Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. – de Tocqueville 1848

The Freedom Post blogg is expressing anger about the terrorist who is believed to be responsible for the brutal death and mutilation of four U.S. security guards was supposedly given a “fat lip” by Navy SEALs, who are now being charged with assault.  That’s it.  Poor baby!  They can burn and mutilate our guys, drag their dead, burned bodies through the streets, hang them from a bridge (all things they did in this case), and we’ve reached the point where a fat lip is the moral equivalent and is considered a war crime.  God help us!

Welcome to the backwards world of Barack Obama and his limp-wristed, maggot-infested Marxist government.  In Barack’s World, terrorists are given constitutional rights, while citizens’ rights and freedoms are taken away.  Terrorists are tried as civilians and our military are tried as war criminals.  Welcome to Obama’s World.

Why would anyone want to defend this country under this Commander-in-Thief?

We have an America-hating, terrorist-loving Attorney General, Eric Holder, who when asked if he would read Osama bin Laden his rights should he be captured, he said, after much hesitation, “it depends.” (video)

It depends!  On what?  What scenario could possibly warrant a non-U.S. citizen, a terrorist no less, caught on foreign soil in the time of war, being given constitutional rights?

The last sentence of the FOX News story, possibly unknowingly, reveals the reason such disgraceful acts are allowed to stand:

Thanks for that liberal, Marxist “Hope and Change” Democrats.  Thanks go to you too “sensitive” Marxist media-types like Communist Keith Olbermann and Radical Rachel Maddow, who feigned “moral outrage” over how the poor terrorists were treated at Abu Ghraib.

This is the upside-down world you’ve created, turning our brave, tough as guts military, whose former objective was “to kill bad guys and break things” into de-balled, feminized, feel-good sensitivity zones of political correctness.  Have fun protecting yourself because our brave and heroic military, once feared, admired, and respected by both friends and foes, has now been officially neutered by a bunch of Marxist ACORN and ACLU attorneys.

The Steady Drip pubished

By John Armor Published Today From Our Writers Unrated

John Armor practiced law in the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years, and is currently the counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, whose website is at: www.theacru.org. He lives now in Highlands, N. Carolina, and is working on a book about Thomas Paine. View all articles by John Armor

From Our Writers:

It has been almost a year that little Barry What’s-His-Name, the Kenyan-Indonesian-African-American lad has been going to school as President of the United States. This is an interim Report Card to his political parents, the voters of the United States.

English Comprehension: Barry has the more extraordinary ability to speak in English than all but a small handful of students who have ever attended this school. However, this ability to speak in complete sentences, using words that seem appropriate to the subject at hand, is coupled with a near total lack of content in those speeches. A+ for delivery, F for content. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “Here comes the Orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

Social Studies: With Barry’s approval, one of his confederates, Little Harry Reid, spent $300 million to purchase the one-time services of Little Mary Landrieu to vote yes to put the Health Care Bill on the floor in the Senate. But, it turned out that Little Mary thought it was only $100 million. They paid 200% more than Little Mary was willing to go for. ”C” for sizing up the situation. ”F” for acting appropriately. As Oscar Wilde said, “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

Science: The very week that internal documents in a British university surface, showing that the scientists who most support global warming have falsified their data, Little Barry decides to take part in a meeting that assumes that those false data are true. Barry and his selected playmates persist in the view that science is decided by the number of scientists who hold a particular view, rather than which scientist has a theory which best fits the observed facts. ”F” for comprehension of what science consists of. ”F” for application of science in the real world. When Galileo was challenged on his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the Sun around the Earth (the common belief of the day) he is reported to have said, “Eppur Si Muove”–”And Yet It Moves.”

Economics: Little Barry has shown a distressing tendency to equate borrowed money with earned money, that either can be spent for “investment” with equal effect. Even if there were no waste in the spending, and no fraud in the counting of the results, the radical difference between borrowing which must be repaid, and spending of present, real money, would remain. ”F” for understanding the basics. ”F” for application in the real world. Milton Friedman from ”Free to Choose”: “You can be sure that we’ll all be able to find very good reasons why we should be the ones to spend somebody else’s money.” Ben Franklin from Poor Richard’s Almanack: “A penny saved is a penny earned.”

History: Little Barry has given several speeches in class about the conduct of warfare and the manner of ending a war successfully. Apparently, he has been neglecting his homework assignments. ”F” for comprehension. ”F” for application. As Vince Lombardi observed, and Winston Churchill also did before him, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” Actually, that precise quote came from a John Wayne movie and was attributed to Lombardi.

There is no doubt, however, about Churchill’s position. Spoken in Commons, “You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory–victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”

Conclusion: Little Barry is not doing well here at the school. Not only do I fear that he will not be promoted at the end of this session, without serious private tutoring to fill in the gaps in his current knowledge, I do not think he can successfully complete the current year. The voters should come and see me, at their earliest opportunity.
Signed:Miss Irmingard Sweeney, Sixth Grade, Unified School District of the United States of America

INTERNET BILLBOARD

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

It is not a conspiracy theory. Using the term “birther” in a condescending, Orwellian manner to discredit decent, hard working Americans who believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land, will not be tolerated.

1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.

2. Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British citizen.  “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was explicitly written to deal with the issue of foreign allegiances at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

3. Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance was further tainted when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and Obama became an Indonesian citizen.

4. Some combination of the above allowed Obama to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was restricted to US citizens.

5. The only document presented by the Obama camp is a Hawaii COLB. There has been no substantiation that it is authentic and it does not establish country of birth. As Lou Dobbs stated, “It is a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper.”

6. All other documentation, all school records, that would establish country of birth have been kept hidden and restricted.

7. No authentic documentation has been presented to establish that Barack Obama was born in the US.

8. The records of all hospitals in Hawaii have been searched. There is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.

9. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother in Kenya has stated on multiple occasions that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa.

10. Others have stated, including multiple family members, officials and press, that Obama was born in Kenya.

This has been presented in a manner that a fifth grader can understand. However, if you have any questions, please contact me on this blog.

Failure to learn more about and understand this critical issue and take appropriate measures can only be construed as apathy,  ignorance or having an un American agenda. This includes the Mainstream Media and the Fox network.

Matt Kibbe; August 25

We know this because a public option along the lines of what is being proposed in Congress already exists. It is called Medicare and the federal government has failed to rein in its costs for nearly five decades. Even with below market reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals, between 1997 and 2005 total Medicare spending per enrollee grew almost three percent faster than did spending on patients insured by the private sector.

And that was despite the artificially high prices for privately insured patients made necessary just to offset losses from government programs. Similarly rapid cost inflation has resulted in Medicare taxes being hiked several different times since the program’s inception.

This will almost certainly continue with the introduction of another massive entitlement.

In fact, according to a recent nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the plans being discussed in Congress don’t reflect the “fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” On the contrary, the CBO report notes that “the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance…would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care.” Simply put, “it raises the amount of activity that is [already] growing at this unsustainable rate…”

So, why can’t the government control its health care costs?

Real Clear Market

Government Power and Control (PDF); Heritage Foundation

City Bridge Blue Skyline wallpaper

George Santayana once said,” Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Terse, but Santayana implied there was hope if we did learn. George Bernard Shaw was even less hopeful claiming, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” One would think with TV, radio, and on-line editions of newspapers and magazines that we’d be proving that Shaw as an irredeemable cynic and that Santayana need not worry. On the contrary easy access to information, the constant churn of the news appears to be making some of us less informed and less patient, Constant Information – and Nothing Remembered

An August Gallup Poll showed that 65 percent of Americans oppose another economic stimulus even though the first one, which was inadequate by most economists’ calculations, saved or created roughly 650,000 jobs. A more recent Gallup survey had 45 percent of Americans believing that current government regulation of business and industry was too great – a 10-year high. Never mind that it was the lack of regulation that got us into our current economic predicament. Regulation is so last year. In the ingenious film “Memento,” the protagonist had lost his capacity to remember anything. It now seems as if we live in a memento nation – a place where we too instantly forget what’s happened to us.

What passes for news on the major networks is partly to blame ( where the majority of Americans still get their news). They spend a disproportionate amount of air time on health issues ( health issues are generally something everyone takes an interest in thus generate viewers and advertising revenue) and very little on asking about what failed, why and the best solutions when it comes to the economy. That leaves a huge gap in public knowledge and perception. Journalism is supposed to aspire to more then telling us X happened, it is supposed to attempt to tell us how and why.

[   ]….Whether this is a function of our own growing impatience or a cause of that impatience is difficult to say, but cable television and the Internet contribute to a national Attention Deficit Disorder. They disrupt continuity, break the chain of cause and effect, detach memory from action, and heighten the moment at the expense of history and the bigger picture that history provides.

We not only live in a society increasingly without memory; we live in a society in which the present is unmoored, making anything that happens right now far more important than anything that has happened before. Hence, if the economy hasn’t recovered, it must be President Obama’s fault since he is currently president. Or if Congress hasn’t enacted health reform yet, it must be the fault of the Democrats since they are the ones in majority, the history of health reform notwithstanding. Or if deficits are growing, it must mean we should stop stimulating the economy since deficits are the issue of the moment. The present moment is everything.

However much this obsession with the here and now destroys accountability, there is an additional danger to a society that lives in the moment. When our actions and opinions are no longer grounded in a larger context, we are also much more susceptible to slogans and clichés that take the place of experience and memory.

Besides a raft of lies ranging from birth certificates to “death panels” to projections of of their own ignorance and fears, the Beck-Palin-”common sense” conservatism movement  relies on its structural and thus ideological support from both a convenient short term memory, a heaping of denial  and the conservative disease known as aversion to accountability.

Not to pick a fight with Glenn Greenwald on the finer legal points - The administration guts its own argument for 9/11 trials, but his assertion contains an element of cynicism on Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration’s motives for separating terrorist trial for those held at Gitmo. The assertion is that the administration is dividing the trials among civil courts, military tribunals and the to be held without trial only to get the best result. An opinion that might be more cynical then merited, The Army Times, Terror trials vary in civilian, military courts

“I think the Obama administration is trying to straddle this debate between whether we should approach al-Qaida as a problem of massive-scale criminality or as a problem of war,” said Matthew Waxman, a former Bush administration State Department and Pentagon official now at Columbia University law school.

Indeed, on Capitol Hill last week, Attorney General Eric Holder testified, “The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions.”

The administration is sending professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen to a civilian trial in New York, while a suspect in the USS Cole bombing in 2000 and four other terror suspects will be tried by military commissions.

The major differences between the systems are the federal judiciary’s independence, rooted in the Constitution and lifetime appointments of judges, and the relaxed rules for admitting evidence in military tribunals.

Federal courts bar evidence obtained by coercion. And the new law regarding military commissions that President Barack Obama signed last month forbids evidence derived from torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. But the commissions still have rules that allow greater use of hearsay testimony and, in some instances, could permit the introduction of coerced testimony.

Military judges ultimately will decide what evidence can be admitted, but the new law allows statements made by defendants to be used even if they are not given voluntarily in certain circumstances, including in combat situations. Written witness statements, rather than live testimony that is subject to cross-examination, also can be admitted by military judges.

The larger issue, for some civil libertarians, is what the American Civil Liberties Union’s Jonathan Hafetz called a “legitimacy deficit.”

The commissions set up under President George W. Bush to try terrorism detainees have been revised several times based on Supreme Court decisions and acts of Congress that moved their rules and procedures closer to federal courts.

“But they just don’t have the credibility and never will have the credibility that federal courts have,” Hafetz said.

Joanne Mariner, director of the terrorism and counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch, said another indication of the reduced stature of the commissions is that, by law, they can never be used to try U.S. citizens.

“The federal courts are a co-equal branch of government and judges are constitutionally protected from interference. That is really important in politically charged and high-profile cases,” Mariner said. “Military commission judges and prosecutors have no such protection.”

On the other hand, supporters of the military tribunals say they provide sufficient protections for accused terrorists. Moreover, they say, the Sept. 11 attack is a classic war crime — the mass murder of civilians — for which military tribunals have traditionally been used.

“Other things being equal, you would think that targeting civilians makes the crime more grave,” said Gregory G. Katsas, a Bush Justice Department official. “If you don’t try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by military commission, I don’t know who you try.”

A host of leading Republicans, including Bush’s last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have said the 9/11 defendants should be tried by military tribunal.

The administration appears to have made pragmatic and political choices after determining that it is likely to win convictions in a civilian trial of the alleged Sept. 11 plotters, but seems less sure of its prospects if suspects from other attacks were tried in federal court.

Holder hinted at this balancing act in his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.

“I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum,” he said, while rejecting senators’ assertions that convictions are easier in military commissions.

But he also said those who attacked a civilian target on U.S. soil were being sent to a civilian federal court and those who attacked or plotted against military targets abroad were going before tribunals.

Holder’s formulation puts the U.S. in the position of distinguishing between American interests based on which government agency was attacked. The attack on a Navy warship, the Cole, is to be handled by military commission, while the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 have been prosecuted by successive administrations in federal court.

Those 75 prisoners to be held without trial are still subject to legitimate concern, but much it continues to be speculation because of all the secrecy surrounding them. Military commissions do have rules to deal with classified information in trials. So just looking from the outside it would seem that military tribunals would be appropriate. If those to be held indefinitely without trial are that dangerous surely there must be some pretty damning evidence to base that on. The type of evidence that has been handled in civilian trials of terrorists. It does seem to establish some dangerous legal precedents to say that some people can be held incommunicado forever with no legal recourse what so ever. The Bush administration was just as, if not more inconsistent about who should be tried where and why as the SCOTUS itself declared.

Drama Queen Andrew Breitbart might want get some professional help with his over heated hyperbole problem, Breitbart, Big Government’s sensational claims about SEIU assault case fall flat

For more than 200 years we have enjoyed the presumption of innocence, double jeopardy protections, miranda rights, and American civil liberties.  It’s what separates us from foreign non-uniformed enemy combatants who violate the rules of war.  We are entitled to a trial with a jury of our peers.  We are entitled to protection against self incrimination.  There are laws and procedures that must be followed, warrants must be procured, and so on in order for the most obvious and damning evidence to be allowable.  Criminals go free sometimes, but because of that we have a legal system designed to protect the innocent above all.

In a move that can only be described as rash and perhaps emotionally driven, President Barack Obama decided to move Khalid Sheikh Mohamed’s trial to New York City and to make it a civilian trial.  In that one move, Obama granted constitutional rights to one of the most terrible terrorist masterminds of our time.  The only reason Khalid Sheikh Mohamed does not share the same infamy as Osama Bin Laden is that Bush caught Mohamed, but not Bin Laden.  In most cases, including 9/11, they stand accused of the same crimes.

What President Obama may or may not have realized is that the rights that we enjoy as American citizens under our constitution have been put all in for a game of chance played by twelve jurors and a judge.  Can a judge, under our constitution, allow evidence collected contrary to our laws?  Can a judge allow a non-mirandized, tortured convict to stand trial?  Can twelve impartial jurors be found in New York City where Mohamed murdered nearly three thousand Americans?

The answer is that Obama already knows the score.  In different statements made by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, KSM has already been declared guilty and given the death penalty.  Both have announced that he will be found guilty and executed, or he will be returned to a military prison and given a military trial.  For the first time, the presumption of innocence that Americans have enjoyed under our constitution has been made null and void by a sitting President who is charged with protecting and implementing our constitution.

You might be asking yourself, if the trial against KSM fails and he is sent back to a military prison to face a military trial, why didn’t we just do that in the first place?  Here is where my worse suspicions may be confirmed.

Rahm Emanuel once said that we shouldn’t waste a crisis.  It is an opportunity to fundamentally change our system, to do things we normally wouldn’t and destroy laws and traditions we have held dear for years.  Apparently the feeling in Washington is that we shouldn’t waste a tragedy either.  By putting this trial in a civilian court, we have the perfect bad guy that every American hates.  No American would cry if Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was denied certain rights such as the presumption of innocence.  No American in New York City is going to organize a “Free KSM” rally at the court house because he wasn’t read his rights or the evidence was collected as if it was some sort of military operation, not civilian police raid.

By making KSM public enemy number one and then giving him a constitutional civilian trial, Obama has created the perfect precedent to supersede the precedent of all of the constitutional rights previously mentioned.

We can only pray that this was nothing more than a bumbling act of complete incompetence.  But I would expect more from the former head of Harvard Law Review and constitutional scholar.

It reads:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

In 2006, then Senator Barak Obama stated that ”Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation.” He went on to say that “we’re a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a nation of unbelievers.”

This was an insult to the memory of all previous generations of Americans who were veterans, businessmen, factory workers, farm hands, Mothers, Fathers, white collar, blue collar, black tie, barefoot, industrialist, Founder — anyone who worked hard to do what’s right for themselves and those around them, to do what’s right for this country of ours, for America.

Declaring the end to the Judeo-Christian influence in this country in 2006 and again Barack Obama speaking* recently in Turkey, April, 2009, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian Nation.”

* I began the research for this post back on October 13th.  As of  8:10 pm 11/27/09, that vid is no longer available in its original place and I’ve had to search for it (probably because it is unbecoming to the president).  This is the full URL where it was:  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQIVd7YT0oWA&search_type=&aq=f.  I’ve found it below.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735

He then dares to flippantly identify the Christian right as THE problem:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.” (Source)

This is not only incorrect, but a blatant lie.  And those who are ignorant of the possibility of him ever making an error are unaware of the truth of anything.  Principle absent human compassion is nothing more than intellectual masturbation and Obama has his hand on it.

“[I]t is obvious that this is Obama’s way of ingratiating himself with Muslim audiences. But whatever his immediate goal, his sentiment is a popular one with Americans that sport left-wing, anti-religious ideology, people who look to Obama as their leader.” 

But is it true?  Did the Founding Fathers base this country on the Christian ethic or not?  When one reads the historical record, not the revised secular edition, it is apparent and indeed a resounding YES.  It is also quite clear that we are so very far off course from that original grounding.

As Ronald Reagan reminded us in 1988: “The First Continental Congress made its first act a prayer — the beginning of a great tradition. We have then, a lesson from the founders of our land, those giants of soul and intellect whose courageous pledge of life and fortune and sacred honor, and whose ‘firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,’ have ever guided and inspired Americans and all who would fan freedom’s mighty flames and live in ‘freedom’s holy light.’ That lesson is clear: That in the winning of freedom and in the living of life, the first step is prayer.” Reagan was ever so right to guide us toward an understanding that the Founders of this country nearly to a man were steeped in religion — and that of the Protestant, Christian variety, at that. Even the ones against organized religion believed in a God, one that put us here and gave us certain rights as espoused in the Declaration of Independence from Britain. (Source)

But let us not use just the Declaration, as the Constitution is supreme law that guides this country [emphasis mine and throughout]. We must strive to remain strict constructionists of that document and hew closely to what the founder’s intended in all their wisdom. It is well considered proper, then, that we look to what the Founders and their contemporaries wrote to construe what they “meant” concerning the principles and ethics to which they hoped we’d remain forever faithful.

Let us begin with a quote from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. “The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.” That sounds rather ominous, does it not? Of course Madison means that Christian concept of morality that he learned from the Anglican Church which was a required state religion in his home state, Virginia when he was a child.

Another stalwart driving force of the revolutionary days was Samuel Adams who, echoing James Madison’s idea, said, “Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals.”

George Washington who can be quoted bestowing Christian religious principles on many of his thoughts and actions he took on the battlefield and in government is very quotable on the subject. Here are a few quotes from the Father of our country.

• “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
• “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
• “And now, Almighty Father, if it is Thy holy will that we shall obtain a place and name among the nations of the earth, grant that we may be enabled to show our gratitude for Thy goodness by our endeavors to fear and obey Thee.”

Pretty straight forward, I believe.

How about Ben Franklin? Old Poor Richard himself was never considered the biggest religious fanatic of his day. In fact he is one of the few Founders that actually considered himself a Deist. But even he once said, “It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine being.” Hardly sounds like he was against the morality of Christian ethics, does it?

John Adams, second president and indispensable founding father who was well known to be extremely pious both in religion and opinion said, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service, when it is violating all His laws.”

He sure did not say Allah’s service. Nor did he couple God and THEY. Adams said HIS laws. An obvious recognition of the Christian God of heaven and earth.

These quotes are all well and good but what did the early American theorists intend to pass on to the youth of America? As an answer to this I point to Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania. Rush was a respected Doctor and was closely tied to most of the great figures of the early Republic and its national politics. He wrote, “I proceed…to enquire what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

Well, we could quote dozens upon dozens of such phrases from men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Henry Lee, George Clinton and a host of other revolutionary notables but that would tend to over burden the point.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, as a riposte to Christians, many half-informed secularists claim that Jefferson was a Deist that hated Christianity. But this is garbled history. Like many of the Founders, Jefferson disliked organized religion but was not in any way against religious sentiment, training and ideals. In fact, the older he got, the more religious he became. But even as our third president he regularly attended Bible class right in the halls of Congress and never once scolded the classes from meeting on federal property. He was not against Christianity in government at all.*

The point is that the men of the revolution, those very men that created our country, its mores and conventions based their ruminations upon the Christian God and his ethics and principles. They felt this base to be entirely indispensable to the stability of republican government. They warned that to dispense with them would be our undoing and we followed those predications faithfully up until the civil war and half heartedly until the presidency of FDR.

But today, civil Libertarians strive to remake the U.S.A. into a Godless and moraless society based upon an if-it-feels-right mode of thinking. The Democrat Party tries to replace religion with statism and socialism. Even Republicans all too often shy away from the question of the religious ethics of Christianity as if it is a backward ideal that would best be forgotten.

No, Benjamin Rush had it right when he said that without religion “… there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

Whether critics and secularists like it or not, we are at heart a Christian nation and if we cast off that ethic we will no longer be the United States, we will no longer have in us what made us great.

 ~αΩ~

*For an in depth discussion of Jefferson’s misinterpreted Danbury Letter from which the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was derived, visit: http://www.publiusforum.com/oldopeds/hustonstoryseparation.html.  See also www.wallbuilders.org for their excellent resources on this wall that is supposed to guard the church from the government.

This was only one discussion of many in the argument for America’s Christian Heritage.  One of the best places for this kind if information is at the American Vision website.  They have a fantastic DVD, The Case for America’s Christian Heritage, vol 1 (Christian History).  The video clip on the next page after the description is the trailer for this DVD.

Christian Nation http://wp.me/pzfHB-eM

Length: 3:23

Related: state; sovereignty; nation; nation-state

Dickerson, Mark et. al. An Introduction to Government and Politics (8th ed.). Canada: Nelson Education, 2010.

Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. What do they stand for? Where do I fit? I can’t answer that for you. You have to answer it for yourself. I can direct you to a quiz that will help you determine it. The world’s smallest political quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html .

I can, however, give you my take on the parties and what they mean to me. My views can be boiled down short enough to fit in this post comfortably and still get the message across. For example, the Republican Party, they stand for big business. The Democrat Party, they stand for big government. The Libertarian Party, they stand for the individual. Is that short and sweet enough for you? Oh, you’d like a little more?

Well, let’s see. The Republican party has traditionally sided with GM, GE and Wal-Mart. They counted on the trickle down theory of economics. In other words the rich get richer and the people get more scraps from the table of big business. It works ok, but in recent years they’ve been trying to follow a more Constitutionally friendly agenda. Without much success, I might add.

Now the Democrat Party is totally different while being exactly the same. Confused? Basically, the Democrat party thinks that government can solve any problem from poverty to quantum physics. They claim to be for the working class while expanding the welfare state. Am I making this clear? No? That’s because they are very contradictory. At least with the Republicans you know how they’re going to screw you. The Democrats try to hide it. But the result is the same, you and I pay more.

The Libertarian party, contrary to popular belief, is the most conservative. They actually believe what the Constitution says. They are for the individual and his rights. They do desire to remove most of the barriers in the way of business as well. However, this can create a kind of “buyer beware” sort of climate. They believe in smaller government, just enough to get the job done.

I personally, am an Independent at this point. But if I had to side somewhere it would definitely be Libertarian.

As you watch this video of Jacob Bronowski’s cautions, think for a moment about what it must be like for him to stand on the ground where his slaughtered ancestor now rest. Mr. Bronowski explains from his own personal experiences, the devastating effects of trying to gain ‘absolute knowledge’ and ‘absolute power’. The interview, when conducted by Michael Parkinson in 1973 was said to be his [Parkinson's] most memorable interview.

When I heard Carol Browner quoted as saying, “the science is settled”, I could not help but think of Bronowski’s words as he stood atop the ashes of his family and loved ones.  You see, for any one man or organization to gain supreme or absolute power, a portion of that power must be relinquished or overturned from somewhere else. In Nazi Germany’s case, the power was ‘taken’ from the Jews with force. This type of genocide has never taken place in America for obvious reasons; a)the people in America have always (in our history) maintained more power than their government (until now). b)A governing body has never been able to execute an agenda contrary to popular request (until now).

Our system of government (The Constitution) has protected its people for years, until now. I can assure you that when government is ‘allowed’ to make decisions based on what ‘they’ think is right for the people as opposed to what ‘the people’ think is right for themselves, it is surely the beginning of something terrifyingly similar to Bronowski’s lesson from Auschwitz.

God Bless America

     The Wall Street Journal reported November 27,2009 that Republican Chairman Michael Steele asked a question to fellow dinner guests in London’s Mayfair district.  To the guests he asked “what can the GOP learn from Britain’s resurgent Conservative Party?” 

     If Mr. Steele must ask this question, then he clearly hasn’t a clue.  The resurging of the Tories can be credited to their move to the political center.  One can not compare conservatism in England with the United States.  For one thing, U-S conservatism is focused on the preservation of our Constitution, something that is not an issue in Britain.

     It is possible that moving to the center may prove to be a benefit to the conservative movement in England but moving to the center in the U-S will only further distance the GOP from Americans, particularly the Tea Party movement.  If Mr. Steel contemplates such tactics here, he will find that the continuing surge of a third-party will only be more enforced.

America was founded on the principles set out in the Bible. It is God who has endowed us with the rights we have, not any man or government.

All states’ Constitutions mention God.

Florida, originally from 1845, contains in its preamble a statement of gratitude to God:“We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, ordain and establish this constitution.”

See all the states here.

I believe that America is a Christian country, and because we are a Christian country, we have respect for other religions and for those with no religion.  I’m sick and tired of hearing about how we are no longer a Christian nation,(or never were), because we are and we better hope and pray we stay that way.

Christ has said “come unto me, all who are weary and heavy-laden.” He stands with his arms outstretched and he continually knocks on the heart’s door that opens only from the inside.  Nobody is required to be a Christian.  It’s an invitation and a privilege.  But that does not mean that we have to become like any other religion or to become as an atheist with no signs of our faith.

We Do Not have to strip evidence of Christianity from our lives and especially now at Christmas time.  Christmas is a Christian holiday, in case that’s not obvious, so anyone who does not want to celebrate it, just don’t. But Christians should be able to celebrate it any way we want to.  I usually remain silent on my faith, but I’m going to stand up for it as it is being threatened at every hand.

So just leave the mangers alone, damn it.  (And the crosses, too.)

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

Merry Christmas

Posted:  11.27.09

Giving praise to God’s blessings on this day in particular is a family tradition that I grew up with. What I don’t recall is that it had anything to do with Islam?

What happened to our AMERICAN traditional day of giving thanks to OUR GOD and OUR ancestors? And what does it have to do with Islam?

All I can say is that the CIC  UnBush, nor did the Bush Jr,  speak for me!

No offense to the believers of the cult of Islam, but your religion had NOTHING to do with OUR American day of Thanksgiving and IMO, it should remain so!

“[R]eligion, or the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and this is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” –Virginia Bill of Rights, Article 16, 1776

————————————————————————————————————————–

George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

George Washington

——————————————————————————-

Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day October 3, 1863

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence [sic], have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

Abraham Lincoln

——————————————————————————-

Sarah Palin’s Thanksgiving Address Facebook-2009

Over three hundred years ago, a group of settlers fleeing religious persecution decided to set a new course for human history in a new frontier. Those early pioneers chose a rocky shoreline to establish their way of life. Centuries later, America continues to set the example of what can come from a free and hardworking people. We truly remain the shining city upon a hill that the colonial leader John Winthrop implored us to be.

What started as a small colony in the territory that would eventually become the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has progressed into the greatest and most prosperous nation in history. Americans remain the freest people on earth because of our cherished Constitution and the system of government it establishes.

We have so much to be thankful for. We should recognize especially the sacrifices made on our behalf by those in uniform. Thousands of Americans will be spending Thanksgiving overseas in combat zones in order to protect our liberty and way of life. We should give thanks to those who willingly put their lives on the line for the rest of us. Where would we be without them?

We are also thankful for what God has granted us. We are truly blessed in America with rich natural resources, plentiful energy sources, fertile land, beautiful cities, and the talented and industrious people we call “our fellow Americans.” We pray that God will continue to bless us.

In his farewell address to the nation, President Reagan reminded us that “all great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Thanksgiving is an opportunity to discuss where we are as a nation at this moment in our history and where we should be heading in order to remain prosperous and free. Take time to discuss these things with each other, and take time to teach the young people in your family about our nation’s history so that they may never forget all that we have to be proud of and thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving!

- Sarah Palin

———————————————————————-

President Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day proclamation, as released by the White House:

What began as a harvest celebration between European settlers and indigenous communities nearly four centuries ago has become our cherished tradition of Thanksgiving. This day’s roots are intertwined with those of our nation, and its history traces the American narrative.

Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed “by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God,” and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured nation in the midst of civil war. We also recognize the contributions of Native Americans, who helped the early colonists survive their first harsh winter and continue to strengthen our nation. From our earliest days of independence, and in times of tragedy and triumph, Americans have come together to celebrate Thanksgiving.

As Americans, we hail from every part of the world. While we observe traditions from every culture, Thanksgiving Day is a unique national tradition we all share. Its spirit binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings.

As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year. In doing so, we pay tribute to our country’s men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day.

Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, president of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own and to share our bounty with others.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 2009, and of the independence of the United States of America the 234th (year).

• Barack Obama

I’m also aware that there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that Obama is anything but a regular Yankee Doodle Dandy, as American as Mom’s apple pie, in spite of the fact that in “Dreams From My Father,” he wrote that in college, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. Those friends,” he wrote, were “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

He also wrote about venturing into the East Village for “the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union.” Then, in search of additional inspiration, “I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia.”

The fact is that even after college, he was still cherry-picking his friends. As we all know, they included such various Marxists, Maoists and Mau Maus, as, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Frank Davis, Anita Dunn, Louis Farrakhan, Raila Ordinga, Sass Sunstein, Andy Stern and Rashid Khalidi.

Statement by the President on Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha, as provided by the White House

Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to all those performing Hajj this year, and to Muslims in America and around the world who are celebrating Eid-ul-Adha. The rituals of Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha both serve as reminders of the shared Abrahamic roots of three of the world’s major religions.

During Hajj, the world’s largest and most diverse gathering, three million Muslims from all walks of life – including thousands of American Muslims – will stand in prayer on Mount Arafat. The following day, Muslims around the world will celebrate Eid-ul-Adha and distribute food to the less fortunate to commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God.

This year, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services has partnered with the Saudi Health Ministry to prevent and limit the spread of H1N1 during Hajj. Cooperating on combating H1N1 is one of the ways we are implementing my administration’s commitment to partnership in areas of mutual interest.
On behalf of the American people, we would like to extend our greetings during this Hajj season – Eid Mubarak.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/on-thanksgiving-eve-barack-obamas-special-message-to-muslims.html

Possible related posts:

http://votingfemale.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/happy-thanksgiving-to-my-beloved-blog-family-and-to-all-true-americans/

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/11/25/on-thanksgiving-eve-obama-issues-special-message-to-muslims-at-hajj/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/bush-sends-muslims-eid-al-adha-greetings-reinforces-hatred-toward-non-muslims.html

http://votingfemale.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/sarah-palin-is-relevant-and-will-be-even-more-so-the-left-is-acclimating-slowly-to-that-reality/

http://samandimp.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/obama-hold-that-thanksgiving-message/

http://animal-farm.us/change/no-separation-of-church-and-state-799

Separation of church and state: The concept http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-147398

The question presented is Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

I haven’t read all of the briefs, but I wonder if any of them pointed out that there is a document that “incorporates” the Second Amendment against the States. It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, that document would have never passed had they not added the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the inalienable Bill of Rights.

After all, Sotomayer said in her confirmation hearing that the Constitution and the words of the founding fathers should be the most important factor in any court decision.

During a slow week at the Court, the amicus briefs filed Monday in the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago continue to be the biggest news. At Balkinization, David Gans describes the “overwhelming case” made by the Constitutional Accountability Center in its amicus brief (of which he is a co-author) for the Court to rejuvenate the Privileges or Immunities Clause; at the same time, Gans aims to quell concerns that such a move would endanger the constitutional rights of non-citizens. Douglas Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy sifts through the briefs for arguments about criminal justice implications. And at The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr segues from originalist arguments in the briefs to a discussion of originalism and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Jurist notes the filing of other amicus briefs yesterday in the terrorism support case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

The WSJ Law Blog discusses the judicial takings theory advanced by the petitioners in Stop the Beach, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to be argued next week. (You can read Elisabeth Oppenheimer’s preview of the case for Scotuswiki here.)

ScottWiki
The Volokh Conspiracy
JPFO INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution attribute the ordination and establishment of the Constitution to “We, the people.”  Democracy is by definition and conception, government by people.  The Constitution was forged and written by approximately forty adult, white, free, male, land-owners chosen to represent the several states of the Republic, to establish a federal union.   The role of a democracy is both to defend the rights of the people and the states, and to restrain and dissuade those who would deny those rights to others.  Ultimately, a body of people without government is an anarchy.

Consider three major parts of this document.   The Preamble enumerates the noble intent of the delegates to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, establish justice, promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, not only for the Founding Fathers, but for generations to follow.  The ensuing articles of the Constitution establish separation of powers, continuity and structure of government with little relevance to individual rights expressed in the Preamble.  The addition and ratification of the Bill of Rights defined both individual rights and rights not enumerated and reserved to the states. 

Our democracy, or republic, or combination thereof, was established as a compromise of delegation of powers to the federal government and the states, a compromise between the large states and small states, agricultural and industrial states, and potential conflicts among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  It was to be, and is, a government chosen by majorities of persons who exercise the choice and right of voting.  Elected officials derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Our history is marked by periods of turmoil, in which specific segments of the populace, have expressed the feeling of being voiceless or unrepresented.  Beginning with federalists and democrats, we have a long history of disenchanted abolitionists, suffragists, workers, communists, populists, agrarians, separatists, integrationists, revivalists, revolutionaries, and poorly defined and generic malcontents. 

These periods have given meaning to the rallying cry “power to the people” which has been enjoined by any and all who are denied access to the elective process, or have been unsuccessful in one or more election cycles.   Our First Amendment guarantees not only freedom of expression in voice or print to petition for redress of grievance, but in the same sentence grants freedom to peaceably assemble for such grievance.

The battleground for such expressions of discontent, outside the halls of law or justice, thus becomes the streets, the public square, campuses, factories, and the front steps and foyers of government.  The power of the people is rightfully expressed within the protection of those rights of free speech, unless in an environment of clear and present danger.   This does not equate civil disobedience, unless specific ordinances are violated.  Under the accepted guidelines of civil disobedience, citizens who feel compelled to violate specific unjust laws may do so, if no harm is done to persons or property.  To be effective the peaceful violator should submit to the proper authority for appropriate punishment or pardon, until unjust laws can be revised or repealed.

Our histories of civil unrest have frequently ended in violence or in armed insurrection.   In such confrontations, the people seeking power or voice are opposed or suppressed by the people who hold power and voice.  It then becomes an unclear interpretation of either an absolute matter of right and wrong, or more likely a conflict of wills.  

There is today a loud and visual, spontaneous or contrived, demonstration of political malcontent, with voices that express a need to defend the Constitution and to take back the country.  There is a concurrent chorus of voices, which express fear that the country and the Constitution are at risk from those who come to the public forum under a banner of taking back a nation and document.   In the wise quote from Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”  The axiom that just powers are derived from the consent of the governed has to be validated by the elective and legislative process within our democracy.     

The ensuing public image of demonstrative civil expression seeking power to, or for, the people is often a misconstrued paradox—either a band of patriots or a potential insurgent rabble.

Happy Thanksgiving. What did the Constitution say about Church and State?

Read it here!
http://animal-farm.us/change/no-separation-of-church-and-state-799

Forget about abolishing the Seanad. Fine Gael’s first act in office (next year…?) should be to introduce a constitutional amendment outlawing the payment of public money to any religious organisation. This would serve not only to draw a line (one would hope) under the historical abuse of children in care homes and elsewhere, but also force the immediate secularisation of the education system in the Republic, which is long overdue. The churches wouldn’t be able to sell their schools to the State under the amendment (even if the State could afford to buy them), but considering they were all built and maintained using taxpayers’ money in the first place, the only proper thing to do would be to donate them. Call it “compensation” if you will.