The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

Its all those racist white men on the Supreme Court. yeah, thats it, racist white men; yeah yeah. Devious, cunning, calculating and dangerous to the original intent of the writers of the Constitution.

The president deliberately confused judicial activism--the wholesale manufacture of rights and laws by judges in accordance with their personal or political views--with judicial review, the power courts have to overturn unconstitutional legislation, which the Supreme Court has exercised since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

What is important about Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court yesterday is not that he attacked “judicial activism,” but that he attacked the court at all. It is clear that Obama does not even believe what he said about judicial review—i.e. that courts should not overturn a “duly constituted” law that had received a majority vote in the legislature. If he did, his Department of Justice would not be suing the state of Arizona over its immigration law, and would not be suing the state of Texas over its new voter ID law. In that sense, his comments are merely partisan hypocrisy.

But Obama, following Bell, does believe that the Supreme Court does not deserve the respect accorded to it by his predecessors (even FDR “usually waited” until the Court had made its decisions before criticizing it).

As always, we should pay more attention to Obama’s actions than his words. The very fact that he disparaged the Court is more important than the muddled substance of what he said.

Census Questionaire Exceeds Consitutional Authority

I received the Census Bereau's normal form, filled out what they were entitled under the Constitution to know and sent it back. A few weeks later, the form being referenced in this report arrived.

After perusing the questions being asked, I decided that this form fell under the heading of TMIFTGTH or TGDNTKAOT.

Too Much Information For The Government To Have OR The Government Doesn't Need To Know Any Of This.

I then fired up the shredder and disposed of the document in an environmentally safe manner and waited for the knock on the door. I'm still waiting.

The Truth WIll Not Remain Hidden For Very Long

Congress Attempted to Remove ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Requirement

There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.

Documentation for this video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.

Read more:

Wasnigton Examiner Editorial

"For the last decade, presidents and Congresses representing both major political parties have caused federal spending, regulation, and debt to explode as never before, with a result that the central government is in truly dire financial shape even as its power to control the most minute details of American daily life has never been greater. ... [W]e think incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner has been unjustly criticized in some, mostly liberal, precincts for his decision to open the 112th Congress with a public reading of the Constitution. Aside from the sad fact that the reading will likely be the closest encounter many lawmakers have ever had with the actual words of the document, the occasion will be a happy one because it will also provide citizens across the country with an opportunity to join Congress in examining and discussing the words of our founding document. Comparing the words of the Constitution to the actions of our leaders in recent years will surely make clear the enduring wisdom of James Madison's warning that 'there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.' Talking seriously about this condition is the first step to remedying it, just as Madison and the rest of the Founders intended."

--The Washington Examiner

He Says "End Run"- I Say Trampled

Thomas Sowell: The Progressive end run around the Constitution

These words begin the Constitution of the United States: "We the people." But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.

Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.

Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counselling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, soon to become Speaker of the House, objected to this provision in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

We Already Knew This

20 States: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

President Obama's landmark health care reform law is being challenged in court by a coalition of 20 states. Lawyers argued in Florida that Congress does not have the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance or face penalties.

Attorneys also told the judge Obama care is a bank buster and if cash strapped states are forced to pay more to expand Medicaid programs, they will go broke.

Earlier this week a federal judge in Virginia ruled that citizens can not be forced to buy health insurance. Supporters of the Florida lawsuit want the judge to go further and stop the federal government from enacting health care reform. But so far, two other federal judges have upheld the law.

President Barack Obama's administration says all Americans should have health insurance because everyone requires medical care sometimes to cover catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

Constitutional Impact Study

Resolution to be introduced demanding all legislation cite Constitutional authorization
By Caroline May -
The Daily Caller Published: 4:43 AM 12/07/2010

New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett plans to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives Tuesday that would require all legislation to cite an enumerated power in the Constitution that grants authority for the bill’s mandate.
Garrett, founder and chairman of the House Constitution Caucus, told The Daily Caller that the resolution is the direct result of the American people’s expressed desire for Congress to return to its Constitutional roots.

“This bill grows out of ‘The Pledge with America,’ going across the country prior to the campaign and hearing what was important to the American public and what they have told us is that we need to — as they and we put it — restore the preeminence of the Constitution in law-making and we do that by, as the rule would say, passing a non-waivable rule that would require every bill and amendment to have a citation of the specific authority in the Constitution.”

Read more:

Every representative better be prepared to sponsor this legislation and Cantor needs to be first in line.

Best Picture Ever

This picture was taken from the top of the Washington Monument.
Don't believe any crowd estimate less than 250,000. I believe there were 500,000 there.
There is an equal number of people on both sides of this picture and the lawn in front of the Washington Monument was full after 1200.

I'm So Glad We Cleared This Up

Don't Worry: John Conyers Confirms Constitutionality of Health Care Mandate

Mary Katharine has the details. Its Article 7 Section 10 Paragraph 23 I believe.

Under the "Good and Welfare Clause," of course:

Morning Bell - Undermining the Rule of Law

As Meese and Barr so eloquently state, the citizens of this Nation are paying attention and we are concerned about the direction the current Congress and administration is taking. I have faith that the citizens woud never knowingly submit to socialist rule, but I also have enough cynicism built up to know that incremental implementation of socialist programs will ultimately result in a total and complete takeover of American society and we will no longer be the United States of America; and that will be the end of western civilization.

This Process is Undermining the Rule of Law

This week, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released poll results that are disturbing but by no means surprising. The March 11th - 14th poll of 1000 American adults showed that only 17% of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing in Washington. And as bad as that number is, the reason why Congress' approval rating is so low is even more disturbing: a full 76% of Americans simply do not trust the U.S. Congress.

This was the lowest level of trust for any representative entity tested by NBC/WSJ. It is no coincidence that these record low ratings come amid current debate over health care in Congress. Yesterday, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and William P. Barr released the following statement:

The convoluted and questionable method under discussion by both Houses of Congress for final passage of the long-debated health care legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, which, at best, will lead to protracted and wholly avoidable litigation and continued doubt about the bill’s validity.

Members of Congress from both parties have criticized the use of such sleights of hand, and The Washington Post has rightly editorialized against such “unseemly” and “dodgy” maneuvers for the health care bill. Beyond the obvious practical concerns shared by all citizens, the use of such obscure “rules” for final passage is even harder to justify in light of the real constitutional doubt and the erosion of public confidence in government that it will cause.

Contrary to what President Obama and some congressional leaders have been repeating of late, the American people do care passionately that the process for consideration of health care reform be both constitutional and fair.

At a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before it becomes law “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).

The “deem and pass” and similar options under consideration in the House of Representatives plainly violate at least the spirit of the Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements. Those constitutional requirements were intended to
ensure democratic transparency with a straightforward up-or-down vote in each house on all bills that become law. More importantly, these requirements were designed to ensure that the new national government actually followed “the consent of the governed,” which the Declaration of Independence had declared to the world was the only basis of legitimate government.

The “deem and pass” options under consideration in the House and the subsequent use of a “reconciliation” process that is reserved for budget issues in acts already signed into law further erode confidence in the rule of law. Some past uses of the “deem and pass” or “self-executing” rules raise similar concerns, but none was as convoluted as the proposed use, and significantly, there may have been no one with legal standing to challenge prior uses in court. Many individuals will have standing to challenge any health reform legislation that restructures one-sixth of the American economy, and the contemplated use of the “deem and pass” maneuver in this instance may be combined with questionable procedural steps in the Senate that render it much more subject to challenge.

There is no need to engage in such procedural machinations, and no asserted reason for doing so exists other than to avoid the traditional legislative safeguards in the
Senate and to obscure the appearance that Members of the House actually voted for the Senate bill, which is a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation. The constitutional requirement of bicameralism should not be jettisoned under any circumstances—and certainly not for such trivial and partisan reasons.

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members should violate neither the letter nor spirit of the Constitution, especially when there is so much at stake, not only as a policy matter, but when the very legitimacy of the
legislative process is in question. Given that many parts of the underlying legislation itself raise substantial constitutional concerns, these “unseemly” and “dodgy” procedures underscore the justified concern the American people have that their elected representatives are blatantly disregarding the Constitution, and as a result, undermining the rule of law.

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution

Mark Alexander in the Patriot Post

Pulling the Plug on our Constitution
Our Constitution is on life support, and House Democrats are about to pull the plug.

Leaders of the Democrat Party ("Progressives" as they call themselves, Leftists as we call them) have been unable to garner popular or even Democrat Party support for their plan to socialize our health care system. Fortunately, Republicans are united in their opposition to this one issue.
Barack Hussein Obama, titular head of the Demos, proclaimed, "I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing."

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi concludes, "Nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill."

She is proposing to overtly circumvent our Constitution by way of the "Slaughter Solution." Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairman of the House Rules Committee, proposes to pass legislation using the "self-executing rule," which will allow the House to accept the already-passed Senate health care bill by presumption alone, thus negating a formal up-or-down vote by House members.
Pelosi confessed, "I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Unfortunately, there is precedent in invoking the "self-executing rule" -- by Republicans, no less -- concerning "mundane" legislation agreed to by House leaders of both parties. Unconstitutional as these precedents are, there is nothing "mundane" about ObamaCare.

"Slaughter" and "self-executing" may describe both the process and the electoral future of many Democrats in the House.

Most of the Leftist-controlled political and popular debate about the Democrat proposal to turn over to the central government control of more than 17 percent of the U.S. economy, is focused on one question or another -- what will it cost or save, who will pay and who won't, who will be covered and for what, will there be enough physicians to support this in 10 years, will federal funds be used for abortion, can our economy afford another trillion dollar boondoggle, does it really address the entitlement cost tsunami we're facing, ad infinitum.

These might be interesting topics for debate, but none are germane.

The only relevant debate must begin with First Principles, our Constitution and Rule of Law.
Does our Constitution allow the Executive and Legislative branches to collaborate to confer authority upon the federal government over, in this case, so-called "health care reform"?
Those who laid the Foundation of our Constitution were crystal clear about its enumeration of both the authority and limits upon the central government.

James Madison, our Constitution's primary author, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

Madison continued, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

To that point, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Clearly, our Constitution, does not authorize Congress to nationalize health care, anymore than it authorizes Congress to do most of what it does today.

That notwithstanding, Obama and his Leftist cadres in the House and Senate are moving forward with their endeavor to inflict socialized medicine upon the United States.

They have again, one and all, abandoned their oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution.
Democrat "leaders" have all been questioned about constitutional authority, and have uniformly asserted that the question is irrelevant.

Typical of their non-responses was this indignant question from Speaker Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Such utter contempt for our Constitution explains why Democrats refuse to support any measure to cite constitutional authority for legislation. For example, the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) would require that "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act," but for years, insurmountable obstacles have prevented passage of HR 1359 -- and you know who they are.

As for the Slaughter Solution, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, and that in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

Typical of Republican protests about this effort to evade the Constitution's prescription for passage of legislation, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) called the ruse "the acme of arrogance" and the "shredding the U.S. Constitution."

Unfortunately, more than a few Republicans have dabbled in such unconstitutional chicanery. Thus, I am reminded of the admonition regarding hypocrisy in Matthew 7:4-5. In contemporary terms, Republicans must first demonstrably abide by First Principles before calling on Democrats to do the same.

The only silver lining to this cloud: If Democrats pass ObamaCare, every medical complaint by a Democrat constituent will be hung around their necks.

Fellow Patriots, stand firm for Essential Liberty for we still hold these Truths.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

The Constitution Will Only Work If Rulers Are Honorable

Liberal cynicism aside, the Constitution's safeguards to limit government will only work if the ruling class remains honorable. If it continues to ignore its constitutional restraints and no one holds it accountable, the Constitution will degenerate into meaninglessness and be powerless to preserve our liberties.
David Limbaugh

2 Rules for Conservatives

Alexander's Essay – March 11, 2010

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles

There are only two rules you need to know when debating a liberal.

Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles. (Read Essential Liberty for more.)

Conservatives subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of Essential Liberty as enumerated by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We understand that individual responsibility is the foundation of a free society. We advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

In short, conservatives endeavor to conserve Rule of Law as our guiding principle, and any legitimate policy debate must start there.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to principles du jour; whatever solution feels best for the day's most popular, fashionable, or prominent cause célèbre.

In short, they believe that the feel-good solution (a.k.a. "rule of man") supersedes Rule of Law.
For the most part, today's liberals are a case study in hypocrisy, the antithesis of the once noble Democrat Party, the party of Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals speak of unity, but they incessantly foment disunity, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into constituent dependencies. They speak of freedom of thought -- except when your thought doesn't comport with theirs. They assert First Amendment rights -- except when it comes to religion or speech that doesn't agree with theirs. They promote tolerance -- except while practicing intolerance and seeking to silence dissenters.

Liberals deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals while ardently supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us -- the unborn, the infirm and the aged.

Liberals loathe individual responsibility and advocate statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everything liberals believe or support is wrong, but their underlying philosophical doctrine surely undermines our "unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as established by "the laws of nature and nature's God."

As Ronald Reagan observed, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Thus, don't be snookered into defending or denouncing the merits of any issue as framed in liberal terms. Such deliberations are rarely resolved and tend to end in gridlock, or worse, deadlock. (If congressional Republicans really want to end gridlock, they too need to control the debate in terms of First Principles.)

One means of taking control of a debate is to inquire whether an opponent has ever taken an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution. (If you have not, or wish to reaffirm your oath, then we invite you to do so by registering with The Essential Liberty Project.

If your opponent answers "yes," then inquire as to which constitution -- the one upon which our nation was founded, or the so-called "living constitution" adulterated by generations of legislative and judicial diktat.

Of course, you must be prepared to explain the difference -- to explain that only one of these constitutions exists in written form, while the other is a mere fabrication. This can be best accomplished by presenting your copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Another means of framing the debate is to ask your opponent to articulate the difference between constitutional Rule of Law and the rule of men. Again, you must be prepared to explain the difference.

You may also start by asking your opponent what "liberal" means. Most liberals will define "liberal" in terms of the issues they support, so ask your opponent if those issues comport with our Constitution.

Once you've framed the debate in terms of First Principles, give your liberal opponent a recess, and a copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Principled liberals (admittedly an oxymoron) will remain satisfied that what they feel is equivalent to, or even supersedes, Rule of Law. These poor souls are on their way to becoming über liberals, or Leftists, and are probably beyond any logical redemption.

But if you use your Essential Liberty Guide as an education tool rather than a hammer, some liberals may actually start to come around, and this conversion should be your primary objective.

Further, if confronted by your opponent with a challenge to provide a constitutional defense for some Republican legislation, don't bite. Most Republican legislation, though it may be more in line with our Constitution, rarely comports with the plain language of Rule of Law. Don't let your opponent frame you as a hypocrite. Remember: You are, first and foremost, a constitutional conservative, not a tool of any political party.

Alas, selective interpretation of our Constitution has expanded its meaning beyond any semblance of its original intent, and it will take time and discipline to contract its meaning through due process to restore its original intent.

Finally...
Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide "useful idiots," those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.

When it comes to debating Leftists, the outcome is utterly dependent on who has superior firepower.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US

All That Is Hidden Is Made Known

Early Draft of the Constitution Found in Philadelphia
"The Continuation of the Scheme"

BY Mary Katharine Ham

The founder of a non-profit group that promotes teaching of the U.S. Constitution stumbled on an early draft of it in Philadelphia this week, penned by James Wilson and entitled, "The Continuation of the Scheme."

She was exploring in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, when she connected a short passage on the back of one draft of the Constitution, in Wilson's hand, to the rest of the document, buried in the archives among Wilson's papers.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

I guess there are worse pitches to make to possible donors for a Constitution non-profit than, "Remember that time I found a new draft of the Constitution?"

More From Mark Alexander

Insight
"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals... It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government... It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Napolitano (The Judge) Founders, Unalienable Rights and the Consitution

Judge Andrew Napolitano's 'The Constitution and Freedom,' Part 1

FoxNation
Jan 11, 2010 Judge Andrew Napolitano
Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 4:32:16 PM by Jim Robinson

Excellent video commentary on the founding of America, our unalienable rights from God and our Constitution. Part 1 of a six part series to be broadcast this week by FoxNation.

NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

DCProtestWarrior:NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

Doug Hoffman is the beginning of the conservative movement's efforts to take Congress back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The "Republican" leadership in the House will be measured by how well they adapt to the new/old ideas of governing.
Its time for the conservatives in Congress to put a stop to the socialist ideas being pushed down the throats of American citizens. Its time to recognize that the Constitution tells Congress what they can and cannot do.

The Constitution is the Law.
Everything else is a regulation.

There's An Idea At the Bottom, After You Read Boehner's Statement

Boehner Statement on Sen. Harry Reid's "Opt-Out" Plan

GOP Leader: “Will Democrats allow states to opt out of the job-killing tax increases, unfunded mandates, and Medicare cuts for American seniors?”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following statement today in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s announced “opt- out” plan for a government takeover of health care:
“Whether you call it a public option, an opt-out, a trigger, or a co-op, the fact is all of these proposals put us on the path to government-run health care. Forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan isn’t the answer, but that’s exactly what the Democrats’ plan would do.
"This 'public option' is only one of the problems with this legislation. Will Democrats allow states to opt out of the job-killing tax increases, unfunded mandates, and Medicare cuts for American seniors? We don’t need to give states the option of skipping one portion of this big-government scheme, we need to scrap it and start over on bipartisan reform that lowers cost and expands access at a price we can afford – that’s what the American people want, and what they deserve.”

I guess the question should be, will Senators sign up for the same plan they are cramming down our throats? Will Congress "opt-out" of this monstrous restriction of basic American rights?

Proposed: An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the United States that does not apply equally to all US Senators and Representatives and Congress shall make no law that applies to any US Senator or Representative that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States . All existing laws and regulations that do not meet these criteria shall be declared null and void!"

Written By Someone Who Lived The Hungarian Revolution

SOCIALISM!!!! Seems a perfect, equal system for all, a Shangri-La if you will, not realizing it is nothing but a bridge to Communism, which is total government control!

Socialism at its best is corrupt, rotten to the core, a government without overseers! The idea of Socialism is not new in the United States , but it is not openly identified as such in the places it exists. If you live near by, drove through, or happen to live in the projects, you have seen and experienced Socialism in America ! Government housing, government healthcare, government schools, government food stamps, and what you see there is as good as it gets, when the government decides what is good for the people, takes the power out of the hands of the people, and they spread the wealth.

Our government imposed full blown Socialism on our inner cities, and in over fifty years hasn’t been able to raise the living standard of those who live there! And look how happy and motivated are those, living in the projects with all that the government is providing for them.

Is that the best we can dream for our children and grandchildren? Is that the America we want to see? I certainly hope not, but that is exactly what the government means when they tell you they want to spread the wealth. They will make us all poor by breaking down our economy, forcing on us taxation on a level never seen before, and if we don’t like it and cause too much difficulty for them, at that point they will have the power to no longer tax us at all, simply take over completely, shut down the borders and impose full blown Communism.

Not in America you might say! Think again, look around and see how much we lost just in the last year!

We are citizens of this country first, and private citizens second! This citizenship comes with responsibilities! Keeping the Constitution intact, the freedoms in it, is our foremost responsibility. Citizenship is our birthright, but freedom is not, we have to be diligent in making sure it is not snatched from us in the midst of indifference, ignorance, or under the assumption that it is being properly looked after by our representatives in Washington.

Our greatest enemies are not always those on the outside of our borders, sometimes, as today, they walk among us, pretend to serve, and represent us. Both parties have betrayed us, they both not only strayed from the Constitution, but trying to destroy it. We the people have sat in indifference too long, allowed our children to be indoctrinated by the left, making them believe their ancestors were terrible people committing terrible acts, placing doubt into young minds…questioning their parents’ intent, rather than the government’s!

We turned a blind eye to corruption of government, our courts, and through political correctness they shamed us into shutting up, so no one will ever question or oppose, and feeling alone quietly stand watching the government enslave the people! We need to demand Constitutional correctness from our representatives!

We are the mothers and fathers of this great land! As we would with our children in danger, we viciously, with our blood if needs to be, have to protect this soil we stand on from those who are limiting our rights and carelessly selling our country to foreigners. To those countries who are not our friends, nor supporters,they are in many cases our enemies, who are only worried about how they will get the return on their investment. The fall of this great country would cause them no emotional hardship at all, perhaps a gleeful grin of satisfaction over the idea that it was a job well done. The arrogant Americans got what they deserve.

But we are not the arrogant Americans! Our corrupt politicians are! The most precious thing we have is our country, without it we have no home! Our founders swore to protect it from enemies outside our borders, and from the enemies within! Times may have changed, but human nature has not, money and power is still a lure for men of weak convictions. We need to recruit those who through the political evolution from George Washington to today managed to keep their spines in tact, and are still able to stand upright with dignity, and willing to preserve the last bastion of freedom in the world.

We need to judge all politicians guilty, until they prove to us they are PATRIOTS! These days we may be softer in our comforts then the early Americans were, but I can say with certainty, we do not love our country any less today, and I feel confident if we are called, now that we are called, we will not be less of a patriot than those who fought back then. Our commitment cannot be less than to offer our life if necessary. We have to have commitment on that level, even though we may not want to.

Freedom is that important, ask anyone who knows what it’s like not to have it! Most recently, look at the people of Iran !

This is the most dangerous time in our country’s history, since the founding fathers fought for freedom, and laid the cornerstone for what is today the greatest country on earth! Our liberties have never been more on the brink of extinction than today. It is time for all eyes to be wide open, and believe what used to be unbelievable! The changes we see today have been coming for decades, but today they are meant to change our country’s DNA, and cannot be allowed to continue.

As a nation of diversity we have faced great challenges in our history, and we always overcame, remained strong, but today, NOW our country is in grave danger! It is time we take the loss of our freedoms, and the corruption in our government, and courts seriously, and finally stand together as the Americans we are, all citizens, all the races, all nationalities united, under the one flag of the United States of America , for the most important single cause of our lives…..our freedom.

I Was Right

I do enjoy it when someone infinitely smarter than I am explains why I'm right about something.
You notice from the responses by the dhimmis, that they think we're arrogant for questioning their auhority to bypass Constitutional limitations.

IMAO, its the dhimmis who are the arrogant ones, for questioning why we question them.

Royalty-monarchs-serfs-peasants
rail-tar-feathers

From the Patriot Post/Federalist Digest
God Bless Mark Alexander

Government & Politics
A Serious Question

We have known for many years that Democrats view the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals, not as something to be revered or upheld -- despite their repeated oaths to do just that.

And as Mark Alexander warned last week, our Constitution is on life support.

More evidence of the trauma inflicted by our elected "representatives" surfaced this week when CNSNews.com asked the only truly relevant question in the health care debate: Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected:
CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

Though questions concerning constitutional authority are finally being asked inside the Beltway, they have been asked with ever-louder voices across the nation since Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that debate. Of course, since the last election, the national debate chorus has become much more unified.

For example, in The Patriot's home state of Tennessee (which Al Gore claims as "home" but which gave its electoral votes to Bush, twice, and then to McCain), there is a 10th Amendment battle underway, and not a minute too soon.

State Republicans are organizing a state sovereignty campaign in opposition to the federal government's abuse of states' rights. This week, a legislative committee approved a motion to invite representatives from the legislatures of the other 49 states to join a "working group ... to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers."

Can you say, "Constitutional Convention"?

Predictably, Obama's state cadre of Democrat sycophants are huffing and puffing. State Democrat Chairman Chip Forrester says, "It's unfortunate that Republican members of the state Legislature have jumped on this crazy train. This is nothing short of lunacy. The Tea Party organizers and their ultra-right wing cronies began this ridiculous issue to disrupt civil debate about how to move this state and nation forward. I hope they are not suggesting we fight another Civil War."

No, we should give the Convention a chance before taking up arms. And if it comes to the latter, I suggest Mr. Forrester say goodbye to the sun and slither down a very deep hole..