Kapact's Rant: "An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

Excerpts from the screenplay for "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith"

"The constitution is in shreds. Amendment after amendment . . . executive directives, sometimes a dozen in one day."

"An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . ."

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . ."

Well, not the end of liberty, exactly, yet...

but the Audacity of Obama continues, and it is noteworthy that they have been forced to twist and trample on the legislative process to pass their unconstitutional bill. Why? Because otherwise (through honest, legal means), it would have died. There is no disputing that. Indeed, the process has been mangled and blended, with 'promises' (that, like most of Mister Obama's promises, will not survive the campaign), to alter the nature of the bill by executive order after it is signed into law. The checks and balances, so crucial to the restraining of hyper-government have been manipulated and side-stepped in a desperate push to pass so-called health care reform. The fake smile on Pelosi's face as she actually used the word 'humility' reminded me of a vampire pressing a crucifix into its forehead. We know now (and every poll backs this up) that the Democratic regime has no respect for the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE, but we also know that it has no respect for our intelligence. Humility? Humility? Ms Pelosi, how dare you use the word humility? We don't want this and we can't afford this. And what's more, based on your sagging poll numbers, we feel the same way about you.

I am glad to see that several states' attorney's generals have already stepped up and announced legal challenges. You see, Ms Pelosi and Mister Obama, there is a third branch of our government, specifically set up to deal with power grabs like this monstrosity. It's called the Supreme Court. It's sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to ensure that legal train wrecks like health care reform don't violate the Constitution. And while you have managed to install an admitted racist judge to that court, you don't own it. Yet.

When Mister Obama was elected, I decided to try to give him a chance. I took note of what he did that I liked (rare though that was), and I admitted here that I thought he had some likable qualities. But no more. Mister Obama and his minions have shown that despite their acting abilities, they have no respect for the Constitution, the American People, or the elected offices that they hold. They have no respect for the rule of law or the simple moral code that says keep your promises. Ronald Reagan was a great President for many reasons, but he was unique in that he understood well that the office that he held wasn't a weapon to be used to beat the Constitution with. It is a privilege. An honor. It's not a platform from which to rule over the American People with an iron fist. It's a stewardship. A promise, not to fundamentally change the country, but to protect us and our freedoms and rights and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Someone elected to the presidency is given a sacred trust. They're supposed to respect the office and the people and the terrible terrible price that people have paid to keep us free and safe and strong. They're supposed to respect the incredible hardships and danger and loss that our Founders were subject to in throwing off tyrants and giving us our country. Mister Obama, you don't respect any of that, and you clearly don't respect any of us. And come 2012, you're going to see just how much we respect you.

"An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

Excerpts from the screenplay for "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith"


"The constitution is in shreds. Amendment after amendment . . . executive directives, sometimes a dozen in one day."

"An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . ."

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . ."

Well, not the end of liberty, exactly, yet...

but the Audacity of Obama continues, and it is noteworthy that they have been forced to twist and trample on the legislative process to pass their unconstitutional bill. Why? Because otherwise (through honest, legal means), it would have died. There is no disputing that. Indeed, the process has been mangled and blended, with 'promises' (that, like most of Mister Obama's promises, will not survive the campaign), to alter the nature of the bill by executive order after it is signed into law. The checks and balances, so crucial to the restraining of hyper-government have been manipulated and side-stepped in a desperate push to pass so-called health care reform. The fake smile on Pelosi's face as she actually used the word 'humility' reminded me of a vampire pressing a crucifix into its forehead. We know now (and every poll backs this up) that the Democratic regime has no respect for the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE, but we also know that it has no respect for our intelligence. Humility? Humility? Ms Pelosi, how dare you use the word humility? We don't want this and we can't afford this. And what's more, based on your sagging poll numbers, we feel the same way about you.

I am glad to see that several states' attorney's generals have already stepped up and announced legal challenges. You see, Ms Pelosi and Mister Obama, there is a third branch of our government, specifically set up to deal with power grabs like this monstrosity. It's called the Supreme Court. It's sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to ensure that legal train wrecks like health care reform don't violate the Constitution. And while you have managed to install an admitted racist judge to that court, you don't own it. Yet.

When Mister Obama was elected, I decided to try to give him a chance. I took note of what he did that I liked (rare though that was), and I admitted here that I thought he had some likable qualities. But no more. Mister Obama and his minions have shown that despite their acting abilities, they have no respect for the Constitution, the American People, or the elected offices that they hold. They have no respect for the rule of law or the simple moral code that says keep your promises. Ronald Reagan was a great President for many reasons, but he was unique in that he understood well that the office that he held wasn't a weapon to be used to beat the Constitution with. It is a privilege. An honor. It's not a platform from which to rule over the American People with an iron fist. It's a stewardship. A promise, not to fundamentally change the country, but to protect us and our freedoms and rights and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Someone elected to the presidency is given a sacred trust. They're supposed to respect the office and the people and the terrible terrible price that people have paid to keep us free and safe and strong. They're supposed to respect the incredible hardships and danger and loss that our Founders were subject to in throwing off tyrants and giving us our country. Mister Obama, you don't respect any of that, and you clearly don't respect any of us. And come 2012, you're going to see just how much we respect you.

"Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?"

Fascinating to watch as the Progressives (otherwise known as liberals on this planet) are breaking every rule possible to shove this unpopular and unconstitutional package down our throats. You can't even call it a bill, because the Constitution plainly says that a bill must be voted on by both the House and Senate before it can become a law. So it's a package. But again, it is an unconstitutional package. The Tenth Amendment explains why:


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.

Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I'm not smart enough think that we have 57 states, or that it's possible for an insurance premium to drop by 3,000 percent, or to think that it's possible for 500 million americans each month to lose their jobs... but I do know that A) the Constitution does not give the government the right to require a citizen to purchase a good or service, and B) that a bill actually has to be voted on by the House and the Senate before it is a law.

Maybe I'll just repeat for emphasis.

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.

The Deemocrats (who love to 'deem and pass') have been asked where in the Constitution they are given the right to do the individual mandate, and they have not answered. They have responded with arrogance (shocking, coming from this regime), indignancy, ignorance. Even a creative grasp of Constitutional law (no, the Federal government does not set the max speed limit or require drivers to carry insurance... yet). But they haven't responded with facts. Oh they've used the mature tactic I tried as a five year old but didn't get away with. (they did it first!) "The Republicans did same thing" they say. The answer to that is, "I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you." The Republicans did do some crooked things, so it's okay for you? Really grown-up. If the Republicans jumped off a cliff, would you? We can only hope. Just please don't take the rest of us with you.

The Founding Fathers were very careful about limiting the power of the Federal government. Very careful. The founding of our country was based on limiting the power of a corrupt central government. There is no more important purpose to our Constitution than limiting the power of the Federal government.

"...governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Again, for emphasis...

"...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Congress cannot grant themselves power. They cannot 'deem' that something not voted on is law. And yet they are. Please, can a Constitutional lawyer explain that to me?

The Audacity of Obama

"...we're not campaigning any more. The election is over...."

Truer words were never spoken. Also fitting that it comes during a so-called bipartisan meeting. Just as promises of bipartisanship during the campaign were lies, so were so many other things. Of course, the campaign is over, so apparently those promises no longer mean anything, but just as a reminder, here are a few:

(List of promises compiled by John Stossel of FOX Business and FOX News, but quoted on several sites, including PolitiFact.


Promise #1: Cutting spending
On the campaign trail, Obama promised to cut spending several times. In the second presidential debate, he said that "actually, I am cutting more than I'm spending. So it will be a net spending cut." In the third debate, he reiterated: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut." Of course, Republicans made claims like that, too. Bush Sr. is famous for his "Read my lips. No new taxes" line. Bush Jr. made statements like "Prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government."


Reality:
Under both parties, government's appetite grows. But the line rises sharply after Obama took office. Spending increased 2 TRILLION dollars -- more than any year in history.


Promise #2: Putting bills online
Obama promised "When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what's in it before I sign it."


Reality:
He broke that promise when he singed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. He's broken it since, for instance on the Credit Card Bill of Rights and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.


Promise #3: Health care negotiations will be on C-SPAN
Obama promised at least eight times that "we're going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch."


Reality:
They haven't been there. Well, briefly. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb said, "The only time we've been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing."


Promise #4: I Won't Force Americans To Buy Insurance
During the campaign, Obama attacked Hillary Clinton: "She believes we have to force people who don't have insurance," he said in a primary debate in January 2008. In a Feb. 2008 CNN interview, he added: "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody buy a house."


Reality:
This September, he told Congress: "Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance."


Promise #5: Ban Earmarks
"We are going to ban all earmarks," Obama said at a press conference on January 6, 2009.


Reality:
The first spending bill he signed had over 9,000 earmarks.


Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover.
Reality:
In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits.


During the campaign, he criticized John McCain for just suggesting that. "My opponent can't make that pledge [not to raise taxes] and here's why: for the first time in American history, John McCain wants to tax your health care benefits," he said in the same speech.


But now it's Obama who wants to tax health plans:


"This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies," he said in his health care address to Congress.

I know its easy and popular to attack the whole "Hope and Change" express, but really, I don't think even his supporters (the few honest ones that he has left) believe that anymore. What I'm talking about is the unbridled arrogance and hubris that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi hegemony are inflicting on the country. Mister Obama is an inexperienced socialist product of the Chicago machine, and his presidency is the biggest political disaster we've faced since... we were a nation. His disrespect for the people he is supposed to represent is matched only by his arrogance that says he doesn't have to care about promises and lies. Does he think we're stupid, or does he just think he's above the need to be honest with WE THE PEOPLE. I think it's arrogance. That is, among other things, a result of the broken system of government that permits rich, corrupt lawyers to run forever, supported by labor unions and corporations that are ruining the country. The only way to fix the system is a constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on anyone in the federal government, and restricts spending in national elections, or ads related to national elections (including house and senate seats) to money collected by taxpayers, administered by a bipartisan commission that is only allowed to serve for four years. That is the only way to remove corrupt, entrenched liars like Obama/Reid/Pelosi from office.

And we've got (at least) two more years to go. Great.

FAIR The Free American Independent Rant

This column is called the Free American Independent Rant for a reason, and I'd like to talk about that. First off, leftist love-fest "Air America" RIP and good riddance. You failed not because conservative talk radio is too powerful. You failed because you were boring, and you were wrong. You were more like "Err America".


Freedom is not a sarcastic bumpersticker catch phrase, it's an idea. It's salvation for the country and the world. It's a shining city on a hill. It's the right and the responsibility to speak out against corrupt, incompetent power-mongers determined to rob us of our sovereignty, ride roughshod over the hard work of our Founding Fathers, and shove illegal experiments down our throats. Freedom is what helps us to survive arrogant socialist bank-owned community organizers and entrenched gangs of thugs. Freedom is our life's blood.

America needs no explanation. It will survive two consecutive weak presidents. It will survive the worst Congress it has ever seen, because WE THE PEOPLE are smart and hard-working and honest. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. We get fooled sometimes, and we buy into crazy schemes. But we don't stay fooled forever. We all even essentially agree on most of the challenges and issues facing our country. And we don't tolerate people who treat us like ignorant, gullible children.

Independent means we don't allow ourselves to be pushed around by political parties. Joe Lieberman, once the Democratic's choice for vice president, is one of the most courageous and principled Americans representing us. Because he's independent. And because he's independent, his party tried to push him out. Joe is still in Congress, still serving this great country. And why? Because he's independent. And so are we. I'm a conservative. Always have been, always will be. But I support the rights of gays to marry. Whatever my opinion of it, it doesn't hurt me, nor will it hurt this country. What will hurt the country is hanging signs on our doors saying who need not apply. And that includes allowing gays to step up to the altar and proclaim their love for each other. On another subject, while I don't want my tax dollars to pay for elective abortions, I also don't want the Federal government putting its clumsy, intrusive hands into the abortion issue. Abortion is a moral issue, and our government is not qualified to teach morals. Let it be decided by the people and the states. So how can I be for gay marriage rights and abortion rights and call myself conservative? Because I'm independent. I don't let my party tell me what to believe. This country wasn't founded on the principle of restricting people, nor was it founded on the principle of marching in lockstep with a distant tyrant. Or party chairman.

The rant is something that many would like to silence. Our secretary of state once cautioned that there were no 'gate-keepers' on the internet. That is a pretty simple concept. She thinks that there should be a controlling authority to verify everything put online. That is called censorship, and it is, quite frankly, chilling.

Here are some of her words, while we can still put them online:

On the subject of Health Care:

"We just can't trust the American people to make these types of decisions. .Government has to make these choices for people." -Hillary Clinton circa 1993, speaking to Rep. Dennis Hastert on the issue of who should control the allocation of money in her health care reform plan

The Free Market:

"The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation." -Hillary Clinton

Freedom of the Press:

"We're all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1998, days after the Monica Lewinsky story was reported on the Drudge Report

Taxes:

"We're saying that for American to get back on track, we're going to cut [the Bush tax cuts] short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco

Big Government:

"We can't afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993, regarding health care reform

Religion:

"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian from time to time." -First Lady Hillary Clinton, "joking" in a speech with religious leaders in 1997

(These quotes were compiled by Thomas Kuiper, who is the author of "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton In Her Own Words.")

The point of all this is to point out, to shout from the rooftops, to rant against this. And these horrible things came from one of the least frightening people in the administration.

The Free American Independent Rant is all about refusing to bend. Refusing to be silent. Refusing to be catagorized or edited or pushed around by a corrupt incompetent government or party system.

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste

Mister Obama's thoughtless and hypocritical comments this past week were but a single example of how this excuse for an administration makes me nostalgic for the clever and razor-sharp moves of the Carter administration, while his continuous efforts to hide his most nefarious deeds makes us all dream of an open and transparent government on the order of, say, the Nixon administration.


We all know (and are reminded every day) that you shouldn't go spending money you don't have. I mean, if my check is a bit short (which it frequently is), I don't pick out a new Blackberry, or buy tickets for Avatar. I'm also not going to plan a big vacation. Even so, I'm glad that Mister Obama is good enough to remind us of this. Every day, every trillion dollars. But what he doesn't get, even after having done it a year ago, is that you don't single out a place, by name, and tell people not to go there. Especially if that place is entirely dependent upon tourist dollars. Most of us know that you meant to say something sensible, if hypocritical, but please, sir, stick to your teleprompter. You can't talk without it, and we'd all be better off if you stopped trying. Until the next presidential election, that is.

Mister Obama's strange mix of incompetence and arrogance highlight the problem facing our country. As I mentioned last time, big money influence and (virtual) lifetime appointments for members of Congress have made it almost impossible for any fresh blood to make it into the dusty halls of power. In fact, it discourages our so-called representatives from actually fixing anything or making a real, substantive difference. If they did actually resolve one of the myriad problems facing our great nation, then WE THE PEOPLE might actually have a chance to catch a breath of fresh air, and discover that we don't need them nearly as much as they want us to think. Imagine for a moment that the massive spending orgy that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are engaged in actually created enough jobs to tame unemployment and bring wages back up enough to bolster the economy and increase the Federal tax receipts (is that the way that works? Wow). Do you think they'd start holding meetings in public again, or stop meddling in the business affairs of companies with no ties or bills due to the government? No. Imagine that insurance companies decided to voluntarily accept all of the provisions of that unconstitutional mess. Imagine that they bowed to pressure and started accepting patients with pre-existing conditions, or handing out free insurance to everyone who couldn't or refused to pay for it. Do you think they'd stop the attempted Federal/Socialist takeover of 1/6th of the economy? Nope. Because they have an agenda. They have a goal. And that goal isn't simply to 'fundamentally change the United States of America". It's to maintain power as long as they live. If they solve a problem, they lose a problem. And their mantra is 'never let a crisis go to waste'. Taking that to the next logical step, we see that a problem or a crisis is the villain that they need, because they have no other way to justify their position or distract us from their multitude shortcomings and blunders. We must solve this problem by prohibiting any money but Federal funding being used for campaign advertising of any form, as well as pushing through a Constitutional amendment requiring term limits for any member of Congress. There is no other way to push the corrupt and entrenched from government.

On another note...

I was enjoying a pleasant ride to work on the bus the other day, even as we were packed in like sardines, when it finally got the better of a fellow traveler. I'll describe the gentleman so you can get the picture. He was an African-American, impeccably dressed in a nice, expensive suit, with a very nice overcoat. I wasn't surprised to see that he was carrying a bible...

until...

he started dropping F bombs. Big, loud, angry F bombs. All about picking up too many F-ing people, packing us in like F-ing cattle. Carrying a bible. Forgive me sir, I thought, are you kidding? Do you not get that God is watching and listening? I mean, we're all imperfect. We all make mistakes, and do and say things we regret. We are all His children, and He loves us and forgives us. But please. Try to leave the F-bombs at home when you go out, especially with your bible. Think about the fact that God is listening. He knows the bus is overfull and late, and that the person next to you smells bad. Then think about the fact that God knows that you are dropping F-bombs on your spiritual brothers and sisters. Would you talk to God with that mouth? Because you are. Every F-bomb dropped on a stranger is also dropped on our Father. Think about that before you start lobbing F-bombs next time, okay?

Ahh, but our story doesn't end there. As I discreetly watched this gentleman, I noticed that his bible had a long bookmark in it. Half said something about God. Fair enough. The other end said "Farrakhan". There you go. While I hesitate to judge a religion (if you can call it that) that maybe I'm not familiar with, I suspect that the Nation of Islam doesn't object strongly to F-bombs being dropped on buses.

The War on Arrogance

One of the greatest threats facing our country comes not from without but from within. I'm not talking about people deliberately trying to bring about the downfall of the government. I'm talking about people who have been blinded by their lust for power and money. This has been highlighted by the stunning return to democracy in Massachusetts with the election to the people's senate seat that was held for too long by Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley assumed that the seat would go to her, not because she had earned it, or because she best represented the wants and needs and philosophy of the people represented by the seat. She assumed that she would win because she was a democrat. Nobody has denied that, not even her. And of course, the campaign she ran clearly demonstrates that. She might well as well have phoned the campaign in. But Martha Coakley is just a small, single example of the new war on arrogance.


We see Mr Obama back in campaign mode, putting on his common, populist suit, standing in front of a group of handpicked supporters with prescreened questions, railing against all the bad guys who are responsible for all the evils we are suffering from. And even with prescreened questions, he still struggled. But that's Mister Obama. He cannot speak without a teleprompter. As a student of history, I have learned that when an unpopular leader (and Mister Obama has the lowest approval ratiings in history for a president at this point in his term) starts to appoint a new villain at every corner, it is usually because they have nothing of real substance to offer. It is an attempt to distract you from the real problem. During the presidential election, it was "they're going to tell you, don't vote for him, because he's got a funny name, or he doesn't look like the guy on the dollar bill". You see, suddenly it wasn't why you should vote for him, it was about 'they'. About why you should look at 'them', because they're out to get you. Then it was 'the people who made this mess'. Don't look at Obama's record. Don't look at the record of his cohorts. Of course if you did look too closely at Mister Obama and his cohorts, you'd see that they are some of the 'people who made this mess'. Along with Mister Clinton and Mister Bush. Even now, it's the evil bankers. It isn't that Mister Obama has spent us into record deficits and unemployent with no end in sight. Come next year, when his cohorts in Congress are running for reelection, it won't be about the attempts to usurp the constitution, or the secret meetings or broken campaign promises, or the arrogance. It'll be about 'the people who want us to fail', or 'the people who want to take us back, rather than forward'. It will never be about their wrongs or their failures or their arrogance. And that, again, is the warning sign. If all you ever hear from a failing, desperate leader is how it's all about some nameless, faceless villain, then odds are its just an attempt to divert your attention.

Mister Obama and his liberal cohorts have been frightened by this second shot heard 'round the world' (coincidentally, both came from Massachusetts), and they have their idea-starved liberal playbook out. It is a book filled with the same old tricks and distractions and smoke and mirrors, and it didn't save Martha Coakley. This election in Massachusetts, this second shot heard 'round the world, wasn't about local issues, as they would like you to believe, or about 'those people' trying to stop so-called health care reform. It was really about arrogance. Entrenched, corrupt, out of touch arrogance. And next year, and hopefully 2012 will also be about arrogance.

I said entrenched, and that speaks to another fundamental, clear and present danger facing us. That is the legislators who are elected on promises and then dig themselves in to power that they never have to surrender. It is a tried and true process. Make promises to labor unions, corporations, and other special interests, to essentially buy elections, then spend their terms paying those bills, ignoring the needs and wishes of their constituents, and always looking to the next election. All the while, they do favors and exchange political markers, putting people in their debt and engaging in brinkmanship that would give the greatest thriller writer a headache. And in the end, they have more and more power, and less and less interest in actually serving the people that they got elected to serve. These virtual lifetime appointments guarantee nothing but an entrenched and essentially out of touch aristocracy that we cannot afford and cannot allow. What we need to truly make the legislature work for WE THE PEOPLE is a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for every elected official in the federal government. Make it impossible for any legislator to amass so much power that they are no longer answerable to the people. We also need to take money out of politics. Write a law that says that any political advertising of any kind, in any form of media, can only be paid by the government Require any aspiring candidate to obtain a certain number of petition signatures in order to qualify for funding, and then use taxpayer dollars to pay for that. I don't necessarily love the idea of more taxpayer dollars going out, but if it takes the unions and corporations and other special interests out of elections, I say it's worth it. If politicians are only going to serve the people who fund their campaigns, then lets make sure we control who does that funding. If it's going to cost me another bite out of my check to actually be represented, well, so be it.

On another note...

One thing that I've been struck by for the past week that my wife and I have watched the nightmare in Haiti unfold, is not just the outporing of generosity by common people who can barely make ends meet (including my household). That gives me hope for the country and the world. It isn't even the CNN correspondents who have shown the courage to not just report the news, but to intervene on behalf of the helpless, I don't normally like the idea of the crusading reporter more intent on making news than reporting it. But in this case, they've chosen principles over objectivity, and courage over manners. I like that. Anyone who pulls a bleeding child away from the thugs who attacked him has got it right. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, no matter why you're supposed to be there, or who's corporate logo is on your paycheck.

But what I'm really struck by is the huge number of celebrities giving their time during telethons for Haiti. That isn't a new thing, but what I note is the fact that they are giving their time, speaking very naturally and easily with people who are phoning in donations. I'm not a starstruck person. I've met enough celebrities to not be overcome by the very sight of them. But what struck me is that they are giving their time, willingly. They may be rich, and the small donation that my wife and I made would be nothing in their weekly budget. But their time is just as valuable and irreplacable to them as mine is to me. Time is important to everyone, and I appreciate them giving it. I saw Steven Speilberg and Julia Roberts among others take the time to talk to people who had called in. They didn't hurry the call, they took the time to get the callers' names and they took the time to actually talk with them. I am truly impressed by anyone giving their time, because, as I said, time is irreplacable for everyone. Well done.

"Haiti, "Kennedy's Seat", and Forgiveness"

I'd like to start off by mentioning the terrible, terrible tragedy in Haiti. I can offer no words as eloquent as those that have already been spoken. So many countries and organizations have contributed through money, goods, and services, and it is truly a testament to the goodness of the world's citizens that during these times of a world-wide recession, people and governments still find a way to give. Crises seem to be almost a dime a dozen these days, and that is a shame. But this is a big one. Too big to ignore. I am proud and touched to see in this country that we can actually (with a few notable, embarrassing exceptions) put aside our political differences to make a difference: http://clintonbushhaitifund.org . Indeed, people of all faiths and beliefs seem to be coming from all corners of the globe to help the people of Haiti.


And I'll just point out that the murderous thugs who claim to work on behalf of God (or Allah, as they call him) have been noticably silent. We know you have the means. How about working for the God you claim to serve and saving and creating rather than killing? You won't, because you are cowardly thugs who truly care nothing for religion. It means something when you feed off of death and chaos and desperation rather than life and truth and light. Just like cockroaches, you only thrive in filth.

I am pleased to see that what our liberal friends still like to call "Ted Kennedy's Seat" is actually back in the hands of the people, to whom it was actually always supposed to belong. That magical 60th senate vote may well be going to Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown. This is very important, because for one thing, it needs to go to someone who represents not just the people of Massachusetts, all Americans, because he'll be voting on something that affects us all. It's also important because we need a reminder that these seats belong to us all. Something else. I feel sorry for the Kennedy's who no longer have Ted. Nobody should have to lose a family member. But it gives us a preview of what life would be (indeed, how it should be) with term limits. The Founding Fathers well understood the dangers of government out of touch and out of control. When people can run for term after term and gather more and more power and money, until they are so entrenched that they are untouchable, we find that we are no longer represented. We find ourselves ruled by distant (not geographically, but culturally), out of touch despots. Despots who regularly submit to show-elections that rank with Cuban and North Korean elections for real challenge and suspense. Truly, there is no greater threat to true democracy in this country than politicians who are so powerful that they have, for all intents and purposes, lifetime appointments. This is how we find ourselves with a government shoving illegal programs down our throats. Illegal programs that are so heinous and crooked that they can only be crafted in secret meetings. Certainly there are exceptions to the lifetime appointments. Sometimes they are so foolish and crooked that they run before they're arrested (so long, Chris Dodd!). But the old axiom still stands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits now.

Finally, I'd like to talk about forgiveness. I have been guilty of holding grudges many times in my life, against many people. Any real or imagined slight, and I'd decide that they were not only bad people, but that I would never forgive them. Why should I? Why should I let them get away with what they'd done? But I finally realized (and way too late in life for my own taste) that when you refuse to forgive someone, you are really hurting yourself more than anyone else. You are robbing yourself of happiness. Especially if the object of your anger doesn't know or care that you don't forgive them. It's like a house in wintertime where you heat every room but one, and you force yourself to live in that cold room. The only person living in that cold is you. When you forgive, you are freeing yourself of a burden of your own making. And that goes for forgiving yourself. We all do things we regret. We all make mistakes, and it is easy (and probably seems virtuous) to condemn ourselves. But if you can admit to your mistakes and learn from them, it is okay and important to forgive yourself. Nobody can say that they've never regretted anything that they've done, so you've got lots of company. Give yourself a break. Throw it off. Be free. Live your life as fully as possible. The tragedy in Haiti is a good reminder of just how short and precious life can be. Don't waste it.

Harry Reid IS a racist!!!

I don't care what Reid thinks about Obama, or black people. But the fact that he assumes the racism of white voters makes him, by definition, a racist. He is assuming behavior and attitudes about white voters, based upon their skin color. He is assuming that white voters would be more likely to vote for him because he looks white and talks white, and that is stupid and racist. What Trent Lott said years ago was wrong and stupid, and doesn't compare to this. But there is an undeniable double standard here. If a Republican had said this, they would be calling for his or her head, and probably getting it. Reid is a democrat, who is involved in an unconstitutional conspiracy with Pelosi and Obama in order to plunge this great country into the depths of socialism. Reid could put on a white sheet and hood and get away with it. The message here is that the democratic leadership thinks nothing of voters. They are easily manipulated racist fools, and are only valuable for their tax dollars and votes. That is what is revealed by Reid's mouth. Again, I say, don't you dare call me a racist.

Kapact to Mister Obama: "You lie!"

This is, again, a present from Mister Obama, one that I hope any opponents he faces in 2012 will use (and word is, Mister O.(Oh)b.(boy)a.(another)m.(mistake)a.(a$#h&e) may be facing a primary challenge). Newt, I don't expect you to be reading this, but I have to hope you're thinking about it.

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

Well, it turns out this administration has as much respect for their own campaign promises as they do for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (that archaic bit about 'endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights', as opposed to 'endowed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi with certain rights that they decide you can handle', and some obscure reference to taxation without representation). The legislature has handed down its latest decree, indicating that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. This is just the kind of trickery and crooked shenanigans we've come to expect in a very short time from the Obama administration. This is a worse administration than the last one (not an easy thing), more ineffective and damaging internationally and domestically than the Carter Administration (seemingly impossible, but somehow true), and more corrupt than the Nixon administration.

So what does our legislature have to say about it? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Ms Pelosi, you won't read this, and you wouldn't care if you did, but you are also a liar. A corrupt liar, and I hope you lose your job very soon.

So why is it they're so worried about hiding this glass of legislative poison? On page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (in other words, to ration health care).

In effect, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection. We must simply pray that Republicans have the courage to take this illegal rag to the Supreme Court, and further pray that the Supreme Court has the integrity to strike it down.

Don't Tread on We The People

Now that the hubbub of the holidays is over, we need to get back to the real
honest-to-goodness crime and/or incompetence going on in our nation's
capitol. This health care bill that nobody has read, and that we can't pay
for, is not only a real step towards full-blown socialism that Hugo Chavez
admires, (yes, he admires it. He has said that, at the same time that he is
laughing at us for falling for it), it is also illegal. Unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives Congress the power to require that people purchase a good or service. Insurance is a state concern, and therefore doesn't come in under the laws regulating
interstate commerce, nor is it connected to the authority that Congress once exercised to regulate the speed limit. And our liberal congress members seem to think that they can grant themselves this power. They forget that their power does not come from themselves, or any bills that they propose. Their power comes from We The People. If you'd like to see an example of this shocking mix of ignorance and arrogance, consider that at least two (in fact, many more) Congressional leaders cannot or will not explain where in the Constitution they are given the power to require that people purchase insurance. I have here information from CNSNews.com, quoting, amongst other places, the Conservative Action Project. Here is the information, which really speaks for itself:
Aside from constitutional questions about Sen. Ben Nelson's deal with Democrats on behalf of Nebraskans, conservatives are eyeing the bill's individual mandate the requirement that every American citizen must
purchase health insurance. "Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any
penalty, civil or criminal, on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution," says The Conservative Action Project, a group of prominent conservative activists. "As such, [the bill] is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue." Supporters of the Democrats' health care bill have incorrectly contended that the individual mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Conservative Action Project said. But since the federal government has limited jurisdiction having only
enumerated powers, unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual mandate, the group said. The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, "because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance," The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity. "Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce," the conservative group said. Nor is the bill's individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. "It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause." And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is  not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The
Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories. As for the argument that the health care bill's individual mandate can be compared to laws requiring auto insurance an argument President Obama has made such arguments are invalid:
"Only state governments can require people to get car insurance," the Conservative Action Project said. "While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance."
Moreover, states require auto insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. "If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance."

'Where in the Constitution...?"
In recent months, CNSNews.com has asked various members of Congress where specifically the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate. Many had no idea. (CNSNews.com) Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do. Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress' authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I'm asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government's ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states. Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress' authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation. All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."

"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"

"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."

"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American." This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be "unprecedented," adding that the government had "never required" Americans to purchase anything. "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," CBO found."The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a
condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report. "An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Although Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch's amendment was out of order.
(CNSNews.com)

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami."Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force
Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?" CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office. "If it is the Speaker's belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?" Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the  Speaker's office entitled, "Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.'" The press release states
that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production." The release further states: "On the shared responsibility requirement in the
House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions."

That is the end of the piece I obtained from CNSNews.com. I didn't write this report myself, but I found it so honestly astounding and frankly terrifying that I felt it needed to be passed along.

While you can buy votes in Congress (something that once would have shocked even the worst of them), you can't buy them from We The People. This arrogance... this hubris demonstrated by what has got to be the most corrupt government this country has ever known, is not only an embarrasment, it's dangerous. Because while they are waving this smelly (and very expensive) bottle of snake oil under our tortured nose, our enemies are working, and very hard. It doesn't pull our president home from vacation (heck, it didn't
warrant a response for three days!), but it is war, and it is real. If you understand that the Cold War was in fact World War Three, then what we have now, that doesn't interrupt Mister Obama's golf game, is World War Four. Sorry to say (because I try to see the best in everybody), but Mister Obama would react quicker to losing his socialist takeover of the government than he did to someone trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day.

Who Does Your Shopping For You?

Imagine if the government decided that it was going to buy all of your
groceries for you. This is to make sure that everyone gets the amount of
food that government decides you need. It's to make sure that nobody does
without, regardless of their income. Such a noble, compassionate idea, and
only the cold-hearted rich could oppose such an idea.
But wait. In this program, just to make sure that everyone got groceries of
equal quality and freshness and nutritional value, the government will pick
out the fruit and vegetables, as well as the brand of cereal and milk, and
the size of the eggs. They'll even decide whether you get jumbo,
farm-raised, free range, etc. In short, as a part of that program, Uncle Sam
will make all of those decisions for you. And if anyone else tries to sell
you groceries, Uncle Sam will use the power of Congress to make sure that
those questionable grocers obey every regulation that can be squeezed into a
two thousand page document. You'll be able to use any grocer that you want,
but rest assured that your grocer won't sell anything that Uncle Sam doesn't
approve, or charge less for your groceries than Uncle Sam charges. If the
private grocer steps out of line, don't worry. Uncle Sam will take care of
them. Oh, and don't be foolish enough try to stay out Uncle Sam's grocery
plan. Because if you don't go with someone's plan, you could actually get
fined more than the price of a years' worth of groceries. Never mind that
Uncle Sam doesn't have the legal right (which by law MUST be specified in
the Constitution) to require you to subscribe to a grocery plan, they're
going to do it anyway.
This is obviously ridiculous. Nobody would allow the government (which
couldn't run a grocery store), to pick out their groceries for them, nor
would they want the government to put smaller, more efficient, less
expensive grocery stores out of business. I mean, when was the last time the
government ran a business better than the private sector?

The Executive Czar

I used to think that 'our friends on the left' just had a different idea of
how best to take our country into the future, and in fact, in the eighties,
I think they did. Oh, they were desperately wrong even then, but we all
lived in the same country, and we all believed that the bedrocks of our
country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were
important and inviolable. They meant something, and even though we disagreed
on how best to support and defend the Constitution, we all loved and
respected it. Those were the good old days.
Now we have an administration that treats the Constitution like an old
novel. Quaint, interesting. Certainly worthy of study, (Mister Obama did
study constitutional law), but not really practical. Not relevant. Maybe
they think it's due a reboot. Witness the plague of un-elected, un-confirmed
and un-answerable czars that Mister Obama has visited upon us. They are now
dictating how companies can compensate executives. While I understand that
since the government is in the business of bailing out (swallowing up, or
'Chavezing') private businesses, the case could be made for dictating how
they spend the investor's money. Except that the czar making the decision
was not elected by the taxpayers who actually supplied the money. Nor was he
confirmed by the senate. So we have a crony. A bit of an appointed cossack
who decides how much someone in a now state-run business can be compensated.
I suppose when you put it like that, well, it doesn't necessarily sound
better, but at least it sounds familiar. It almost makes sense. If you're in
the Kremlin, and your last name is Putin. Or Stalin.
But that's just the start. Next, Mister Obama is going to grant himself the
power to break up large companies that he deems are 'too powerful'. See,
that line about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed", well, that was okay for the Founding Fathers, (just like the
Second Ammendment might have meant something back then, but not now), but
hey, this is the 21st century. Fortunately, we seem to have a 'progressive'
executive czar who seems to derive his power from the just consent of...
himself.
Mister executive czar Obama may belong to the same esteemed club as Al Gore,
Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat, but the difference is that they are either
dead or irrelevant. Mister Obama still has a few years to warp the country
to his 'progressive' model.

Go Ask Harry!

Just a little note. The same 'man' who complained about sweaty tourists stinking up the capital (uh, Harry, you actually work for those people, by the way) was asked about Afghanistan, and angrily and dismissively told the reporter to "Ask Tiger Woods". Mister Reid, your attitude is elitist and ill-mannered, and inconsistent with the behavior of someone who wants to keep his job. But please, don't change on my account. I'm sure you'll do fine in whatever your next job is.

More Derailments on the Hope and Change Express

One of the moments I've been waiting for since Barack Hussein Obama was appointed... I mean, elected, (Well, not really. Ballots were never counted at the Democratic National Convention) has finally arrived, and he did not disappoint. With two wars on, there just had to come a point when the Commander in Chief would have to pretend that he represents the interests of the entire country. He would be forced to give the impression of being tough on the war front to satisfy anyone with a lick of common sense while properly serving the political bosses responsible for getting him appointed... er, elected. And he bobbled it like a master. But then I suppose that something like that is bound to happen when you make decisions beyond your pay grade without a teleprompter. I'm not talking about the 30,000 versus 40,000 debate. That is a decision, that while a mistake in my opinion, could be considered an honest difference in judgement. What I'm talking about is the month that he spent dithering about it, and then the naive, senseless and dangerous time table of 18 months, as well as the vow not to win, but rather to end the war. Tell me, Mister Obama, will we see you posing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign in your reelection campaign spots? Or is that timing just a coincidence? Nobody, not even his liberal overseers are willing to publicly endorse the foolish notion of an arbritary time table. Chris Matthews... yes, Chris Matthews even questioned it. Chris Matthews, who seems to get a shiver down his leg everytime Obama enters the conversation. It's almost like someone having the sense and courage to walk out on a deranged, racist preacher rather than sit listening obediantly for twenty years, until election time comes up. This was the moment I knew had to get here, and while I am pleased to see Mister Obama show his incompetence, I fear for us. He has four years to do incalculable damage to the country and the world, and Ronald Reagan is, sadly, no longer available to rescue us.

I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear or affirm to fundamentally change the United States of America

"I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Just so we have that straight. That's an oath, not above his pay grade, that he took. In public. Well, once in public, and once, correctly, in private. But it is a legally binding oath. So some might start to privately wonder just what he meant when he announced his intention to fundamentally change the United States of America. Preserve. Protect. Defend. Fundamentally change. It would pay to be wary of someone who can say both with a straight face. But it goes deeper than that. If he signs a piece of legislation entitling Congress to do something for which it has no constitutional authority, can he really say that he has preserved, protected and defended the constitution? And if he knowingly takes an action (by signing that legislation) that violates that oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, could the case be made that he commited perjury, thereby opening himself up for impeachment?

Just saying....

Recession Depression Beaters

I wrote something quite a while ago about recession depression beaters.
Making up simple, free games at home. Like making a basketball hoop out of a
metal clothes hanger. Well, with my wife's help, I've created a card for us
to play. Pretty simple rules, mainly resulting in having to practice basic
math skills, preferably in your head. And again, it's simple and free.

If anyone reading this is curious, I'd be happy to pass on details. But I'd
also like to invite you to post, through the 'comment' feature, your own
recession depression beaters.

Highway Robbery

I was in the grocery store the other day when I saw a lady (and I use the
term loosely) looking at a package of hotdogs that was like $1.49 or
something like that. Now take note that this lady shows up to buy things
only in the first week of the month, using her "EBT" food stamp card. She
saw the price, tossed it back in the wrong place, and said, derisively,
"Highway robbery." And I'm thinking, "No, highway robbery is what you live
on from the first of the month... to the first of the month." I didn't say
it, because I would suddenly be a racist (to finish painting the picture),
and probably get shot and/or arrested. The same person who on the first of
the month buys only T-bone steaks and soda and potato chips, and by the last
of the month is shoplifting. All the while tapping away on her i-phone.
Lady, buy some ground beef and canned vegetables, and kool aid. Sell your
i-phone. And if you think grocery prices are too high, stop stealing
groceries. Stop taking perishable items from their section and dropping them
somewhere else. Every time the store loses a product that they paid for
because of your thoughtlessness, they lose money. When they lose too much
money they're forced to raise prices. And then someone either steals it or
destroys it. What you and people like you are doing is highway robbery.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Not Your Typical Conservative Christian Opinion on Gay Marriage

I live in a state where civil unions have recently been legalized, and it's
turned my thoughts toward the subject of gay marriage. I have gay friends
who live in other countries, married and committed and very happy. For a
time, I had an internal debate, or maybe just a denial. I am a conservative,
as is obvious from my other rants. I have, for as long as the question
existed, sided against gay marriage. Not because I didn't want gays to have
the same rights, but because I honestly felt that marriage, as an
institution, was defined as being between a man and a woman. I thought it
was sort of like a man wanting to use the ladies room. Why not use your own?
I thought that civil unions should be the gay marriage. I didn't really get
that I was doing a 'separate but equal' thing. So what changed my mind?
Strangely enough, getting to know God changed my mind. And it's not that I
used to think it was bad and now I think it's good. I've never thought it
was bad, just unnecessary. But it isn't about necessary or unnecessary. It's
about allowing a group of people to do something (that really threatens
nobody) that makes them feel happy and fulfilled in their life. I mean, the
declaration of independence talks about all people being endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst them the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit if happiness. It doesn't specify heterosexual
people, nor does it, for that matter, require that those people believe that
their creator exists. If someone has a right, endowed by another, then who
are we to regulate or refuse that right? The argument that is routinely
raised against it from a biblical sense is that it is a sin. Well, last time
I checked, it was God's business to pass judgement on sinners. Now, I
haven't read the whole Bible, so maybe I don't know all I need to know. But
I do know that God didn't put me here to whack people with lightning bolts.
If He feels the need to, He will. I have enough to worry about with my own
scorecard. I'm not trying to make light of this, honestly. I just don't
think God needs me to point out everything to Him. And whether or not my
neighbor might be doing something that annoys God, well, that's between my
neighbor and God. I do know that my gay friend loves her wife, and I just
don't see that being a bad thing.
The other argument is that somehow gay marriage is going to destroy the
fabric of the country. Tell me please, how two people being married and
having a family is going to destroy the country. They won't stop straight
people from doing the same, they won't stop kids from dreaming, or
fullfilling those dreams. They might like different things, they may do
things that you find distasteful, but as long as they work and live honestly
and don't invade people's privacy, then they do no more harm to the country
than anyone else. It is popular these days among conservatives to look to
the Founding Fathers for inspiration. Well, the Founding Fathers were
concerned with throwing off oppressive governments and letting people pursue
their happiness without a despot deciding who was entitled to those God
given rights. So maybe they would have agreed with me.

Words From The Gipper

Quoted from The Patriot Post Monday Brief

September 14, 2009
Vol. 09 No. 37

"We warned of things to come, of the danger inherent in unwarranted government involvement in things not its proper province. What we warned against has come to pass. And today more than two-thirds of our citizens are telling us, and each other, that social engineering by the federal government has failed. The Great Society is great only in power, in size and in cost. And so are the problems it set out to solve. Freedom has been diminished and we stand on the brink of economic ruin. Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let's act and talk like it. The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when? Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people." --Ronald Reagan

 

 

House Abukoff: Services, Affordable Books and Curios, and Opinions http://houseabukoff.blogspot.com
The Place for Affordable Books (hard to find and others), DVD's, and General Treasures http://abukoffbooksandcurios.blogspot.com
The Internet's Only Reliable Blog http://kapactsrant.blogspot.com
Not Just a Game, It's a Star Trek Experience http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com