Monthly Archives: June 2008

A Deal You Can’t Refuse

Us po’ folk are suckers for a good deal. That’s probably why there are so many of us. Come to think of it, that’s probably why we are po’ in the first place. Take those good deals the banks were offering us a few years ago. Buy a house, just like the rich folks, with no money down and only 360 payments. Why, that outfit called CountryWide even allowed us to live in our new house for five years before we started paying interest. Boy, you can’t find a better deal than that.

That nice fella who sold us the house and set us up with the mortgage people told us the reason they could make us such a good deal was because of what he called his arm. Didn’t make a lot of sense to me, but he explained that that meant our house payment might go up or down a few dollars a month sometimes; not often, just now and then when the big bank in Washington D.C. changed their interest rates.

Well, it seemed no sooner than it was time for us to start making payments that the big bank started changing their rates and before we knew it our payments were twice what we though they would be. Now, I don’t make a lot of money, what with all the taxes and things I have to pay. Pretty soon my house payments was almost as big as my paycheck. We cut down on just about everything and was barely scraping by waiting for the house payments to go back down like the fella said.

Then I began to notice that when I went to the filling station for gas, instead of twenty dollars to fill up my tank, it was costing me thirty, and then thirty-five and then forty. I asked Billy—he’s the fella that runs the filling station—what was going on. He said them A’rabs and the big oil companies just kept raising the prices and there weren’t nothing he could do about it. Well, I thought, I’ll just have to cut down on my trips over to aint Sally’s house. Never did like her much anyhow.

That weren’t all, I noticed that when I went to the grocery store the prices there were going up just about as fast as they were at the filling station. We’ll just have to start eating more dumplings and less chicken I reckon. But, I had to admit, there’s something funny going on. I decided to have a talk with my neighbor. He’s pretty smart and all, went to one of them big city colleges up north. Besides he’s a dimacrat, and they know just about everything.

Sure enough, he knowed just what was going on. It was all because of George Bush and his buddies in the oil business. Them rich republicans was going right along with Bush because they was making all kinds of money off the high prices. I shouldn’t worry though, cause come the next election Barack Obama—funny name—was going to be President and he would fix everything. Said he had talked to his Congressman and everything was going to be all right, just be sure to vote dimacratic when I voted. I thought it best not to mention that I had voted for Bush in the last election.

I felt a little better, but I still had a nagging feeling that something just weren’t right. His Congressman and mine were the same, so I figured I ought to talk to him myself, then I would understand for sure. It turned out he was is in town the next week and my neighbor arranged for me to talk with him. He turned out to be a right nice fella, shook my hand, slapped me on the back and invited me right into his office. He explained to me just why everything costs so much now. I didn’t understand a lot of what he said but I recollect pretty well how he explained it.

It seems it all started back when them judges appointed Bush President in 2000. His brother was Governor of Florida, you know, where they had all that trouble with Republicans stealing votes. It wasn’t long after Bush became President when them A’rabs flew those airplanes into them buildings in New York and killed a bunch of people. Well, that gave the President all the excuse he needed. He sent the army over there to Afghanistan where the A’rabs came from and wiped out the Taliban, cept’n they didn’t really come from there, they was all Arabians.

He couldn’t do nothing about that though, because them Arabians was friends of his daddy and his granddaddy and his family had made a lot of money dealing with them in the past. Besides it was really Sadaam Hussein George was mad at, cause they had tried to kill his daddy when he was President. So he sent the army over to Irack and took over that country too. Irack had a lot of oil and he figured that while he was at it, he could help his friends in the oil business make a lot of money by selling that oil.

I asked the Congressman why Congress didn’t stop him. He explained that George Bush lied to Congress and told them Hussein was really the one who sent the planes to New York and the American people wanted to get even with him. Bush not only fooled Congress but he fooled Britain, Canada, Australia, and just about the whole world as well. That Bush must be a pretty slick son-of-a-gun.

I didn’t understand what that had to do with the price of gas, though. Then he explained to me that the A’rabs was mad at Bush because he took over Irack and killed Sadaam. So, they cut back on the oil supply and raised the price. That was what caused the price of gas and everything else to go up. We could fix everything though, if we would just all vote for dimacrats in November.

He said when the dimacrats took over Washington they was going to “take care” of the oil companies. They was going to make them sell their gas for less by taking away their profits and raising their taxes. While they was at it they was going to take back all the money Bush gave to the rich folks by cutting their taxes. All that extra money they got from the rich folks and the oil companies they were going to use to help out us regular folks. He pointed out the dimacrats had already forced Bush to send us a check to cover the increase in our house payments and gas prices. That wasn’t really the way it worked out, but I got his point.

He said the first thing they was going to do was pay off my old mortgage and get me a new one with a 30% less monthly payment and at a fixed low interest rate guaranteed by the government. And if they couldn’t make the oil companies lower their prices by taking away their profits they just might take over the companies and run them themselves, like that fella Hugo down in South America did. Gas is real cheap there. While they was at it they was going to pay my doctor bills and buy me whatever medicines I needed. He said Obama was even going to help my kids get a college education by paying them up to $40 an hour working around town picking up litter, painting fences and the like. All I had to do was vote dimacratic. What a deal!

After I left I got to thinking, that congressman sure sounded a lot like the fella that sold me my house. As long as I was in town, I thought, I might as well stop by and talk to my cousin Alf. Alf was a little strange sometimes but he kept up with all that politics stuff and probably knew as much as that Congress fella. Well as it turned out, Alf knew a lot more than that congressman, or at least more than the congressman told me.

According to Alf, one of the big reasons gas prices are so high is because there is not enough for all the people around the world that need it. We could have a lot more ’cept a lot of weird people called environmentalist don’t want us to use gas to run our cars. They want us to use something called “biofuels” or electricity. These environmentalists persuaded Congress that if we kept using gas in our cars we was going to cause the north pole to melt and all those polar bears would fall into the ocean and drown. It’s a little hard for me to understand how my driving over to see aint Sally is going to drown a polar bear, but that’s what they believe.

Anyway, because of drowning polar bears, Congress won’t let the Oil Companies drill any more holes in the ground looking for oil. We can’t drill in the oceans either, because we might spill some and mess up the fish. There’s a place up in Alaska that has lots of oil, but we can’t drill there cause that might disturb Santa Clause’s reindeer. As to what the congressman said about all the profits made by oil companies, it turns out that the profit margins of oil companies are far less than other big companies, and the government takes almost half of the profits oil companies do make in taxes. It seems the real profits from the sale of gas goes to the government already.

I was beginning to feel discouraged, but then I though at least my house payments would be less. Alf, just shook his head. He said there was a bill going through Congress now called “FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008” being pushed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that might help. The bill was really written by Bank of America lobbyists to help them cover the losses by CountryWide who Bank of America had just agreed to buy. It might help some homeowners, but in the long run the people who would profit the most was the ones who lent the money to the homebuyers in the first place.

Not only that, but if I let the government take over my mortgage and if the value of my house went up over the next few years I would have to share some of the profits with the government. Furthermore, my kids was going to need a good college education so they could earn the money to pay back all the debt Congress’ plan would create. As Alf talked I began to think maybe the deal being offered wasn’t so great after all. As my daddy always told me, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

Our guest writer today is Zedediah “Zed” Crabtree from over by Turkey Neck Junction.
You can contact Zed at

Justice Anthony Kennedy: The Most Powerful Man in America

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its decision on the Constitutionality of the District of Columbia gun control ordinance. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court’s so called “swing vote” sided with Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito in declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and upholding the right of individuals to own and carry handguns.

It should be profoundly disturbing to every American to realize that any and every right protected by the Constitution may be abridged or even removed entirely by the vote of one individual. For more than a decade, the Supreme Court has been evenly divided between four constitution conservatives and four socialists with the ninth and deciding vote in the hands of a moderate who might go either way, depending on the issues involved. Since the retirement of Justice O’Connor, that role has been taken over by Justice Kennedy making him the “most powerful man in America.”

In virtually every instance when the issue before the Court has involved social policy the decision of the Court has been a five to four split. In modern times, the ruling has too often been on the side of socialism. Luckily, in this case the decision was in favor of the Constitution making Kennedy, not only the most powerful man in America but for a while at least, the most unpopular among those who have been working for years to undermine and weaken the Constitution.

Gun control has been an effective tool of the left in helping to destabilize the social fabric of America, just as environmentalism has become an effective tool for destabilizing its economic structure.

The majority opinion of the Court, written by Justice Scalia reaffirms the right to carry weapons for self-defense and identifies it as natural right predating the Constitution.

“…It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,…’” he wrote, adding, “…“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

The Court’s ruling seems to affect mostly the right to keep weapons in the home for self-defense and leaves open many questions concerning states and municipalities’ powers to regulate the carrying of weapons outside the home. It also directly addresses the popular requirements by many jurisdictions for keeping guns in the home unloaded, disassembled, or secured by a trigger lock or gun safe. These devices were ruled unconstitutional because they render the weapon ineffective for the primary purpose for which it was intended, self-defense and home protection.

Justice Scalia devoted a lot of space in the opinion demolishing the number one argument of the left by effectively demonstrating the absurdity of connecting participation in a militia with the right to “keep and bear arms”. He also indirectly took on the concept of a “living constitution“, another mainstay of the left. “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” He wrote.

As would be expected, political leaders from many of the crime-ridden big cities and other socialist enclaves around the country expressed strong disagreement with the opinion of the Court. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has vowed to fight all efforts to water down Chicago’s draconian gun laws. In a statement to the press, Daley connected the Court’s decision to the three pillars of socialist rhetoric, children, taxes and health.

“We’re shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns. … The only thing it’s gonna do is increase your taxes. More police. More hospitalization. More victims of violence.” Daley said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal):

“I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”

Uh, Senator Feinstein, the Constitution is the ultimate precedent for all American law. Later court rulings that contradicts or attempts to change the Constitution are themselves unlawful and should be reversed. No court is vested with the power to overrule the Constitution.

Others looked forward to the loopholes they perceived in the Court’s limited decision. Senator Obama issued a statement saying,

“While it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling … will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”

The dissenting Justices, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens based their dissent on three standard socialist arguments; the right to bear arms apply only to active members of a militia while serving in that capacity, acts by legislatures trump the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the courts to keep the Constitution updated in keeping with the changing needs of society.

In writing for the minority, Justice Stevens wrote:

“ The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”

Yes and No. Yes, the Framers did choose to limit the “tools” available to elected officials wishing to take away rights of the people. No, the Framers did not authorize the Supreme Court or any other court to engage in “judicial lawmaking”. “lawmaking” is the sole purview of the legislatures.

This decision by the Supremes goes a long way in reestablishing one of the fundamental rights of all Americans. However, there is still a long way to go. It is more obvious than ever how important it is to elect Presidents and Congresses that will respect, and defend the requirements of the Constitution.

More by e-Patriot

The Fairness Doctrine: I’m Ba-a-a-ck!

Lessons From McCain-Feingold

Sharpton Targets Don Imus — Again

The First Amendment is a tough one to get around, Nevertheless, liberals, socialist, Democrats and other enemies of the Constitution keep trying. Assaults on the First Amendment are nothing new. The first one of any consequence was the “Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798“.

The Sedition Act was one of four laws passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams, designed to outlaw any criticism of the government. Adams, a staunch Federalist, was the successor to George Washington. By today’s standards he would be considered a “big government liberal”.

The Sedition Act became a major issue in the 1800 election campaign and is considered to be the main factor in Adams defeat by Thomas Jefferson. It also contributed to the ultimate demise of the Federalist Party in the 1820s. Set to expire in 1801, the act was not renewed, and Jefferson issued pardons to anyone convicted of violating the Sedition Act when he took office in 1801.

Other efforts to curtail the protections of the First Amendments took place over the next century and a half; a few during the Civil War era were partially successful but short lived. It was not until the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt that lasting opposition to free speech gained a foothold. The Communications Act of 1937, designed to insure equal broadcast time for political candidates on the new broadcast medium of radio became the starting point for a number of restrictions on free speech over the airwaves.

The federal bureaucracy given the oversight of the emerging broadcast industry was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). During the forties the FCC used its rulemaking powers to expand its influence and by 1949 had established what came to be known as the “fairness doctrine” which was a type of affirmative action program for unpopular points of view. Whenever a broadcaster aired programming expressing a controversial viewpoint, they were required by the FCC to actively seek out spokespersons for the opposite point of view and give them equal time. They were also required to file reports documenting their efforts with the FCC each year or risk losing their license to broadcast. The result was that most programming directors simply made it a point not to air broadcasts discussing controversial social and political issues in order to avoid hassles with the FCC.

During the administration of Ronald Reagan the FCC stopped enforcing the fairness doctrine after the Supreme Court ruled in “Meredith Corp. v. FCC” (1987) that the doctrine had not been mandated by Congress but was simply an FCC rule. Congress attempted to reestablish the doctrine by passing a law that was promptly vetoed by President Reagan. After Reagan left office they attempted again, this time the law was vetoed by President Bush.

Unable to get the fairness doctrine established by law, the left began to concentrate their efforts on promoting the doctrine of “political correctness” which had been gaining in popularity for a number of years. Political correctness has the advantage of not requiring Congressional action since it relies on social and economic pressures brought to bear by public opinion guided by social activists.

Political correctness was a tool developed by the Communist government of China during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) led by Mao Zedong, popularly known as “Chairman Mao”. Mao established the Red Guard and issued millions of copies of his “Little Red Book” containing the “sayings of Chairman Mao” which was considered the final authority on acceptable political thought in China. For a long period of time anyone caught without a copy of the Little Red Book in their possession were routinely beaten by the Red Guard and subject to arrest and imprisonment as enemies of the state.

Political Correctness was so effective in molding public opinion in China that it began to be adopted by the left in America during the mid-seventies. By the time the fairness doctrine fell into disuse in the late eighties, political correctness had become the number one tool of the left for censoring political and social thought and expression. Political correctness, like the fairness doctrine is used almost entirely to suppress the expression of conservative thought.

The campaign of Barack Obama and the current plight of Don Imus are both prime examples of how political correctness works. In Obama’s case any criticism of his proposed policies are labeled as “racist” by the left. Charges of “racism”, “homophobia” and “sexism” have proven to be the most effective means used by the left to stifle conservative opposition to the takeover of the American culture by the liberal/socialist/progressive movement.

One of the things that make political correctness such a potent weapon of the left is the unwitting validation given to the technique by conservative commentators. The case of Don Imus is a good case in point. During his early morning radio show Monday morning Imus became engaged in a conversation with another member of his show’s cast concerning Adam “Pacman” Jones, an NFL player who had been suspended by the league in 2007 because of his link to a shooting incident in Las Vegas.

It was pointed out that Jones had been arrested six times during his three years with the Tennessee Titans. Imus asked what color he was, and when told he was an African-American, Imus responded, “Well, there you go, now we know”, a remark that Imus says was a sarcastic comment concerning alleged police harassment of young black men.

Immediately, Imus was accused of being “insensitive”, “racist”, and of promoting a stereotypical view of young black men. Al Sharpton, whose National Action Network had been monitoring Imus’ shows issued a statement saying, “We will determine in the next day or so whether or not his remark warrants direct action on our part.”

In a similar incident last year, Sharpton was instrumental in getting Imus fired from his previous radio show. It is not clear at this point, what actions Sharpton will attempt to take in this matter. It is certain however, that he will use it to generate maximum publicity for himself and further strengthen the power of the political correctness faction.

Radio talk show host Michael Medved, a liberal turned conservative, turned moderate, spent a major portion of his Tuesday show discussing the incident and called on Imus to apologize for the remark. When quasi-conservative commentators like Medved and O’Reilly attempt to showcase their “sensitivity” by giving credence to the political correctness crowd they do a disservice to freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

Neither Obama nor McCain are particular fans of free speech and after the next election we can expect there will be a major attempt to revive the fairness doctrine in order to silence conservative talk radio. More than likely, there will also be an attempt to bring the Internet under tighter controls.

Home Page

More from e-Patriot

The Fairness Doctrine: “I’m B-a-a-a-ck”

Lessons from McCain Feingold

Democrats Dig In To Keep From Increasing Energy Supply

Congress Wants To Know What You Bought From E-Bay

It seems congress is only interested in the right to privacy when they believe they can make it appear the Bush administration is violating that right. The right to privacy is great when it allows a woman to kill her baby, and it’s great when it allows America’s enemies to plot their next terrorist act in secret. But when it comes to the privacy rights of the average American citizen? We-e-l-l-l, that’s a little different.

After all, there are some things the government simply must know about its citizens in order to make sure it is getting its share of the fruits of American labor. And then, how is Congress going to know whether or not businesses are taking advantage of their customers by charging too much and actually profiting from the sale of their product or service? There’s always the chance too, that unscrupulous marketers are going to sell us something that we really don’t need or that might even be bad for us.

Yes, watching over the American public to prevent us from facing the consequences of the boneheaded decisions we make is a thankless job, but someone has to do it. Who, better than our faithful servants in Washington?

Look at all the people who purchased homes with mortgages requiring monthly payments practically guaranteed to increase until they reached an unmanageable level. When someone gets into financial trouble, it seems natural they would turn to a rich uncle to help them out, doesn‘t it? And who is richer than Uncle Sam? And, if Uncle Sam is going to provide money to help someone smooth over bad decisions, isn’t it only fair that he should be allowed to look into their affairs so that they do not keep repeating the same mistakes?

At least, that’s how Congress looks at it. Tucked away in the Senate’s 630-page mortgage bailout package presently wending its way through Congress, is a little item everyone should find interesting. Included in the bill, is a last minute addition called: “Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting”.

According to the official Senate summary of the bill, “the proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee“.

For plain folk like you and me, perhaps some clarification might be in order. What the heck is a “payment card“? What is a “payment settlement entity”? What’s a “third party settlement organization”? “Payment card” is Washington jargon for what you and I refer to as “credit cards”. Payment settlement entities, organizations and facilitators are card issuing banks and companies like Visa, Master Card, Discover Card and PayPal.

According to Adam Brandon at Freedom Works, the bill is targeted primarily at e-Bay, Amazon and other e-merchants, but also takes in other businesses accepting Master Card, Visa, etc. It’s a little unclear exactly what Congress intends to do with the information it gathers, but it’s certain that one of its outcomes will be a tighter control over the economy and a further decline in our liberties. Once again, we have a concrete example of Congress’ ignorance of and/or antipathy toward our Constitution.

The anti-federalists of 1787-91 forced the first Congress to add the Bill of Rights as an addendum to the Constitution. Amendment No. 4 provides that,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized“.

You do not have to be a Harvard Law graduate to understand that “papers” would include documents and papers pertaining to our business transactions whether written on papyrus, paper, animal hides, tree bark or the Ethernet/Internet. Such records are private and can only be legally obtained by government with a warrant. Things are really out of “whack” when the Democrats want trial lawyers to be able to sue communication networks for providing the government with possible information concerning terrorist’s communications following the 9/11 attacks, but sees nothing wrong with requiring Banks and Credit Card companies to report the book purchases we make on Amazon.Com.

It’s time to follow Freedom Works advice and “Call Congress and tell them to oppose the eBay reporting provision in the Housing Bill: 1-866-928-3035”.

Home Page

Thank God For $4 Gas

It’s difficult to get the attention of the American people. Most work hard to improve the lives of their families, and provide an education for their children. Often there is barely enough time to keep up with the fortunes of their favorite sports team or who got voted off American Idol. For the most part, they feel they have done their patriotic duty when they go to the polls every two or four years. Never mind that a high percentage of them have no idea how the candidates they vote for stand on any of the issues.

While the American public was not paying attention, the socialist movement has been slowly chipping away at our Constitution and moving us ever closer to the Democratic Socialist model of government. It has been said that at election time voters always vote their pocketbook, regardless of what is best for the country. This year the two are the same. Fortunately, the price of gasoline has finally gotten the attention, of the voters, and their interest is renewed every time they fill up their tank.

The goal of the socialist movement has always been to gain control of our economy and use it to promote their version of “social justice”. Their method for attaining this goal has been the redistribution of wealth through taxation and increasing their control over the economy through regulation. Few Americans are fully aware of the inroads the socialists have made in our government over the past seventy years.

They have gained control of our education system from kindergarten through university, the mass media, the courts, the federal bureaucracy and the Democratic Party. They have set up a fifth column dedicated to undermining our entire system of republican government guaranteed under the Constitution. At the same time, they have set up a shadow government within the bureaucracies that make the occupant of the White House almost inconsequential. Their most valuable asset in the conquest of America has been the Democratic Party which is controlled almost completely by socialists.

Energy is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy. The liberal/socialist wing of the Democratic Party has been pushing for years for high-energy prices, supposedly in the interest of preserving a dwindling natural resource. Over the past fifty years they have lamented the fact that gasoline was cheaper here than in Europe, periodically suggesting an increase in the gas tax as a means of making it more expensive, long before “global warming “ and greenhouse gases ever came into vogue.

They always met with limited success until they hit upon the myth of anthropogenic global warming pushed by radical environmentalists. Over the years they managed to convince the American people that a “pristine” environment—whatever that is—and the welfare of the spotted owl and the caribou is more important than the welfare of us lowly humans. still, it was only when they began using the variations of nature as a tool for social control that they really began to make headway. In the seventies, they warned us of a coming ice age that would destroy crops and lead to widespread famine. Today it’s global warming that will destroy crops and lead to widespread famine.

By the skillful use of the threat of a coming catastrophe they have managed to gain the passive cooperation of the American people. By manipulating the government, they have succeeded in blocking every prospect of increasing the supply of energy for almost half a century. They have successfully blocked the building of oil refineries, nuclear power plants, curtailed the use of coal, and all but stopped the exploration and drilling for new sources of oil. Perhaps the current spike of gasoline prices could not have come at a better time for the welfare of America.

No set of circumstance could be better for showcasing the differences between the competing theories of government than the debate that will take place over the next few months concerning the rise in the cost of living caused by energy prices. Both the cause and the cure are so obvious it will be difficult for the liberal/socialist/democrats to disguise their objectives. It’s not rocket science. The more energy that’s available the lower the price. We have more than enough known energy sources for the next hundred years but the Democrats refuse to allow for its development and use. Instead, they have hinted they will use the current crisis as an excuse to nationalize our energy supplies.

As preposterous as that might sound, a number of Democrats have broached the subject in recent weeks, beginning with Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) threatening an oil company CEO in a congressional hearing a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, a congressman from New York suggested nationalizing our oil refineries. The very though of nationalizing our energy supply makes socialist hearts beat a little faster. If they can control energy, they will control the economy and finally realize a goal they have pursued for the past hundred years.

The coming debate will test the power of the left and the gullibility of the American people. There are only two options, get government out of the way and allow the free market to operate or permit the government to take control of our economy and use it for their own nefarious purposes. Liberty or tyranny? It’s our choice.

Home Page

Barack Obama: "As President I Will Obey the Constitution"

References to the Constitution are becoming more frequent in the campaign rhetoric of both parties as the presidential race heats up after the primaries. Most of the time they would be better served if they did not bring it up. Invariably the candidates or their surrogates, in talking about “restoring the Constitution,” proceeds to list a litany of complaints about the current administration and promises to make changes that causes anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution to wonder it they have ever bothered to read it.

Back in February, in a speech responding to Senator Chris Dodd’s withdrawing from the Presidential race and endorsing him, Obama said,

“….let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.”

In opposing the nomination of Justice Roberts in February of ‘07 Obama gave us a glimpse of just how much he really understands the Constitution and to what extent we can expect him to obey it if he becomes President.

“In those circumstances,” he theorized, “your [Roberts‘] decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce … in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

Obama served over ten years on the faculty of the University of Chicago as a lecturer on constitutional law. In considering his views on the Constitution one cannot help but shudder at the thought of how many young lawyers he has infected with his unorthodox understanding of the Constitution. It’s even scarier to consider that a number of these lawyers will no doubt end up in politics.

Like most liberals, socialists, and others who are unhappy with America as it is and want to change it from a constitutional republic into a democratic socialist government patterned after their model governments in Western Europe, Obama believes the Constitution is a “living document.”

The theory of a living constitution is taught throughout our education system, particularly at the college and university level, often by otherwise intelligent teachers. The term “living constitution” is the perfect example of the word “oxymoron.” The purpose of a constitution is to “set in stone” the enduring principles and lasting rules by which a people are to be governed. One that can be changed based on the popular political notions at the time, or at the whim of a president, legislature or court is useless as a constitution.

The founding fathers realized the Constitution they established would not be adequate for some future circumstances that were at the time unforeseeable. To prepare for this eventuality they included Article V, which stipulates the procedures and requirements for amending it to meet the needs of future generations. Obviously, if the Constitution could be changed at will to meet the perceived political or social needs of future generations there would be no need for an Article V.

The three issues mentioned by Obama in the above quote, affirmative action, abortion and government regulation of intrastate commerce as well as interstate commerce are all extra-constitutional or anti-constitutional. Affirmative action is anti-constitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by favoring one group of citizens over another. It really does not matter whether the outcome is desirable or not.

The “privacy right” discovered by the Supreme Court to legalize abortion is an extension of the Fourth Amendment which provides for the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” and the Fifth Amendment protecting persons from being forced to reveal personal information about themselves and their actions in criminal cases.

Extending the “interstate commerce” clause in Section Eight of Article One to “intrastate commerce” allows Congress to impose its will into every nook and cranny of even the most remote segments of our economy. This bastardization of our Constitution, combined with punitive taxation such as that proposed by Obama and others on the oil companies and the enticement of “tax breaks” and subsidies in other instances places our economy under the control of government to a degree that is only slightly short of complete nationalization.

All three of these examples are the result of the Supreme Court exceeding the powers given to it by the Constitution and usurping those granted to the Congress. When Congress uses these illegitimate decisions by the courts as a cover for their own unconstitutional quest for power over the lives of citizens we have a double threat to our liberties. The greatest fear of the liberal/socialist/democrats in America is that a congress or president will be elected who will demand that both Congress and the courts adhere to the original intent and purpose of the Constitution.

Neither Obama nor McCain meets that standard.

Home Page

California Gay Marriages a Constitutional Dilemma

At 5:01 P.M. on Monday, the state of California began issuing marriage licenses to gays. The California Supreme Court last month overruled an earlier decision by the California Court of Appeals and a California law to, in effect; write new law extending the “right” of marriage to same-sex couples. In doing so, the laws nationwide concerning marriage were thrown into turmoil.

Prior to the California ruling, only one other state recognized marriage between same-sex couples. Massachusetts handed down a similar ruling some time ago for residents of that state. The difference between the two states is that Massachusetts only extended the “right” to residents of Massachusetts, while California’s court allows marriages between gay couples from other states as well.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. A further provision of the bill protected states not recognizing same-sex marriage from being forced to do so. In addition to the federal DOMA, forty other states have similar laws restricting marriage to one-man one woman.

In the California ruling, the court overturned more than six thousand years of recorded history as well as the will of the majority of the people in California. It also set the stage for a protracted legal battle that will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. If recent Supreme Court actions are any indication, there is a good chance the Supremes will uphold the California Court which could make same-sex marriages the law of the land.

In fact, short of a preemptive amendment to the Constitution it is difficult to see how the Supreme Court could rule otherwise. The Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage. Since the definition of marriage is not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution, that power is automatically “reserved to the states and to the people” by the Tenth Amendment.

Normally if the California Legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage, then gay marriages would be legal in California, and they would not be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. California seldom does anything normally, however. In California, there is the “ballot initiative” which allows the majority of the people to make law and even amend the state constitution by voting for ballot initiatives concerning any issue.

In this case, the Legislature did pass a law authorizing same-sex marriage, but it was vetoed by the Governor. The voters of California subsequently passed a ballot initiative outlawing same-sex marriages. This is the action overturned by the California Supreme Court. Another initiative is planned for November which would change the California Constitution making such marriages illegal. Meanwhile thousands of gay couples from all over the country are expected to flock to California to get married. Many will return to their home states and demand recognition for their marriage status. That is what creates the problem for the rest of us.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

Section 2 says:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Civil marriage is a privilege, not a right. Nations and states recognized long ago the importance of stable families in the rearing and training of future citizens. They also recognized that the best arrangement for families in rearing children was a father and a mother legally bound together in marriage. To help promote a stable family unit, governments instituted civil marriage and afforded special privileges to its participants.

A civil marriage becomes official when a duly authorized license or document is returned to the proper government official—usually a county clerk—properly signed and witnessed by a bride and groom and a person authorized to perform marriages. There are no prescribed ceremonies or rituals that have to be performed in order for the marriage to be valid. As soon as a certificate of marriage is filed with the proper government authority, the Civil marriage becomes official.

The only way to protect the sanctity of marriage and the traditional family unit is to amend the Constitution identifying civil marriage as between a man and a woman. The longer an attempted amendment is delayed the more difficult it will become to get it passed and ratified by the required number of states. We can expect little if any support from our presidential candidates.

A statement issued by the Obama campaign says, “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

SEN. John McCain has said he is committed to “the unique status and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman”, yet he voted against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution which defines marriage only as the union of a man and a woman. He also supports individual states’ rights to regulate and determine the status of marriage within those states.

Unless the American people demand overwhelmingly a marriage amendment, it is not likely to happen. If same-sex marriages are placed on the same level as heterosexual marriages nationwide it could have a devastating effect on our culture and further jeopardize the future of America, as we know it.

Home Page

Can We Afford McCain OR Obama?

On July 4, 1776, fifty-six men pledged their “lives, liberty and sacred honor” to secure the blessings of liberty for you and me. Since then millions of men and women have faced the horrors of war on every continent of the world to preserve those liberties. Over one-and-a-half million have given their lives in the process. How many of these hard-earned rights are we willing to surrender in the aftermath of the November elections? That is the question American voters will be forced to answer in the coming election.

The fact that many of the liberties which we have left will be lost during the next administration, regardless of how we vote, is self-evident. Under a McCain administration major segments of our economy will be socialized, if he is successful in getting his agenda implemented. Energy, automobile manufacturing, and much of our financial system has been targeted by McCain to be brought under government bureaucratic control.

Obama promises to go even further. In addition to tightening government control over the economy, his agenda would extend into health care and national defense as well. The constitutional ability of the President, as Commander In Chief, to direct the military in time of war would be curtailed and large segments given over to the confused and contradictory policies of Congress and the courts.

In addition to the wholesale decimation of our Constitution promised by both McCain and Obama, the election of Obama could easily result in changing our form of government from a constitutional republic to an oligarchy ruled by a liberal/socialist majority in the Supreme Court. All that is needed is the addition of one more liberal/socialist Justice and the transformation becomes complete.

At the present time the court is made up of nine Justices, four of which do not hesitate to usurp the constitutional powers of the administrative and legislative branches of government and engage in the practice of “legislating from the bench”, making laws in keeping with their own political agenda. Another four Justices make a valiant effort to support and defend the Constitution, as their oath of office demands. However, they are often overruled by the ninth, who vacillates back and forth between the two sides. The appointment of one more Justice of the former type would tip the balance and make the Supreme Court the supreme arbitrator of government policies, many of which would originate from the court itself.

Few Americans understand the proper role of the Supreme Court or the extent of its powers as defined by the Constitution. This is evident by the public reaction to the most recent outrage by the Supreme Court last week in its ruling in “Boumediene v. Bush” which grants “due process” rights in civilian courts to prisoners of war kept at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The Salt Lake Tribune compiled a sampling of editorials on the case from newspapers around the country. Here are some of their comments.

Philadelphia Inquirer
The Supreme Court on Thursday took back the moral high ground in America’s fight against terrorism, even as President Bush quickly signaled that he’d gladly surrender it again.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
“The military war crime trials, Guantanamo and whatever secret prisons we employ now ought to be dismantled. They are a smear, not just on the country’s global reputation, but on U.S. justice. The Supreme Court got this right.”

“Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court is an emphatic rebuke of President George W. Bush’s terror war detention policies.”

San Jose Mercury News
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday to uphold terror suspects’ right to challenge their imprisonment affirms the American commitment to the rule of law.

Sacramento Bee
“Court restores rule of law at Guantanamo….In doing so, the court is doing its part to help this country get beyond the Bush era of legal manipulation that has done immeasurable damage to U.S. standing in the world.”

Dallas Morning News
“It was a bad day for the Bush administration and its anti-terror policies, but a good day for liberty. ….Yes. We applaud the court for risking error on the side of liberty.”

The editorials can be read in their entirety at the Tribune’s website.

The Tribune added its own voice to the chorus with an editorial of its own.

“The war on the Taliban and al-Qaida is a battle of ideas, the Western ideals of individual freedom and a secular, limited state versus an extremist theocratic vision of the Islamic community. To win, the United States must not just talk the talk of freedom. It must walk the walk.

That is why the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling this week again upholding the right of habeas corpus – the right of a prisoner to be taken before a judge to challenge incarceration by the state – is immensely important. It is a ringing affirmation that the United States means what it says about individual freedoms and the due process of law, even to the point of affording the right of habeas corpus to an enemy prisoner at Guantanamo who our government says is bent on our destruction.”

The Tribune’s editorial, as do the others, illustrates the colossal ignorance most people have of the United States Constitution. One of the great features of the Constitution is the fact you do not have to be a lawyer to read and understand its meaning. It is written in simple and straightforward language that can be understood easily by anyone with the ability to read English.

For example, the “right of habeas corpus” mentioned in the editorial above, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The words “right” and “rights” appear twenty-six times in our founding documents; ten in the declaration of Independence, once in the Constitution, ten in the Bill of Rights, and seven in the remaining amendments. Not once is it used in conjunction with “habeas corpus”.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The words, “privilege”, “privileged” and “privileges” are used only four times in the founding documents, each time in reference to citizens. The privilege of Habeas Corpus is provided to persons charged with violations of criminal law and is subject to being suspended when public safety requires it. There is nothing in the Constitution to extend this privilege to non-citizens on foreign soil or to the military justice system in times of war.

In the Supreme Court case under consideration, Boumediene is an Algerian citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan who has never set foot inside the United States. To extend “due process” rights in this case, and in opposition to both Congress and the Commander In Chief, is a dangerous violation of the doctrine of “separation of powers” set forth in the Constitution.

Another popular misconception concerning the Constitution is the belief that a ruling by the Supreme Court supersedes all previous rulings and the historically understood meanings of the Constitution. This seems to be vaguely based on Article VI of the Constitution which says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

There are two noteworthy observations that need to be made relative to this article. First, the laws and treaties must be in pursuance to the Constitution. Second, the courts are to be bound by the Constitution, not the other way around.

The tagline in the header of this blog and on our website is taken from the ruling in the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, “Marbury vs. Madison.” In it, Chief Justice John Marshall made clear the fundamental principle of all constitutional governments, any law or court judgment that contradicts the clear meaning of the Constitution is null and void.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, whenever the Administration, Congress or any of the Courts, including the Supreme Court, violates the Constitution they become a lawless body worthy of the contempt of every citizen.

Home Page

John McCain and Our Need For REAL Homeland Security

Most conservatives will probably vote for John McCain in the coming election. The reason most often given for supporting McCain, in spite of his liberal approach to so many issues important to conservatives, is “homeland security”. Although I too will probably vote for McCain, I have to give him an F- as far as our real homeland security needs are concerned.

The real threat to the future security of our homeland is not the Islamic terrorists of Al Qaeda and the other “rag-tag” bands of international terrorists. If we endured a terrorist attack every day for a year, it would not have the lasting effect on our future security as one session of Congress or one term with a socialist President in the White House, or one session of the Supreme Court dominated by a liberal/socialist majority. The real threats to the future security of America are those in our government and elsewhere who are working diligently, on a daily basis to destroy our Constitution, or at least, render it impotent.

As I pointed out in an earlier article, our Constitution is really the only thing standing between us and tyranny. For the past one hundred years, the “progressive/socialist” movement has been trying to remake our government into a democratic socialist state. The modern models for their efforts are the democratic socialist governments of Western Europe. The proponents of socialism in America either admire European socialism, and think we should be just like them, or they have convinced themselves they will do a better job at it once they are in power.

The precepts of socialism are incompatible with our form of government as a constitutional republic and can only be implemented by ignoring the Constitution or destroying its effectiveness. As individuals, under our form of government, there is little we can do to stop the progress of socialism in America. We can write our congressman. We can blog to our hearts content. We can demonstrate in the streets. We can melt our computers with e-mails. In the end, it will all come to naught as long as we keep electing the same politicians in election after election.

We are forced to depend on our elected officials to protect our Constitution and the way of life it enables us to enjoy. Every official in every office in the land has taken an oath to do just that. Yet, either from malice or ignorance most fail to do so. John McCain is one example out of thousands who, when it seems politically expedient, will ignore the Constitution for their own personal agenda. Last Tuesday McCain appeared on NBC’s “Today Show”. One sentence from his interview illustrates the problem we face.

“The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,” McCain said.

There are only two words in this sentence he got correct, OIL companies. That’s right John, it’s Exxon Oil, not Exxon Ethanol. It’s British Petroleum, not British Biodiesel. Their business is the location, extraction, refining and sale of oil products. It is not their business to farm corn and soy beans and distill it into ethanol.

When he says, oil companies “have got to be more participatory in alternate energy”, that may be okay, if he is merely expressing his opinion. However, we know from countless statements he has made elsewhere that he believes government should institute rules and policies to force them to do so.

That is a decision that should be left up to the company management and shareholders, not government. If the company decides it is in their best business interest to seek out and/or develop alternative sources of energy they will do so voluntarily, as many are doing already.

There is nothing in the Constitution, including the “commerce clause” that gives the government the power to tell private industry what types of products they must develop or market. There is nothing that allows government to force a company to develop competitive products that might be instrumental in putting them out of business. When the market demands it, we will have alternative fuels, most likely developed by a lone entrepreneur who will make a fortune competing with the oil companies. That’s the way our market economy works and always will as long as we remain a free country.

When John says, “oil companies have got to be more participatory…in sharing their profits”, alarm bells should go off in the head of every patriotic American. Companies exist for the purpose of generating profits for their owners or shareholders. They do not exist to provide jobs, support social programs, or carry out experiments on behalf of the government—unless they are contracted to do so, for a profit.

Nothing is more directly opposed to the American principles stated in our founding documents than the mandatory “sharing of profits” alluded to in John’s statement . The phrase, “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, according to political writers of the time, literally meant, “the pursuit of prosperity”. The constitutional concept of “property rights” extends not only to our homes and tangible personal property, but to our wages and profits as well. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1801 listed as one of the three necessary components of good government, “one that does not take from the mouth of labor, the bread it has earned”.

How much profit a company earns is determined by the marketplace, and what they do with those profits are determined by the company itself, not by the autocratic decrees of Congress or the President. McCain’s brand of profit sharing by the oil companies is pure, unambiguous socialism, differing only in degree from that suggested by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, or practiced by Hugo Chavez, the “elected” dictator of Venezuela, in respect to the oil companies.

If John is do determined to dictate to the oil companies how much profit they should make, what they should do with those profits and what products they should develop and market, why not go all the way and simply nationalize the oil companies. Of course, that is something the American people would not allow him to do any more than they allowed Hillary Clinton to nationalize healthcare in 1992.

However, incrementally and in response to rising prices enough people seeking relief for their budgets may be persuaded to go along with it to permit him to put his plan into practice. That is where the real danger to our country’s future lies.

Home Page

Where Did Our Liberty Go?

Since 1776, more than 1,500,000 soldiers have died in battle to secure and protect our liberty. Yet we have far less liberty today than we had at the end of the Revolutionary War. We have a better standard of living. We live longer. We are blessed with all sorts of technology. However, we have less liberty and freedom. What happened to the liberty that our forefathers purchased for us at such a high price? Like Esau, we have sold our birthright for a bowl of porridge.

Since the Revolutionary War, our liberties have been steadily diminishing. In the past fifty years, they have been disappearing at an ever-increasing rate. The ironic truth is that most of them have been taken from us, or we have surrendered them, in the name of freedom and security. Who took ‘em? Mostly the liberals inside and outside our government. They have learned well from the despots of the twentieth century and they have perfected their techniques to the point where they are almost unnoticeable to anyone not paying close attention.

The two most effective means for separating the people from their liberties have proven to be incrementalism and segmentation. Using these techniques liberals are able to effect change that is so gradual they can easily be adapted to by the electorate rendering them all but painless, except to those directly affected. The rest of us are not aware of the changes until the day comes when they want to take away our own freedom.


Incrementalism really got its start during the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt when the government discovered that the American people were more than willing to give up their liberty in exchange for the security of a roof over their head and food on the table. In the following decades millions of Americans became dependent on the government for all or part of their incomes either through government employment or through government welfare. Welfare and government employment tend to grow in direct proportion to each other. The desired result is always socialism.

In 1992, Hillary Clinton introduced a proposal for socialized medicine. It was promptly shot down by the American people. Instead of accepting the will of the people, the liberal strategy shifted to incrementalism. The prescription drug plan for seniors is one step in that strategy. Another is the recent SCHIP program. Little by little, liberals intend to force socialized medicine on the American Public whether we want it or not. Why? Dependency on government means control over the people by government.

Another good example is the recent attempt to pass the comprehensive immigration bill. When it failed in Congress, its proponents switched to incrementalism. Bit by bit the immigration bill is coming back in the form of amendments to “must pass” funding bills. This way they can get the bill passed piece meal without too many voters being aware of it.

Massive immigration is supported not only by liberal politicians seeking to expand their power base, but by the business community as well. Not so much because there is a shortage of unskilled workers. Our education system turns out plenty of those. Labor is a commodity and like any other commodity, as the supply increases the cost decreases. We have been conditioned to accept the conventional wisdom that six percent unemployment is good. Not for the six percent who are unemployed. During times of low unemployment, the cost of labor goes up. Massive illegal immigration increases the labor supply and drives down the cost of labor at all salary levels.


Like incrementalism, segmentation is an effective method for separating the people from their liberties and giving more power to the government and those who run it. With segmentation, the idea is to split off small groups of people and bring them, one after another, under government control until they have control over all the population.

The most common use of segmentation is in the area of taxes. It takes a lot of money to run all the socialist programs necessary to entice the voters to keep liberals in power. That necessitates an every expanding source of revenue from taxes. John Dillinger said, when asked why he robbed banks, “because that’s where the money is”. Wealthy people have more money than poor people. There are more poor people than wealthy. Hence the cultivation by liberal politicians of “class warfare”. It works well for raising taxes because the poor, who are not being taxed, could care less how much taxes the wealthy pay. The wealthy usually have the means to increase their income and offset the exorbitant taxation, so they pay without too much protest. Those caught in the middle are the middle income group. Lacking the organized advocacy groups available to the poor and the influence of money available to the wealthy they do not have the political “muscle” to effectively resist, so they pay and grumble among themselves but do little in real protest.

Another goal of liberals is to lessen the influence of Judeo-Christian values on the American culture. Working through groups like the ACLU and the Courts, they have been successful in just about eradicating all visible Judeo-Christian influence from the public arena. Even though the majority of Americans claim to be Christian, most have bought into the liberal interpretation of the extra-Constitutional doctrine of “separation of church and state” to the point where Christian influence can be segmented and eliminated with very little opposition from nominal Christians who make up the majority of Christian voters.

The classic example of combined incrementalism and segmentation in controlling the lives of citizens is the campaign against smoking. Decades ago liberals, armed with the medical myth of “second hand smoke” began to segregate and vilify smokers. (As we pointed out in an earlier article, if second hand smoke was as deadly as we have been led to believe we would not have a Social Security problem because there would be no one alive to collect it, since most people who are over 65 today grew up in a cloud of second hand tobacco smoke.)

The campaign against smoking began with segregated smoking areas on planes and in restaurants then spread to the workplace. As the number of voting smokers dwindled laws restricting smoking incrementally increased until virtually every place except wide open spaces, homes and automobiles were smoke free areas. (they are working on those now) Coinciding with the diminishing number of smokers came the ever increasing taxes on cigarettes, usually to the cheers of non-smokers who were by then in the majority. We are always happy to have someone else pay more taxes under the mistaken notion that it will mean less taxes for us. This is especially true if we can perceive a benefit for ourselves from those taxes. In this case, health insurance for our children and lower taxes paid by all for treating smoking related illnesses among the uninsured.

The next step will come when the tax base dries up, as it eventually will. Anyone who knows anything about marketing theory knows that as the price goes up the number of sales goes down. The price of tobacco bolstered by taxation is rapidly getting to the point where tobacco sales and the tax revenue connected to it will diminish to the point where it cannot support the social programs its intended to pay for.

When that happens the programs will stop. (Just kidding) We all know from experience the tax burden will simply be shifted to other sources. Right now, the overweight are being set up as the next target. Twinkies and soda pop. Toss in a few fast food items and there you go. Ever increasing taxes and ever decreasing freedom and liberty. There have even been proposals to tax bottled water. In fact, Chicago and a few other places have already implemented taxes on bottled water. Now that’s getting close to where it hurts. The bottom line is we are rapidly losing our liberties to the tax man and the nanny state. Liberty is not something that can be purchased with the blood of one generation allowing those who follow to live happily ever after. Liberty must be fought for and protected by each generation, not just on the battlefields of war, but in the corridors of government; national, state and local.