Tag Archives: obama

Mitt Romney’s Super Awesome Awe-Inspiring Post Health Care Ruling Speech

I will not challenge Mitt Romney’s business acumen. He has a proven track record of success. However, success in business does not necessarily translate into success in the political arena and Romney’s inability to capture the highly charged emotions rampant across the nation last week was absolutely stunning. I don’t think any of us were expecting the fiery colloquy of Ronald Reagan but Reagan’s number one asset when speaking was the conviction of his words. He believed in what he said because he wasn’t trying to play all sides. That may be good for business, not so much for restoring our government to its’ founding principles.

If you missed it last week and can stay awake through it, I’ve attached a link to Mitt Romney’s super awesome awe-inspiring post health care ruling speech and posted the transcript as well. If you want to understand why every Constitutional conservative and libertarian are in a foul mood between now and November 6, it’s worth know what we hear and do not hear when Mitt Romney speaks.

 “Repeal and replace.”   Repeal sounds great until you realize the President, on his own, has no authority to repeal a law he does not agree with, (Current President aside). He needs a majority in the house and a filibuster proof (60 vote) majority in the Senate to repeal the health care act. It will take all of 2013 and probably a good part of 2014 to pick apart this health care bill piece by piece and he knows it. Hence the lack of conviction. Replace? Replace with what? Classic progressive RINO tactic. “We’re going to get rid of that horrible bill – except for the stuff that makes us look good.” There’s very little conviction in taking a stand against a bill while simultaneously defending parts of it.

“You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life…”   Or you can choose to have just a larger government, that’s just more intrusive in your life. Slow it down a little. The current President is moving too fast.

What we did not hear in the speech outside of, “I agree with the dissent”, was an absolute admonition of the Supreme Court’s decision. The failure of the court to decide based on the Constitution. How a President Romney would choose a Supreme Court Justice.

Back in April, when Mitt Romney was feeling threatened by Rick Santorum’s improbable run for the nomination, he actually gave a couple of truly inspiring speeches. They were clear, concise and took a hard line on everything from religious freedom to the effect the current administration is having on small businesses and the economy. And then he became the “presumptive nominee”. It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. You can kinda shake it up and start all over again. Right Mitt?


 “As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent.

What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do.

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy.

Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that.

Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare – cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

Obamacare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people.

And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare.

What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system?

One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people – up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.

And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare.

That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.”

Another Shot To The Left Foot

Fortunately for America, the left keeps shooting itself in the foot; this time, with said foot firmly implanted in its mouth. I am talking, of course, about the ruling on Wednesday by activist judge Sarah Bolton on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill. While her ruling might seem to be a setback for patriots opposed to the open borders policy of the Obama Administration, it does stoke the fire in the belly of conservatives and other patriots everywhere. If nothing else, the left seems intent on keeping the passions of patriots white hot until the November elections. We need to thank them for that.

More than 70% of the voters support Arizona’s law and a majority of voters nationwide wants their Legislatures to pass similar laws. That is a large voting block for the left to alienate, and is another bone-headed action that could help lead to the destruction of the Democrat Party in the coming two election cycles.

While the court’s ruling is only a temporary injunction until the full case in presented in court, it does for the time being, neuter the Arizona law. The court forbade the police from questioning the immigration status of suspects picked up on other charges. It also prohibited the enforcement of the federal requirement that immigrants have their immigration papers on their person at all times. It also struck down the part of the law dealing with the illegal immigrant’s ability to seek employment and perform work. It leaves in place, however, the right to bring civil suit against sanctuary cities that refuse to allow enforcement of immigration law in their jurisdiction.

Drug dealers, rapists, muggers, carjackers, and so forth can now be bailed out and put back on the street instead of being turned over to ICE for processing and possible deportation, as has been the custom. I suppose that if an illegal immigrant flags down a police car and confesses to being an illegal immigrant, the officer can still provide taxi service to ICE headquarters, although that might be risky since the illegal can always change his mind and claim the officer demanded his “papers”.

This is by no means the final chapter in Arizona’s fight against illegal immigration. All eyes are now on Sheriff Arpiao to see what he will do. He already has a planned crime and immigration sweep scheduled to take place regardless of the outcome of the court case today. Some have suggested that Arizona officials ignore the court ruling and continue with its enforcement plans. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and no one knows what the outcome would be. Frog marching Governor Brewer out of the Governor’s Mansion would certainly be an attention grabber guaranteed to provide at least a couple of day’s material for our friends in talk radio and the talking heads on TV. Even members of the MSM like the New York Times and MSNBC would find it hard to ignore. The next few days are going to be quite interesting.

Bookmark and Share

The 2010-2012 Revolution

America must repeat the Jefferson Revolution of 1800 if it is to survive

America is heading toward revolution. The time, type and nature of that revolution remain to be seen. Our Declaration of Independence expresses an undeniable truth drawn from thousands of years of humankind’s recorded history.

“…Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

Near the end of his life, Jefferson revealed that the thoughts expressed in the Declaration were not original or new, but were intended to be an “expression of the American mind”. The American mind has not changed since these words were written. We are perhaps less tolerant of tyranny than most peoples of the world, and the spirit of liberty still lives in the hearts of every true American. Eventually we will reach the point where the American people will no longer tolerate the continual disregard of our Constitution and infringement on the liberties it protects. Just when that point is reached and what the remedy will be is still an unknown and unknowable factor.

The principles of socialism and the principles underlying our Constitution are mutually exclusive. The cost/benefit ratio between socialist promises and individual liberty must eventually be reckoned with. The level of anger among the American electorate has become palpable and continues to rise with every new outrage committed by the Obama administration. Anger alone is not enough, however, and if not properly channeled could prove to be counterproductive. What we need is a plan and a strategy that has a realistic chance of success.

Fortunately, the founders left us a plan and a model that works without bloodshed. The question is whether the level of dissatisfaction on the part of the people is widespread enough or intense enough to make it happen. Thomas Jefferson faced a crisis similar to our own in the early days of the republic, except on a smaller scale. What most Americans do not realize is that the majority of the Founders favored a strong central government with the states subjugated to its authority. It was only due to the resistance of the Anti-Federalists and the refusal of several states, particularly New York and Virginia to ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added that allowed the Constitution to be ratified.

Without the Bill of Rights, especially, the Tenth Amendment, it is doubtful the Republic could have survived its formative years with its liberties intact. The first test of the new Constitution came almost immediately after the new government took office, in the attempt to establish a national bank. Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, argued that the establishment of a national bank was not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, argued contrary to his opposition to a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84, that any act not forbidden by the Constitution that contributed to the “welfare” of the union was permissible and therefore constitutional. Washington was undecided, but eventually signed the bill into law.

Soon afterwards, Hamilton and Vice President John Adams formed the Federalist Party for the purpose of strengthening the powers of the central government. Jefferson, as Secretary of State and later as Vice President and President of the Senate under President Adams, battled against the statist tendencies of the Federalist Party, culminating in what Jefferson referred to as “the revolution of 1800″ . Abuses of the Constitution under the Adams administration and the Federalist dominated Congress were so egregious that Adams was held to a single term and the Federalists lost control of Congress in the election of 1800.

Jefferson won the Presidency in 1800 and with the aid of a republican Congress was able to reverse most of the damage done by the Adams administration. Over the next 24 years, Republicans Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were able to reestablish the nation on a firm constitutional basis.  We need to replicate the Jefferson revolution in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The task is doable, but it will not be easy. According to Rassmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll, between 45% to 48% of American voters still consistently believe Obama is doing a somewhat satisfactory job. In spite of the anger felt by Conservatives and the frequently expressed confidence that Democrats will be defeated at the polls in the next two elections, there is little room for error and no room for over confidence. Strong independent or third party candidates could easily split the Republican votes and give both houses of Congress and the White House back to the Democrats. If we are going to repeat Jefferson’s revolution at the polls there are four steps we must take.

1. The 2010 Primaries

For those states that have not yet had their primary, it is vital that voters familiarize themselves with the candidates and support and vote only for constitution conservatives. It is during the primaries that a real difference can be made. Illinois had its primary in February to make it easier for incumbents and harder for challengers to get their message out. As a result, we now have a choice between a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat in the General election for the all-important Senate race. This increases the danger that conservatives will stay home in November or throw their vote away on an independent or third party candidate, “to make a statement”.

In states that have not yet had their primary it is equally important the Tea Parties and Patriot groups get behind a single candidate if possible. Otherwise, we run the risk of splitting the conservative vote and getting a progressive, establishment Republican in the general election. That, to a degree is what happened in Illinois.

2. The 2010 General Election

In the general election we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt. In many cases the choice will be between a progressive Republican (RINO) and a Democrat. As difficult as it might be for some of us, it’s important that we support and vote for the Republican. The task for Republicans in the next Congress is to hold the line on spending and unconstitutional legislation. To the extent possible we also have to rely on Congress to defund the progressive programs established by this Congress and repeal as many unconstitutional bills as possible.

One of the advantages—perhaps the only one—of party discipline in Congress is that if we can get enough conservatives in the House and Senate they can help keep the RINOs in line.  We can “cull the herd” during the 2012 primaries. Retaking Congress in 2010 is absolutely essential if we are going to have any hope of reining in Obama over the next two years until we can kick him out in 2012.

3. The 2012 Primaries

We will be going into the 2012 primary season with two years experience in organizing and motivating Patriot groups. We should be able to recognize conservative candidates better and not repeat some of the mistakes we made in 2010. We need to begin identifying potential candidates for 2012 immediately after the new Congress takes office, even if we believe we have elected a solid conservative to the office in 2010. Washington has a way of changing elected officials once they get in office. Congressmen and Senators who do not live up to their oath of office in 2011 should be challenged and defeated in the 2012 primary. It is important that we make it absolutely clear to those we elect this year, that if they do not honor their oath they will be replaced in 2012.

Conservative Republicans and independents must form a solid voting block against “moderate” Republican establishment candidates. 2012 is the “must win” election at every level. Our objective in ’10 and ’12 is to damage and demoralize the Democrat Party to the extent that it will be years before progressivism raises its ugly head again.

4. The 2012 General Election

2012 is “do or die”. If we fail to defeat Obama in 2012 there will be little chance for America to continue as a free republic. The Democrat Party will be fighting for its life. Voter fraud will be rampant. We can expect the “politics of personal destruction” to be the order of the day. It is important that all of us become more sophisticated in analyzing political propaganda and campaign rhetoric. Conservatives need to become so informed on the issues and so knowledgeable in the Constitution and our founding principles that we cannot be misled by slick sound bites and political spin. We cannot afford to end up with another McCain type candidate in the Presidential election. We need new people, not the same old ones with new faces.


If we succeed in repeating the successes that Thomas Jefferson and the republicans accomplished during the first six elections after 1800, we can then begin considering the organization of an alternative party. Should history repeat itself, as it often does, the Democrat Party will fade away with many of its members drifting over to the Republicans further corrupting that party. That is the time to establish a new party based on conservative, constitutional principles that can preserve out liberties for another couple of hundred years. If we don’t do it now our children and grandchildren will be forced to take up arms to restore their liberty or live in servitude. That cannot be allowed to happen.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

The Healh Care Drama on Capital Hill

Over the next few days, the American people will be participating in and watching the most important political drama of the last few hundred years. The question to be decided is whether America will continue as a constitutional republic or a socialist democracy.  Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have pledged to have a health care bill ready for the presidential signature before Monday.  Whether they will be able to or not is still an open question.

A major demonstration is taking place in Washington today with patriot protesters from all over the nation attempting to persuade congressional Democrats to abandon their plan to pass a group of amendments as a substitute for the Senate bill, and then “deeming” the bill itself to have passed. If they succeed in this legislative slight of hand, the bill will go to the President. After adding his signature, it will become the law of the land.

On Sunday, there will probably be a brief debate on the constitutionality of the procedure being used.  There is not likely to be a constitutional debate on the bill itself. The Republicans will refer to Article I, Sections 5:6 and 7:3, arguing that the Senate Bill cannot become law without an actual vote on it by the House. The Democrats will counter with Article I, Section 5:3 which gives the House authority to determine its own proceedings. Hopefully, that debate will inspire many more Americans to actually read the Constitution for themselves.

If the so-called “reconciliation” procedure succeeds in the House and the original Senate Bill is “deemed passed” as planned, President Obama will immediately sign the Bill into law.  That will set off a number of lawsuits, including the one by Mark Levin’s “Landmark Legal Foundation”.  How the courts will eventually rule on these questions is far from certain, based on past history.

We applaud the thousands of patriots who are protesting in Washington this weekend and the tens of thousands across the country that will be participating in protests at their local Congressman’s offices.  There is a good chance that our efforts will be successful in stopping the Democrat’s plan from succeeding —this time. However, it would be unrealistic to believe that we have accomplished any more than to slow down our transition to socialism.  It is possible to win battle after battle and still lose the war. Progressives are patient and stubborn. They do not give up, and as long as we accept their basic premises, they will continue to chip away at our liberty until they have overthrown our constitutional form of government.

The debate over health care gives us the perfect opportunity to examine our attitudes towards the experiment of self-government we have been engaged in for the past two-hundred plus years. If we accept the progressive’s (American socialists) basic premises, then we will eventually get all the changes Obama promised during his campaign. We emphatically oppose these premises because they undermine everything America has stood for since its founding. However, the overwhelming majority of the American people have already accepted them.  This is clearly exhibited in the debate over health care.

The underlying premise, framed by the Democrat Party, on which the health care debate is based, is that our health care system needs to be reformed, and that the reforms necessary can only be carried out by the federal government.  This premise is incompatible with our systems of constitutional government and free market capitalism. In order to make the changes naturally implied by this hypothesis, it will be necessary to abandon our Constitution and convert our economic system to a centrally planned one.  We believe that the American people have not yet examined the implications of accepting the progressive’s vision of “how thing ought to be“. Hopefully, this debate will force them to do so.

That is not to say that we do not need a lot of changes in the way health care is delivered in America.  However, those changes need to be made within the framework of constitutional government and free market capitalism that has proven to be the most successful systems yet devised by man.

Today, the federal government (taxpayers) pays for over forty percent of the health care consumed in the country through Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and SCHIP. Most of the balance is paid for by employer provided or individually owned health insurance policies.  By comparison, the amount paid “out of pocket” by the patient for health care is infinitesimal.  The market dislocation created by the increased demand brought about by the perceived availability of “cheap” or “free” services is the single most important factor in the exorbitant cost of health care.

We cannot correct the problem by increasing the taxpayer’s, i.e. government’s, share of the market and decreasing the insurance companies’ share. Attempting to do so could lead to the bankruptcy of government, converting our current recession into a depression and guaranteeing its continuance, and the eventual abolition of liberty in America. We have consistently argued that the only thing standing between our liberty and outright tyranny is our Constitution.  Never before has that fact been more evident than it is today.

The Constitution is the “law” for government, setting forth those areas the federal government is authorized to have power over and those that are left to the states and the people. Health care is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government.  Therefore, one of the first “reforms” we need is to get it out of the health care business.  Market prices are the consequences of supply and demand. In order to bring down the price of health care we need to bring down the demand.  This will only happen when patients accept the responsibility for paying for routine health care the same way they pay for routine car repair.  Routine maintenance should be paid “out of pocket” and insurance should only be used for catastrophic or extensive care. These two changes alone would go a long way toward solving our “health care crisis”.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Healthcare Bill Derailed?

liberty-bellThere is a good chance the healthcare bill being debated in Washington will be blocked, thanks to opposition by the electorate.  However, in the end Obama will win because the debate has been shaped in a fashion the American people cannot win.  The odds are that eventual healthcare reform will not contain most of the features in the current bill, but the momentum is there for some type of reform detrimental to the welfare of the nation.

Everyone seems to have accepted the underlying premise of the debate that fixing healthcare is the duty of the federal government.  No one is pointing out that the problems with healthcare, like most of the problems with the economy in general, can be laid at the feet of Congress.  More than anything else, the unaffordable cost of healthcare today is caused by the distortions in the market created by the fact that government is the single largest purchaser of healthcare.
If we are to make any headway in getting the cost of healthcare under control, we have to begin with a debate as to whether or not healthcare is a proper function of the federal government.  The Founders, taking into account the expanse and diversity of America, deliberately limited the functions of the federal government.  They understood that attempting to govern citizens in a variety of states covering a large geographical area with differing customs, problems and needs could not be accomplished by a central government without major sacrifice of liberty.

Nowhere in the Constitution do we find any authorization for the Federal Government to be involved in healthcare.  Neither do we find any indication in the writings of the Founding Fathers that they would be in favor of government involvement in healthcare if they were alive today.

That is not to say that government has no role in the health of its citizens, just not at the federal level.  A good first step in solving America’s healthcare problems would be accepting the intentions of the Founders when they proposed and ratified the tenth amendment.  The proper place for public health issues, including medical care for the indigent and the regulation of insurance, if necessary, is at the state and local level.

If we continue to accept the premise of the statists that healthcare is the proper role of the Federal Government it is only a matter of time until we have socialized medicine.  Obama and the Democratic Party may not be successful in getting a nationalized health plan this time, but they will be back again.  Each time they propose it they get another step closer to succeeding.

Control of the nation’s healthcare has been the goal of left leaning politicians since the administration of the Progressive-Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.  Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton, each in turn, made an attempt to institute universal coverage.  Johnson signed into law the Medicare and Medicaid programs which eventually led to government control of some forty percent of the nation’s healthcare.

The increased demand for healthcare services brought about by these programs led to an inevitable increase in price.  That, added to the customary employer provided healthcare plans instituted a couple of decades earlier as a way of getting around wage controls and exorbitant taxation, helped to create an expectation on the part of the public that they should never have to pay for any health care “out of pocket”; someone else should always pick up the bill.

We may accept a bill for hundreds of dollars from our local mechanic for minor repairs on our car without complaint, but panic at the thought of paying for a routine trip to the doctor for treatment of a common cold.  Until the expectations of the public changes in this regard and until we get the overall government involvement in the healthcare system out of the hands of Washington and back into the hands of the state and local governments where it belongs, we are going to continue to deal with repeated efforts to socialize medicine.

If we do not change the way we think about the question of healthcare, Obama wins.

Obama's Flawed Constitution

liberty-bellPresident Obama has expressed, on several occasions, his belief that the Constitution is a flawed document.  He has also indicated a primary goal of his administration is to change the way things are done in America to match the principles on which he believes the nation was founded.  Millions of Americans cheer his efforts, believing they will make their lives easier and more rewarding.  Since more than sixty percent of Americans approve of his job performance after four months in office, pursuing his goal to remake America, it is important to understand just what the founding principles of our nation really are.

We will not find a definition of those principles in the Constitution although we do find examples of them.  At the same time, we find several places where the Constitution seems to contradict those principles.  The Constitution is a political document.  As such, it reflects compromises on issues that many of the framers did not agree on. The two most important were those between the federalists and the republicans and between the slave holding states and the anti-slave states.

The founding documents of America are actually three distinct documents written at different times and for different purposes.  They are The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution (1787) and The Bill of Rights (1789).

The Declaration of Independence, often referred to as the nation’s charter, was based on a republican philosophy and contains the founding principles for our form of government.  The first principle is that a legitimate government receives its powers from the people.  The second is that all men are created equal. The third principle is that of unalienable rights endowed by God, not granted by government.  The fourth is that the only purpose of government is to protect those rights in a secure and stable civil society.

During the Revolutionary War, a Federation of the thirteen states was formed to carry out the war and perform other functions of a national nature, under the Articles of Confederation.  The Federation had no taxing powers, no means of regulating commerce between the states, and no mechanism for enforcing laws passed by the Congress.  The Articles of Confederation proved inadequate as a blueprint for governance, and the states authorized a convention in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles to correct many of the defects.

The Convention, meeting at Philadelphia, was dominated by Federalists who wanted a strong central government with the states in a subordinate relationship to the federal government, much like the relationship between counties and towns to state governments.  The minority, known as the anti-federalists, was strongly opposed to the Constitution as written.  Fearing it gave too much power to the central government, they demanded a Bill of Rights.  Many of the Founding Fathers we revere today were on opposing sides in the debate.

Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison, among others, were strongly opposed to a Bill of Rights.  Federalist No. 84 by Hamilton was written in opposition, arguing that adding a list of specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution was not only unnecessary but dangerous to the welfare of the union.  Many of the strongest advocates for a Bill of Rights were not delegates to the Convention. Thomas Jefferson was in France on a diplomatic mission during the debates and unable to contribute personally.  However, in a letter to his friend James Madison he expressed a strong concern that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.  Patrick Henry, another strong anti-federalist refused to attend the Convention and therefore did not take part in the debates.

However, after the draft of the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification, Henry became one of the dominant leaders in the anti-federalist opposition along with Samuel Adams, and John Hancock of Boston.  Failing in their efforts to get a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution the anti-federalists worked diligently in their state legislatures to secure assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added as amendments to the Constitution as a condition of ratification.  In this, they succeeded.

The discord in the Philadelphia Convention can be seen by comparing the title of the Declaration with the signing statement of the Constitution.  The full title of the Declaration boldly proclaims it to be “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America”.  By comparison, the Constitution simply says in the last paragraph,

“Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

This ambiguous wording was drawn up by George Mason and presented by Benjamin Franklin as a way of encouraging delegates to sign the draft and maintain the impression of unanimity on their behalf.  Notice, it is the Convention itself, not the signing of the Constitution that claims the “unanimous consent”.  On the day of signing only 43 delegates representing twelve states were present, including George Washington, President of the Convention and William Jackson, Secretary.  Three of the forty-three delegates that were present refused to sign; hardly a unanimous agreement.

Five states ratified the Constitution shortly after it was presented to the states.  However, it bogged down in Massachusetts.  Only after Samuel Adams and John Hancock had negotiated “the Massachusetts Compromise”, did the Massachusetts Convention vote for ratification. The compromise, recommending amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect allowed delegates to vote for ratification with the prospect of a Bill of Rights being added later.

The Adams-Hancock compromise probably saved the Constitution from certain defeat.  Other states followed their example in their ratifying conventions.  Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no basis in law to protect our rights and restrict the powers of Congress.  The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of our founding documents and the basis for the doctrine of “enumerated powers”.  Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, there were still contradictions between the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

These differences were not to be reconciled for another hundred years.  Only after the Civil War at a cost of more than 500,000 lives in battle and the addition of Amendments 13, 14 and 15, was the principle that “all men are created equal” recognized in the Constitution.  Today the Declaration and the Constitution, with its amendments, are in near perfect harmony. Unfortunately, from the beginning, the federal government has seemingly violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution at will with little if any opposition from the people as a whole.

For the past seventy-five years we have witnessed the wholesale violation of the Constitution by Congresses, courts and Presidents, none more so that our current President and Congress.  When President Obama speaks of “perfecting” the Constitution or “remaking America” he is really talking about discarding the Constitution and tearing down all the traditions and customs that have made America great.

The warning uttered by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Philadelphia Convention has an ominous ring to it today.

“Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Have the American people been so corrupted by the allure of socialism as to be incapable of any form of government other than despotism, as Franklin suggested?  The next few months and years will answer that question for many generations to come.

Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

minute-man-2-lithoWith the upcoming retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, speculation naturally turns to the type of person President Obama will nominate to replace him and who that person will be.  Since the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution to laws passed by Congress, to determine its constitutionality, it is also natural that the subject of the Constitution would be a major topic of discussion.

Invariably when it does come up, we are reminded that Obama is a constitutional scholar and a Professor of Constitutional Law.  He did teach constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago, but his title was instructor not professor.  It also seems to me that “scholar” is an exaggeration of Obama’s dept of knowledge concerning the Constitution.

I have no doubt that he understands the Constitution; he just does not accept it.  Obama often professes a love for his country.  I cannot see into his heart to know his feelings, but I can listen to his words and watch his actions.  The evidence is that he rejects America as it is currently constituted and has been for the past 220 years.  He rejects its history.  He rejects its culture. He rejects its historical values and he rejects its Constitution.

In an interview with WEBZ-FM radio in Chicago, September 6, 2001 Obama had this to say about the Constitution.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, or that the Framers had that same blind spot.  I do not think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way to where we are now, but that it also reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

More recently, he explained the criterion he would use in selecting judges to the federal courts.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

At a press briefing on Friday President Obama announced the decision of Justice Souter to retire in June.  In discussing the type of person he would look for to replace him, Obama said,

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

It is obvious from these and other statements by Obama that he bears no allegiance to the Constitution.  The political class of both parties has used the rulings of rogue courts and the application of the English Common Law doctrine of judicial precedent to reduce the Constitution to a meaningless document in limiting the powers of the federal government.  Unless we can find some way to reverse this trend, liberty will become something our grandchildren only dream of as they slave away their lives in servitude to the state.

The Obama-Chavez Connection

minute-man-2-lithoThere can be no doubt that America is going through a period of transition unequaled in our history since the Revolution of 1775 -1781.  The American people voted for change and the Obama administration is delivering it — in spades.

The question is; what will the nation be like after the change?  There are two possible outcomes depending on the permanence of the transformation taking place.  There are already signs of another change on the horizon that has the potential of counteracting those being made.  No one can predict the future with any degree of accuracy.  However, we can look at the trends and see where they are likely to go.

The character of America in the twenty-first century will be determined by the outcome of events taking place during the present generation from 2000 to 2020.  One way of describing what the country is likely to look like in 2020 is by comparing it with other governments.  It is evident that President Obama and his supporters intend to take the country in the direction of socialism, or as Mark Levin more aptly describes it in his best selling book, “Liberty and Tyranny”, “statism”.

In looking for a model for a twenty-first century, socialist America it is only natural that socialist countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and perhaps even the National Socialist government of Adolph come to mind.  However, it is so politically incorrect to compare any American, no matter his political philosophy, to Hitler that to do so immediately causes readers to discount the argument.  Therefore, let us put aside Nazi Germany as a possible model.

The socialist takeover of Russia, Cuba and China all came about as the result of an armed revolution, eliminating them as a model for a Socialist America.  That leaves us with the Democratic Socialist nations of Western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, France and Germany.  However, these governments are too benign to fit the pattern being developed by Obama.

Instead of looking east to Europe, we need to look south.  To see how America will look in 2020 we need only to look at the nation of Venezuela and the Presidency of Hugo Chavez.  The tactics, strategy, personality, goals and the rise to power of Obama resembles Chavez more than any other socialist leader in modern times.

Chavez promotes a “participatory democracy” as does Obama.  Both were elected to office on a tidal wave of populist rhetoric directed primarily to the poor and working class.  The brand of socialism practiced by Chavez and Obama differ somewhat from the traditional socialism of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.  Chavez fashions his brand after Heinz Dieterich, a German Born University Professor in Mexico, and a close advisor to Chavez.  Dieterich is credited with originating the theory of “21st Century Socialism”.  His theories were published in book form and provide the theoretical basis for the Chavez regime.  Many Marxist Socialists reject both Chavez and Obama’s brand of socialism as not being socialist enough. See Here and Here

Obama’s socialism is fashioned after that of Saul Alinsky,  an American socialist and founder of the Community Organizing movement.  Alinsky is the author of “Rules for Radicals” from which Obama seems to get most of his tactical strategy.  Although Dieterich theory, Marxist theory and the Alinsky theory differ in details, the overall philosophy and the results of that philosophy are enough alike that we can use Venezuela as the model for future socialism in America under Obama.

Socialism does not have to be the future of America, but to avoid it we need to reset our political philosophy to a time in history when it worked.  For most conservatives, that would be during the Administration of Ronald Reagan.  I would go back even further, however, because by the time Reagan came on the scene we were so far along the road to socialism that his presidency was little more than a speed bump in its progress.

The period I would use is the period between 1801 and 1825.  I pick this time because the political challenge then was very similar to the one today. The question then, as now, concerned the size and power of the federal government.  The Patriots who fought and sacrificed in the struggle against the British, quickly formed into factions after the Revolution.  By 1787, there was a sharp division between the federalists who wanted a strong central government, and the anti-federalists who wanted strong state governments with a limited federal government restricted to those powers necessary for defense and other national interests.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were the result of a compromise between the two.

During the administration of George Washington, these two factions organized into the first political parties.  Vice-President John Adams and Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton organized the Federalist Party which led to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison establishing the Democratic-Republican Party, referred to generally as “republicans”, in opposition.  The Federalist Party elected John Adams as President to succeed Washington in 1796.

Since the Twelfth Amendment was not ratified until 1798 Jefferson, who ran against Adams and came in second, became Vice-President.  As Vice-President and President of the Senate, Jefferson was able to keep Adams and the Federalists in check during Adams’ four year term.  Years later Jefferson described his Vice-Presidency and the struggle with the Federalist in a petition to the Virginia Legislature on another matter.

“If it were thought worth while to specify any particular services rendered,… There is one,… the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life; to wit, the head I personally made against the federal principles and proceedings, during the administration of Mr. Adams.”

“Their usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch.”

“All, therefore, retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans in phalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the cause would have been lost for ever.”

“By holding on, we obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by their celebrated resolutions, saved the constitution, at its last gasp. No person who was not a witness of the scenes of that gloomy period, can form any idea of the afflicting persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our country however.”   ~ Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson ran against Adams in 1800 and defeated him.  Jefferson was succeeded after two terms by James Madison who served also for eight years to be followed by another Democratic-Republican, James Monroe who served until 1825.  By the middle of Monroe’s term in office, the Federalist Party had ceased to exist.

The federalist’s philosophy did not reemerge until the progressive/socialist movement in the early twentieth century in the Administration of Theodore Roosevelt.  Philosophically the Federalist Party was the forerunner of the Democratic Party of Today and the Democratic-Republican Party is the forerunner of today’s Republican Party.

If we are to survive as a Constitutional Republic we have to find leaders who like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe are dedicated to defending and adhering to the Constitution and we have to start with the 2010 Congressional elections.  Furthermore, we have to complete the job by 2012.  If Obama wins a second term, socialism will probably be too firmly entrenched for reform to be feasible.

Our first task is to retake the Republican Party and then retake the government and return it to its founding principles.  To do that it is important we (1) actively oppose all socialist policies promoted by either party, (2) identify sound conservative leaders and, (3) support them in the Republican primaries and general elections of 2010 and 2012.

Bad Day for Pirate Industry

us1Reporting on the Somalia Pirate’s attack on the Maersk Line’s freighter has to be one of the most confusing reporting jobs since the one on Obama’s economic bailouts.  Every story introduces details that contradict the previous one.  However, putting that aside, last week was a bad week for the burgeoning Somalia Pirate business.

First, a group of four teenagers armed with AK 47s attempted to hijack a U.S. Flagged freighter, the Maersk Alabama, which had a 20-man U.S. crew.  When the crew declined the pirate’s invitation to surrender, the young buccaneers attempted to flee in a boat not equipped with a motor, taking the freighter‘s captain, Richard Phillips as hostage.  Evidently, something had happened to their boat while they were aboard the freighter.  Details are sketchy on this part of the story. It either failed to start, was sunk by the Maersk crew or sunk on its own. Reports vary.

After four days adrift in the Indian Ocean, three snipers from the USS Bainbridge, a Navy Destroyer dispatched to the scene earlier, shot and killed three of the pirates and freed Captain Phillips.  The sharpshooters fired from the fantail of the Navy destroyer, or from a raft that had been dropped from a helicopter, or while floating nearby in the water, according to varying reports in the media.  In any case, the skill exhibited by the three Navy Seals was flawless.  Three simultaneous shots, three dead pirates.

In addition to losing three-fourths of the pirate crew, a further threat to the future of the pirate business was created by the U.S. media.  It had a field day Sunday and Monday, praising President Obama for his courage, decisiveness and wisdom in handling the matter, while at the same time, predicting dire retaliation from the pirate industry.  As for the President, after three days of silence, he finally bowed to pressure and turned the matter over to the Department of Defense.

Seeing the successful outcome of the rescue and the praise of the media it produced for himself, President Obama decided to do a “Thomas Jefferson” and get tough–kinda.  In a statement Monday, he vowed, “to halt the rise of piracy”.

“I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region and to achieve that goal, we’re going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks,” Obama said on Monday.

As is often the case with the media, the real hero goes without praise.  In this episode, there were two genuine, good old-fashioned American heroes.  The first one of course, was Captain Richard Phillips who risked death by surrendering to the pirates while alerting his crew to the attack and giving them time to avoid capture themselves.  The second hero was the Commander who made the split-second decision to take the shots.

I searched more than a half-dozen articles in vain, trying to find out who the commander was who gave the order, without success.  The real hero in this case is identified only as “the on-scene Commander” by Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.  The unidentified commander and Captain Phillips were the only two who deliberately risked their own safety in order to save others, the real definition of a hero.

Had something gone wrong at the last minute resulting in harm to Captain Phillips, the one who made the decision to shoot would certainly have been “hung out to dry” by the media, the President and the Navy Command, in the best CYA political tradition.  His career progress would have been cut short at least, if he was not reassigned to a patrol boat in N.Y. Harbor.  America owes a big “THANK YOU” to this unnamed hero.

Obama Claims Victory Over Christianity

minute-man-2-lithoPresident Obama wound up his European apology tour on Monday with a speech to a group of students in Turkey where he announced that America is no longer a Christian nation.  The evidence is that his proclamation of “mission accomplished” is a little premature.  I say “mission accomplished” because for generations one of the core missions of the socialist movement in America has been the suppression of the Christian message and the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Efforts by the left to suppress Christianity are on the same level as its effort to dismantle capitalism and corrupt the traditional American culture.  They have made impressive gains in all three areas, but we have not yet surrendered.  In fact “we have not yet begun to fight.”  America is a Christian country, always has been and hopefully always will be.  The dominant religion is overwhelmingly Christian, with 3 out of 4 Americans professing Christianity.

In the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey of 54,461 American households, 76% self-identified as Christian, 3.9% self-identified as non-Christian with 5.2% refusing to respond or did not know.  Only 15% claimed to have no religion.  Those who self-identified as agnostic or atheist made up 1.6% of the survey group.

The Christian makeup of America is not new.  The migration of colonists from Europe to America in the seventeenth century was primarily in search of religious liberty, or at least, the freedom to practice their own religion without persecution or interference.  The Declaration of Independence appeals to the “Laws of Nature”, and “Nature’s God”.  The Constitution concludes with the date as the “Year of Our Lord”.  The first article in our “Bill of Rights” guarantees the freedom of religion.  Religion and Christianity has always been an integral part of the American experience and it is today.

Opposition to our Judeo-Christian heritage has increased in tandem with the spread of Socialists philosophy during the twentieth century.  Socialism seeks to replace the Christian’s reliance on God with a reliance on the state.  To accomplish this it disguises its message with the vernacular of Christianity.  It speaks of compassion, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, promoting peace, and raising up the downtrodden, while it delivers scarcity, oppression, intolerance, class envy and strife.  In the name of compassion it destroys families and ambition.  In the name of the common good it robs us of our labor. For our own safety, it tramples on our liberties.

With Orwellian “double-speak” it distorts the language so that nothing is as it seems.  Our Constitution, in the hands of the socialist, becomes the implement of our destruction.  No part of the Constitution has proven more effective in the suppression of Christianity than the First Amendment which was intended by the founders to accomplish the opposite.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for the Separation of Church and State have misused the First Amendment to force Christianity into the shadows and out of the public square.  This certainly was not the intention of the Founders.  The First Amendment differs from the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.  The subject of Amendments, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 protects the people’s rights as individuals.  Amendment 10 confirms the sovereignty of the states and the people.  Amendment 1, on the other hand, speaks of the limitations placed on the federal government, particularly the Congress.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;”

The first Amendment prohibits the federal government from any involvement in matters of religion, period.  The restriction on the federal government regarding religion however, did not apply to the sates.  Thomas Jefferson spoke of this fact in his second inaugural address;

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”  Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, 1805

Three years later he expressed the same principle in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States…”  “…It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.”    ~Thomas Jefferson

George Washington expressed his view of religion in public life in his Farewell Address in 1796.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

The evidence is that the need for religion is a part of human nature.  Every society from the beginning of time, civilized or uncivilized, has worshiped some type of deity. In America it has been the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and it has served us well.  America has a secular government, but it is not a godless nation.  America is also a Christian nation.  If the left succeeds in eradicating Christianity from our public discourse, it will be replaced by something else.

That is the objective of socialism.  It does not really seek to eliminate religion per se, it seeks to replace the worship of the Jewish and Christian God with worship of the Mythological Goddess “Gaia”, goddess of the earth and the Communist/Socialist God, the “State“. There can be no doubt that we are moving in that direction, as we witness the deterioration of our culture and the dwindling of our liberty, changes that can be traced to our abandonment of the principles on which our nation was founded, including those held by our Christian forefathers.  Today may be a good day for repentance.  God bless America.