their way, some of ^L)">the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened.

¹²And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers,

¹³and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.'

¹⁴"And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble."

¹⁵And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

The Great Commission

¹⁶But the eleven disciples proceeded ^P)">to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.

¹⁷When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

¹⁸And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

¹⁹"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, ^V)">baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

²⁰teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to ^X)">the end of the age."

-----------------------------

Mark 16 - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him.

²Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

³They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?"

⁴Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.

⁵Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.

⁶And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

⁷"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.'"

⁸They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

⁹[Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.

¹⁰She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.

¹¹When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.

¹²After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.

¹³They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.

The Disciples Commissioned

¹⁴Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

¹⁵And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

¹⁶"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

¹⁷"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

¹⁸they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

¹⁹So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

²⁰And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.] [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.]

Insight's On Democracy

2009-04-08T22:00:00.000-07:00

Tonight's Insights come from Frederic Bastiat, one of the most brilliant, liberty loving, thinkers of the 19th century. Bastiat fought the socialist takeover in France tooth and nail and produced many noteworthy writings on a variety of topics such as socialism, free markets, democracy and above all liberty. His defining work, the Law (which I had the privilege of reading today), was published in 1850 just months before his death; in it Bastiat refuted socialism, while presenting a clear and profound defense of capitalism and non-intrusive governments. The following exerts are taken from the Law; they are merely a taste. I implore each and every one of you to take the time to read Bastiat's masterpiece (I have provided a link to the Law at the bottom of this post); it will provide you with insights on America's present condition as well as prophecies concerning her future.

-----------------------------------
What is Law?:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

------------------------------------------

The Complete Perversion of the Law:

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.

------------------------------------------------------

The Consequences of Legal Plunder:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

---------------------------------------------

The Socialists Wish to Play God:

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals — the farmer wastes some seeds and land — to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea — the fruit of classical education — has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man's intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

. . . Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves.

-----------------------------------------

The Basis of Stable Government:

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.

Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity — and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no one would even think of accusing the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity — proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities — then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.

---------------------------------

Let us Now Try Liberty:

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

--------------------------------------

Full Text of the Law

In Response to a Liberal's Response

2009-04-05T18:08:00.000-07:00

Last Monday, I posted 10 Questions that (I claimed) liberals can't/won't answer. Well, my friends, it appears I was wrong. Within a day of posting my brilliant questions, I received a response from an anonymous "intellectual" liberal (yes, they do exist; mostly in their own minds, but that's besides the point), who decided to take the time out of his busy day (well, if he's a typical liberal he's either a college student or on welfare, so scratch that) and answer each question the best he could.

Long story short; what follows is my response to his thought provoking (cough, cough) response

1. What does the Constitution say about this?

Intellectual Liberal (IM) - "Well, I know what the fourth amendment says about search and seizure without a warrant."

The Elephant Man (EM) - Good for you IM! You know one of the 27 Constitutional Amendments (roughly 3.5% of the Constitution). All kidding aside, your minuscule Constitutional knowledge is probably greater than any Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama will nominate in the next four years.

2. If we take all of the money away from the rich, who's going to give you a job? (follow up: "Why don't you have a job?")

IM - "No one wants to take all the money away from the rich, stop exaggerating."

EM - "You're right IM; liberals don't want 'to take all the money away from the rich' just 70-80%."

3. Can you explain how your views differ from Communism? (follow up: "Socialism has never worked; what will makes this time around different?")

IM - "Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates a mixture of private and government ownership or control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism. There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but relevant aspects include: a degree of private economic freedom (including privately owned industry) intermingled with centralized economic planning and government regulation (which may include regulation of the market for environmental concerns and social welfare, or state ownership and management of some of the means of production for national or social objectives). For some states, there is not a consensus on whether they are capitalist, socialist, or mixed economies. Economies in states ranging from the United States to Cuba have been termed mixed economies.

Liberals, and most people in developed countries, believe not in communism or socialism outright, but rather in a 'mixed economy' which is a combination of capitalism and socialism, and represents the economies of most democracies, including the United States."

EM - "Wow, it looks like you know how to use a dictionary. Anyway, what I got out of all that is that you support a 'mixed economy.' Well IM take a look at what's happning in American right now. The United States government has taken over private industries, placed ridiculous regulations on every industry imaginable from the automotive to the banking, and expanded its control over the private sector by leaps and bounds. If things continue on this path, it won't be long (10-50 years) before virtually every aspect of the American economy is controlled by the federal government (i.e. socialism). I'd go on, but it's not worth my time. If you want to believe that a business (i.e. the federal government) $10 trillion in debt should be "regulating" the private sector, then you truly are a lost cause.

4. You constantly preach freedom (ex. legalization of drugs, sexual freedom, etc.), yet you support an intrusive, tyrannical, all-powerful, freedom snatching government; how come? (and along the same line: "How can you claim to believe in freedom when you continually seek to suppress the 1st (ex. No God in public schools) and 2nd (ex. automatic weapons ban) Amendment rights of other American (especially those who disagree with you)?").

IM - "We don't support a tyrannical government, such as George Bush's claim that he has a right to incarcerate any citizen without trial, or spy on anyone without a warrant (fourth amendment). We don't support people's 'right' to behaviors that put people's lives at risk (e.g. owning assault rifles or nuclear bombs) and we don't support use of public taxpayer money to proselytizer to the general public the beliefs of any one subset of the population."

EM - "So, the only Amendment you support is the fourth? I mean seriously IM, you just proved that liberals can't stand the first and second amendments. 'We don't support people's right to behaviors that put people's lives at risk' (i.e. owning an assault rifle). By that reasoning liberals should be the staunchest opponents of, hmmm, abortion, drug and alcohol use, smoking, need I go on? Oh, and why is it that every liberal is blatantly opposed to the teaching of God, creationism, abstinence, etc., but happy to support the teaching of every religion other than Christianity, evolution (an unproven scientific theory), elicit sex, etc. Aren't you doing the same thing (i.e. using 'taxpayer money to proselytize to the general public the beliefs of any one subset of the population') that you are accusing conservatives/Christians of doing?

5. What has the government really ever done for you (other than keep you mired in a pathetic world of mediocrity, class envy, debt, anger and dissatisfaction).

IM - "1. Gave me an education, till I was 18

2. kept my food safe

3. kept my water and air clean

4. ensured that my workplace is safe

5. prosecuted criminals to keep me safe

6. given me a voice (my vote)

7. funded science that has saved countless lives
-I'm sure there's more, is that not enough?"

EM - "Let me respond to each of those.

1. Not a very good one judging from the current public education numbers.

2. The private market would do a better job than the government if given the chance

3. Really? I mean, yes, you have me there, the government does clean the water (of course the private market would do it better), but the air? What city do you live in?

4. Doesn't your HR do that? Where do you work? Oh I should have known . . . you work for the government don't you?

5. What about all the criminals that it creates via public education, welfare, class envy, etc?

6. You're first truly good answer. Of course, how much of a voice do you have when the federal government gives 2 billion to ACORN to register millions of fake voters?

6. In an average year the pollutants emitted by nature, via volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other natural events, more than double man-made pollutants. Considering that the world has been around for millions (sarcastic cough) and millions of years: why is it that only now we are "seeing" the effects of global warming?

IM - "Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined
from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, SPM}"

EM - "Sigh, looks like someone has a copy of Al Gore's book. Here's my response . . . copy . . . paste . . . Al Gore's a moron/fraud.

7. Can you give me one example of a successful government program (i.e. a government program that is self-sustaining/not in debt)?

IM - "Did you know that in 1934 they estimate that half of the nation's seniors were living in poverty? Did you know that Social Security marked a change from a welfare based system to a social insurance system? Did you know that only 1% of your Social Security taxes goes to paying overhead? What strikes me about this is that there are ways that Social Security could be better. There are groups of people who don't get the full benefit out of it because they don't work as much (women) or they don't live as long (black men) or the system is just plain unfair (military retirees), but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is hardly going to fix it.

EM - "Your most epic fail. The question was, 'Give me one example of a successful government program (i.e. a government program that is self-sustaining/not in debt)?' and your example was the biggest slush fund in world history? Only 1% overhead? Yeah because only 1% of the money 'directed' towards Social Security goes into Social Security. Oh well, I guess bankruptcy is success for most liberals."

8. What does the Bible say/What would Jesus do?

IM - "Love thy neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

EM - Ah yes. The classic liberal/socialist's bible verses. The Bible also says, "He who will not work shall not eat" and "Thou shall not steal." Kind of puts a wet blanket on your biblical socialism theory, huh?"

9. When does life begin? (and in the same vein: "So, let me get this straight; you think that murder is an act of mercy when it 'saves' a child from having to deal with a difficult childhood?")

IM - "A sperm is 'alive,' an egg is 'alive' but they are not people, and destroying them is not 'murder.' The question is therefore not 'when does life begin' but when does 'person hood' begin. 4 cells is not a person."

EM - "Instead of answering my original question, you reworded it in order to dismiss that inconvenient word 'life.' At any rate, you clearly believe that person hood does not consist of four cells, but where do you draw the line? 8? 16? 3 months in the womb? Your answer is typical of the guilt stricken liberal who would rather dismiss the abortion question than wrestle with it.

Oh and here's another thought. Abortions don't take place 1-2 days into a pregnancy (i.e. when a baby consists of 4 cells). Also, a sperm separated from an egg does not constitute life and neither does an egg separated from a sperm as neither is capable of creating life without the other. However, when the two are joined human life HAS been created, whether you want to admit it or not."

10. Does the "racist" label apply to the 90+% of blacks who disagreed with George W. Bush, or is it only given to whites who disagree with Obama?

IM - "Disagreeing with George Bush or disagreeing with Obama does not make anyone racist, regardless of the color of their skin."

EM - "You're best answer. Perhaps you still have a chance after all."

10 Questions a Liberal Can't/Won't Answer

2009-03-30T19:44:00.000-07:00

1. What does the Constitution say about this?

2. If we take all of the money away from the rich, who's going to give you a job? (follow up: "Why don't you have a job?")

3. Can you explain how your views differ from Communism? (follow up: "Socialism has never worked; what will makes this time around different?")

4. You constantly preach freedom (ex. legalization of drugs, sexual freedom, etc.), yet you support an intrusive, tyrannical, all-powerful, freedom snatching government; how come? (and along the same line: "How can you claim to believe in freedom when you continually seek to suppress the 1st (ex. No God in public schools) and 2nd (ex. automatic weapons ban) Amendment rights of other American (especially those who disagree with you)?").

5. What has the government really ever done for you (other than keep you mired in a pathetic world of mediocrity, class envy, debt, anger and dissatisfaction).

6. In an average year the pollutants emitted by nature, via volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and other natural events, more than double man-made pollutants. Considering that the world has been around for millions (sarcastic cough) and millions of years: why is it that only now we are "seeing" the effects of global warming?

7. Can you give me one example of a successful government program (i.e. a government program that is self-sustaining/not in debt)?

8. What does the Bible say/What would Jesus do?

9. When does life begin? (and in the same vein: "So, let me get this straight; you think that murder is an act of mercy when it 'saves' a child from having to deal with a difficult childhood?")

10. Does the "racist" label apply to the 90+% of blacks who disagreed with George W. Bush, or is it only given to whites who disagree with Obama?

Stand Up for Life: Send a Red Envelope

2009-03-28T15:54:00.001-07:00

So often as conservatives and/or Christians it seems that we don't know how to make a difference or let our voices be heard. We see so many ills all around us and at times we feel helpless to correct them. Well, my friends here is a tangible way for us to take a stand on one of the most important issues confronting our nation today: abortion.

Every year more than a million children are aborted in the United States; more than 45 million innocent children have lost their lives since the Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 . . . 45 million.

President Barack Obama is without question the most blatantly pro-choice (i.e. pro-death) president the United States has ever had. After less than a week in office he signed an executive order, which uses tax payers money to fund abortions all across the world. When campaigning for office, Obama promised Planned Parenthood (i.e. America's equivalent to Auschwitz) that he would sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee women the fundamental "right" to murder their children (i.e. it would remove almost every restriction placed on having an abortion).

It is sickening to think that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions. Even more disheartening is the fact that my president has demonstrated such a complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of human life. During his campaign, Obama actually said that he "didn't want his daughters punished with a baby" and while in the Illinois state senate he opposed a bill outlawing infanticide.

My friends, we must let our president know that human life matters and that a large number of Americans support a child's right to life over a woman's right to murder. And that is why I am very excited to inform you that a movement is currently underway to direct the president's attention away from his teleprompter and to the abortion debate.

This Tuesday, March 31, 2009, the pro-life movement is asking every American who believes in life to send at least one empty red envelope to the White House bearing the following message on the back.

"This envelope represents one child who died of an abortion. It is empty because the life that was taken is now unable to be a part of our world."

You might not think that your envelope will make any difference whatsoever, but just imagine the impact your envelope will have if it is combined with millions of other envelopes from fellow pro-lifers. Together we can make a difference and remind our president that life is a truly precious gift.

I strongly encourage you to take five minutes out of your day to take a stand for life.

The address to the White House is:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C.
20500

Insights on Democracy: Davy Crockett

2009-03-24T22:28:00.000-07:00

Tonight's insights come from Edward S. Ellis' 1884 entertaining, enlightening, and fascinating biography, "The Life of Colonel David (Davy) Crockett."

The following exert is Chapter XIII in its entirety. It should only take a person 20 minutes, 30 at the most, to read. Trust me it is well worth your time.

I would encourage you to try and get your hands on Ellis' work for Davy Crockett was truly a brilliant man; as honest and patriotic as this country has ever seen.

From time to time, Congress has appropriated money for charitable purposes. The following account of Crockett's experience, while in Washington, is in that line, and is therefore timely and instructive. The narrator says:

"While Crockett was in Congress I had business which required me to spend several weeks in Washington city. Waiting upon one of the departments, or rather one of the chief clerks, for my turn, I had much leisure upon my hands; for, though my business might have been dispatched as well in tow hours as in two months, yet I had to wait. I had made up my mind that I would not leave until my business was settled. My only regular employment was to go every day to the office to learn that it could not be attended to that day.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

'Mr Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.'

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

'You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.'

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said;

'Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.'

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

'Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded that I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a filed plowing and coming toward the road I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.'

'Yes,' said he, 'such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.'

With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him; 'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend, I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.' He replied:

'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.'

I began; 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and __"

'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.'

'Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn't break your gun for one snap.'

'No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay's purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'

'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'

Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. BU that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much the pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to all, and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and violation of the Constitution.'

'I have given you,' continued Crockett, 'an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:'

'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

He laughingly replied: ' Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. You acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round teh district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you,k but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

'If I don't,' said, I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must known your name.'

'My name is Bunce.'

'Not Horatio Bunce?'

'Yes'

'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never me him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowldge of them than I had got all my life before.

It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fin person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem as beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children - he had about seven of them - began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confide3nce as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I have ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

'Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.'

'He then opened the bible and read the twenty-third Psalm, commencing: 'The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.' It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer, 'Our Father who art in Heaven.' No one who has not heard him pronounced those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were every pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination , and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand - grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

'Fellow-citizens-I present myself before you to-day feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriating as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

'He came upon the stand and said:

'Fellow citizens- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a chocking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

'Now sir,' concluded Crockett, 'you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

'There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men-men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.'

"The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.'

"I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

"By Crockett's aid I succeeded in having my business settled in three or four days afterward, and left Washington. I never saw him again."

----------------------------------------------------------

Man oh man. How I wish we had a couple hundred Davy Crockett's in the House today. Make no mistake, Obama and Pelosi wouldn't stand a chance.

Barack Obama the Robo Puppet

2009-03-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, Tuesday was St. Patrick's Day and in honor of the holiday Barack Obama hosted Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen at the White House.

Turns out the two statesmen are quite the comedians. Here's what happened according to Fox News:

" Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was just a few paragraphs into an address at a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House when he realized something sounded way too familiar. Turns out, he was repeating the speech President Barack Obama had just given.

Cowen was set to speak twice at the White House on Tuesday night because there were two different parties going on at the executive mansion. No matter -- he would give the same speech to the two different audiences.

But Cowen was 20 seconds into his second address when it dawned on him that he was giving word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say, "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer what might have been Cowen's remarks. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over. "

Ha ha what good fun. Here's the video . . . oh wait . . . that's right, it wasn't good fun because the president looked like an idiot (not the first time) . . . oh wait, never mind, I can't show you the video because the media WON'T release it.

That's right folks. The media has chosen not to make the video public because it portrays the president in a negative manner. This is absolutely ridiculous.

The truth is President Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than the well dressed "eloquent" puppet of his teleprompter, or more accurately, the puppet of whoever writes for his teleprompter.

Have you ever watched Obama talk? 10 seconds to the right, 10 seconds to the left, 10 seconds to the right, ten seconds to the left . . . it's like watching a frickin' robot . . . Danger, Will Robinson, Danger . . .

I mean, for crying out loud. How can no one else see this? I feel like Will Ferrell's character in Zoolander. Who goes insane at the end of the movie because he's the only one who realizes that Derrick Zoolander can only do one look. Well, the same applies for Obama. He can only do one thing . . . read off a teleprompter. Obama without a teleprompter is like Alice in Wonderland, completely and utterly lost/clueless!

Oh wait, I forgot, he can answer questions in town hall meetings. But wait, did anyone see Obama's town hall meeting today? A woman asked him about the high tax rates in California and Obama's answer included the all too common attack on the rich, a discussion on corruption in government and a dialogue on the importance of public transportation. By the time Obama was done "answering" the question, nobody in the room even knew what the heck Obama was talking about much less what the question was. I'd have hated to grade Obama's essay questions back when the Messiah was in college.

Nevertheless . . . the media has chosen to champion Barack and portray him as the smartest president, nay, the smartest American of all time. So, of course, silly little mistakes and miscues (i.e. the St. Patti's Day Blunder) will never see the light of day. But, that's why you and I are here my friends . . . to expose Obama for the bumbling fraud he really is.

Man, if only I was the one pulling the strings. I'm sure I could write better speeches than the Communist, excuse me, the liberal (same difference) calling the shots now.

I wonder were I could get my hands on the next Robo Puppet President?

Oh and before I go, here's some news that sure to be pushed to the back pages. Today, in his appearance on the Jay Leno Show, Barack compaired his bowling skills to retarded people at the special olympics. Ah, it's nice to see that the most sensitive, politically correct (i.e. "Don Imus doesn't belong on the airwaves"), and caring man in America has a sense of humor. Watch as this clip gets cut out of the Tonight show . . .

Bernanke: We've Been Printing Money

2009-03-15T21:36:00.000-07:00

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted to Scott Pelley that the Federal Reserve has been printing un-backed/worthless money to pay for the US government's recent spending blitz. Unbelievable.

The exchange went as follows:

Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending (to fund the government's bailouts and stimulus packages)?

Bernanke: It's not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. So, it's much more akin to, although not exactly the same as printing money.

Pelley: You've been printing money?

Bernanke: Well, effectively. And we need to do that because our economy is very weak and inflation is very low. When the economy begins to recover that will be the time that we need to unwind those programs, raise interest rates, reduce the money supply, and make sure that we have a recovery that does not involve inflation.

Here's the interview. The above exchange begins at 7:55.

This is scary stuff folks. The Federal Reserve Chairman of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in America, thinks that the best way to end a recession is to flood the economy with worthless money. Hmmm . . . seems like we already tried that in the 1930s and 70s. Unbelievable. And I love his logic. Bernanke basically asserts that it's alright to increase inflation because inflation rates are low right now. What? This logic doesn't make sense whatsoever! It's comparable to a captain telling his crew to cut a hole in the ship because it only has a small crack at the moment.

Since when did devaluing money lead to economic prosperity? The Federal Reserve is the biggest sham/ponzi scheme, not only in US history, but in world history. When will we wake up?

Bernanke's nonchalant statement at the end of the exchange (i.e. "When the economy begins to recover that will be the time that we need to unwind those programs, raise interest rates, reduce the money supply, and make sure that we have a recovery that does not involve inflation.") is pure rubbish. He just stated that inflation will save the economy and then he has the gall to say not 30 seconds later that he will do everything he can to make sure that the economic recovery does not involve inflation; does anybody else see a problem with this?

Something tells me we're headed for trouble.

An Analysis of the Black Community

2009-03-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago, a co-worker and I had the unique opportunity to engage in a stimulating conversation on the black community. My co-worker, whom I had never worked with prior to that day, was a 48 year old black man. His analysis and insights on the black community were hard hitting, surprisingly honest, largely true, and above all politically incorrect.

What follows are a few experts from the mouth of my co-worker. None of his words or themes have been altered in any way. The conversation did indeed take place and he did indeed utter these words. None of the words which you are about to read came from me, they are strictly his.

I hope that my co-worker's unique perspective will open some of your eyes or in the very least cause some to think about how you view yourself, your neighbors and your country.

------------------------------------------------

Co-Worker: You know what just drives me up a wall? The racism that is still present in America. Perhaps, racism is not the right word. You know what I am talking about? The overarching feeling of "us versus them." The idea that one can not succeed in this country because of what he is rather than who he is a person. The underdog and victim hood mentality. It just makes me sick.

As a black man, who has lived long enough to see a great many things, I can not help but be disgusted at the way the black community chooses to portray itself to the rest of the world. Look at our leaders; Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. These are the men that the black community chooses to give credence and a voice to. Racist, depressed, angry, overly sensitive, frauds.

The greatest problem with the black community is that, on the whole, they still view themselves as products and victims of slavery. How can this be? When will we realize that we no longer are slaves to the white men and the rich men and any other men for that matter? It is destroying our children and our future.

Every time I hear a black person say, "I can't get that job because I'm black" it just makes me so upset; so frustrated. How can we keep saying this? I want to slap them and say, "You can't get a job because you don't have the guts to try. You can't get a job because you think you can't. You can't get a job because you've already failed in your mind." I mean, for heaven's sake, a black man is president! A black man sits on the Supreme Court. A black woman was the Secretary of State. Why in the world do we keep perpetuating racism and pretending that a black person can't get ahead in this country? It's over. This isn't the 1960, this isn't the 1800s. I am living proof of this. I have worked as a police officer, I own a business, I have made 6 figures a year, I have been successful. And in the end, the key to my success has had nothing to do with my race; it has had everything to do with who I am as a person.

And therein lies the rub. The majority of the individuals who make up the black community and other minority groups like feminists and gays view themselves as members of the group and not as individuals. I tell you; when I see a young black man listening to hip hop, dressed in baggy clothes, sporting corn rows, gold teeth and bling, I don't know how to react. I mean it's ridiculous! By choosing to dress and act like this blacks perpetuate a negative stereotype. Is it any wonder why we can't get good jobs? If you go into an interview looking like a gang banger, it doesn't matter what color your skin is you're not going to get hired. If you dress like a gang banger and disrespect authority, you will get pulled over by the police, regardless of your skin color.

Now, I know that many of my fellow blacks would argue that they are just being true to their roots; they're being "black" as it were. But, let me tell you something. Since when did "being black" mean that you have to dress like a fool and talk like an idiot? Can anyone explain this to me? If being black means that you have to behave like a loser, well, I'm sorry, I don't want to "be black." I'd rather be myself. I like classic rock. I'm a conservative. I like to use big words and full sentences, not because I want to talk like rich white people, but because I want to sound intelligent. I want to dress with a sense of pride and look professional. I want to be successful. I want to be an individual. I don't want my identity to spring from what I am, but from who I am. Yes, I'm proud of my heritage. But, I'm more proud of what I've been able to achieve in my life. I'm proud of myself. I'm proud of all the black people who made something of themselves. The Martin Luther Kings and George Washington Carvers. Black individuals who were proud of their roots, but who knew what it meant to be an individual first and an African American second.

But unfortunately, when a black person steps out from the black community; when he achieves success and respect and prestige in the professional world, he is viewed as an uncle tom and a traitor. He has sold his fellow "brothers" out. Why is that? I mean, look at how the black community treated Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. You would think these three people would be exhibits A, B and C as to what it means to be a successful black. You would think that the black community would seek to immolate them and learn from their example. But, no. Instead of following in their footsteps, the black community tore them down and called them uncle toms. Remember when Bill Cosby had the guts to tell the truth about the black community? Did they listen? No, they ostracized Cosby and said he was ashamed to be black. He wasn't ashamed to be black, he was ashamed of what "to be black" has come to represent.

Now, I know that what I've been saying isn't popular and It'll get me in trouble with a lot of black but I don't really care. More black people need to stand up and denounce what is going on in the black community.

And now on to the whole Obama subject. First off, the dude was raised by his white mother and grandparents. He's only half black, so I don't see what the big fascination is. If anyone fits the mold of an uncle tom, he would seem to be it.

Almost every black person I know voted for Obama without knowing any of his policies. They voted for him strictly because he was black. It was sad. No, I'm not underscoring the historic aspect of Obama's presidency. It is a big deal, don't get me wrong. I am proud to live in a country where a black man can become president. But, you know, at the end of the day I could care less about a man's skin color. As Martin Luther King believed men should be judged by the conduct of their character and not the color of their skin. When it came down to it, I couldn't vote for Obama because I knew what he stood for. I was torn yes, but I couldn't vote for a man that I did not respect or agree with. My mother, who is in her 70s, was extremely upset with me. She couldn't understood how a black man could vote for a white man when another black man was on the ballot. But, I can see where she was coming from; it was a different world when she grew up. I can't see where all the young black people are coming from. The world has changed. Things are different. We're no longer segregated. We can drink from any water fountain we want to. We don't have to sit in the back of the bus.

I don't want to pretend like racism is dead. There are still racist white people, but on a whole I would have to say that average black person is 10 times more racist than the average white person. The tables have turned. It was so sad for me to witness the role that racism played in Barack Obama's campaign. To watch as black people pretended like America was still a racist country. To watch as they hammered McCain and accused him of being a racist for the sole reason that he was a white Republican male. It was sickening. We acted like having a black president would make everything better. But, newsflash. Everything is better and it's been that way for a long time.

Yes, I've been the product of racism. But, you know what? That hasn't slowed me down, not one bit. The great thing about America is that there are lots of opportunities out there. If I don't get hired because I'm black, that's the employer's loss. Yes it sucks, but forget those people, I'll just go find another job; a better job.

To every black person who says, "Now I can be somebody because Barack Obama is president; because a black man finally did something," what a sad pathetic life you lead. You still won't be able to achieve success because it's not about you; it's about somebody else. If you want to do something with your life, you need to believe in yourself; you have to get out there and work hard. To place so much hope in one man is truly despicable. Yes, one can take pride in the fact that a black man is finally president, but to act as if this somehow changes the life and outlook of every black person? Well, quite frankly, it's an insult to every successful black person who came before Obama. Obama's presidency will do nothing for blacks, unless it somehow motivates them to work hard, to believe in themselves and to leave their racism at the door.

In the end, blacks need to quit profiling people. They need to quit hating whites and blaming them for all the problems in this country. If we, as a community, keep behaving like victims and members of a group; if we keep perpetuating an "us versus them" mentality; then we will never break out and really find happiness. We will continue to act like paranoid scaredy cats. We will continue to rely on others for our substance. It's time for blacks to step to the plate and accept responsibility for their actions. It's time for them to start acting like grownups. I don't even want to get into the single mothers in our community, so I'll just say this: it's time for black men to start acting like men, period!

I live my life; I act; I view myself as an individual. I hate stupid individuals, I don't care if they're black, white, Mexican or anything else. I don't hate people because they're black, white, Mexican or anything else. I view people as individuals. If every black person did this, then the racism that pervades our community would finally be put to rest.

Oh, and let me just say this. I'd rather people view me as a proud American than a black person any day of the week.

Tuesday Night's Insights on Democracy . . .

2009-03-10T22:16:00.001-07:00

. . . Tonight's quote doesn't have much to do with democracy. But, I don't really care . . . this is my blog, which means I can do whatever I want.

. . . the following quote comes from Benjamin Franklin, one our most famous and well loved founding fathers.

Let me set the stage . . . tensions were high and tempers flaring as the elderly Franklin rose to address his fellow delegates at the Constitutional Convention. The aged 81 year old rarely spoke and when he did he commanded the utmost respect and undivided attention of every man in his presence. More legend than man by this time, Franklin's wisdom, wit and common sense knew no equal.

As Franklin stood, a hush fell over the room, the fiery arrows of debate and disagreements were extinguished if only for a minute. Having watched representatives from small states and large argue for the better part of a month without reaching a compromise, Franklin could keep his mouth shut no longer. After surveying the room for several seconds, the aged statesman turned his head towards the Convention's distinguished Speaker, George Washington, and uttered these words . . .

I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
- Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787); Manuscript notes by Franklin preserved in the Library of Congress

It would seem as if Franklin's faith in God paid off . . . within days of his appeal to a higher power and after much more heated debate a compromise was finally reached . . . within 3 months the Constitution was completed . . . within a year it was ratified . . . and well, the rest is history.

Much has been made about Franklin and his faith. Many authors and biographers have painted Franklin as a staunch Deist and/or an apathetic agnostic. Yet, in one of the most crucial moments in American history, with the disintegration of the Union looming large, the agnostic deist professed an unmistakably strong faith in God Almighty.

Franklin may have been a deist and he may have been an agnostic, but one thing is for certain; at the end of his life Franklin was a Bible believing theist. So the next time you hear someone discussing Franklin's faith, it might behoove you to call his attention to Franklin's last public profession of faith.

Why?

2009-03-06T13:09:00.000-08:00

Why is it that people put their faith and trust in the United States government?

Can anyone explain this to me?

I sit here in shock after finding out that the US government has decided to "loan" the FDIC $500 billion . . . what the heck is going on in this nation?

First off, how dare the scum bags in Washington call this gross misuse of tax payers' money a "loan." Remember the good old days (over a hundred years ago) when it was customary for the lender to actually have money before he gave it to the borrower? Remember those days? Me neither.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous. The federal government is over $10 TRILLION in the hole and yet it keeps spending and lending money as if it possessed an unlimited supply. How can this be?

Oh, believe me, I know how this can be and it is shocking, it is appalling, it is frightening and most of all it is damning to this nation. The federal government, specifically the Federal Reserve, has the power to create an unlimited amount of money; it can literally create wealth out of thin air.

Now many of the Obama/liberal drones out there see no problem in the government possessing this power. However, for every slightly intelligent person (i.e. a person with a higher IQ than a jackass - and by jackass I mean a literal donkey), realizing that the government possesses this power is a truly terrifying concept. You see, intelligent people understand that you can NOT create wealth out of nothing. Oh sure, you can print as much money as you want, but if it isn't backed by anything then it's worthless (If any of you drones are confused let me explain this to you. Take a blank piece of paper. Write $100 on it. By doing this, did you make that piece of paper worth $100? No. In order for that piece of paper to be worth something you have to have something backing it. To illustrate this, cross out the $100 and put "good for a free car wash" on the paper. Is the paper worth something now? Yes. It is good for a free car wash. You see, in order for you to make that paper worth something you had to have it represent something. The same principle applies to the government).

As scary as it is to think about the Federal Reserve's power during times of economic prosperity and growth, it is even more disheartening to dwell on it during times of recession and increased government spending. During times of economic growth, the federal government doesn't have to "create" wealth because the private sector is doing it. But, in times of economic turmoil, the federal government, rather than cut its spending, feels obligated to print more money in order to "stimulate" the economy (sound familiar?). By doing this (i.e. creating wealth) the federal government moves a recession (which is a natural cycle in a capitalist system) into a full blown depression. And this is exactly what is taking place in the US today.

As the government continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt, while all the while spending more and more money, it will be forced to "create" wealth (i.e. print worthless money). And as the government begins to do this (which it already has) inflation will skyrocket and the value of the dollar will dwindle. Now, the government isn't stupid (I realize that this is a debatable statement) so eventually, in order to curve inflation, bring up the value of the dollar and pay off the national debt, it will stop printing money and raise taxes to astronomical levels.

This is what we have to look forward to: debt, inflation, taxes and poverty. This is the bleak future that Barack Obama and his minions in both Houses (and on both sides of the aisle in some cases) of Congress seek to impose upon us.

And yet, in spite of all the evidence against the federal government, millions of Americans turn their eyes and hearts to Washington eagerly awaiting salvation. They view the federal government as their benefactor and elected officials as heroic and angelic beings sent to help them. The very people who are most responsible for our current struggles are called on to fix everything. How can this be? Why is it that so many people put their faith and hope in the federal government? Can any one out there explain this to me?

Tuesday Night's Insights on Democracy

2009-03-03T19:23:00.000-08:00

Tonight's insights come from one of the premier economists of the 20st century . . . Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995).

Rothbard, a prolific writer, scholar and historian, was a student and close friend of the late and legendary Ludwig Von Mises (one of the founders of Austrian Economics). He devoted his life to championing the cause of liberty by promoting an economic system in which the common man, not the bureaucratic elite, possessed the power and opportunities to achieve financial success. He was a harsh critic of the governmental abuses of high taxes and wasteful spending and looked forward to the day when the Federal Reserve would be no more.

But enough with the introduction, on to what Rothbard had to say.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Surprisingly Rothbard was not addressing Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid or any other member of the federal government when he uttered these profound words. However, seeing as very few of these career politicians have any clue about economics it might serve them well to heed Rothbard's advice.

Obama's Global Warming Drones Freeze their Tales Off

2009-03-02T19:40:00.000-08:00

Today a swarm of unemployed, government subsidized, uneducated, gullible people converged upon our nation's capital with one message, "Yes We Can!" These idiots made the trip to DC to voice their opposition of big industries. These latte drinking, Karl Marx loving, unemployed/government employed socialists made it clear that the coal industry is destroying the earth. Ah yes, because of coal we have warm houses to live in, electricity, power, jobs, er, um, no wait that's not it . . . because of coal we have global warming . . . you see I knew coal had to do with warming something. Anyway, according to these intellectual midgets, if the government doesn't shut down the coal industry and every other industry that uses "too much" power there will be hell to pay. I tell you what, those big bad industries that employ people, make money and provide power for other companies to employ people and make money are just terrible. Oh and here's a new one, farmers are to blame too. I mean come on, do you know how many carbon assets you have to buy to offset the green house gases released in one cow fart? Me neither, but I'm sure it's a lot.

Unfortunately for these morons it seems as if nature, empirical evidence and a vast majority of scientists don't support their wild accusations. Not only was Washington, DC covered in snow today, but a great number of scientists are beginning to assert that an ice age (the complete opposite of global warming) is upon us. Of course, that doesn't matter to these environmental nut jobs; you see, they've already solved this problem with the term "climate change". That's right; by slowly changing the catchphrase from "global warming" to "climate change" the lunatic fringe can blame big industries for a global cooling just as easily as if the earth were experiencing a global warming. Oh, and if normal people don't buy the message change the fringe can always pull out a page from their patented playbook . . . affirm the brilliance of the self proclaimed inventor of the internet or accuse coal workers of being racist chauvinists.

In related news Nancy Pelosi was unable to attend the protest because her private jet was delayed by the snow . . . well, that's the reason she gave the press. I personally think Madam Speaker was a no show because she's not used to being in the same vicinity with people stupider than herself (Barney Frank and Charlie Rengal excluded).

Comparing Obama to Bush

2009-02-27T14:54:00.000-08:00

To begin this post I would like to list 10 reasons why Americans disliked George W. Bush

1. He spent too much money
2. He increased the national debt way too much
3. He ruined the economy
4. He wasn't going to end the war until 2011.
5. He was partisan
6. He was stupid and not eloquent
7. He was dishonest
8. His cabinet members were corrupt
9. He didn't support gay marriage
10. He was pro-life

---------------------------------------------

Now let's go through the list and compare Bush to Barack Obama.
Complaint 1: He spent too much money.

The average federal budget under Bush was $2.3960375 trillion (with a low of $1.8632 trillion in 2001 and a high of $2.983 trillion in 2008).

The projected 2009 federal budget is $3.938 trillion and the projected budgets for 2010-2013 are as follows; $3.552 trillion, $3.623 trillion, $3.662 trillion and $3.856 trillion. If one adds these figures he would find that the projected federal budget under Obama is equal to $3.7262 trillion per year; which is $1.3301625 trillion higher than Bush's average yearly federal budget. Thus, (if Obama ends up being a two term president) Obama will end up spending $10.6413 trillion more than Bush did. So, we can throw complaint 1 out.

Complaint 2: He increased the national debt way too much

The national debt was $5.807 when Bush began his presidency in 2000 and it had risen to $10.0247 trillion by the time he left in 2008; meaning that the national debt increased $4.2177 under George W. Bush (which works out to an average yearly increase of $.5272125 trillion from 2000-08).

The projected yearly deficits for 2009-13 are as follows; $1.752 trillion, $1.171 trillion, $.91 trillion, $.581 trillion, and $.533 trillion. Thus, the average yearly deficit under Barack Obama would be $.9894 trillion; $.4621875 trillion ($462.1875 billion) more than Bush's yearly deficit. If these numbers hold true the federal deficit would increase $7.9152 trillion in 8 years under Obama ($3,6975 trillion more than it did under Bush). So we can throw complaint 2 out.

Complaint 3: He ruined the economy

It's difficult to make or respond to such a broad statement. However, if one is to look at the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) he would find that the economy grew significantly under George W. Bush. The United States' GDP in 2000 was $9.817 trillion and it had risen to $14.2807 trillion by 2008. The Dow Jones rose over 4,000 points (10983.62 to 14164.53) and during Bush's presidency was strong up until the final months. There are many theories floating around as to why the economy is the way it is (i.e. too many regulations, too few regulations, greed, etc.), but the overarching problem points to bad mortgages. Well, if one is to actually do a little research he would find that banks were forced by the United States government (mainly Democrats) to provide sub-prime mortgages to lower income households, which created an artificial housing bubble which was destined to collapse. He would also find that Bush and his Republican buddies in both Houses of Congress tried to place restrictions on these bad loans and they were shut down by the likes of Reid, Frank and Pelosi.

I'm not saying that Bush was a great economist, or great for the economy, but let's spread the blame around people. Both parties along with a whole host of other individuals and corporations are to blame for this mess.

Oh and by the way, the economy has only continued to swirl down the proverbial toilet since Obama was elected and sworn in. In fact, the Wall Street Journal released a story today showing that February, 2009 was the worst month for the Dow since 1933.

Complaint 3 is a valid one, but I think it applies to everyone who has been in Washington for the past 30 years and that includes Obama.

Complaint 4: He wasn't going to end the war until 2011

Newsflash . . . this just in . . . Obama's exit strategy, on the whole, is exactly the same as George W. Bush's. All troops out by 2011. Funny that doesn't quite sound like Obama campaign promise to end the war as soon as he took over . . . so we can throw that complaint out.

Complaint 5: He was partisan

Yet another newsflash . . . in the first 30 days of his administration Barack Obama has proposed some of the most polarizing legislation (ex. his stimulus package, health care reform, abortion funding overseas, etc.) in US history. There's a reason why only 3 Republicans in both Houses voted for his stimulus package. One of the main reasons George W. Bush and the Republican Party are blamed for so much is because they were too bipartisan (i.e. they always seemed to give in to Pelosi and Reid's demands).

So throw that one out

Complaint 6: He was stupid and not eloquent

Granted Bush didn't always exude intellectual and verbal brilliance, but have you ever seen Obama without a teleprompter?

or Obama trying to figure out how many states are in the union?

or maybe you've noticed how many times Obama says "uh" while speaking

So, uh, yeah, uh, complaint 6 is a, uh, valid, uh, one, but, uh, the shoe fits on someone else's, uh, shoe as, uh, well.

Complaint 7: He was dishonest

Have you ever REALLY listened to what Obama says?

You show me a lie that Bush told, and I'll show you two that Obama told since yesterday.

Bush might not have been the most honest man in American history, but Obama makes him look like George Washington.

So, complaint 7 is out.

Complaint 8: His cabinet members were corrupt

Do I really need to go into this one?

Here's a few key words you should google

Timothy Geithner tax cheat
Tom Daschle tax cheat
Carol M. Browner socialist
Bill Richardson scandal
Hilda Solis tax problems
Hillary Clinton conflict of interest
Joe Biden world's biggest idiot (that one's just for fun)

So, complaint 8 is gone

Complaint 9: He didn't support gay marriage

Newsflash neither does Obama . . . well, who really knows? Obama was on record saying he didn't and then he called California's Prop 8 (a proposition to put a ban on gay marriage) divisive . . . way to take a stand Barack.

Bye bye 9
Complaint 10: He was pro-life

Well, you got me there . . . Bush was pro-life, Obama is pro-abortion . . . we have a winner

----------------------------------------------------------------

This post was not meant to bash Obama nor was it written to build up Bush; it's sole purpose was to compare the two.

And after all was said and done . . . after taking a look at the facts and thinking rationally . . . we see that Barack Hussein Obama is George W. Bush to the nth degree . . . Hmmmm . . . where's the change?

A Letter to President Obama from the Donkey Man

2009-02-25T21:13:00.000-08:00

Dear President Obama,

I would like to congratulate you on a enormously successful first month as president of the United States of America. You have already done so many wonderful things that it will be difficult for me to give you praise for all of them.

I want to begin by thanking you for closing Guantanamo Bay. I'm sure that we can both agree that terrorists should be given Constitutional rights and treated as cordially as possible. Some of the right wing nut jobs (ex. Rush Limbaugh . . . oh and don't worry sir, I don't listen to him) suggest that terrorists don't deserve to be given these rights because, well, they are terrorists; however, I prefer to call them human beings. As happy as I am with your decision, I am somewhat disappointed that you have not transferred the Gittmo detainees into our prisons yet. Please hurry and remember, these terrorists deserve our sympathy, compassion and mercy first and justice second.

On a different subject, I would like to thank you for using your executive power to fund abortions worldwide with my tax dollars. I can't think of a better way to spend my hard earned money than to give it to poor uneducated women so they can commit abortions. I am glad that we both agree that getting pregnant is a terrible tragedy and that no woman should be held accountable for her sexual promiscuity. Goodness gracious, can you believe that Bush refused to send our money overseas for abortions? What a truly misguided man.

Moving along, I would like to praise you on your stupendous cabinet and staff choices. Man, every time I hear Joe Biden speak I get a big smile on my face; I know he's prone to put his foot in his mouth, but as we all know, that's just Joe being Joe. Some other excellent picks were Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary (what an excellent first press conference he had, I don't quite understand why the market went down 300 points that day, but then again I have never understood the stock market), Tom Daschle (I realize he resigned, but he was a solid choice, a man with integrity and hope), Hillary Clinton (I'm sick of standing up for Tawaiian and free - non-communist - countries; I hope she takes on Israel next), and Carol Browner (Like you and me, she too was - wink, wink - a member of the Socialist Party).

And now on to my main point, which is to grovel in awe and gratitude before your almighty benevolent hand and thank you for your wonderful stimulus plan. I have heard people say that your plan won't work and that it will hurt the country more than it will help it, but I don't believe them; I trust in you Mr. President. Ever since you began your immaculate campaign two years ago, I have chosen to put my faith, trust and hope in your vision for America. This plan makes perfect sense to me and I'm sure all Americans (even the most stupid - i.e. Republicans) will come around to our side sooner or later. I mean, come on? What's not to like? Your plan takes power and money away from the people and gives it to the government. We both know that people can't be trusted to make difficult decisions or handle their own money. By expanding the size and strength of the government, you have saved all of us poor Americans who would be lost without it.

I am sure that you, like I, are upset about all those stock brokers, businessmen, bankers and rich people in general voicing their concerns and opposition to your plan. Let me encourage you Mr. President; if you're ticking off the rich, you're doing something right. The only reason they got rich is because they were greedy and thanks to you they won't be rich for too much longer.

I would be remiss if I did not praise your for the excellent speech you delivered last night. I agree with you in every way. We need a new health care system; a system controlled and run by the government. I have been reading about socialized...excuse me universal health care plans around the world and I must say none of them seem to work. However, I know that you, in your great wisdom and learning, will be able to make ours work.

As far as education goes, I concur completely; every person in America has a right to get free rides to college. So many people pretend like only smart people or motivated people or responsible people or wealthy people should be able to go to college. I'm glad to know that I finally have a president who thinks that even the dumbest of people belong in college.

To close this letter, I would like to provide you with some advice (ha, as if one so lowly as me could tell you anything you don't already know) and encouragement. My advice is as follows. First, there seems to be a very loud and obnoxious segment of the population standing in opposition to you (ex. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, Malkin, etc.); if I were you I would seek to silence these malcontents. You can't have people presenting a different point of view, if you are to accomplish all that we (i.e. us liberals) want you to.

Second, I am a little disappointed that you have decided to continue the Iraq War by shipping more troops into Afghanistan. I'm sure you think that you have a good reason for doing so; however, let me remind you that no war is justified.

Third, I kindly ask that you pressure the Supreme Court to rule that State Constitutional bans on gay marriage are illegal and unconstitutional. It breaks my heart to know that marriage is still perceived as a union between a man and a woman. How perverse. Although I don't personally know anyone who has been affected by these bans, it is one of my life goals to see a day when all people will be given Constitutional rights.

On a related note, did you happen to catch the movie Milk? Like everyone else in America, I haven't watched it, but I'm sure it's good because it's about a gay man. Oh how heroic it must be to be gay; what courage; what brilliance.

Fourth, I want to impress upon you the urgency of enacting all you can as fast as you can. I have been exceedingly proud of your accomplishments thus far and felt compelled to encourage you to continue your mission to fundamentally change this nation. You have a wind at your back Mr. President and a majority in both Houses of Congress; now is your time; this is your chance. Do not wait; do not hesitate. I find it difficult to believe that any Americans dislike you, but they are out there. God forbid they might grow into a sizable demographic over the next two years and enable the Republicans to take back Congress in 2010. Take nothing for granted, push on.

Finally, I would like to encourage you to keep blaming everything on George W. Bush. That is all I shall say on the matter, for I have so much hatred in my soul towards this man, it is unhealthy for me to dwell on him for long (funny, I don't really know why I dislike him so).

Mr. President you are a true American. Thank you for all that you do to provide for me and the people of this country. If I believed in a God, I would close by saying God bless you, but since I don't, I will conclude by saying, you have become my god.

Sincerely,

The Donkey Man

Obama Job Approval Rating Slides with Economy

2009-02-23T16:39:00.000-08:00

All of us intelligent Americans (i.e. those of us who didn't vote for Obama) knew this would happen sooner or later. I mean come on! Look at the facts.

The people of this great nation elected the most inexperienced, idealistic, petty, childish, socialistic and egotistical president in American history during one of the most trying economic moments in American history . . . and well, they got what they voter for . . . one is forced to wonder what Obama's disciples really expected?

Asking Obama to fix the economic tumult is like asking a mechanic to perform successful heart surgery . . . it isn't going to happen.

Since taking the oath, Barack Obama has morphed from the optimistic agent of hope and change into the pessimistic, gloomy and drab agent of socialism. The stock market definitely noticed the change and has responded by plunging over 1,000 points in the past month. Is it any wonder? Every day Obama throws around catch phrases like "crisis," "catastrophe," and "governmental control;" rhetoric that is a far cry from his cheesy campaign promises and slogans.

Since his unmemorable lecture inauguration, er, uh, speech, things haven't gotten any better, in fact they continued to get worse . . . much, much worse. The auto industry is still in the toilet, the banks are still failing, and the credit market is still frozen . . .

Americans are getting a bit scared and a number of them are getting angry; darn angry! "What the heck is going on? Wasn't Obama supposed to fix all this?" They watched as Obama and his liberal cronies passed a "stimulus" package of well over 1 trillion dollars (oh yes, I know that it was marketed as an 800 billion dollar package, but if you actually read it you find that I am right and not Obama . . . I wish I had a dollar for every time that's happened). Obama told them that his plan would save the economy and then once it was enacted he backtracked and told America that it would take quite sometime to do the job . . . what's up with that?

I think most Americans know the answer to this question, but they're too scared to believe/admit it. And I don't blame them, it's pretty scary to think that you handed the reigns of your government over to an inexperienced ideologue who has no clue what to do.

Although clueless, Obama does have a plan . . . remember during the campaign when he told us that he wanted to "fundamentally change America?" Well, he's well on his way. If the Obama led government continues to buy up banks and businesses and cars then it won't be long before America becomes the new China . . . that's fundamental change for you . . .

As painful as the reality may be, it does appear that many Americans are finally beginning to wake up and smell the coffee. The George Washington-esque presidential ratings are disappearing (from 80-60 in 4 weeks); the Lincoln comparisons are fading away; the celebrities have retreated back to tinsel town; the feel good rhetoric is gone; the heroic imagery has vanished; the romance is over and all that's left is Barack Obama . . . unaccomplished and unprepared.

Anybody else think we're in a little bit of trouble here?

North Dakota House Votes to Outlaw Abortion

2009-02-18T23:36:00.000-08:00

With so much bad news out there today, I thought it'd be nice to focus tonight's post on one of the most heartening stories I've heard in a long time.

-----

ND House Passes Abortion Ban

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"

-----

On the heels of being called a racist coward by my new attorney general, this story definitely brightened up my day. I tip my cap to the 51 Americans who voted for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people (which yes indeed, includes the most helpless of all).

Tuesday's Insights On Democracy

2009-02-17T16:58:00.000-08:00

Today's insights come from the illustrious and revered George Washington. The Father of this nation and one of the greatest presidents, leaders and men in American history.

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

Short, sweet and truly poignant!

Let us dissect Washington's words.

We'll begin with the term "Arbitrary power." As used here, it is referring to an all powerful government that is answerable to none. One would assume that Washington was describing the corruption and totalitarianism of the British government. A government that hindered representation by the people (in the American colonies), while taxing and ruling over them with an iron fist. A government that had the ability to control the lives of its citizens, dictate their actions and determine their futures if it chose to do so.

Compare the "Arbitrary power" of the British government of Washington's time to that of the American government of ours. A government that is enormous in scope and burdens the private citizens with countless rules, regulations and taxes. It would seem as if of the only major difference between our government and that of Britain, is the fact that we (as of this moment) possess the all important power of self government.

All comparisons aside, it would definitely not be a stretch to categorize America's present government as an arbitrary power or, at the very least, an over bearing one.

Having defined "arbitrary power" let us move on to discuss what Washington identifies as the basis for this power; "the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

These seven words describe the tragic progression from morality to perversion; from true freedom to slavery; from responsibility to irresponsibility; from independence to utter reliance; and from knowledge and objectivity to apathy, subjectivity and stupidity.

The inference is that their once was unadulterated freedom, but over time it was perverted and twisted. Instead of being used to do good and pursue righteousness, this freedom was abused and used to pursue immoral acts and deeds.

In it's broadest sense the word "licentiousness" describes a chaotic scene in which people run wild doing all sorts of evil (i.e. every man does what is right in his own eyes). It is the ultimate depiction of freedom abused; objectivity and morality are sacrificed for subjective malfeasance. The final result of licentious behavior (if repentance and a restoration of morals do not take place) is an arbitrary governmental power and the end of self government; for such a government is needed to keep the licentiousness of its people in check and a wicked people can, in no way, be trusted with the responsibility of self-government. Thus, due to their own wickedness, a once free people become subjected to an omnipotent government and the freedoms that they once enjoyed are sacrificed in the guise of the public's safety and well being.

It is interesting to note that the word "licentiousness" carries with it a sexual connotation referring to unrestrained promiscuity and adultery. It implies a state in which sexuality (i.e. intercourse, perversion, immodesty, coarse jesting, etc.) is viewed lightly and sexual relationships are entered into with little to no thought of the consequences. Does this word remind you of anything in particular?

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

Let me finish tonight's post by briefly comparing the words of Washington to the current state of our nation. We have a government that, as each day passes, grows larger and larger, more and more powerful, corrupt and tyrannical and we have a people who are slowly turning (many would argue that there is nothing slow about this turning) away from the morals, values and principles of their forefathers.

The liberties and freedoms that we as Americans currently enjoy are being stripped from us at an alarming rate. The government ignores it's Constitutional restraints and seeks unchecked power; it robs us of our income and resources; it regulates our businesses and industries; it creates people reliant on governmental handouts for their sustenance; it educates our children and teaches them that security rather than freedom is to be embraced at all costs . . .

Yet, at the end of the day, despite every governmental abuse, we, the people of this great nation, are to blame for our current plight. For at one time we were truly free; free to speak our minds and to govern ourselves; but, with this enormous freedom came great responsibility; it is as the sayings go "with great power comes great responsibility" and "to whom much is given much is required." Our responsibility was simple enough; we were to live lives that warranted a limited government (i.e. moral lives - for where morality flourishes the need for government dwindles). And for many years our forefathers lived such lives; guided by Biblical precepts and a strong understanding of the Constitution, those who came before us lived morally, self sufficiently and responsibly. Yes, the sins of our nation (most notably slavery) caused conflicts, struggles and trials. But, in large part, our forefathers understood what it mean to live moral lives worthy of self government and freedom.

Sadly, as the years passed, our moral compass gradually started to lose its sense of direction. We, as a people, began to turn our backs on the principles of our fathers, the Constitution and the most sacred book of all, the Bible. Rather then using our freedoms to do good, we started using them to sink into sin, selfishness, and depravity. Every man began to do what was right in his own eyes and subjective truth reigned supreme. In a word, we abused and perverted the liberties handed down to us by our founding fathers. We became, and if we have not already become then we are definitely in the process of becoming, a licentious people unworthy of self government or freedom. We have created the arbitrary power that reigns over us. And this is why Washington's words, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness," are especially applicable and poignant in such times as these.

As dreary as this post has been, I shall not end it without providing a little optimism for the future. My friends there is still hope for this nation. But, it must start with each of us. We must live lives worthy of self government. We must put aside licentiousness and evil and put on morality and integrity. Let us remember this and draw hope from it; a single soul possesses the power to spark a revolution . . . the only hindrance is himself.

The First Shot of the 2nd Civil War was Fired in Washington not New Hampshire

2009-02-12T15:29:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I posted the text of HCR 006, which was New Hampshire's response to the Obamanation of the federal government. Sadly, I have learned that this Constitutionally based resolution was voted down by an 11-7 vote.

However, as revolutionary as HCR 006 was, it was not the first such resolution. On January 30, 2009, seven state legislators in the state of Washington introduced resolution H1028.1. Like HCR 006, this document proclaims that the federal government has no authority accept that which is granted to it by the Constitution. If the federal government over steps its bounds, then the states are under no obligation to obey it!

Considering the present state of the federal government (i.e. it is an inflated bureaucracy, led by socialist demagogues), H1028.1 could be the first shot in an epic struggle between the states and the federal government.

----------------------------------------------

H-1028.1
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By Representatives Shea, Klippert, Condotta, Kretz, Anderson, McCune,
and Kristiansen

TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE'S LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully represent and petition as follows:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and

WHEREAS, James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said,"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."; and

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."; and

WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments." He believed that "this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them."; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:
(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under
the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Washington.

HCR 006 - New Hampshire's Response to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Rest of the Federal Government Goonsadg

2009-02-11T21:15:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, I generally devote Wednesday's post to an uncontrollable rant, but tonight (with the stimulus package all but passed) I decided to ease up on the anger. Seriously, I think if I let myself slip into the ranting mood, I'll be on here for three or four hours, my face will turn red, and my heart rate will shoot up to an ungodly pace.

I mean, honestly, there is OH SO MUCH to be angry about in America right now! Our president is a Communist, the people turning up to his town hall brain washings are mindless morons, the Treasury secretary is an idiot, Nancy Pelosi is a, well, I'm not gonna go there, socialists are running our country, the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution is all but destroyed, and most of all the federal government is a monstrous atrocity seeking to undermine everything that has made this nation great.

That's the bad news. Here's some good news. And in times such as these, trust me, we could all use a little good news!

What follows is HCR 006 - a resolution that has been put forward by four legislators in the surprisingly moderate state of New Hampshire (I say "surprisingly moderate" because New Hampshire is located on the east coast - the home of liberalism). These four patriots (and I say "patriots" in the truest sense of the term) have figured out the best way to combat Obama and his socialist sycophants . . . go straight to the Constitution. That's right, it looks as if there are still a few elected officials who hold the Constitution in high regard.

Using Jeffersonian principles and concepts, HCR 006 declares that: (1) the federal government has over reached it's Constitutional powers, and (2) the states are under no obligation to obey the federal government when it over steps it's Constitutional authority (ex. issuing bailouts/stimulus packages, limiting free speech, making laws limiting liberties, etc.).

Basically, these four legislators have told Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid,Dodd and the rest of the Washingtonians to shove it! And for that they should all receive standing ovations!

Now, the resolution is currently in committe and I will definitely post updates as they become available. My prayer is that HCR 006 passes and that ever state would have the courage to stand up to the federal government and demand an explanation for it's gross misconduct.

I encourage each of you to spend the 10-15 minutes that it takes to read this resolution. Trust me it is well worth your time!

------------------------------------------------------------------

9/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."

Tuesday Night's Insights On Democracy

2009-02-10T15:25:00.000-08:00

With the Senate passing Obama's Stimulus Package (i.e. the Socialist Porkulus Package of 2009) today by a vote of 61-37, in effect signaling the beginning of the end for America's capitalistic economic system, I felt as if it would be appropriate to focus tonight's insights on the debate between capitalism (ex. personal responsibility/self preservation) and socialism (ex. government control/collectivism).

As many of you know, over the past 80 years the American economy has teetered precariously between capitalism and socialism. FDR's New Deal shifted the balance towards socialism, while Reagan's tax cuts shifted it back towards capitalism. The great debate is whether or not the government has the right to regulate economic enterprise and ultimately, if it needs to.

For each of you who studies and more importantly, understands history, you realize that the vast majority of America's economic successes have sprung from a capitalistic system. Capitalism promotes the individual; it propels him forward; it forces him to work hard and to be productive. Socialism, in stark contrast, engenders a sluggish, lazy and collectivist outlook; it makes individuals reliant on others rather than on themselves. In short, capitalism relies on personal responsibility, while socialism relies on governmental responsibility; capitalism is the idea economy for a republic (which too relies on personal responsibility for its survival), while socialism is the model economy for a totalitarian regime.

Those who oppose capitalism try to portray it as an evil system built on greed. They try to tell us that socialism is the best economic system (failing to mention that it has never been successful in achieving economic stability or growth) because it eliminates greed. They proclaim that the government should control private industries because it can take the greed out of them. Yet, they fail to realize that socialism is a system predicated on greed; a system in which the controlling few (i.e. the government) are subject to corrupt and abuse of power.

In light of the left's assault on capitalism and personal freedom, I feel that the words of Milton Friedman are especially fitting today.

The following video features Milton Freidman, one of the 21st centuries most respected economists and an ardent defender of capitalism, being interviewed by Phil Donahue.

The 25 Most Outrageous Oxymorons

2009-02-06T20:55:00.000-08:00

Having come up with some rather witty and impressive lists during the 2008 presidential campaign, I decided that it was apt time for me to revive this humorous and enlightening format. Thus, I present to you the 25 Most Outrageous (i.e. impracticable, impossible, never occurring) Oxymorons.

For all you liberals out there, an oxymoron is " A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist." If you don't understand several of the words in that definition (ex. rhetorical, incongruous, etc.) then you're on your own, sorry.

1. Tax-Paying Obama-Cabinet Member
2. Well-Informed Democrat
3. Optimistic Obama
4. Universal Health-Care
5. Educated Public-Schooler
6. Intelligent Celebrity
7. Mature Hippie
8. Conservative Mainstream-Media
9. Global Warming
10. Friendly Michelle Obama
11. Moral Liberal
12. Attractive Hilary Clinton
13. Good Taxes
14. Family-Oriented Prime-Time Television
15. Fair and Balanced MSNBC

16. Insightful Keith Olbermann
17. Honest Bill Clinton
18. Bipartisan Pelosi
19. Needed Stimulus-Package
20. Responsible Government-Spending
21. Constitutional-Abiding Liberal-Judge
22. Compassionate Pro-Choicer
23. Tolerant Liberal
24. Realistic Socialist/Liberal
25. Entertaining "Progressive-Talk"