Frank Salvato

The coverage of President Obama’s most recent nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, has been nothing less than incredible. Of course, the word incredible can be used in several contexts, some good and some bad. To clarify, I am using it in a context meant to mean bad…very bad…incredibly bad.

While the mainstream – or irrelevant – media waxes on about how she is a surprisingly moderate nominee for the president to have chosen, the extent of their critical examination of Ms. Kagan, former and first female Dean of Harvard Law School, consists of yarns about basketball and softball pickup games. As Marcia Kramer of CBS-TV in New York tells us regarding her relationship with the prostitute hustling Eliot Spitzer,

“Spitzer told CBS 2 HD about that time Kagan goaded him into a spaghetti eating contest. Spitzer gave up after eating seven bowls, but Kagan put the picture on the front page of the Princeton paper, no doubt with a ‘saucy’ headline.”

MSNBC’s Gabe Pressman reported on how Ms. Kagan’s nomination was a great victory for the Women’s Movement,

“A couple of hours after the President announced that he had appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, two veterans of the battle for women’s rights ran into each other at the Fairway super market on Broadway. They were overjoyed.

“‘Amazing!’ exclaimed Ronnie Eldridge. ‘It’s just amazing to see how far we’ve come.’

“The other woman, Ellen Cohen, a feminist writer, exclaimed: ‘Can you believe it? It’s unbelievable!’

“Eldridge, a former councilwoman, told me about the meeting. ‘We were so happy. We never believed we’d see the day when three women would be on the Supreme Court.’”

Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan, an English writer for The Atlantic, described by the irrelevant media as a “conservative,” has been pushing the rumor that Ms. Kagan is gay,

“…since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice’s sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It’s especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan’s possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?”

Two things should be noted here:

1) That “conservative” political commentator Sullivan endorsed John Kerry – a Progressive-Democrat – in 2004, celebrated the Democrat Party’s takeover of Congress in 2006 and endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008. To identify Sullivan as a “conservative” is to be unsuccessfully comedic.

2) And that, in light of Mr. Sullivan’s affinity for endorsing Progressive candidates and celebrating Progressive political takeovers of government institutions, maybe, just maybe, Mr. Sullivan was doing the dirty work of floating a distraction – a “bright shiny thing” – for the intellectually challenged irrelevant media to glom on to so that they wouldn’t be tempted to look deeper into her published philosophy.

What “published philosophy” you ask?

DiscoverTheNetworks.org reveals that included in Ms. Kagan’s 1981 Princeton senior thesis, To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933, was this,

“‘…a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States’; that ‘Americans are more likely to speak of…capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness’; that ‘the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter’; that ‘in a society by no means perfect,’ no ‘radical party’ had yet ‘attained the status of a major political force’; that ‘the socialist movement [had] never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties’; and that the Socialist Party had ‘exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance.’ Kagan called these developments ‘sad’ and ‘chastening’ for ‘those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.’”

And then there is this. Kagan’s immediate and emotional response to the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980,

“‘She wrote that her immediate ‘gut response’ to Reagan’s election had been to conclude ‘that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead, and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused.’ Soon thereafter Kagan predicted, with a hopeful spirit, that ‘the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’”

In 1991, Ms. Kagan took a position as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, where she met Barack Obama, who served not as a “professor” teaching the Constitution or constitutional law, as Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet points out, but as a “senior lecturer.”

During her time at the University of Chicago, she penned an article for the University of Chicago Law Review addressing free speech where hate speech and pornography are concerned, in which she stated,

“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

All of this information on Ms. Kagan was acquired in a single search on the Internet. The information is sourced, linked and factual. That the irrelevant media can only talk and write about “spaghetti eating contests”, basketball pick-up games and whether or not she is “gay” illustrates their incredible disdain for the art of journalism. Goebbels would be proud.

But the larger and much more serious point here is that President Obama has nominated someone to the United States Supreme Court who has espoused a dedication to the principles and ideology of Socialism while stating, in no uncertain terms, that she would rationalize the abandonment of free speech rights. This, the Obama Administration and the irrelevant media present as a “moderate” nominee.

Our Framers did not intend for the nomination of an individual to the United States Supreme Court to be an exercise of politics. They intended for Presidents to nominate those with a loyalty and dedication to not only the United States Constitution, but to the whole of the Charters of Freedom, as well as the Natural Rights philosophies embraced by our Framers in the creation of the Charter and our country. They even provided a process where the President’s choice, should it be made of political opportunity, would be vetted by the Senate so as to assure that no ideologues would pass through the doors of the United States Supreme Court.

Today, not only do we have a nominee to the United States Supreme Court who embraces the philosophies of Socialism and a disregard for the sanctity of free speech as demanded by Article I of the Bill of Rights, we have a Senate whose majority embraces the goals and philosophies of the Progressive-Socialist 1960’s twirling-in-the-street in Haight-Ashbury, “revolutionaries.”

The Supreme Court has the duty – the sacred duty – of protecting and defending the United States Constitution. They are tasked with applying the mandates of the US Constitution to questions brought before them in a fashion that upholds and honors the Constitution. By her own words – “…the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation…” and “Americans are more likely to speak of…capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness” – Ms. Kagan has proven that she is grossly unqualified for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice.

The fact that she rose to the level of Dean at the Harvard Law School should raise some “red” flags as well…

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

“[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not … would make the judiciary a despotic branch. … [T]he germ of dissolution of our federal government is … the federal Judiciary … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. … They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.” –Thomas Jefferson

Justice Elena Kagan?

Barack Obama has nominated his Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Since this is a lifetime appointment, we should consider the implications for our Constitution and for liberty.

Will this Ivy League academic be an advocate for Essential Liberty and Rule of Law, or does she subscribe to the errant notion of a “living constitution“?

According to Obama, Kagan “is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost legal minds,” and he’s right — if by “widely” he means among elitist Leftists.

In fact, Obama’s assessment of Kagan mirrored that of her über-Leftist Princeton prof Sean Wilentz, under whose tutelage Kagan wrote her glowing thesis on socialism in the early 20th century. “Kagan,” said Wilentz, “is one of the foremost legal minds in the country.”

In her thesis, Kagan lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, “A coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”

“Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force?” wondered Kagan. “Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties? Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself…”

In her thesis, Kagan lamented the fact that free enterprise overcame socialism and concluded, “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. … In unity lies their only hope.”

Ah, yes, the “hope and change” necessary for Obama to make good on his promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Just as Obama was mentored by Marxists, Kagan has been steeped in socialist doctrine, and is no doubt rejoicing in the resurgence of socialism in the U.S. under the leadership of Obama and his water boys in the legislative and judicial branches.

As for her qualifications for a seat on the Supreme Court, Obama insists that Kagan “is an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law.”

In fact, she has exactly no judicial experience and very limited litigation experience. Legal authority Ken Klukowski writes that Kagan is an ideal nominee for Obama: “She’s a liberal without a paper trail.”

Sounds like the Obama model.

Most of Kagan’s experience is academic (read: “deficient”), at the University of Chicago Law School and as dean of Harvard Law School, where she attempted to boot military recruiters off campus at the height of the war in Iraq. Her reason for this frontal assault on our nation’s ability to defend itself was the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which Kagan called “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”

Even The Washington Post concludes that her qualifications “can only be called thin,” noting further, “even her professional background is thin.”

While media profiles of Kagan paint her, predictably, as a moderate “consensus-builder,” Kagan is, in fact, a genuine, hardcore Leftist, a former legal counsel to the Clintonista regime who began her political career in earnest as a staffer for liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis’s presidential run back in 1988.

Her liberal roots were firmly entrenched by the time she graduated from Princeton in 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office. A New York Times profile of Kagan notes, “On Election Night, she drowned her sorrow in vodka and tonic as Ronald Reagan took the White House.”

More recently, the thin legal trail she has established as Obama’s Solicitor to the Supreme Court raises serious questions about Kagan’s commitment to the plain language of the First Amendment.

In a 1996 law review article, Kagan wrote that the “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” which is another way of saying that the court has a responsibility to level the playing field for various ideas, including the Internet, talk radio, etc.

She recently offered a similar argument before the High Court in regard to the government’s authority to regulate print materials under campaign finance laws, a notion that Chief Justice John Roberts concluded, “As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that [proposition] is startling and dangerous.”

Says Kagan, “Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by the courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives.”

She undoubtedly came to that errant conclusion while clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall, of whom she later wrote admiringly, “In Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. … The Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’ The Constitution today … contains a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality.’ Our modern Constitution is [Marshall's].”

Setting aside her utter disdain for our Constitution and its authors, Kagan is flat-out wrong about the role of the High Court. It exists to safeguard the unbiased application of our Constitution’s original intent.

In 1987, the year before Kagan clerked for Marshall, he delivered a lecture entitled, “The Constitution: A Living Document,” in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that succumbs to the contemporary political, moral and cultural climate.

That is the very definition of the “living constitution” upon which judicial activists have relied in order to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat rather than its prescribed method in Article V.

No doubt, Kagan will advance that heretical and treasonous interpretation.

Obama claims that Kagan understands the law “not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page — but as it affects the lives of ordinary people.”

Not as “words on a page”?

It is precisely that rejection of the plain language of our Constitution that led President Thomas Jefferson in 1804 to call the court “the despotic branch.”

Indeed, since the very founding of our constitutional government, the judiciary has worked “like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Back in 1987, during confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork (one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the High Court), one Leftist senator commented, “The Framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility,” especially in regard to the nominee’s “political, legal and constitutional views.” That senator was Joe Biden, who rejected Judge Bork because he was a “constitutional constructionist,” precisely the attribute our Founders wanted in jurists.

Perhaps those in the Senate today will rightly consider Kagan’s “political, legal and constitutional views,” and reject her nomination in order to preserve Essential Liberty and Rule of Law.

*****

(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families — especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)

Read more informative articles at The Patriot Post

Obama has tapped Solicitor General Elena Kagan to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, but some say she has no judicial experience.

She has proven to be inept, BUT, the most important thing about her is her Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Communist leanings.

This is what Obama wants so he can further his agenda of destroying our Republic, our Democracy, and replacing it with a Totalitarian Socialism.

This way, he and his minions hope to stay in power, even if it destroys our Economy. Russia did the same until they finally wised up. Why did you think Vladmir Putin warned Obama NOT to go down this road to Socialism. Putin said, speaking from experience, that it just doesn’t work!

Since Obama chose to ignore these and many other warnings, it can mean only one thing. He doesn’t care about the American People, but only all the Power and Money he can get his Grubby hands on!

Visit the Newsy site for up to the minute and breaking news articles.

Black Activists Comment on Kagan Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court

Washington, DC: Member of the Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out about President Barack Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mychal Massie: “After all of the division he has foisted upon America in his short tenure, Obama had a perfect opportunity to show he could be conciliatory and moderate. With the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama failed miserably. Obama condemned his nominee, his colleagues in Congress and himself to a long, hot and bitter summer in which the full radicalism of his agenda will be on full display. Obama is rapidly running out of opportunities to convince the American people that his presidential campaign was not simply a collection of hot air and empty promises.” (Mychal Massie is chairman of Project 21, a syndicated columnist whose work appears at WorldNetDaily, and a former talk show host and businessman.)

Horace Cooper: “Observers say Kagan is meant to be an ‘intellectual counterweight’ to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia. Intellectual counterweight? She’d be better described as marginal and outside the mainstream. In the signature case she led as dean of Harvard’s law school — preventing military recruiters on her campus — she not only lost, but she lost big. Not one justice took her side. Is Kagan truly the best candidate Obama could find, or the one most palatable to his far-left base?” (Horace Cooper, a member of Project 21 and an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, is a former visiting professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

R. Dozier Gray: “As painful as it is for me to accept his choice, President Obama does have the constitutional right to nominate whomever he wants to the Supreme Court. And, with this Senate, he has a reasonable expectation that Elena Kagan will be confirmed. But he should not consider it a certainty. Obama and Harry Reid should not try to game the process as we’ve seen tried so often in this Congress. Obama voted against Samuel Alito when he was in the Senate, so he should naturally be willing to afford each senator that same privilege of advice and consent he once enjoyed.” (R. Dozier Gray is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a combat veteran.)

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org), a non-profit foundation established in 1982 and funded primarily from the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual donors.

The Foundation

“Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want a war let it begin here.” –Captain John Parker, commander of the militiamen at Lexington, Massachusetts, on sighting British Troops

Patriots’ Day

In honor of Patriots’ Day today, please consider supporting The Patriot Annual Fund. Your support fuels our vital mission to inform and educate grassroots Patriots with the right perspective on news, policy and opinion. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

For a donation of $26, we will send you a copy of our popular Essential Liberty Guide, a vital resource explaining the American history of Rule of Law through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, an inspiring historical introduction, and much more. For donations of $52 or more, you will receive four copies, and donations of $100 or more will receive 10 copies.

Liberty

“So much is being written in the mainstream media about who the tea partiers are, but very little is being recorded about what these folks are actually saying. We know that this is a decentralized grassroots movement, with many different voices hailing from many different towns across the country.   …    But the tea-party message comes together in the ‘Contract From America,’ the product of an online vote orchestrated by Ryan Hecker, a Houston tea-party activist and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. With nearly 500,000 votes recorded in less than two months, this Contract forms a blueprint of tea-party policy goals and beliefs. Of the top-10 planks in the Contract, the No. 1 issue is protect the Constitution. That’s followed by reject cap-and-trade, demand a balanced budget and enact fundamental tax reform. And then comes number five: Restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington. Note that two of the top-five priorities of the tea partiers mention the Constitution. Filling out the Contract, the bottom-five planks are end runaway government spending; defund, repeal and replace government-run health care; pass an all-of-the-above energy policy; stop the pork; and stop the tax hikes. What’s so significant to me about this tea-party Contract From America is the strong emphasis on constitutional limits and restraints on legislation, spending, taxing and government control of the economy. Undoubtedly, the emphasis is there because no one trusts Washington. As I read this Contract, tea partiers are reminding all of us of the need for the Constitution to protect our freedoms. They’re calling for a renewal of constitutional values, including — first and foremost — a return to constitutional limits on government. The tea partiers who responded to this poll are demanding a rebirth of the consent of the governed. The government works for us, we don’t work for it.” –economist Larry Kudlow

Government

“The value-added tax has become the designated panacea for massive federal budget deficits. It’s touted by think-tank economists and mentioned by congressional leaders. A VAT could, it’s said, raise stupendous amounts of money, which, Lord knows, are needed to cover projected deficits. A VAT is likened to a ‘national sales tax,’ so once in place, most Americans would barely notice it — just as they barely notice state and local sales taxes. How’s that for friendly politics? A VAT would also discourage consumption and encourage saving and investment, making America richer in the future. What’s not to like? … Almost every pro-VAT argument is exaggerated, misleading, incomplete or wrong. The VAT is being merchandised as an almost-painless way to avoid deep spending cuts. The implicit, though often unstated, message is that a VAT could raise so much money it could eliminate future deficits by itself. This reasoning, if embraced, would create staggering tax burdens and exempt us from a debate we desperately need. How big a government do we want — and what can we afford?” –contributing editor of Newsweek and The Washington Post Robert J. Samuelson

For the Record

“You can’t get something for nothing. At least, that’s how the old saying goes. For almost half of all taxpayers, however, that is no longer true. That’s because they pay no federal income taxes. For them, Tax Day has become just another day on the calendar. Since the federal income tax is the predominant revenue raiser for the federal government, these ‘nonpayers’ receive government services and benefits without sharing any of the costs. … Passing the point at which less than half of all tax filers pay income taxes is dangerous because beyond that threshold, approximately a majority of voters could vote themselves an increasing share of government benefits at no cost to themselves. … In this situation, politicians have even less incentive to restrain government spending because more votes could be won by increasing spending than lost by increasing the tax burden. That is a deadly recipe for never-ending increases in government spending that will inevitably lead to a fiscal implosion when there are no longer enough productive taxpayers to pay the bill for the expanding welfare state. … To make matters worse, most non-payers not only pay no income taxes, but actually collect cash payments through the tax code. For these recipients of government redistribution, Tax Day is like an extra payday.” –Heritage Foundation analyst Curtis Dubay

Opinion in Brief

“There’s a new CBS News poll getting a lot of attention the past few days claiming that more Americans believe their taxes are fair today than did in 1997. Unfortunately … logic wasn’t included in CBSNews.com’s article on the poll’s findings: ‘Fifty percent of Americans think the amount they pay in taxes is fair — a slight decrease from the last few years, but up from an April 1997 CBS News poll. [...] Back in 1997 Americans viewed the amount of taxes they paid as even less fair. Then, 49% said they were paying more than their fair share of federal income taxes, while 47% said they paid the right amount.’ Well, why might that be? As NewsBusters reported last Thursday, 47 percent of Americans didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2009. According to a June 2005 article published by the Tax Foundation, only 23.6 percent of Americans paid no federal income taxes in 1997. That means that the percentage of Americans not paying federal income taxes has doubled since 1997. It should therefore not be at all surprising that more people think their tax burden is fair today than thirteen years ago.” –Newsbusters’ blogger Noel Sheppard

Political Futures

“I am as irate as anyone at the way that Obama and Pelosi, like a pair of old-time bootleggers, strong-armed members of Congress into voting for ObamaCare. But just because the Republicans fought back, I’m not as prepared as some to give them a pass. … I would say to GOP politicians, you had control of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office from 2001-2007, but you didn’t do a darn thing about health insurance. It’s only now that the liberals are gobbling up one-sixth of the economy that you’re suddenly all for tort reform and allowing insurance companies to compete across state borders. When you had the power, all that people like John McCain and the rest of you punks did was cozy up to people like Feingold and Kennedy, like a bunch of school girls hoping the liberals would ask you to the prom. … [I]nstead of behaving responsibly, you cheered Bush on when he signed a blank check to cover pharmaceuticals. You patted him on the back and took a few bows yourself, as if you or he were personally picking up the tab for granny’s meds. … I’m not suggesting that I don’t despise Obama, Pelosi, Waxman and the other left-wing gnomes, but just letting you know that there’s more than enough well-deserved contempt to go around. So don’t assume that simply because you call yourself a Republican and make nice with the Tea Party crowd that we trust you any farther than we can throw Barney Frank.” –columnist Burt Prelutsky

Re: The Left

“[Justice] Stevens’ claim that he hasn’t moved left, the court has moved right, if stated during a mental competence hearing, would have earned him a straitjacket and a handful of Thorazine. But because Stevens’ self-characterization comports with the legal left’s position that the Supreme Court’s failure to enact the entire platform of the Green Party constitutes ‘conservative judicial activism,’ it has been reverently repeated. It’s true that on a few issues, Stevens didn’t change. He has long found any religious practice not crushed by the government to be an ‘establishment of religion.’ Stevens has also never been an enthusiast of tenuous claims to free speech rights, voting to uphold city restrictions on strip clubs in 1976 and voting to uphold a law that prohibited the burning of the American flag in 1989. But on many other issues, such as race discrimination, Stevens swung so far to the left that his earlier opinions would be unrecognizable as having been written by the same man. … If liberals will lie about obvious facts from the last few decades, such as Stevens’ dramatic swing to the left, how can they be trusted to tell the truth about a 200-year-old Constitution?” –columnist Ann Coulter

The Gipper

“I want to speak to you this evening about my highest duty as president: to preserve peace and defend these United States. … One cannot sit in this office reviewing intelligence on the military threat we face, making decisions from arms control to Libya to the Philippines, without having that concern for America’s security weigh constantly on your mind. We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington’s words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. ‘To be prepared for war,’ he said, ‘is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.’” –Ronald Reagan

Reader Comments

“Alexander’s Essays are always well-written and timely, but The Power to Tax … and Revolt is the best yet. This income-tax due date is the perfect time to call for an uprising against unfair and unconstitutional taxation.” –Burl

“Rarely (to which I truly mean — almost never) have I heard one expound the virtues of our nation and articulate its historic and spiritual relevance to the level in which you and your organization have, consistently, accurately and tirelessly. Your commitment to our Constitution and we the people is very evident. On days where my spirit falters due to governmental interference and tyrannical maltreatment, I am uplifted by the sentiments in your correspondence. My question to you, posed in all sincerity — what are you doing between the years 2012 and 2016? There’s a position opening in the White House for which you may be particularly well suited.” –Christopher

“Barack Obama, an ideological Marxist? Are you crazy? There might not be a person more dedicated to preserving the capitalist system in this country than Obama. You need to take a few courses in political economy, and start over again.” –Judge Sturdy

Editor’s Reply: On the contrary, you need to quit drinking the Obama red-colored Kool-Aid.

Culture

“The unnoticed Fabian creep of statism these past 80 years — the slow boiling of the frogs of freedom — has suddenly been noticed by countless millions of us freedom-loving frogs. The frogs are jumping out of the pot and are ready to overturn the pots — and the pot handlers. Everything is on the table to be considered for rollback. It didn’t start with President Obama, but it may begin to end with him. He has awakened the American people to our heritage of freedom, and the people are getting ready to grab back our freedom by the handful.” –columnist Tony Blankley

The Last Word

“The liberal has the political libido of a nymphomaniac, at times of a sex offender. It is impossible to restrain. By comparison, the conservatives’ political libido is more subject to reason and restraint. Almost nothing restrains the liberals’ political activism. Conservatives’ are more disciplined. Process matters to them. … The country is torn over yet another liberal grand design. In the culture wars, there is a new battleground: health care. The battle is going to last as long as the abortion battles have lasted, unless Obamacare can be repealed. Increasingly, the law looks like it might be repealed, for the law really is a slapdash creation, but you see my point. As with abortion, so too, with health care, the liberal political libido went wild. No restraint was shown. Tremendous anger replaced the mild dissatisfaction a significant number of Americans felt about the health care system. … [S]o different is the liberal political libido from the conservative political libido that at least when it comes to politics, liberals and conservatives are not members of the same species. Let those who decry ‘gridlock’ on Capitol Hill think about that. When the liberals and the conservatives confront each other, it is as though Homo habilis were confronting Homo sapiens. That is not a happy thought, though I, at least, take heart in knowing which of the aforementioned species survived.” –American Spectator editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Click on ^ for larger image

So what do you want? To be Free or to be a Slave? —ed

The Patriot Post Brief

The Foundation

“It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.” –James Madison

Liberty

“Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government. It’s an argument that has been going on for a century but was largely dormant over the quarter-century of low-inflation economic growth that followed the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. It’s been raised again by the expand-government policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders.   …    Those policies, thoroughly in line with the Progressive tradition, have been advanced by liberal elites in government, media, think tanks and academia. The opposition, roughly in line with the Founders tradition, has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls. … The conservative rebellions of the late 1970s and middle 1990s were focused on taxes. The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government — and its threat to the independence of citizens. … By passing the stimulus package and the health care bills, the Democrats produced expansion of government. But voters seem to prefer expansion of liberty.” –political analyst Michael Barone

Re: The Left

“The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington’s size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment. Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does the Democratic left think the national government’s powers are infinite? No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this government’s actions the past year indicate they do. In his ‘Today Show’ interview [last] week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy acknowledged there are ‘folks who have legitimate concerns … that the federal government may be taking on too much.’ My reading of the American public is that they have moved past ‘concerns.’” –Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger

Government

“So, what is the impact on the deficit when the Senate health care bill, the reconciliation bill to fix the Senate health care bill and the bill to fix the phantom reductions in doctors’ fees are all considered together? … ‘CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period.’ Rather than cut the deficit by $1 trillion over two decades as Obama claims, the full health care package increases the deficit by $59 billion over one decade. … [T]he bill authorizes new discretionary spending that Congress will need to approve in future years to make sure the bureaucracies are in place to carry out the new plan. CBO estimates this will lead to ‘at least $50 billion’ in new spending over 10 years that was not included in the health care bill itself. … Nor should Obama’s socialized medicine plan be viewed in isolation from the rest of his budget. CBO says his fiscal 2011 budget proposal will increase the national debt by $9.8 trillion over the next 10 years. He is running a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and the smallest deficit he will ever run is $724 billion in 2014 — the year his unconstitutional individual insurance mandate kicks in. After that, the deficit starts an unbroken climb, surpassing $1 trillion again in 2018 and heading ever higher. Just as Obama’s claim that his socialized medicine plan will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion will be his defining lie, his legacy will be this: He bankrupted America.” –CNSNews.com editor in chief Terence Jeffrey

The Gipper

“The fact is, we’ll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. It took this nation 166 years until the middle of World War II to finally accumulate a debt of $95 billion. It took this [Carter] administration just the last 12 months to add $95 billion to the debt. And this administration has run up almost one-fourth of the total national debt in just these short 19 months. Inflation is the cause of recession and unemployment. And we’re not going to have real prosperity or recovery until we stop fighting the symptoms and start fighting the disease.” –Ronald Reagan

Faith & Family

“What’s so disheartening about America’s present political environment is that those in Washington are truly convinced that more and bigger government is America’s primary solution for recovery, future growth and security. President Barack Obama even declared early in his presidency that ‘only government’ is our savior. Our Founders had a far better solution than only government. … As proud as they were of their newfound republic, our Founders’ trust and hope was not in government, but in God. For what? For most of the things that people today often look to government to provide: life, liberty, happiness, provision, salvation, decency, civility, morality, honesty, restraint, equity of power and future hope, to name a few. Tragically, in modern times, government has usurped God’s role in our republic and Americans’ lives. … To our Founders, God was the source of our human rights, which put limits on government power. Even more, God was (and should be) the ultimate agent for national sustenance and renewal. That is why we are dreaming if we think we can correct the ills in ourselves, our government or our society without his aid.” –columnist Chuck Norris

Reader Comments

“Resurrection Day 2010: what a marvelous editorial piece. Absolutely the most uplifting reading I’ve seen in a long time. Thanks so much for your steadfast resolve to honor God and First Principles of the Founding Fathers.” –Ken

“Thank you for your words of encouragement and reminders that no matter how dark the night, hope comes in the morning. Politically, that may or may not be true any more in our great nation; but eternally, we know it to be true and I deeply appreciate your commitment to absolute Truth. As the old hymnal says, ‘this world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through.’” –Tim

“Thank you for your faithful witness and call to remember our Nation’s Heritage, and the words of our Lord. Thank you for not compromising on either, as so many others do in their attempt to be politically correct. Your publication is a beacon of light on a hill.” –Lyle

“Your comments about Jesus’ prescription for caring for others being individual responsibility and not governmental is right on. There was nothing in the passage of the ‘widow’s mite’ that put the government in between her and the poor box. Nor did the Good Samaritan deem it necessary to notify the authorities to take care of the man beset by thugs — the example was of his own neighborliness. We won’t get to heaven by giving government our personal responsibilities.” –Tom

“Even though ‘separation of Church and State’ is not in the Constitution, that great document was carefully set up to make a secular government. Religion is a matter of private conscience, and government is a grim necessity for all. As an Agnostic I was willing to sign The Patriot Declaration because you used the non-believer-friendly ‘Creator’ and ‘Nature’s God’ language from the founding documents. Please do keep in mind that there are a lot of us out here, and that solid allegiance to the Constitution does not require any kind of religious faith at all.” –Craig

For the Record

“More than a year into his presidency and after imposing numerous delays on American energy production, President Obama announced … that he would open up portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling. But the plan is defined more by what it restricts than what it opens up. The Obama administration chose to take off the table large portions of the OCS in an announcement that was supposed to be about expanding American energy. The new plan includes: No drilling in the Pacific Ocean. No drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean. No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico. No drilling in much of Alaska. While opening up any portion of the OCS for responsible energy development appears to be a great step forward, the truth is that none of this has been finalized, and most new drilling will not occur until after 2012 at the earliest. The offering also comes with a hefty price: President Obama wants to force Americans to swallow a massive new energy tax before any state will reap the benefits from this new offshore drilling. The bill Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass last summer, the Waxman-Markey energy tax, would eviscerate the economy, killing more than one million jobs per year while raising the cost of energy for all Americans. If an energy tax passes Congress this year, the negative impact on the economy will happen long before the first oil comes from these new offshore leases.” –Manager of Policy Research at American Solutions Steve Everley

Opinion in Brief

“Too little, too late, too clever and for the wrong reasons. That’s a good way to describe President Obama’s decision to allow a little offshore drilling. … Obama justified his decision to allow drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the southern Atlantic and some coastal regions of northern Alaska on the grounds that it would create jobs and serve as a ‘bridge’ to the carbon-free Brigadoon we’ve long been promised. The reality is that his decision was entirely political. Aiming to win vital Republican support in the Senate for some kind of bipartisan cap-and-trade legislation, he lifted the ban where the polling was in favor of doing so. Sound science, energy policy and economics were the last things on his mind. On that, there’s widespread consensus. Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama’s Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There’s no reason to believe the administration won’t keep doing that.” –National Review editor Jonah Goldberg

Political Futures

“A top story on March 30 [was] that Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was apparently gunned down by an illegal immigrant. Krentz’s family has maintained a ranch in southern Arizona since 1907, and he was known as a compassionate man who gave water and medical care to illegal immigrants crossing his land from Mexico. Krentz was found shot to death, slumped over his vehicle on his ranch. Police dogs tracked the shooter to the Mexican border 15 miles away, indicating that the shooter was almost certainly someone in this country illegally from Mexico. The murder of this good man casts in stark relief the outrageous failure of President Barack Obama and Secretary Janet ‘the system worked’ Napolitano to deal with the enormous problem America faces as a result of illegal immigrants. Perhaps if they weren’t so busy taking over the economy (which the Constitution forbids them from doing), they’d actually secure the border (which the Constitution requires them to do). This outrage occurred just as the Obama administration plans on pivoting to the immigration issue, at the perfect time to try to create a wedge issue to scare Hispanics into voting Democrat in 2010 in order to mitigate the massive losses in Congress that Democrats are sure to suffer after more than a year of ramming through a far-left agenda with extreme partisanship.” –columnist Ken Blackwell

The Last Word

“A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth — and 5 billion will have cell phones! … How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act? How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use? How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn’t afford to text-message his friends looked on? The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care. Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history. If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.” –columnist Ann Coulter

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

The father sued and won, but lost to Westboro’s appeal. He was then ordered to pay their court costs of $16,510.80

Regardless of how you feel or think about the First Amendment Rights of Free Speech, or the Westboro Church, this is a miscarriage of Justice.

Everyone has a right to privacy and a private time of grieving.

Donate to the American Legion fund

More details can be found at:
Michelle Malkin’s Blog
The Green Room at Hot Air
Allahpundit
and the Baltimore Sun which broke the story

“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” –James Madison

James Madison’s words regarding the “ultimate authority” for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

In recent decades, the “enterprises of ambition” and “usurpation and arbitrary power” among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law.   …    This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.

This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.

In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case “may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table,” should “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home.”

One might only hope!

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago’s onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution’s plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.

Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.

My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: “McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers’ bad ideas, they could disregard it.”

That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary.

Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, “At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.”

Expand?

Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment’s scope. But considering the source…

Mr. McDonald’s lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause (“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) is grounds for overturning Chicago’s gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.

Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.”

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?“

Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.

Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the “right to keep and bear arms” is “necessary,” more so than just important, to a “free state.”

But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the “despotic branch,” as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.

Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty — but that’s the way the game is played today.

Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don’t require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.

Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, “The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind…”

No, they should not.

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: “To support and defend our Constitution,” as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people “to keep and bear arms.”

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

There are many who make the claim that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because he is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Some claim that President Obama was born in Kenya.

Others claim his mother was not an American citizen.

Still others claim that his father was at the time a citizen of a foreign country.

Regardless of the motives of these folks, I think that all of them are full of hot air.

Read the rest of this entry

See more Cartoons by William Warren, and Great Articles at NetRight Nation Blog

Crowd estimated at approx. 300,000. Guessing from the folks I made eye contact with that’s 300,000 smiles and 300,000 warm, loving hearts. Not bad for a cold, rainy day in January.

The group says abortion opponents are marching “on behalf of the innocent preborn boys and girls” and demanding Roe v. Wade be overturned.

WASHINGTON – JANUARY 22: A pro-life supporter participates in a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building January 22, 2010 in Washington, DC. Activists from across the nation gathered to commemorate the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which decriminalized abortion in all fifty states.(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Talk about taking affirmative action to a whole new level.

You may ask what qualifes Feldblum for this position.

Glad you asked.

She is a professor of law at Georgetown University.

She is an advocate for polygamy.

She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, a homosexual rights group that, again in her words, aims to “Revolutionize the American workplace and the country’s social mores.”

She formerly worked for the ACLU.

As well as the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund.

She served as a law clerk for former supreme Court Justice Harry Blackburn, the author of the Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion.

She is an advocate for advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) rights.

And I’m sure that she holds many other fine qualifications.

You may be asking why I have a problem with her.

Again, glad you asked.

Alright, let’s take a look at a few things.

President Obama, who is constantly praised by the mainstream media, has nominated a person who supports polygamy.

Hmm.

Is that the same mainstream media that launched a vicious smear campaign against Mitt Romney just last year, falsely accusing him of being an advocate for the same thing?

Yet in the miniscule amount of coverage the press has given to Feldblum’s nomination, that issue has yet to be raised.

No, there’s no double standard there.

As far as Roe v Wade, don’t even get me started.

How could I not have a have a problem with someone who once served as a legal council for the ACLU, an organization that, among dozens of other despicable actions, filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America for their refusal to allow gay scoutmasters?

As the father of an Eagle Scout, that is pushing the gay rights agenda just a bit too far.

She wants to “revolutionize the country’s social mores.”

I always thought that the…Read the rest of this entry

Second Amendment Reciprocity?

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama’s “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” has obligated taxpayers for an admitted $7 trillion in current and future debt for his so-called “economic recovery” act. Heaping insult upon near-fatal injury, Congress is now considering an additional $2 trillion in proposed tax increases for BO’s CO₂ folly, over $1 trillion for his nationalized healthcare experiment and untold trillions for another round of “economic recovery” programs. Furthermore, TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky announced this week that total Federal exposure for all TARP “spending” had been leveraged to $23.7 trillion, equal to approximately one and one half times GDP.

All of this tax obligation comes amid the worst economic decline in decades, and is sure to test the limits of “Trickle-Up Poverty.”

Of course, none of the aforementioned Obama initiatives, or the collection and redistribution of wealth to fund them, is authorized by our Constitution (unless of course you subscribe to the so-called “Living Constitution” as amended by judicial diktat).

Therefore, if these schemes are not authorized by our Constitution, then we have an outlaw government, and if we have an outlaw government, then by what authority does that government assess and collect taxes?

That question will be the subject of an upcoming essay, but I raise it here in order to highlight an expenditure that our Constitution does authorize Congress to enact — defense appropriations.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647) passed the House by a vote of 389 Ayes, 22 Nays (2 Republican) and 22 Present/Not Voting. It contained 69 amendments, mostly related to defense expenditures.

The Senate version of the NDAA (S.1390) with its 216 amendments is now being debated.

One of those amendments, a liberal effort to expand so-called “hate crimes” legislation, resulted in heated discourse on the Senate floor, including this scolding by John McCain (R-AZ) toward Harry Reid (D-NV): “The majority leader has made it clear that their highest priority … is a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this nation. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important … than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.”

Indeed, McCain has this one exactly right.

However, I draw your attention to another amendment, this one added by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), authorizing interstate reciprocity of concealed-carry permit holders cross state lines with their weapons. Thune’s amendment was stripped from the legislation even after mustering 58 votes for and 39 votes against.

Yes, that is a strong majority in favor, but still two votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to block a promised filibuster by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). (In today’s milquetoast Senate, just the threat of a filibuster is treated as an actual filibuster.)

Deplorably, two Republican senators voted against Thune’s measure: Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of neighboring Ohio.

For the record, I am not suggesting this measure would have passed had Lugar and Voinovich changed their votes — the Democrats were not going to let this one through. These votes always come down to who cut the best backroom wink-and-nod deals on some other piece of legislation in return for a aye or nay on this one. But I do wonder what Lugar and Voinovich got in return…

Schumer protested, “This amendment is a bridge too far, and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each state has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we’ve had in reducing crime in most all parts of America. Whether you are pro-gun or pro-gun control, this measure deserves to be defeated. We will do everything we can to stop this poisonous amendment from being enacted.”

There was a concerted effort by the Left to paint Thune’s reciprocity amendment as having nothing to do with national defense — a tit-for-tat in response to McCain’s complaint about Reid’s “hate crimes” amendment.

However, I subscribe to the notion that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That would be directly from the Second Amendment in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Sidebar: For those who don’t know enough about American history to comprehend that “a well regulated Militia” refers to “the People,” stop reading this essay and take Civics 101 at any accredited institution. Oh, wait, they don’t teach Civics 101 any longer, which not only perpetuates but, in fact, institutionalizes ignorance of our Constitution.

The Second Amendment’s assurance of the right, nay, the responsibility to own and carry firearms, with the attendant proscription against government infringement of that right, is our most essential reassurance of self defense, national defense and defense of our Constitution from “enemies, domestic and abroad.”

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison (our Constitution’s principal author), wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

On that note, let’s take a closer look at Schumer’s complaint in an effort to discern what the Second Amendment really provides.

“Each state,” says Schumer, “has carefully crafted its concealed-carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large, urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas.”

Schumer is asserting that the Second Amendment prohibits only federal government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms while that prohibition is not incorporated to prohibit state governments from infringing on the same right.

So, would Schumer likewise argue that states have authority to regulate First Amendment rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech, or of the press? Of course not.

Ironically, the First Amendment notes, “Congress [emphasis added] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Our Founders chose their words with great deliberation.)

Though the First Amendment is clearly a proscription on congressional legislation, not state legislation, the Second Amendment contains no such language and declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

However, the Left has errantly incorporated proscriptions of the First Amendment upon the states (while completely redefining “speech” to include even the most grotesque forms of expression but restricting political speech,) while arguing that the Second Amendment is a prohibition only upon the federal government.

Sidebar: When an über-leftist attempts to make an argument for federalism, beware. Though the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights defines federalism — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — this does not suggest that the previous amendments apply only to the federal government.

In order to consider whether there is a constitutional basis for Thune’s reciprocity amendment in the first place, we must first discern our Founders’ original intent.

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 after great disagreement on whether the enumeration of such rights was even required. Alexander Hamilton aptly summed up the basis for this disagreement in Federalist No. 84: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Indeed, read in context, the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of innate individual rights, of Natural Rights as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “[All men] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights, then, is a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government in regard to infringement of those rights.

Further, it is ludicrous to argue that the enumeration of those rights was a prohibition on only the federal government since, in the words of Hamilton (and echoed in the writings of many other Founders), “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

These rights were enumerated, according to those who favored inclusion, in order to explicitly recount the rights of “the people,” as noted in the Bill of Rights Preamble (yes, it has one): “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

In other words, our Founders argued that they enumerated both “declaratory and restrictive clauses” in order to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of [central government] powers” that would infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

More than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the Supreme Court (of Jefferson’s “Despotic Branch”) began incorporating the provisions in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. This, in and of itself, implied that somehow the inalienable rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might not already extend to all people in all jurisdictions.

The High Court construed the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 as support for incorporation: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It is notable that the 14th Amendment makes direct reference to the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment prohibition against depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property.”

In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court increasingly used the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause to make portions of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. The consequence of this interpretation was and remains that the inalienable rights enumerated by our Founders are now awarded at the discretion of the judiciary, not endowed by our Creator.

However, given the fact that our Founders’ intent with the Bill of Rights was to enumerate certain declaratory and restrictive clauses to ensure the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” of all men, one must conclude by extension that those rights are inalienable by any government jurisdiction, irrespective of the 14th Amendment.

So, in regard to Sen. Thune’s reciprocity amendment, I ask, “Reciprocity for what?” Are we so steeped in the errant notion that our rights are a gift from government that we no longer subscribe to the plain language of our Constitution based on the inalienable rights of man? Has the temperature been turned up so slowly over the last eight decades, so incrementally, that when we finally feel the heat, it will be too late for us to jump, like frogs, out of the pot?

With our Constitution now in exile, I can understand why Sen. Thune would forward an amendment to provide interstate reciprocity for law-abiding concealed weapon permit holders.

However, the Second Amendment still enumerates my right to carry.

When senators such as Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin declare, “We’re able to breathe a sigh of relief,” in regard to the defeat of Thune’s amendment, let me suggest that you obtain a copy of our Constitution, and be prepared to educate anyone charged with enforcing the law, just what it is that they have sworn to “Support and Defend.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

(To submit reader comments to The Partriot Post visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

Related Essays

The roots of liberty: “The unanimous Declaration…”
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=540

Judicial Supremacists and the Despotic Branch
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=296

Constitutional exegesis v. eisegesis
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=487

Sixty million armed Patriots … and counting
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=630

He was talking about how most people, in regards to America’s current troubles, have developed a sense of apathy.

He also mentioned that a phrase he hears uttered much too often is “Well, things could be worse.”
That one stunned me.

“Things could be worse.”

Really?

Just how bad to things have to get before people say enough is enough.

Our economy is in the toilet, with no signs of turning around anytime soon.
People are losing their homes.
Millions are out of work, and thousands more lose their jobs every month.
Those that are still lucky enough to be working have seen their retirement funds wiped out.
And the list of woes goes on and on.

And what are we presented with for solutions to all of these problems?

A nearly 800 billion dollar…Read the rest of this entry

We were all sitting around the office when Dan asked “Didn’t we do something that ties in with that awhile back?”

So we dug through the archives and sure enough, there it was.

Another campaign promise Barack Obama had made was that his White House would be “The most ethical administration in history!”

Well, take a look at we had come up with in response to that claim, and let us know if you feel, as we do, that this is just another example of one of Obama’s broken promises to the American people:

His original choice for Secretary of Commerce, Governor Bill Richardson, was removed from consideration after it was revealed that he was the subject of a grand jury investigation into government corruption.

His appointment for White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has had many things said about himself.
Possible the politest was that the man was like a pit bull.
This is an individual who once mailed a dead fish to a political opponent.

Tim Geithner, appointed as Treasury Secretary, had a bit of a bump in the road when…Read the rest of this entry

If you happened to miss the posting, please give it a look, as it contains the information as to the method that can be used to stop her nomination from going forward, as well as contact information for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If the statements she has made regarding her experiences as a Hispanic woman makes her better qualified to reach a decision in a legal case as opposed to a white male aren’t enough to give you pause, the fact that she is a member of a radical Hispanic organization surely should.

Click Here to learn of Sotomayor’s ties to radical activists.

But the net effect would be the same.

You gun owners better wake the hell up, the end is a lot closer than you think.

And I don’t want to hear any of this crap about another American revolution, or “they’ll take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.”

Of the millions of gun owners in America, the ones who spout such drivel…Read the rest of this entry

THE FOUNDATION

“The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” –Thomas Jefferson

FOR THE RECORD

“Barack Obama’s legacy is coming sharply into focus, four years early. He’s out to transform ‘a nation of laws,’ once the pride of our Anglo-Saxon heritage and examplar to the world, into ‘a nation of feelings.’ … Sonia Sotomayor is only one of the building blocks of the president’s envisioned Mediocre Society. She’s a perfect first nominee to the Supreme Court, ‘untouchable’ to anyone who risks looking at who she really is…. The president is the master of demographic politics, playing the race card in a way that no one else could. Miss Sotomayor was presented not as a jurist distinguished by learning and accomplishment, but first as a Latina, a woman of empathy and delicate sensibility. He’s counting on male gallantry, if not male timidity, to carry the day. Robert Gibbs, the president’s press agent, was an unapologetic intimidator, warning everyone to be ‘exceedingly careful’ in talking about her. Criticism of Miss Sotomayor is to be regarded as proof of racism, sexism and maybe even fascism. The headline in The Washington Post was typical: ‘First Latina Picked for Supreme Court/GOP Faces Delicate Task in Opposition.’ Criticize the little lady at your own risk. … The danger is not that Republicans will be too tough, but not tough enough. Miss Sotomayor has a damning paper trail, and the Republicans have a responsibility to ask vigorous, even robust, questions. Mr. Obama has the votes to prevail no matter how she answers the questions, but the nation is entitled to know who the president is putting on the nation’s highest court.” –Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden

CULTURE          

“A judge with highfalutin’ notions about what’s right and what’s wrong isn’t going to let The People get away with contradicting him. He’ll take broadsword to a law he doesn’t like (e.g., the old, pre-Roe v. Wade abortion statutes), or he’ll put under his personal authority an entire public school system he sees as needing improvement in specific ways. … The irony in the Sotomayor case, of course, is that a president elected by a majority vote proposes to seat on the Supreme Court a woman he seems to value for her ability to ignore trifles like the will of the majority, or social peace, or a law’s actual meaning. The liberal — and Obama is a liberal — theory of judging involves the use of courts to do quickly what democratic debate, being unwieldy, can’t accomplish. The judge whose place she will take, David Souter … was himself a sort of empathizing, let’s-move-the-ball-forward kind of judge. Sonia Sotomayor won’t immediately change the tenor of discussion and judgment on the court, but assuming the President reads her rightly she will certainly try. As will all future Obama candidates for the court we may yet rename the Society for the Advancement of Empathy in America.” –columnist William Murchison

RE: THE LEFT

“In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. …[W]e strive to keep those attitudes out of our law — even to the point of expecting prospective jurors to tell us honestly whether they have such biases so we can make certain they don’t get on a jury. Non-biased decision-making, we tell every ordinary citizen called for jury duty, is the most basic obligation of service in the legal system. Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to ‘transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law’; and that there are ‘basic differences’ in the way people ‘of color’ exercise ‘logic and reasoning.’ If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request? Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?” –National Review editor Andy McCarthy

POLITICAL FUTURES

“Obama and Sotomayor draw on the ‘richness of her experiences’ and concern for judicial results to favor one American story, one disadvantaged background, over another. The refutation lies in the very oath Sotomayor must take when she ascends to the Supreme Court: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. … So help me God.’ When the hearings begin, Republicans should call [New Haven, Connecticut firefighter] Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling ‘facially race-neutral.’ Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences. Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less ‘advantaged.’ A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

THE GIPPER

“The Supreme Court of the United States is the custodian of our Constitution. Justices of the Supreme Court must not only be jurists of the highest competence; they must be attentive to the specific rights guaranteed in our Constitution and proper role of the courts in our democratic system. …[J]udges’ personal preferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations. The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them.” –Ronald Reagan

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(To submit reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

“So many of your essays move me to pensive emotion, but Thursday’s column on the Marine Aviator’s Memorial Day Wave Off struck a deep, inner chord that propels me to write. Thank you for sharing the troubling story of Mike McGinn and his family from this past Memorial Day. Your for-the-record juxtaposition of the military service events in the lives of Marine Colonel James McGinn and his son, Major Mike McGinn, with parallel events from the life of Barack Hussein Obama is a powerful jolt. The Patriot Post fortifies me as I strive to instill in my two teenage daughters how eternally grateful we must be everyday to all the brave men and women who have given their lives so that we might live free. Thank you for all you do to keep our founding principles alive and relevant.” –Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Editor’s Reply: As Alexander noted, this event “offered a powerful perspective on where we are as a nation.” Of course, he didn’t suggest that BHO had a personal vendetta against the McGinn family, but that when a Marine combat aviator attempts to visit the resting place of his highly decorated Marine father at Arlington National Cemetery, and is refused entry at all gates because a former Leftist ‘community organizer’ is there for a photo op, that is a tragic metaphor for the state of our nation. BHO took an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, just as James and Mike McGinn took, but unlike Obama, the McGinns honored their oaths, and served their nation with great pride and vigilance.

“Regarding the McGinns’ wave off from Arlington, I can attest to the fact that under the Bush administration, entry and attendance was much easier. Last year, knowing that the president traditionally laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National, we did as the McGinns — planned to get there early. We were pleasantly surprised to discover that entry into Arlington was as effortless as it had been on visits other than Memorial Day. We continued up to the Tomb, and it was, literally, a walk in the park. We were rewarded with nearly front row seats, and exactly on time, in marched President George W. Bush, whose show of respect was, obviously, from the heart of a veteran — something our current CINC could not begin to feign.” –Sacramento, California

“In regard to the Marine Wave Off on Memorial Day, of course McGinn was not permitted into Arlington with BHO on his way there. Have you forgotten, Alexander? The Department of Homeland Security has declared that veterans are among the groups considered to be high risk for terrorist actions…” –St. Louis, Missouri

“My daughter, and avid reader of The Patriot, told me that Alexander’s essay about the McGinns has now been posted on many sites, conservative and liberal. She was amazed to find how rancorous some of the liberal responses have been, even going so far as to suggesting that McGinn was lying. However, I can tell you that I was also ‘waved off’ and went to both the Ft. Myers and Henderson entry points only to be told that the entire area was locked down, and we were not permitted entry at those gates either, for an ‘undetermined duration.’ This was NOT the case during any of our previous Memorial Day visits when President Bush was in attendance.” –Alexandria, Virginia

“Mike McGinn is a better man than me. I would have refused the wave-off, shown my ID and vehicle sticker, and would demanded entry to the cemetery to visit my father’s grave. The police or secret service would have then had a choice: 1) Recognize the circumstances and use common sense to make an exception, or, 2) Arrest me. I assure you that had they chosen the latter, I would have called every newspaper and television station to tell my story. Like Mike McGinn’s dad, I flew helicopters in Vietnam for two tours. And now on each Memorial Day, I stand proud for my country, but silently fear for the future of my children in our evermore leftist, socialist, politically-correct, sense-of-entitlement, tyrant-appeasing, historically revisionist country. Enough is enough.” –Nashville, Tennessee

A note from Mike McGinn: “I just received a call from my Dad’s roommate at the USNA, who is also a longtime Patriot reader. He told me that when he sat down to read your Thursday essay, you could have bowled him over with a feather when he read his old roommate’s name and saw his picture — especially since he wrote the citation about my Dad in his 1957 USNA yearbook, which The Patriot quoted. Thank you for the tribute to him. Semper Fi!”

GOVERNMENT

“The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be. When Burke wrote of his apprehension about ‘new power in new persons,’ I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States — a man with zero experience in business — can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses. Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke’s fears was that ‘we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried.’ … People who don’t like ‘the rich’ or ‘big business’ or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: ‘Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.’ There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century. The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

THE LAST WORD

“By the time you read this on Monday morning, General Motors will have declared bankruptcy. … On April 28, 2000 a share of GM would have cost you $93.63. Last night you could have bought about 125 shares for that same money as GM was trading at 75 cents. … Obama will own over 72.5 percent of whatever the ‘new’ GM looks like with a trust fund of the United Auto Workers owning the second biggest chunk at 17.5 percent. For those of you who, like me, are deficient when it comes to carrying-the-ones I did the arithmetic: The Obama Administration and the UAW will own 90 percent of General Motors. … The government can’t force us to buy GMs or Chryslers, but they can provide incentives for us to do it. The Congress can pass legislation giving an additional tax exemption or deduction for the purchase of any car made by a company which is more then 50 percent owned by the federal — the American federal — government. Conversely the Congress might pass a law putting an excise tax on the purchase of any vehicle not manufactured by a company which is more than 50 percent owned by the U.S. government. The scary part about how far across the collectivism causeway we have come in so short a period of time is this: A few months ago you would have snorted at the silliness of a suggestion like that. This morning you’re saying, ‘Oh, my, he’s right. They might just do it.’ The auto industry and health care are tied together. The thought of the government running them makes me car sick.” –political analyst Rich Galen

Read More at http://patriotpost.us/

Because unless you are ready to get the hell off of your dead butt and actually DO something, reading this is just going to be a waste of your time.

For the rest of you, there IS a way to stop Sonia Sotomayor from being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Seven Senators need to show some courage, they need to forget this crap about Sotomayors’ nomination being a foregone conclusion.

There are seven Republicans who are members…Read the rest of this entry

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

This man is part of a Firefighting Department with more than 350 members. He was among a group who sat for the promotion examination, a legally constituted written examination about aspects of firefighting. He then also underwent examination in numerous other areas as well, leadership, building construction, and other areas as well. He was among a small group who passed this whole process, and was then selected for promotion. The overarching Civil Authority tried to find reasons to have the process nullified because not enough of a quota of non whites were selected for this promotion. The selections were nullified and no one was promoted. A small section of those who failed the process took the matter through the legal process, and Judge Sotomayor was one of the judges who agreed with those who failed the process. All the promotions resulting from that original process did not proceed because of this decision. Watch the video, but more importantly read both pages at the Krauthammer link.

Man, if I have a fire in my area, I want guys who know best how to deal with the fire, not a group led by some guy who might have failed the process but got the job anyway to satisfy some quota.

Charles Krauthammer on the real case against ”wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor – and for confirming Barack Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court:

Obama and Sotomayor draw on the “richness of her experiences” and concern for judicial results to favor one American story, one disadvantaged background, over another. The refutation lies in the very oath Sotomayor must take when she ascends to the Supreme Court: “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. . . . So help me God.”

Elections have consequences. Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: a judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less “advantaged.”

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story, and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling “facially race-neutral.”

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds—consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama—that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Michelle Malkin

Since when did securing a Supreme Court seat become a high hurdles contest? The White House and Democrats have turned Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination into a personal Olympic event. Pay no attention to her jurisprudence. She grew up in a Bronx public housing project. She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 8. Her father died a year later.

And, oh, by the way, did you hear that she was poor?

It’s a “compelling personal story,” as we heard 20,956 times on Tuesday. Sotomayor’s a “real” person. Why, she even read Nancy Drew as a young girl, President Obama told us. She’s “faced down barriers, overcome the odds and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago,” Obama said.

If Sotomayor were auditioning to be Oprah Winfrey’s fill-in host, I’d understand the over-the-top hyping of her life narrative. But isn’t anybody on Sotomayor’s side the least bit embarrassed by all this liberal condescension?

Republicans are not allowed to mention Sotomayor’s ethnicity lest they be branded bigots, but every Democrat on cable television harped on her multicultural “diversity” and “obstacle”-climbing. Obama made sure to roll his r’s when noting that her parents came from Puerrrrto Rrrrico. New York Sen. Charles Schumer stated outright: “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court.” Color-coded tokenism dominated the headlines, with blaring references to Sotomayor as the high court’s potential “first Hispanic.”

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill — one of the leading Democrats tasked with guiding Sotomayor through the nomination process — carried the “compelling personal story” talking points to the tokenist extreme in an interview on Fox News:

“If you look at what this woman has been through, and the obstacles that she has had to overcome, I think she does have a richly, uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” McCaskill asserted. “Overcoming incredible odds, and I think that is an experience that is new to the courts. There have been a lot of privileged people that have landed on the Supreme Court. The fact that she has lived the life of the common American, trying to grow up in public housing, reaching for scholarships, reaching for the courtroom as a courtroom prosecutor, all of those things will make her a better and wiser judge. And I don’t think that is identity politics. I think that is the American experience.”

Clever. Challenging Sotomayor’s credentials and extreme views on race and the law is not merely anti-Hispanic. It’s anti-American!

More significantly, McCaskill waved the high-hurdle card after being asked to defend Sotomayor’s infamous statement at a 2001 University of California at Berkeley speech asserting brown-skin moral authority: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” McCaskill actually denied that Sotomayor had made the remarks, then argued the words were taken out of context.

You want context? It’s even worse than that sound bite. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested that ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”

The selective elevation of hardship as primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary. If personal turmoil makes one “incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” let’s put reality-show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin on the bench. Millions of viewers tune in to watch their “compelling personal story” of life with eight children on television. It’s a “richly, uniquely American experience” of facing obstacles and overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat.

The lesson is that not all compelling personal stories are equal. McCaskill’s assertion that “overcoming incredible odds” is “new to the courts” is ridiculous. Is she arguing that Thurgood Marshall, Felix Frankfurter and Sandra Day O’Connor faced lower hurdles than Sotomayor? And how about Clarence Thomas, a descendant of slaves who grew up in abject poverty in the South without a father? His crime, of course, was embracing the wrong ideology. So his incredible set of odds and obstacles don’t count in left-wing eyes.

Democrats are eager to celebrate diversity, you see, as long as the diversely pigmented pledge allegiance to the Left for life.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Michelle Malkin is the author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

In another historic move, President Obama has announced that Mr. Potato Head is his nominee for the nation’s highest court.

Judge Head would be the first Potato-American to serve on the court and only the third Justice in history with removable facial features.

“Mr. Potato Head reaches out to all Americans,” said the President, “He is empathetic. He comes from a modest background. And, of course, like many Americans he has to choose which nose to put on every morning.”

As reports about Judge Head’s qualifications are still forthcoming, they have been less interesting to the nation than the Judge’s modest background and historic disposition.

“He comes from a poor potato farm in Iowa,” said June Spudsworth, President of Potato-American Persons (PAP), “His home was dirty and he was surrounded by other Potato-Americans just like us. In spite of all that, he still managed to put on a good face and give himself an Ivy League Education.”

Judge Head’s years of service in the Iowa State Circuit Court proved less interesting to Americans who were excited that someone with interchangeable eyes might be our next Supreme Court Justice.

“Lots of us put on difference noses everyday,” said Tito Jackson, President of People with Interchangeable Facial Features (PIFF), “I’m so proud that our highest court will have a person on it who knows how hard it is to lean over and pick up your cell phone while having to worry that your nose might fall off.”

Members of PAP and PIFF came together for a rally Wednesday to voice their support of Judge Head,  share stories and, on occasion, ears.

“I’m so excited to join together with PAP to voice our support of Judge Head,” said PIFF member Tori Spelling, “Sometimes I feel like a potato, myself, so I know what these people go through every day. The great thing is that so does Judge Head. He’ll reach out to PAP and PIFF, making sure that all Americans understand the importance of the PAP-PIFF-Populace.”

Republicans were still strategizing as of Wednesday to find the best way to oppose the nomination without alienating their own PAP and PIFF members.

“We don’t want to smear PAP, PIFF, or Judge Head,” said Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, “We just want to take a neutral approach. We’ll be very courteous to Judge Head as he goes through the difficult confirmation hearings. Then, at the last second, we’ll snatch his lips and hide them so he can’t defend himself.”

Read more Satire at The Endive

THE FOUNDATION

“[J]udges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.” –John Adams

INSIGHT

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” –author Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.” –French political philosopher C. L. De Montesquieu (1689-1755)

“The soundest argument will produce no more conviction in an empty head than the most superficial declamation; as a feather and a guinea fall with equal velocity in a vacuum.” –English cleric and writer Charles Colton (1780-1832)

EDITORIAL EXEGESIS

Judge Sotomayor descends from on high to bestow "empathy" upon us

“In making Sonia Sotomayor his first nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday, President Obama appears to have found the ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom. This isn’t a jurisprudence that the Founders would recognize, but it is the creative view that has dominated the law schools since the 1970s and from which both the President and Judge Sotomayor emerged. In the President’s now-famous word, judging should be shaped by ‘empathy’ as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity. ‘Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers,’ Mr. Obama said yesterday in introducing Ms. Sotomayor. ‘It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court.’ …[Sotomayor] is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. … Judge Sotomayor’s belief is that a ‘Latina woman’ is by definition a superior judge to a ‘white male’ because she has had more ‘richness’ in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn’t what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be. … As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor’s Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record.” –The Wall Street Journal

UPRIGHT

“[L]ike conventional liberals, [Sonia Sotomayor] embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.” –columnist George Will

“Why make this complicated? President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

“Since when did securing a Supreme Court seat become a high hurdles contest? The White House and Democrats have turned Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination into a personal Olympic event. Pay no attention to her jurisprudence. She grew up in a Bronx public housing project. She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 8. Her father died a year later. And, oh, by the way, did you hear that she was poor? It’s a ‘compelling personal story,’ as we heard 20,956 times on Tuesday.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

“If you were going to have open heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find– even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer?” –economist Thomas Sowell

“Sotomayor believes that law, like beauty, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. It is therefore of vital importance which beholders are sitting on the Supreme Court. Judicial philosophy is irrelevant, in this view; the only true judicial philosophy is personal philosophy.” –columnist Ben Shapiro

“Senate Republicans must take a stand and vocally oppose this nomination, not on the basis of partisan politics, but in defense of the rule of law and the proper role of the judiciary, principles the president is only pretending to honor.” –columnist David Limbaugh

DEZINFORMATSIA

Untruth in labeling: “[B]ased on her long paper trail, Sonia Sotomayor will be a moderate liberal, like Ginsburg and Breyer.” –CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin

Non sequitur: “Despite her remarkable personal odyssey, Judge Sotomayor is already being called a liberal activist by some conservative groups.” –NBC’s Pete Williams

Straw man: “[C]ertainly the attack on Sotomayor, to the extend that it is based on her race, to the extent that the attacks on her are based on the idea that she was an affirmative action choice — I think that’s probably the weakest ammunition they’re going to have against her.” –MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow **That’s fine since no conservative is actually using that argument.

From the sycophants: “Well, I thought it was a brilliant piece of work today, the way [the administration] brought [Sotomayor] out. I thought that biography of her, the way it was presented — my own view — was it couldn’t have been done any better. We now know so much more about this nominee than we’ve ever known about any nominee in the past and we know it all in one day. …[H]e wowed us!” –MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Non Compos Mentis: “What’s the problem here? … We have terrorists in U.S. prisons, so why not the guys from Guantanamo?” –ABC anchor Charles Gibson

Another straw man: “The president said opponents of closing Guantanamo Bay are using the politics of fear and he promised it will be closed.” –CBS’s Chip Reid

They still hate Cheney: “Which reality do you inhabit, Obama World or Cheney World? If it’s the latter, remember that storm clouds are always gathering. Don’t forget your umbrella. In Obama World, it’s always morning. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping and the pollen count is low. In Cheney World, it’s perpetual twilight.” –Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson

Newspulper Headlines:

We Blame President Obama: “Omaha Man Blames Casino Drinks, Drugs for Big Debt” –Associated Press

Teleprompter Still Has Top Billing: “Facsimile Constitution Gets Starring Role in Presidential Speech” –ABCNews.com

Steel Would Be More Durable: “Venezuela Set to Build First Oil Rig With China: Report” –Agence France-Presse

That’s Some Fine Detective Work: “Shooting Spree Endangered Neighborhood Residents, Police Say” –Star Press (Muncie, IN)

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “LIZ PEEK: Danger — Our Government Is Set to Explode” –FoxNews.com

News You Can Use: “Tax Audits Are No Laughing Matter” –The Wall Street Journal

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Dem’s Budget Raises Taxes, Slashes Services” –KATU-TV Web site (Portland, OR) ++ “Obama Blames Bush” –The Weekly Standard Web site

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)

THE DEMO-GOGUES

Wrong qualities in a judge: “You have to be able to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.” –Barack Obama on his Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor

“I said earlier that I thought empathy was an important quality [in a judge] and I continue to believe that. You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you, but you have to be able to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.” –Barack Obama

What is American?: “I think [Sonia Sotomayor] does have a richly, uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly qualified, uh, to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country. … That is an experience that is new to the Court.” –Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) **”Hey, Claire McCaskill: Meet Clarence Thomas” –Michelle Malkin

Socialism bankrupts America: “[W]e are out of money now. …[W]e had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it’s putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.” –Barack Obama

Yeah, right: “[W]e want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I have got more than enough to do without that.” –Barack Obama

Apparently, the administration doesn’t have enough to do: “I think we can change people’s behavior. …We want to really … [be] creating opportunities for what we call livable communities. … It is a way to coerce people out of their cars. … About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives.” –Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood, who also said he wants to “coerce people out of their cars”

VILLAGE IDIOTS

Liberal judicial philosophy 101: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” –Judge Sonia Sotomayor in 2001 **”Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: ‘I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ — and had proceeded to speak of ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences.’” –columnist Stuart Taylor

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” –Sotomayor in 2001

It shouldn’t be: “[A] court of appeals is where policy is made.” –Sotomayor in 2005

More global warmism: “If there is no cost to be paid for the indiscriminate dumping of pollution into the earth’s atmosphere, then it should be a surprise to no one that today we will dump another 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet. … We have to [act] this year, not next year. Mother Nature does not do bailouts.” –Al Gore

Speak for yourself: “It’s interesting because I think in America, we think of the Buddhists especially, but also the Hindus as much more spiritual than we are, people who wouldn’t engage in atrocities and things like that. Not really the case, is it?” –HBO’s Bill Maher

From the “moderates”: “[W]hat [Republicans] have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are and not just listen to diktats that come down from the right wing of the party.” –former Secretary of State Colin Powell, making the mistake of thinking the GOP has gone further right

SHORT CUTS

“Brace yourself. Take a Dramamine. You’ll be hearing about Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor ad nauseam in the coming weeks. Did I say ‘Sonia Sotomayor’? I meant, of course, ‘Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.’ It will be a constantly recurring epithet, like ‘swift-footed Achilles,’ ‘gray-eyed Athena,’ or (perhaps more to the point) ‘honest Iago.’” –columnist Roger Kimball

“Drinking game: If you take a shot every time you hear the phrase ‘compelling life story’ [about Sonia Sotomayor] today, you should be out by lunch.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

“If a conservative judge decided the Constitution meant only what he or she says it means, there would be an outcry reaching to Heaven, if the secular Left believed in such a place.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“In his Naval Academy commencement speech, Obama bragged about shooting the Somali pirates in those ‘five days in April.’ I hear a movie coming: ‘Five Days in April — How a courageous, brave, historic president of the United States personally wiped out three Somali teenagers.’” –radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

Jay Leno:

President Obama has found a way to quickly close Guantanamo Bay. He’s going to turn it into a Pontiac dealership.

Before she left for China, reporters repeatedly questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her claim the CIA lied to her. But Pelosi remained tight-lipped. She also remained tight-foreheaded and tight-eyelided.

In fact, before she left, Pelosi told the press she’s not going to have any further comments on this whole controversy about the CIA. She says no more talking. She’s not going to say another word. Why can’t we get this deal for Joe Biden?

Pelosi said that the CIA misleads us all the time. You know, unlike Congress.

The big story is the Supreme Court. President Obama has found his nominee. She is Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A Latino woman. You know what that means — Ruth Bader Ginsburg will no longer be the hot chick on the court.

Read more great articles at The Patriot Post.US

Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs  such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.

It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts.

After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?

I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket.

Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd.

It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.”

At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts stated  ”I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned fto the security of Chief Justice Roberts.
I gave him
1.Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
2. Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3. 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.
4. Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses.  It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old.

It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names.

It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are  signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for  Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns.

All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious  positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously.

For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get 1 million grant of our taxpayer money  and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law license is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).

I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event  when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father.

At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball.

I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you?

Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen.

To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records.

There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens.

I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.

Read All Critically Important Articles at DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION
To defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States

There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office.

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Enlisted Oath

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer Oath -

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).  (My bold emphasis. —Al)

Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now.  The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government.  Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution.  Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters.  The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.

Let’s see if SCOTUS runs and hides again.  They failed to live up to their oaths by ignoring the prior cases.  I pray they will wise up very soon and honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
————————————————————————————————————————————

Thank you for your service!  Not only is Dr. Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation behind you; but it seems you have some extremely impressive support too:

Open Letter from Brigadier General Charles Jones

Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit

Col. Riley former division chief national security agency joins our action

Officer Easterling, Active military officer deployed with the US military in Iraq

• No Image

Lt Col. David A. Earl-Graef

• No Image

SSgt Brian A Keith USMC Joins Military Action

Major Cannon former Marine Corps. joins our action

Lt Col. Chuck Miller, USAF (Ret) is honored to be a Plainftiff in Military Action

Officer Grimes joins the Military Action

Their bravery and leadership has inspired others to step up too.  They are the leaders.  And we thank them all for their service!

Read All Critically Important Articles at DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATION
“To defend the rights and freedoms that exist for all citizens in the United States”

Read Pat Dollard’s: “Ineligible Imposter”: First Soldier Refuses Obama’s Orders
Expanding Mutiny Against “Ineligible Imposter”: Second U.S. Soldier Refuses Obama’s Orders

See previous posts:  Are We Slaves Or Do We American Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? By Ed
Reasons Why Obama Won’t Show His Original Birth Certificate By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.