Archive for the ‘Constitutional Issues’ Category

Ray Stevens on ObamaCare - “We the People”

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

Health Care Open Meetings? No…

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Lifting Ban Good for Public Health?

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

In 1988 the federal government banned federal money from being used to purchase new needles for drug addicts. Recently, the Obama administration lifted this ban. The New York Times did an editorial claiming that the decision to ban federal funding for purchasing clean needles was responsible for the death of many who used dirty needles and contracted deadly diseases such as AIDS. They then praised Obama for lifting the ban.

If the question were whether or not the lift was good for public health, then the answer it seems would be that lifting the ban will help slow the spread of some diseases.  That, however, should not be the question.  The Constitution Party has a story about David Crockett that they use with some of their literature.  I believe the name of it is “Not Yours to Give.”  The question should be, does government have the right to force its citizens to pay for other Americans to have things?  To rephrase this question, does government have the right to redistribute wealth?

Government owns nothing.  Government receives its taxes, property, and consent from the governed.  Therefore, anything given to anyone by the government actually is forced giving from the citizens.  I, myself, have a problem with my money being given to drug users to keep them from getting deadly diseases.  Do I hope that they get diseases?  Absolutely not.  I wish that all disease were eradicated, but I have a problem with paying for it.  I also have a problem with the government subsidizing anything, much less something illegal.  What else are we going to subsidize?  How about we give materials for making meth labs safer.  Let’s make a law saying that you can cook meth in the open so as to not harm others?  Where does it stop? 

Lifting the ban will help people from contracting disease as easily, but it is and should be unconstitutional.  It is not yours to give.

Obama, Health Care, and the State of the Union

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

A few weeks ago I took an exam. Part of the exam was a couple of analytical questions. One of the questions stated that truth is not a virtue for political leaders. I then had to agree or disagree with the statement. The fact that this was even a question is a sad reflection on our society and political system. If lying and half truths are a virtue, we are indeed standing on our heads.

Americans have come to expect very little out of our political leaders. Mark Twain had several quotes about Congress and our political system. He stated said that “… I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman.” More famously he stated, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an editorial entitled “The Other Prostitution Scandal” in which he wrote that “[p]olticians take people’s money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can’t be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering.”

Ronald Reagan also stated, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.  I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”

Those who become involved in politics start out tainted because the American public is inclined to distrust our government because of the power government wields, but also because those running government are rarely virtuous.  George Washington said, “Government is not reason;  it is not eloquent; it is force; Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Americans used to love their government.  Loosing the binds of the tyranny of Britain, the American patriots were able to construct a government that erred on the side of caution.  The Articles of Confederation was an experiment which was meant to allow power to remain with the states and a federal government weak enough to allow it citizens freedom from oppression.

After it became obvious to many of the leaders of the young republic, the framers met to construct a new document which would make improvements on the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitution was a document that not everyone could get behind.  The Anti-Federalists, with the likes of Patrick ‘Give me Liberty, or Give me Death’ Henry, Samuel ‘Father of the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party’ Adams, George ‘Father of the Bill of Rights’ Mason, and Richard Henry ‘Father of the Motion to Separate from Great Britain’ Lee, were against the Constitution because they felt it did not protect the rights of people.

It is evident that there is a genuine distrust of government that has existed from the founding of our nation.  It existed due to the tyranny of Great Britain on the American Colonies, and it continues to exist today because of the deceitfulness of our elected officials at present.

The president of the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia is the greatest iconic figure of American history.  That figure went on to an unanimous win in the first presidential election in our nation’s history.  George Washington is our equivalent to Zeus and is chiseled into our Mt. Olympus at Mt. Rushmore.  The myth surrounding the man is bigger than his life itself.  Probably incorrectly, the most famous legend of Washington is of him as a lad.  It is said that one day he cut down his father’s cherry tree.  When asked about the incident, he is said to have replied, “I cannot tell a lie,” and he admitted to it.  History tells us that this story is likely untrue, but this perception still sticks.  The greatest American ever is seen as a truthful saint.

The next American that even rivals Washington, himself the other bookend of Mt. Rushmore, is equated with truth also.  Honest Abe, as he is sometimes referred, is consistenly listed in the top 3 of greatest American Presidents lists.  Lincoln is treated as being a representative of truth as his name denotes.

It is not coincidence that the two men considered by most to be the two greatest Americans of all-time are known for honesty, whether through fact or just perception.  Honesty is a virtue that Americans long for in government.  Lying and half truths are not.  It is indisputable, however, that lies are tools of contemporary politicians.  Healthcare is one such area where the Left has consistently wielded deceit as a weapon and tool. 

Early on as the debate over health care raged, top Democrats stated that abortion was not a part of the health care overhaul plan.  Leaders of the Democratic Party stated that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 would not allow abortion to be a part of the health care plan.  Apparently that was a flat out lie.  Rep. Stupak (D - MI) offered up an amendment to the House health care bill which would place restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care bill.  The Stupak Amendment was not included in the Senate plan.  As a matter of fact, abortion is covered in the Senate plan.

President Barack Obama stated “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegaly.”  On its surface, this appears to be truthful in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but there is a loop hole.  The bills as they are now written expand and fund the expansion of Medicaid.  Medicaid does fund some health care for illegal immigrants.  In effect, the health care bill does fund illegal immigrants.  Rep. Joe Wilson was correct in his ascertation that Pres. Obama is a liar on the health care for immigrants issue.  In fact, Americans also cover the cost for illegal immigrants’ health coverage whenever we pay for any medical care.  Medical care that cannot and is not paid for by a consumer is spread out in costs to other consumers.

President Barack Obama has claimed he would not sign a bill for health care reform that is not deficit-neutral.  He has touted that the Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will actually cut the deficit.  Matt Welch of Reason.com in “Obama’s Latest Health Care Lie” points out that the CBO must take what is said at face value, and the fact that Congress promises to make unspecified future cuts, the CBO must take those cuts into account, whether or not they are ever instituted.  He also points out Obama’s numbers are inflated from what the CBO is actually projecting.  Peter Suderman, another writer for Reason is referenced as reminding readers that cutting a deficit does not necessarily mean spending less.  Opponents of the health care plan have also pointed out that the bill double counts savings in order to achieve deficit-neutrality.  Label this a lie or half-truth from Obama as well.

The term “death panel” may be an exaggeration, but the fact is the idea of the so-called death panels exists.  The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a panel responsible for deciding how to cut and control costs.  This type of rationing in effect does make life or death decisions for a patient.  It may be decided that a patient with a certain disease may not receive the treatment that the patient and doctor decide on, and so the patient and doctor may need to seek a cheaper, less desireable option of care that does not work as well.  Any time that medical decisions are handed to bureaucrats, medical decisions are made more slowly and denied based on economics.  To say that the “death panels” are non-existent is more disengenuous than saying there are “death panels.” 

Two other misrepresentations that were parroted early on by President Obama is that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and you can keep your health plan if you like your health plan.  No doubt, these promises were made as a way of halting early talk that government health reform would take away your right to see your own doctor and keep your own plan.  This is another instance of a situation where things have a good chance of happening indirectly. 

Say you have a company.  You are paying a good portion of your employees’ insurance.  For representative reasons, let’s say you are paying $400 a month for each employee.  Now a new bill has passed and become law that says that you (as an employer) will be fined $200 a month for not providing insurance to employees.  Furthermore, there is an option that your employees can take if you do not provide them with insurance.  Obviously, you can save money and your employees do not have to go without insurance.  It is a win-win situation for you.  Unfortunately, the employee does lose out on their insurance plan that they liked as they are moved to the government plan.  Oh, and by the way, the government insurance isn’t accepted by the doctors your employees visit.  Think that is not coming? 

The public option is not included in the current health care plan, but it is next on the horizon.  If it is not included in the reconciled bill, it will come soon after this health reform bill is passed.  Several Congressmen are claiming that any bill that does not address the public option is unacceptable.  They also state the public option will soon be revisited.  Many supporters of the public option further hope that the public option will soon lead to a single-payer plan.  Though Pres. Obama seems to distance himself from the idea of a single-payer system as he did in speaking to the American Medical Association recently, he has said to both SEIU and AFL-CIO in two different settings that he is a proponent of a single-payer plan and that he did not think he could “eliminate employer coverage immediately.”  The Chicago Sun-Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying he was not pushing a single-payer system because our system is employer based, but he thinks “moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense.  That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.”  Keeping your insurance and doctor is not as certain as Obama makes it sound with health reform.

After getting 60 votes for the Senate health bill, Harry Reid said that there was a lot of partisanship going around the health care debate, but he did not view it as 60 Democrats voting against 40 Republicans.  He saw it as 60 leaders who stood up against insurance companies and stood up for hard-working Americans.  He also stated that this is a declaration that health care is a right, not a privilege. 

A recent CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans were against the health care reform.  That leaves only 44 percent of Americans who are either for the reforms or are undecided about the reforms.  In effect, Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate is telling America that they know what is good for America and at least 56 percent of America is too stupid to understand.   

Those poll  numbers are likely to slip further as Americans are upset at backroom dealing that came out of the compromise.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D - NE) was able to insure that Nebraskans would be exempt from paying for the increased Medicaid costs.  Louisiana also got kick-backs as did Connecticut.  In all, thirteen Democratic Senators received a pay-off for their yes vote on the health bill.  Not only are these pay-offs, but these are instances of Democratic senators opting their state out of parts of the health care bill.  Contrary to what Sen. Schumer (D - NY) says, not every state received a pay-off in the vote.  Sadly, Democratic leaders are even downplaying the buying of votes by saying it is minor and a part of politics.  What would happen if you did that to a judge or a Supreme Court Justice?

Furthermore, Reid’s assertion that health care is a right, not a privilege is not what this is about.  This bill is not about receiving health care.  In fact, Rep. Kucinich stated that the whole bill has become about insurance, not health care.  Also, the idea that health care and insurance is a right is not consistent with how we have view rights consistently.  People have a right to life and liberty, yes.  No one can kill us or take away our liberty.  The final part of our rights is our right to pursue happiness.  John Locke listed property.  We have a right to pursue what we want.  Yes, we have a right to pursue property, health care, and such, but we are not guaranteed to have these if we do not pursue them.  Americans have a right to seek health care and insurance, but we must work to obtain them.  They are not something government is supposed to give us.

While running for office, Obama talked about how the Constitution was filled with “negative liberties.”  He said the Constitution said what government could not do to us, not what it had to do for us.  In case he did not know, that was how it was meant to be.  Britain controlled many aspects of colonial life.  Colonists wanted liberty and freedom.  When government starts doing things for you, they also start taking liberty from you.  Thomas Jefferson stated, “Government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take everything away.”  Americans should have known then that he was going to increase the size of government by “gifting” things to Americans.

Now, what does all of this have to do with Obama’s State of the Union Address?  Barack Obama had to get this approved.  He has to get things moving on health care early in January.  If things fall apart in the House, Obama is in trouble.  Obama is banking on health care reform to be a success that he can talk about at his State of the Union Address.  He doesn’t want to dwell on sagging poll numbers.  He doesn’t want to fret about inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.  He doesn’t want to spend a speech discussing how terrible the jobless percentages are.  He doesn’t want to have to admit that nothing has been accomplished despite a Democratic House and a Democratic super-majority in the Senate.  Obama doesn’t want to spend his time wielding lies and half-truths as his only weapon. 

The truth is the health care bill currently under consideration is a failure based on what Democrats wanted.  It is not the last step.  Sure, most of it is unconstitutional.  Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance?  No way that can stand in the Supreme Court.  It is also likely that the House will be unable to rech a compromise.  To stop this mess, Americans must keep pressure on their representatives.  It can still be defeated.

Yes Madame Speaker, the Constitution is Serious

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

This Ain’t America No More!

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

The Fourth Amendment (Focus on the Issues)

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

 

“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.”

The 4th Amendment means that government agenst cannot make a search and/or seizure without probable cause.  A government agent cannot just show up for a search and seizure without first obtaining a valid search warrant from the judiciary.  Furthermore, the search must stick to the scope of the search warrant. 

Katz v. the United States (1967) ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy.

The government has disregarded this amendment in several ways such as the usage of “red light cameras.”  If a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, the usage of government cameras without probable cause would violate this.

Another example is the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act was done, in no doubt, with good intentions.  We were attacked by international terrorists and the fear of more attacks allowed us to ‘reasonably’ give up a little liberty for a little security.  This was a major blow to that expectation of privacy and our security in our property and person.  We did not heed to the advice of our great American statesman, Benjamin Franklin.  It was Franklin who said, “Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.”  That was the beginning of this round of losing our rights as we have over the past few years.  Now is the time to rise up and say enough is enough.  Legislators, government executives, and judicial officers, please listen.  Enough is enough.

The Patriot Act has damaged this Amendment in several ways.  The Patriot Act allows for searches and seizures without probable cause or what are the traditional search warrants.  Furthemore, a person’s property is not valued as notification of a search does not happen either.  There have even been government admissions to abuse of powers of the Patriot Act.  We want to be safe, but do we want to be slaves instead?  Many of us conservatives were silent about abuse of our rights under Bush because we trusted him.  Now that a leftist is in charge, we fear what might happen.  Hopefully we will never allow this to happen again, regardless of who is in charge.

President Obama Distorts Health Care Facts

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

President Obama has stated, “Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform - also false.”  Is it really false?

According to FactCheck.org, abortion will be covered in the Health Care bill.

What is a Small-Government Conservative?

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

I have been asked several times recently about different political stances that I have. When I discuss these, people ask me if I am a Libertarian. I answer with a quick no. I am not a Libertarian. When asked what I am, I usually respond that I am a small-government conservatice. When pressed on political party, I will answer that I am a Republican.

The difference, for me, between being a Libertarian and a small-government conservative is that Libertarians, as a party, tend to be pro-choice among other stances. Not all Libertarians believe this way, but the Libertarian Party does. I believe that being a small-government conservative is more traditional, while Libertianism blends too much progressive values within. My small-government conservatism could also be considered a blend of libertarian Republicanism.

I have tried to develop a political philosophy that remains consistent. One may ask how I can defend pro-life ideals and my stance against gay marriage with my small-government conservatism. I even talked to someone earlier yesterday who told me that her son is a Libertarian who is pro-choice. I feel that this is not completely compatible with what Libertarians have as a philosophy.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, I am against it not on the grounds that I should be able tell someone else how to treat their bodies.  If someone wants to make medical decisions that effect them, so be it.  My problem is that I don’t personally believe that abortion is effecting just the woman, but I believe that abortion is murdering another human life.  I know that you can’t force everyone to do what you think, but that is exactly what government does by allowing abortion.  My real problem is with government deciding who is not a living human.  It didn’t work out really well when our government did not recognize Africans as humans.  People used ‘rights’ to trod down living humans and place them into slavery.  History judged that to be wrong.  History may just do the same with abortion. 

Some talked of ‘Death Panels’ with the healthcare bill.  Democrats claimed that this was a scare tactic used by Republicans to kill the bill.  They stated it was not even in there.  Let’s not discuss that at this point, but by the whole premise of the argument, it seems to work out as a type of a proof that if the government did set up a panel to decide whether or not one would live based on their quality and quantity of life, that would be wrong.  Is that not what government does on the issue of abortion?  We have Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS deciding that life at the earliest stages is not life at all.  When government is the decider that someone is less than a person, we have problems.  What else will we trust government with?

Nancy Pelosi: “I’m a Fan of Disruptors”

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Thomas Paine: Silent No More

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Johnson City Pansy Commission

Monday, July 6th, 2009

The Johnson City Commission took on new legislation that would have allowed legal gun carriers to legally carry their firearms into local parks.  Sadly, according to the Johnson City Press, all present commissioners voted to treat legal gun carriers as criminals. 

I checked out the Johnson City Commission’s website, but they do not have the minutes to show who was present and who was absent.  Jane Myron, owner of Jane’s Lunchbox, which is probably a crappy, over-priced diner of sorts, had already voiced her displeasure that the legislature had voted to allow carrying in restaurants.  All she has to do, however, is place a sign saying you cannot carry and you can’t.  That is you cannot unless you are a criminal who would do it anyways.

*** I have never been to Jane’s Lunchbox, nor do I plan a trip.  It could be a good, overpriced diner for all I know.  It could also be a crappy, non-diner restaraunt.  I have no clue what they have. I just assume it is crappy because a restaraunt is usually a reflection of its owner.  ***

A Contact Form Sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander

Friday, June 19th, 2009

[The following is in reference to a quote by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) concerning a bill filed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill calls on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve. The empty suit (or plaid shirt), Lamar Alexander thinks that is a bad idea. Enjoy!]

“A sorry day when Congress superimposes itself on the Fed, nosing around in monetary policy?” It is a sorry day when you have Lamar Alexander as your senator, but of course it has been several sorry years for Tennesseans. You are sir, in all due respect, what is exactly wrong with the Republican Party. What part of the Constitution gives the Fed authority to set monetary policy? Take all the time you need to find that answer because I am sure you won’t.

You sure didn’t read the Constitution as Sec. of Education of the US. Sorry to let you in on a little secret, but the Dept. of Education is also unconstitutional. That is coming from a public school teacher, who just happens to be the husband of another public school teacher.

It seems oaths and pledges mean absolutely nothing to you. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but you don’t follow through. That is kind of like when you said you would never again run for public office only to decide to run for Sen. Thompson’s seat. You definitely did not deserve to follow him.

Before you dismiss me as some liberal lunatic, I will let you know that I am a lifelong Republican. I have always stood for Conservative values, even in running for political office as a Republican. That is more than I can say for you. You are half-way there though. You can run as a Republican as often as you like, but a Conservative you are not. You are nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing (or goofy plaid shirt). But that did seem to work out for you until you ran for President. Thank God that didn’t work out for you. There is no telling what kind of mess you would have made there. Though it may have actually paled in comparison with Obama.

You are definitely lucky that you had to run for re-election in 2008. You would not win against a real Conservative in 2010. Lucky for you, you can do damage until 2014. I will assume that you will retire at that time, because you won’t want to run against a Conservative challenger with your record.

Alas, you will probably never get this. A staffer will either press the delete button or come up with some form e-mail about how you feel my concerns. It has happened before and will probably happen again this time. If by chance you do decide to read it, listen to your constiuents for once. The American Republic is based on constitutional law. The Fed has been allowed to run all over the Constitution as it is. At least allow Congress to look at the monetary policy the Fed is following. I only worry about how much more the big government Republicans (like yourself) and the leftists can mess things up. But, I have decided that there is no way that the Fed nor Congress can do much worse than is happening now.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything. I do find that he is one of the few principled people left on Capitol Hill. He is also one of the last Constitutionalists left. I even voted for him to be the Republican nominee because he seemed to really understand monetary policy. Things were not terrible, but he told us what would happen. Those things did begin to happen. He really gets it. His bill to audit the Fed is a good thing. Transparency is a good thing. I will put it this way… Transparency in government (including the Fed) is better than getting a new plaid shirt.

Obama Bin Lyin’

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Obama is no friend of the Constitution. It is merely a nuisance to him. As President of the United States, he was sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution. He lied in his oath. Everyone knew he would because he had earlier stated that “Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.” Funny that I have never considered liberty to be a negative. This should be no suprise given his given his closeness with William Ayers (who stated that his terrorist group had not done enough even though they had bombed several American targets) and Jeremiah Wright (his pastor who said it should not be God Bless America, but God D— America).

The First Amendment states that Americans have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right of assembly, and the right to petition the government.

Obama’s First Amendment Assault began while his campaign for the presidency was being waged. Obama pulled out all of the stops as he made sure that neither his birth certificate nor his college records were released. This has created a firestorm of allegations that Obama is hiding that he is ineligible to be POTUS. The public must be able to firmly scrutinize those running for office. The press tried to go after a legitimate story, but Obama worked hard to make sure this did not happen.

Also during the campaign, Obama worked with officials throughout the US to limit free speech by bullying tactics. For example, in St. Louis officials threatened libel charges against people who spoke out against Obama. This went further than local officials even as Obama was able to persuade the Justice Department to go after the American Issues Project over ads that showed Obama’s associations.

A new bill has been introduced by Sen. Cardin (D-MD) named the Newspaper Revitilization Act. This act, among other things would give government control of newspapers by limiting one aspect of the free press that goes back to the foundations of our nation. Under the Newspaper Revitilization Act, the press would not be allowed to endorse candidates. Now I am one that thinks newspaper endorsements are stupid anyways, but that does not mean that the government should be able to limit this. An easy fix is for people to cancel subscriptions if they do not like the practice.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms. This is simply another nuisance for Mr. Obama.

During his campaign, Obama stated that he supported the Second Amendment. Obama did put an asterisk there, however, as he stated that it is subject to “common-sense” regulation. This just means that Obama believes that he can relegate this to pea shooters if he pleases. Don’t believe me? In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to ban and confiscate semi-automatic shotguns used by hunters. He also voted to ban almost all rifle ammo. He also supports a 500% increase on taxes on guns and ammo. Furthermore, he supports a ban on handgun ownership. He believes that cities can ban gun ownership. His Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, is even worse. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. This goes back to Obama’s support to confiscate semi-automatics shotguns. Obama has a horrible record on this just as he does on most other constitional issues. Obama supported FISA which allows for secret courts to convene and issue search warrants. Think this is legit? Out of 22,990 warrants requested since the beginning in 1979 and going to 2006, 22,985 have been granted. Only 5 have been denied.

The Fifth Amendment allows for grand jury trials, no double jeopardy, the right to not incriminate yourself, due process, and the right to keep one’s property. On this one, I will focus on private property rights. This is where Obama has been hit the hardest. Obama has stated that he wants to redistribute wealth so that the wealthiest Americans and poorest Americans do not have such a gap between the two. That sounds all well and good if you do not understand freedom. John Locke stated a right to “life, liberty, and property.” Obama believes that this property should be more evenly distributed through government intervention. This is a socialist tenant. A lot of people are turned off by the mention of Obama and socialism, but those people do not really look into it. Search for the basic tenants of socialism and then look at Obama quotes. Do independent research and then you decide.

The last of the Bill of Rights that I want to deal with is the Tenth Amendment. This states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is not just one of Obama’s failures, but it is one of Washington’s failures. All of the bailouts and stimuli and all of whatever junk they are cramming down our throats has strings attached to it. This is being given to the states and forcing the states to do what Washington says. Obama is going to tell states what to do just as he does to companies. Obama wants the power to take over companies that have not even failed (not that taking over companies that have failed is much better), and don’t doubt that he will seek further executive control to systematically gain controls over what is going on in the states. While Bush was a menace to the Constitution, Obama will undoubtedly do much more harm unless he is placed in check or even removed from office.

If Obama succeeds, America fails.

*** Some of the rights in the Constitution were skipped because those are not current issues. For example, quartering of troops is not an issue at this time. However, given Obama’s record, do you think he would obey this if he felt the need to disobey it? Don’t doubt that the Constitution will be subverted to comply more with international law than to be based on our liberties and laws.***

The Barack Obama - Alan Keyes Ping Pong Match

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Alan Keyes and Barack Obama apparently have an ongoing feud.  The first time that I believe their paths crossed was in the 2004 Illinois Senate race.  In that race Obama was elected as the Junior Senator for the state of Illinois, but not before Keyes really frustrated Obama with several charges that he brought against him. 

Their paths crossed again in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  While neither candidate debated each other this time, Obama was the Democratic candidate and winner of the Presidential Election.  Alan Keyes lost the Republican and Constitution Party nominations, but he did win the third largest amount of votes in the Presidential Election.

The real kicker from the 2008 Presidential Campaign is a lawsuit that was filed after the election.  Several lawsuits were brought against Obama due to a lack of proof of “natural-born” citizenship status.  This stems from his “citizenship” in Indonesia as a child (Indonesia did not allow dual-citizenship, so his parents would have had to have given up American citizenship), his travel to Pakistan in the 1980’s (which was closed to American citizens), and his lack of proof of a birth certificate in Hawaii (not a certificate of live birth, and the fact that his grandmother claims to have seen him born in Kenya).  Most of the lawsuits were deemed to not have standing because the courts ruled that those people were not harmed from the lack of documentation concerning Obama.  Alan Keyes also brought a lawsuit, and since he was a Presidential candidate, there is little doubt that he would have standing. 

*** A separate lawsuit is going to have a conference after Justice John Roberts called one for January 23rd. ***

Now the next set of barbs are being traded as Obama has launched a new service plan.  Alan Keyes has a website called RenewAmerica.us.  What is the name of Obama’s new service plan?  Renew America Together.

Jorge W. Bush Es Un Idiota

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

El Presidente Jorge W. Bush is a reason why the American public is turning against the Republican Party.  As a Republican and conservative (first and foremost a conservative) I am going to firmly disagree with his decision to not release Compean and Ramos (the border agents that fired on a Mexican drug dealer). 

I have never been one that says that people who speak out against elected officials are anti-American.  I have not had to speak badly of my Congressman (David Davis) on any issue.  He has served my ideas fairly well.  I have had major disagreements with my US Senators (Alexander and Corker).  I do find myself speaking out against things that President Bush does quite often.  I firmly believe that I will be speaking out against the future ex-President Obama and yes, possibly even calling him names, more often than I have had to do with President Bush (Only 1507 days to Inauguration Day 2012). 

In this case, President Bush should pardon the two border guards immediately.  If he does not do so before leaving office, I hope history will judge him harshly. 

We need true conservatives carrying the conservative banner. 

Who did President Bush pardon?  He pardoned a rapper, John Forte, who was convicted of smuggling cocaine into the United States. 

This whole scenario is quite ironic.  President Bush pardons a drug smuggler, but President Bush will not pardon two border agents that attempted to stop someone from smuggling drugs into the Unites States.  This reasoning says that President Bush has absolutely no problem with hard drugs.

Ballot Challenges in Minnesota

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

I thought the Left always wanted EVERY vote accepted.

A ballot questioned by the Franken team can be seen here.

I guess it is only ones that may be marked for the Democrat.

For the story, click here.

Those Demented Homeschoolers

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

*** Since this is a post on education, I should probably let it be known that I am an educator at a public school.  I am not a member of the teacher’s union.  I will probably never join a teacher’s union.  As a matter of fact, I would be more comfortable handling my own negotiations than letting them, though I am okay with what I am making because I am not in it for the money.  My ideas on federalism and constitutionalism are that a parent is ultimately responsible for a child’s education, so a parent should have an unquestionnable right to home school their children.  The 10th Amendment would also give the state some say on the matter, but I believe that is better for the state to only get involved in public schools (notice I did not say the federal government).  On the flip side, I believe that a sizable portion of children whom are homeschooled would be better off in a school, public or private.  I would do it (homeschool or private school) for my children if faced with certain issues.  Private school would probably be my choice between the two. ***

Apparently Joy Behar called homeschoolers “demented.”  Should we really be surprised by anything that Joy Behar says?

Behar does wear her affiliations on her sleeve.  This is just another way that she does not really have a mind of her own.  She simply is anti-religious, anti-Republican, and anti-common sense.  Isn’t it funny how liberals want to talk about rights, unless it has a strong union pulling the other way?

Keyes Believes Obama to be Illegitimate

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

Philip J. Berg believed that Obama was not born in the United States, or at least that he did not meet the “natural born” citizen clause.  His case was tossed out due to a lack of standing.  In other words, the judge said Berg had no reason to bring the lawsuit. 

I just got home and turned on computer to see what has happened while I have been out today.  Terry Frank has a story and link to a story that says that another citizen, and one with standing, has brought this lawsuit back.  Alan Keyes, AIP Presidential Candidate, has brought a lawsuit saying that he was unable to run in a fair campaign because Obama ran unconstitutionally. 

There are many interesting tidbits in the complaint:

“If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s eligibility. In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship - Indonesian, Religion - Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s U.S. citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.

81. In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

82. Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of Senator Obama’s birth in 1961,(now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.

83. Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.

84. Based on all of the above, it is the duty of the SOS to obtain proper documentation of Senator Obama’s citizenship to confirm his eligibility for the office of the President of the United States.”

Another story seems to indicate that Obama was born in Mombasa.

Red Hat Rob’s “Reapportionment & Redistricting 101”

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Red Hat Rob has a blog entry explaining the reapportionment of congressional seats following the census and the redistricting that can and will take place following the census.  Gerrymandering will more than likely take the Tennessee delegation from being in the Republican minority in the US House to a majority. 

He also explains why Tennessee, a red state, has a Democratic majority.  Read more here.