Bin Laden Under US AT General Holder Would Be Tried In Federal Court?

Eric Holder and Barack Obama are systematically dismantling our military and intelligence agencies. Holder cannot seem to answer simple questions with simple answers.

Sen Lindsey Graham presses holder on the issue about the chief architect of the 9/11/01 attacks on our nation. Holder gives clear indication that he believes that bin Laden could in fact be tried under civilian law in a civilian court complete with a lawyer and Constitutional Rights and Protections.

When did we throw plain common sense out the window? How is this going to help keep our nation and we citizens safe? Simple answer - it won't. It will make us more of a target.

Our poor military people will have their hands tied and anyone caught on the field of battle will have to have their rights read to them. In such cases, I am sure our military people would just shoot all those captured instead of actually capturing them.

This would make the battlefield even more dangerous because just like in WWII when you have no chance at living even if captured then you will fight to the bitter end. That will result in more US casualties.

Yet our President and his administration obviously knows this but they just don't care.

Did we win one?

I just learned that Green Jobs Czar Van Jones has quit. Yes, NPR is reporting that "Czar Jones" has resigned his post at the White House.

He claims he quit because of a "smear campain" against him. I am still trying to figure out how people on the left side of the political isle, or any isle for that matter, can get away with calling the truth a smear campain.

How is telling the truth using ones own words a smear? It isn't. The reason it becomes a smear is because the one who said the convicting words wants to hide from those words.

Think about Obama telling people he is not for taking over the health care industry when he is on record numerous times saying he is for a Single Payer System. He has even given a time line as to when he would like to have that system in place. But he says that those who point out those facts are using scare tactics and a smear campane against him.

Well what was so controversial about Mr. Jones? Asside from the fact that he is an avowed communist, he said that he believes that the 9-11-01 attacks were the work of our government.

Oh sure, there are some others here in the USA that feel that somehow the government of the United States had a hand in the destruction the World Trade Center Towers. But none of those kooks works in high places of government. At least none that we know of.

However, Van Jones, is nothing more than a huge black communist. Black in the terms of his race. Although he is black in the terms of stealth as well. He wants to do things from a secret position. This position was that of a Czar appointed by Obama and accountable to no one.

Well, Mr. Jones thought he could get away with being in stealth mode but people out there in America found the things that Van said, wrote, supported and tried to bring about into reality. He has his own self serving agenda to blame, not some smear campane that really is nothing more than the truth.

You could say this is a minor win for those who fight for liberty and freedom. You could say that this is a small step forward in taking back the country in which they love so dearly.

Yes, Van may have quit, but we still have some 47 or so Czars to go. And, indeed, we have the biggest Czar of them all to get rid of...Barack Obama. Lets hope that more Czars vacate their positions due to public pressure because of the truth being reported. And then let us hope and pray that in 2012 we are able to vote out Obama and in his stead, put someone who still believes in our nation, our freedom, our constitution.

The Obama Czars Want to Control Speech

The scary thing is this. There are those who want to control every aspect of your life. In fact they even tell us they want to control every aspect of your life. They don't care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

What they want is power and pure power. Many of Obama's Czars have said and continue to say things that directly oppose the Constitution and your rights. But the media does not report any of this. The Lame Stream Media doesn't report on anything that affects your rights unless it is something that a conservative does.



Remember this, if those who are popular are silenced, what do you think will happen to you and your family? You will be silenced as well.

Jefferson said that a nation in fear of its government is nothing more than a nation of subjects but a government in fear of its citizens is a free republic.

Presidents Day is a Joke

Yes you read the title correctly. I believe that Presidents day is a joke. Why do I say that? Simply because it is not a holiday of convenience. Not a holiday of celebration and memorandum.

You see some time ago, two of our nation's greatest leaders were honored by their birthdays. George Washington, one of the Founding Fathers and the very first President of the United States of America. This man had the God given insight to turn down the offer of being named King of the USA. That is right. The original GW turned down a monarchy and the chance to be the leader of this nation for life.

Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President. A man who openly revered and admired George Washington. A man who stood on principle in order to keep our nation in tact. Some say he forever ingrained the power of the Federal Government by taking to task a group of states that wanted to break away from the Union.

What they don't tell you that those states did not follow the law on how to do just that as outlined in the Constitution. So, by that, President Lincoln had a duty as the President to put a stop to such rebels. Not to mention the fact that the South was trying to deny a man a right to be a man. But that is another topic.

We used to celebrate these two great men separately. Granted, we did not take time off from work in order to do so, but at least our school children and our government recognized the greatness of these two men.

Then came the fact that someone in government thought it would be better to honor all presidents with a single holiday. That would have been a great idea except they chose to remove the holidays for Washington and Lincoln and lump them together with all the other presidents that have served. Lets face it, we have had great, good and downright awful Commanders in Chief. So why should those who were dismal in their duties be celebrated?

And what does this have to do with your liberty and freedom? Our government has been dumbing down the masses of our nation for decades. For when you have a governed populace that does not understand or know its history or is sense of self, they are far more easy to govern.

And by govern, I mean by taking away your freedom and your right to choose and live in a free and just society. If you stop celebrating two men who were the epitome of freedom and liberty and reduce their greatness to just anecdotal stories in the lines of history, you obviously break down the knowledge and truth that was the reason for them living and being. You get a mass of people who don't understand or know what others did for them and why.

Now we have historians ranking all of our Presidents on an annual basis. The funny thing is these rankings change from year to year. Now why is that? Obviously what these men have done within their respective Presidencies cannot change because it is history and almost all of them are now dead and gone. So how could their rankings change?

OK, I can see a new President being ranked higher over some older ones and thus change the rankings in that manor. But if a new President does not change the mix, then how do you re-rank a former President? How is it that Abraham Lincoln could be ranked, for example, number 2 last year behind George Washington but this year be ranked number 1 ahead of George Washington?

It doesn't make any sense unless you understand the dynamic that is the Left. They attempt to rewrite history on a daily basis. And by doing so, they take a dumbed down society and tell them what history was great and what history was not so great.

It is just like trying to paint Ronald Regan as a bad President and that he caused the recession of the early 1980's when he was not in office to do so at the time. When they, the left, try and tell us Ronald Regan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union and much of the worlds communism. When the left says that September 11, 2001 was all George W Bushes fault even though we know the attackers were planning that attack and training for said attack as far back as 1996 when Bill Clinton was in office.

Rewriting history only serves one purpose. It sole purpose is to impose upon you and me a false truth so that we are more accepting of over reaching government. If you change history for the masses by telling them that the Founding Fathers did not believe in God, then you make it easier to say that the words "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution. (They are not, by the way.)

If, by rewriting history, you can claim that our Presidents all favored strong and big central government, then you pave the way for more of that government today. Again, the Founding Fathers and at least the first 20 Presidents were not all that into huge central government.

If you say Ronald Regan cut taxes and that is why the deficits went sky high, then you create the mentality that tax cuts are a bad thing and that high taxes are the only way to go. Forget the fact that the Regan tax cuts doubled the income to the treasury and that is was not tax CUTS that lead to high deficits. It was too much spending and that is ALWAYS the case.

So now can you see how changing these holidays into one single, non recognized holiday re-writes history that puts your liberty and freedom in danger? If you don't, then might I suggest you go and read about American History from books that were written before 1950. You can find them in your library, if they have not been forced to remove them already.

Remember the shot heard 'round the world?

This is one of the most outrageous things I have had come to my attention in a very long time. I read and heard about this and I could not believe my eyes and ears. Massachusetts has no idea what kind of Pandora's Box they are trying to open up.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts wants to extend its tax policy outside of its own borders in direct conflict with the US Constitution.

There is a tire chain store here in New England called Town Fair Tire. It is not a huge chain but it does have rather good prices on tires and wheels. Well, somehow Massachusetts was able to force its way into their NH books and decided that Town Fair owed the 5% sales tax that the state says came from MA residents buying tires at their NH stores.

First of all, I don't know how they were able to audit the books of a company not in its own state and second, I don't know where they even get the idea they could force a company not in its state collect sales tax for them. This is a direct affront to the sovereignty of the State of New Hampshire.

MA wants to force this tire chain to collect a sales tax in a state with NO sales tax at all. Now think about this for a second. If MA wins this case it will open the doors for every state to require every other state to collect its sales tax from residents that travel. It will become an accounting nightmare for business not to mention, states without sales taxes will find themselves enforcing the sales tax policy of other states.

Because NH doesn't have sales tax, most businesses don't have a mechanism to collect such fees. If MA wins this fight then it could force these small and large companies to come up with very expensive mechanisms to collect these charges from people who chose to shop in their state who live in another state.

This would not stop at sales tax, it would spread to just about every other tax and fee. It would be a nightmare.

This really started some time ago with the State of Maine imposing an income tax on NH and MA residents that work in Maine. Now you may think that is not strange and that every state does this. However, Maine takes it one step further. If on spouse works in Maine, then the other spouse that does not work in Maine is subject to the Maine income tax as well. The bad thing about this is that the state of NH did not vigorously fight this and this policy sticks to this day.

So don't think for a minute that the MA sales tax wont be spread to other areas of your income. And think about this. If you live in New York State and Shop in MA would you have to pay both sales and use taxes? Would that not be double taxation? Double taxation is against the Constitution.

And for that matter so is what MA is trying to do. What these states need to do is be responsible for their spending and stop looking for ways to get more cash. They need to cut back or eliminate all of these social programs that are draining the coffers of state treasuries all over the nation.

CA is delaying giving back money that does not belong to them because they don't have it. CA is the largest socialist state we have and look at them. They are so broke that they can't even give the money back to the people to whom it belongs. Instead of refunds on their income tax, the people of CA are getting I.O.U.'s.

You gotta ask how much more will the people of CA stand for before they open their eyes and start voting in conservative thinkers to run their state.

The same thing should happen in MA. Those idiots keep voting in the liberal idiots that are grabbing their income as fast as they can. Now those same liberals want to toss the Constitution aside so they can grab even more cash to feed their bottomless pit policies of socialized everything.

MA is the first state to require every single resident in that state to have health insurance coverage. Even if they cannot afford it, if you live within that state, you must have coverage. Sure if the state determines you can't afford it then the state will pay for it for you. This was projected to cost around 900 million dollars. Six months into the program, the health department of that state requested another 1 billion dollars to cover the cost. DOUBLE the projected amount. This boondoggle of a plan in its second year cost the state more than twice what they told the people of that state.

Socialism is too expensive, it doesn't work and it takes more and more of YOUR hard earned money to fund. If you live anywhere in this country, you need to tell your governor and Attorney General to support the State of New Hampshire in this fight against the Commonwealth of MA. This is unconstitutional. This is unfair. This is not right. This is dangerous.

Read more about this hear.

Is this the beginning of the end of the Union?

I don't think this means the end of the Union but it could send a strong message to Congress and Obama that they seriously need to reverse their past policies. This is a land that is governed by the rule of law. Obama himself said it. Well the law of the land is the Constitution. Pure and simple.

This post is written by a friend. Enjoy.

February 2, 2009
New Hampshire talks Civil War against feds!

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step today by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a "breach of peace" with the states themselves that risks "nullifying the Constitution.

"

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress "That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . .

therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;"

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.



One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.



New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out "That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .

"

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution: "That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.

Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.



II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.



III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.



IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.



V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.



VI.

Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.

"


I have reported on thisblog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.



The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.



Read the full New Hampshire Reesolution directly from the State Government Web Site, Here: http://www.
gencourt. state. nh. us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.
html

Think about it!

Settling in with Obama as President

And so the “reign” of Obama begins. It started out a little rough with both Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama messing up the Inaugural lines. It was a bit comical at first but then you realized, this is something these two should have had down pat. No excuses.

But they are human and it would be petty to target Obama on this slip up. But since President Obama is not quick on his feet (we have seen him stumble on more than one occasion when he is not reading from a script or prompter) you know this will not be the last time he screws up with his words.

Obama waisted no time in halting the trials of Guantanamo prisoners. You can say Obama has now launched a war on the war on terror. He seems to want to give these prisoners of war the same treatment as a citizen who has committed a crime.

Obama has also extended a hand of friendship to our enemies. In his speech he pledged to shack the hand of our enemies if they would only but extend an open hand other than a fist. How many times have these same nations extended a false open hand only to have their fingers crossed behind their backs with the other hand?

Of course you had all the news outlets just fawning all over the Inauguration. They were so giddy it was sick. You have to ask yourself how fair and balanced are they going to be with this guy during his first (and hopefully only) term? Don't rely on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and to some extent even Fox News for fair and honest and balanced coverage of this guy. Seriously, they all were in love with the moment, the day, the history.

For the record, this was an historic day, true. HOWEVER, every time we install a new President, it is an historic day. Our nation makes history every time we peacefully change the hands of power. Just because this guy had a darker complexion of skin should not have even been more than an anecdote. Seriously.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been filled with joy to see Obama elected, if he agreed with and liked his character. Remember, MLK wanted a world that did not judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Does Obama have the kind of character that MLK would have liked and voted for? To be honest, probably not.

MLK talked about being free at last. President Obama talked about a free people doing great things. Yet most of Obama's ideas focus on taking choice and freedom from the people and placing that power in the hands of the government. Remember, if the government has the power, you don't have the freedom. Pretty simple.

Lastly, will I give this new President a chance to succeed? If that means he gets what he wants in the form of Socialism then I would have to say “HELL NO!” I will not stand by and watch him turn my nation into a new France or a new Germany or a new Russia. Hell No! I won't stand by and let him strip me further of my freedom and liberty. Government is NOT the answer. Government is the problem.

President Obama, I will give you time to get settled in your new home. Oh, hold on, you are in the White House now. You occupy the Oval Office now. I think you are settled. Now time to get to work for you, me and every American citizen. I for one am all settled in on spreading the word on what you intend to do. Along with all your friends on Capitol Hill. If you even speak or think of stripping any of my freedoms, I will be there on your “door step” fighting you.

Yes, I am a Patriot. I cling to my guns and religion and my rights and freedoms. I cling to the documents of freedom, the Deceleration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights and the Bible. You can have those documents when you tear them from my cold, dead hands.

What say you, America? Are you a true American or do you think the government is here to support and take care of you?

Giving Obama a chance.

The time has come. My head is slung low. I am in shame because my country has openly elected a Socialist to be President. Today is the last day of the George W. Bush Administration and he is not going to waist any time getting out of Dodge.

Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those total GW fans that swoon every time his name is mentioned. There is plenty I have railed against GW on during his eight years in office. The biggest thing I hated was most of the Patriot Act.

There were plenty of other things as well but that goes for just about any President. I didn't always disagree with Bill Clinton but it is safe to say that I disagreed with him more than I agreed.

So now we will begin the era of Barack Obama. Already right out of the gate, I don't like him. Now I keep hearing the line “give him a chance.” I have thought about that long and hard. At first I said of course I will give him a chance. But as I thought about it, what am I giving him a chance on or for?

He has not really done anything since being elected to warrant my giving him a chance. In fact in one of his speeches since being elected, he has stated that “only government can fix...” Hold on a minute. That is not freedom. That is socialism. I will not give someone a chance to turn my country of freedom and liberty into the land of France or Sweden or even Germany.

Our nation has been in economic troubles before and we have always come out of those troubles. Usually without a ton of government intervention or programs. But we seem to be heading down the road to socialism with smiles on our faces.

We are collectively patting ourselves on our backs having had the “courage and strength” to elect a non-white man to be our President. We shouted for joy as Obama preached about “change.” We got tingly feelings running up our legs overtime Obama spoke.

We are a nation that now views appearance or substance. Thank you MTV and Hollywood. If it looks cool and pretty, then we buy it. If it sounds neat and cool then we buy it. Forget the reality or the substance of the thing or person in question.

Have you taken a walk down a mall recently? Seriously think about how much substance there is in that mall vs. the appearance. Everything looks beautiful. All the models that show the clothing you are supposed to by are thin and beautiful even if the clothing is for “bigger” people, those big models are still rather shapely and beautiful.

We are made to believe that if we buy those closes, or get that hair style or dab on that cologne, we will be as beautiful on the outside as those models. Now we have a president that sounds beautiful, to many he even looks beautiful and to be certain he has a beautiful family. Tall, thin, looks to be in great shape. He tells us stories we want to hear. Yet there is no substance there at all.

Its like walking down a hall in a political mall. We have chosen everything we think will make us beautiful to the rest of the world and we don't care how ungly it is under the surface. But now we have the beautiful people about to take office.

We are now about to come face to face with appearance over substance. So will I give him a chance? Not on your life. Not if all he wants to do is take my sweet land of liberty and turn it into the largest socialist nation in the history of our planet. Would you give someone who wants to do that a chance?

I didn't think so. Maybe there are just enough of us out there that prefer substance over appearance. Just maybe the 57 million people who did not vote for Obama will stand up and demand that the rest of the nation stop acting like teen age girls and boys and act like grown adults that understand it their responsibility to make their lives better, not the governments.

Time to stop the whining. Time to peel back the beautiful surface and get down to the ugly truth. Its time to grow up America.

I am all grown up. Are you?

Obama Citizenship Still Not Settled

A friend of mine sent me this article and asked me to repost it.

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.


Online schedules posted by the court show the case brought by attorney Philip J. Berg is set for a conference Jan. 9.


The case is one among several that already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and address the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.


Berg has submitted several requests for injunctions, seeking the court's order to stay proceedings in the electoral process until his case is heard, but the request have been rejected.


His original claim, however, remains on track to be heard.






"I know that Mr.
Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes. com website.


"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.



Supreme Court docketing information


The justices already have discussed two cases in conference but refused to give them further hearings.


WND previously reported on cases brought by Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio that both challenged Obama on allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him from office. Both, however, were turned back by the Supreme Court.



Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S.
or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 185,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.


The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
"



Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.


Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.


Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.


Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.


A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied. But the conference on the case is set Jan. 9.



Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.



Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.



In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.



In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.



In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.



Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS. com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.


Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could loom over the issue of Obama's citizenship.


"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
"

With such high stakes, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.


That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.


A separate petition, already signed by more than 185,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.


WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.


The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.


The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

I predicted this some time ago.

Yes I predicted this. It is a prediction I had hoped would never come true. But it looks like this prediction is well on its way to becoming fact. It has to do with California and its Proposition 8 initiative that was passed by the voters of that state back on November 4, 2008.

Now I have said that liberals would attempt to make the Constitution ruled unconstitutional. Low and behold, the CA Attorney General now is urging the CA State Supreme Court to rule that this voter passed Constitutional Amendment be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yahoo News reports that Jerry Brown, the states Attorney General, is urging the Court to rule this vote and amendment unconstitutional. This is ridiculous. If the CA Supreme Court rules that a particular part of the their Constitution is unconstitutional, then there is nothing in the Constitution that is safe. There is nothing, no right, no amendment that can be reversed or eliminated by a judge. We the People mean nothing and we are in grave danger.

Of course, some on the left are saying this is a retroactive amendment and law because that Supreme Court ruled that gays could get married. Well if the Court accepts that argument, then Civil rights could be reversed based on the same argument. Slavery could be reversed based on the same argument because slavery was upheld by courts prior to their being an amendment abolishing it.

This may sound extreme but thing about it. Not to mention, the Federal Government would have to give back billions of dollars because of the retroactive tax President Bill Clinton proposed and signed into law back in the mid 90's.

This has got to be one of the most dangerous arguments yet that attacks the very core and foundation of our Constitution. You cannot strike down a Constitutional amendment. The courts have no jurisdiction in that area. In fact the Constitution gives us specific instructions on how to amend it and who has the power to amend it. The courts have no power to amend or change the constitution. It is solely in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

The people of CA legally voted on this proposition. Like the outcome or not, it was legal and the only way to change it is to amend it again. If the courts decide to amend this amendment, it will set a precedence that will tear our nation apart and put every state constitution and our Federal Constitution on the chopping block.

Even if you don't live in California, you need to make your voice heard on this. We cannot allow a minority to totally undermine and ruin our great nation. This cannot be allowed to stand. Your liberty and freedom is now in jeopardy, just as I predicted some time ago. Do you want a judge to decide the fate of our nation, your life? I didn't think so.

God, guns, glory and freedom

Now I am sure you are thinking to yourself, not another post from some right wing whack nut about God and guns. Well, you would be wrong. But since you brought it up, what is wrong with God and guns? Absolutely nothing.

But what this article is about is your freedom, my freedom, the freedom of our children and their posterity. We have been given a great gift by God in the form of the United States of America. Are we a perfect nation? Hell no. Are we the best nation on the planet today and possibly in the history of man? Hell yes.

We were built on freedom and liberty. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to put into the Constitution things that would secure our freedom. Yet we seem to be willing to let our freedom go little by little and we say it is for the best.

We have now elected the most socialistic and radical President in our nation's history. Barack Obama is bent on destroying the very foundations in which our nation was built. But he is not the first.

We have anti gun laws in most states in our union. This is something that our Founding Fathers would never have stood for. Yet we modern Americans think it is for our safety. Despite the fact that gun laws only seem to keep fire arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not the criminals. This gives the criminal the upper hand. You can see every where the people are allowed to carry a gun, violent crime goes down. Great Britain banned hand guns for its citizens and its violent crime rate shot through the roof. So much for the safety of the public.

You now have a Governor proposing taxes that would have the Founding Fathers dumping cargo into bays and ports all over the country. NY Governor Patrick wants to put taxes on what you eat and what you do. This is surely not the kind of taxation with representation that our Founding Fathers had in mind. Remember one of the reasons they went to war with King George was over taxes and how unfair and burdensome they were to the American people. Now we have elected politicians who think the best way to solve fiscal problems is to raise our taxes instead of reducing their spending. And we re-elect these people?

We have gotten thought police as well. We now have "hate" crime laws. This gives some people more protection than others. How is that anti-hate when you seem to think that a gay man is worth more than a straight man. Who cares what was in the heart and mind of the criminal when they committed the crime. It was a crime against a HUMAN BEING, period. Hate crime laws fly in the face of the Constitution that says "all men are created EQUAL". This does not leave room for special laws for special people.

We have judges who write law now or force legislators to write law. This was not the intent in the Constitution either. How can you interpret a law that does not exist? You cannot. A judge, according to the Constitution, can only interpret existing law against the Constitution. That does not give the judge the right to force a new law upon the people. That job is for the legislature alone.

Yet we seem to elect the same buffoons to office time and time again. We talk about experience when we just elected one of the least experienced people to our highest office. But then again, this may not be such a bad thing. Our Founding Fathers did not believe in career politicians. They all served a short time and went back to private life. Our politicians today seem to think when they get elected its a life long job worthy of pensions and retirement pay.

And we now have selective discrimination. You can't have a Christmas tree or a Menorah on public property in many places now. Something about "separation of church and state." What a bunch of bunk. Those words do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to find those words in the Constitution. Placing a Christmas tree in front of city hall does not constitute the state endorsing a particular religion as the state religion. It is ridiculous how this has played out. Unless you are now some protected minority religion, you have no rights on public lands? Yet we re-elect the idiots who decide this stuff for us.

I am a Christian man. I say Merry Christmas and Jesus is the reason for the Season. If you get insulted, then it is not my problem. I say Happy Chanukah to some people who are Jewish. If that offends someone who is not Jewish, tough. I like guns and own one. If that offends you, too damn bad. I express my opinion freely. You don't like it then don't listen or don't read it.

This is the United States of America and I have the right to do, say and have these things. You don't have the right to shut me up or take them away. You do have the right not to listen. Just as I have a right not to listen to you. Notice I did not say I have a right not to "hear" you. You have a right to say almost anything you want, even call me a racist term and I will hear it, but just because you say it doesn't mean you have a right to have me listen. I can ignore you. You can ignore me, but neither of us can DENY the other of our rights. And that is what is happening today in our nation.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave and I will gladly stand up and defend her any day. I stand for God, Family, Country. In that order. God gave me my family and my country and I have a God given right to defend them and I will. And I will do so by not voting for idiots who want to take those rights away from me. I will defend my rights by opposing what our elected officials want to do if what they want to do stomps on the Constitution. I don't care if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Independent...it does not matter. You trash the Constitution and you and I have a major problem.

The Founding Fathers did not bleed red so that we could someday hand over our rights to a few elites in Capitols all over the land. The power was meant to stay in the hands of all the people not a few. So wake up. Stand up. Don't let your freedom slip away any further. Because if you do, you may find the only way to get it back is by bleeding yourself or worse, by the blood of your children. Now is that what you really want? I didn't think so. Oh and if it comes to that, you will need your gun.

A Governor and his court

I know everyone has heard about the Governor of the state of IL being arrested by the FBI. Now some people may think, so what big deal. Well it is a very big deal. Much bigger than just this governor possibly breaking the law. If the charges against this guy are true and fact, then it affects your freedom directly.

Seriously think about it for a moment. This guy is alleged to basically have held the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama for ransom. He was trying to sell it to the highest bidder. He was holding that seat open to someone that would benefit him. Not the people of his state.

Now when you are a governor and you get to appoint a senator to the US Congress, you are also affecting every single person in the Union. Even though a US Senator is duly sworn to represent the people of his state, what they do while in Congress affects every person in all 50 states.

This is not a situation that only affects the people of IL. It affects all of us. What if this governor appointed someone that did not really qualify for that seat? What if that appointed Senator swayed crucial votes that affected and effected your life?

How do you justify selling a seat in government? Don't tell me that everyone does it. To a certain extent that may be true. But this is different. This governor openly put this seat out for bid. He threatened to appoint himself to the seat if he did not get the price he thought he should get. This is self serving and has nothing to do with you or me or the people of the state of IL.

Add to this the fact that IL already has a former governor in prison for less than legal deeds while in office. Forget the fact that the state of IL has had a record number of governors to be sent to jail for various ill-deeds, 5 to be exact. Rod (yea we share the same name but not the same views or sense of morality) Blagojevich was out for himself. He was out to enrich himself without any regard to the people of this country. Rod Blagojevich could be governor number 6 in IL to go to prison.

Have we not had enough of politicians on the take. Forgetting why they are in office to begin with? How can we, the people, keep electing these people over and over again? Why is it we think its OK that character doesn't really matter? These people take our freedom, take our liberty, and line their pockets with money. They don't care about you and me.

So what can you do? Get involved. This is YOUR country as well as it is mine. You need to start understanding what your freedom and liberty is. You need to know what is in the Constitution. You need to realize that your freedom, although its not free, it is priceless. It is as priceless as life itself for without your natural God given freedom, you can have no life.

Don't believe me, then just look at the former Soviet Union. Look at nations that did not have freedom until recently and see how the people love having it. Of course the politicians don't like for you to have freedom. It gives you power over them instead of them having power over you.

The state of IL is corrupt. It is corrupt because the people let it be corrupt. Our government is corrupt because we the people let it be. We elect and re-elect the very people who are responsible for our plight.

People knew that Rod Blagojevich was a crook but they elected him anyway. People knew that Barack Obama had major character issues and flaws, yet we elected him anyway. People know that Barny Frank and friends are most responsible for our financial environment right now, but they were re-elected last November.

You, your neighbor, your co-worker, your relative is responsible for you losing your freedom. You and they elect these deadbeats. You must understand, one man or one woman can change the course of a nation and history. It has been proven time and time again. Now imagine over 400 people that you elect and put in Washington, D.C. and how they can influence your life. Imagine the people that you send to your state and local government buildings and how they affect your liberty on a daily basis.

Would you want your boss at work to be as crooked as Blagojevich? Most of us would say no because that could put our paychecks in jeopardy. Well, the same is true when you send leaders to run our government. And now we are reaping what we vote.

Now you can't blame me. I did not vote for Blagojevich, Obama, Frank, Palosi, Dodd. But many of you who read this did. So are is the biggest enemy of your freedom, my freedom, the people in office? No! The biggest threat to my freedom to your freedom, to your family's freedom is you, the voter.

If you don't vote, you are no better than the person who votes for the wrong person. So when you read about men and women like Blagojevich the only person you can blame is yourself. You voted for them. They think they are kings when you do and can do and say anything and get away with it.

We the people are not corrupt in general but we allow others to be corrupt by voting for them and then re-electing them. So when you lose your job or your friend, relative or neighbor does, know that it is most likely your fault. Unless you find and vote for those who believe in the Constitution and believe in your freedom and liberty, then you are at fault.

Want to prevent more corruption? Want to stop people like Blagojevich? Then vote for those who believe in your freedom and will not compromise principle for a buck.

A question of epic proportions

I was given a most interesting question the other day. I had to think about it for a few days. Yes, it was a really deep question. It was a question that required lots and lots of serious thought. It is the kind of question that I am sure many people are being asked since the national election.

OK, so I didn't have to think about it for a few days. In fact it didn't even take me a full second to respond. The answer, of course, was a resounding – NO! I'm sure you are wondering what question, what single question could spark such a single word response. What kind of question would raise my ire?

It was a question of Barack Obama, our dear President-elect. Our dear messiah. (Notice the little letter “m”.)

This was the question. And you can answer it for yourself if you wish.

Would you have voted for Obama if he were a white man?

Let me restate my answer. NO! Hell no. And it has nothing to do with his skin color. It has everything to do with his ideas and beliefs.

Obama, be he black or white or yellow or red or brown, has all the wrong ideas when it comes to our nation. We are a nation of free people. We don't need nor do we want a nanny government. We don't need nor do we want government to run our lives. We don't need nor do we want government to grow so big that it hinders our ability to live on our own terms.

Obama, be he black, white, yellow, red or brown, wants government to be your answer to everything. He wants government to be the only answer to everything. He believes that only government can make things better and fair. He believes in spreading your wealth around.

No, I would not vote for Obama if he were white. I would not vote for Obama if he were yellow. I would not vote for Obama if he were red. I would not vote for Obama if he were brown. So I definitely did not vote for him, even though he is black (half black).

His plans for trickle up poverty (coined by the master radio talk show host Michael Savage) are not the plans that will ensure prosperity to our selves or our posterity. Although not a perfect system, Ronald Reagan's trickle down economics has proven to work far more successfully than any form of trickle up economics. How can the poor employ anyone? They can't. How can the poor help anyone? They can't. But a rich person can employ that poor person who then can work and train and lift himself out of the depths of poverty to join that rich man as his equal. But he must work and train for it.

Obama thinks he can get that poor man to be somewhat richer by taking from the rich man who would rather employ the poor man. This Robin Hood approach has never worked in all of history.

President-elect Obama may be a Constitutional Law Professor but he surely does not know his economic history. For if he bothered to study such things while attending Harvard, he would know that such ideas as he proposes to foist on all of us, are doomed to fail. And as such, those failed ideas will doom our nation.

No, I would not vote for Obama no matter what color his skin. I would simply not vote for the man because of his ideas. They are wrong and bad for freedom and liberty and as such they are bad for our nation and our people.

The Dangers of the Left again show up in Cali

Proposition 8 in California was approved by a majority of the voters in that state. The proposition is an amendment to the state's Constitution. It states that marriage is the union between one man and one woman and that California will not accept or recognize any union other than that no matter where or when that union took place.

In other words, gay marriage is now illegal in California and it is not just a law, the proposition actually adds an amendment to the Constitution which puts it off limits to activist judges. Or at least that is what those that support this law thought.

It would appear that there are those in California that do not want this law to go into effect. In fact they want to thwart the will of the people by using the courts again.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against gay people. In fact I have lots of friends who are gay. Surprising to me is the fact that many of them are not for gay marriage. Which goes to show that gays are not united on this issue as you have been lead to believe.

I for one, know that this nation was based on Judeo/Christian ethics by the Founding Fathers. Even though many of us may not like the idea but it is true, the bible does not allow for the union of a same sex couple. Although you could say that Jesus removed or fulfilled all the Lavitical laws, He did not do so for the 10 Commandments. One of those Commandments states that a man cannot lay or have sex with another man.

Now I will let theologians argue the merits of that issue. The other big issue is that the people of California have spoken. I find it amazing that when a minority thinks they have been wronged, they try and sue the majority. In effect, they hold the majority hostage. That was not the intent of the Constitution of any state or the Federal Government. The Constitutions do have provisions that keep the majority from pounding the minority into oblivion but that does not mean that the minority get to have their way whole sale.

This is how we get stupid laws dictated from the judicial bench. We get a few people who do not like what the majority have voted upon and thus take their losing case to the courts. The courts, in most cases, should toss these law suits out but liberal and activist judges have taken up the causes of the liberal minority and have thrust their rulings upon the majority thus holding the majority hostage.

This actually makes the majority the new minority. So would that mean we, the majority, are now the special protecties of the Constitution? We are being bullied by the minority. They bully us in court. They bully us in the press. And they try and bully us in the voting booth. They threaten to make your vote useless by taking every decision they don't like to a court. Talk about disenfranchised.

The point is this. The people of the state of California have spoken. If there is something you don't like about that vote, then you have the right to move. The Constitution does not give you the right to bully the majority when they do things legally. The courts have no jurisdiction on what can and cannot be added to the Constitution. It is time that some in the minority learn that if they keep fighting the will of the people, that those people will eventually give the minority something far more devastating than they expected.

This happened in California because when the people voted back in 2000 to make marriage between a man and a woman a plain law. The minority took them to court and a court forced something that the majority did not want. So the majority took matters into their hands and decided to do something radical. They decided to amend their Constitution which now makes it much more difficult if not impossible for gays to get their way. Good going to the minority of gays who have now just ruined life for the majority of gays.

If you want to read more about this story then click on the link below.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/06/MN3B13UM63.DTL

In his own Words Part 2 and 3 and...

Obama doesn't care about taxes. He doesn't care about government revenue. He doesn't care who he hurts. He only wants things to be "fair" so he will raise taxes no matter how much higher taxes will hurt the treasury.




He admits that tax hikes would hurt the economy. So if the economy were strong then he would hurt it by raising taxes. Now if the whole idea is to make things fair and to pay as you go, would it not make sense, using the Obama logic, to raise taxes? In the spot above, Obama says it is not about putting money in the Treasury, it is all about fairness.



Obama thinks that paying more taxes is neighborly. And he thinks that even though lower taxes brings in more money to the treasury, the rich can afford to pay more than the lower classes but that is not class war fair. Who is this guy kidding.



When it comes to national defense, Obama doesn't know what he is talking about. He shows that he is a freshman Senator. He shows that he does not understand the dangers that we as a nation faces or that he does not really care about those dangers.



I could go on and on to show you that in his own words, Obama proves himself to be ill equipped to lead our great land. He is sorely lacking in the stature to make tough decisions. He is a socialist at best and a Marxist at worst. He wants class war fair to be inflamed to a level not before seen in our nation.

Don't listen to what others say about Obama, listen to what he says. He goes against history and statistics that prove he is wrong. He is arrogant and naive to think that even the smallest of nations pose no threat to our safety and survival. He hides his true beliefs. He hides who he is. He tries to shut the opposition up. He is against the Constitution. He will punish success.

All of this and more, Obama says and proves himself with no help from anyone else. How can you or anyone else vote for such a dangerous man? I cannot and I will not. Obama does not deserve your vote. And that is the truth.

Correction on Post

This is the video that everyone needs to view before November 4, 2008.



This is scary for sure. But what is more scary is the fact that this guy could get elected. Do you liberty and freedom loving citizens really want that? Then get out and vote and get your friends, family and co-workers to get out there and vote and vote for McCain. He is by far the lesser of two evils.

God Bless and God SAVE America!

It's Time for Liberty to be the Key Issue of the Day

The election is less than three weeks away as I sit down to write this article/post. The two sides are clearly defined in Obama and McCain. Or are they really?

I watched the last debate between the two of them and I was not happy with either candidate. But then I guess I was not happy with either of them in the last two debates. Nor was I happy about the one and only Vice-Presidential debate. Although, Gov. Sarah Palin did make it a point to say a few times that she was going to Washington, D.C. To shake it up and put government back on the side of the people.

That is when it hit me. I knew this long before Gov. Palin said it but I did not really think it until that debate. This is supposed to be government by the people, of the people, for the people. That is what our Constitution says.

Yet, not one candidate, not even Gov Palin, said they would go to Washington to fight for the Constitution. Not one of them said they would go to Washington to roll back the illegal confiscation of our rights under the Constitution. That is what I am mad about.

So I began shaping my arguments to others. I began holding both sides accountable as it pertained to the Constitution. I asked people if they believed in the Constitution. Of course no one said they were against it. Well then I asked how does Obama's or McCain's ideas fit the Constitution. Most sane people had to admit the ideas both candidates espoused were not Constitution friendly. But Obama was far more detrimental to that document than McCain.

This lead me to a question. Do we have candidates out there that stand for truth, liberty, justice and the Constitution? And that is when I found a man I just had to interview. His name is Ken Blevins and he is a candidate for US Senate from the State of NH. He is running against former NH Gov Jeanne Shaheen and current US Senator John Sununu.

This was an interview with a man that was scheduled to last about 15 minutes. Instead it lasted more than 45 minutes. Everything he said rang true and smacked of a man who knows the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Liberty Cafe': You are a member of the Libertarian Party. What does the Libertarian party stand for?

Ken Blevins: We believe in upholding the Constitution. It is the law of our land. We believe in individual rights to the point that as long as what you do does not interfere with your neighbor then you probably should be free to live your life as you see fit.

LC: Do you believe in gay marriage because both candidates have said they are against it.

KB: I believe that marriage is between that of a man and a woman but that gay should have the rights to have equal opportunity under the Constitution.

LC: Would you be in favor of a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

KB: No. I don't think we should use the Constitution as a weapon to dictate religious or moral values.
We have to be careful about using the Constitution as a way to force people to fit certain molds. That is not what the Founding Fathers had intended.

LC: What would you do about our energy problems?

KB: The free market can and should take care of this issue. We have always found ways to get things done in our country and government is not the answer to this problem. The free market has proven ideas right now, but government is getting in the way of those ideas coming to market.

LC: Do you think we should drill for more of our own oil?

KB: Yes. Listen, the environmental impact for drilling in the US is far less than it is on most foreign lands. Most oil producing countries don't have the strict environmental laws that we have and they do far more harm to the environment than we would do if we drilled here. How can environmentalist defend the notion its bad for us to drill but seek to let other countries with weaker laws drill more in their lands? It doesn't make sense. They (environmentalist) should be wanting us to drill more here because we would do far less damage to the environment.

LC: How about education.

KB: The notion that the more you pay the better you get is a myth. Regulations and government intervention have done nothing but raise the cost of education while delivering less quality. If it were a private business, it (education) would have gone out of business long ago.

LC: Traditional the Republican Party has been the party of smaller government. Why not become a strong wing of that party?

KB: Conservatives are against the basic principles of the Libertarian Party and would only seek to water down our position as they have done to the conservative position. Take for instance the Constitution gives felons the right to bear arms but we now have laws that ban them from having guns. Now you may think that is not a bad idea or law but you have to ask, where do you draw the line? Washington, D.C. Went to far in its ban on all guns obviously. But our Founding Fathers knew that guns in the hands of citizens should be a protected right.

LC: What is the major difference between you and Shaheen and Sununu?

KB: I believe in the Constitution. I believe in freedom. Shaheen supports the union vote issue where you have to sign your ballot. That is not what the Constitution says. Sununu supports McCain on immigration and that position is against the Constitution.

LC: So why should the people of NH and other states vote for you or other Libertarian candidates?

KB: Because we believe in the Constitution which is freedom and we believe in property rights as well. A person should not be limited by government as what they can and cannot do with their property. As long as it does not harm their neighbor then they should be free to do what they want to do.

Obviously we talked about much more than this. We touched on things like the War on Terror and the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all cases, Mr Blevins beliefs were strongly in the corner of the Constitution and in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

I think the Libertarian Party may be the party we have all been looking for. Less government intervention in our lives. Bringing back self accountability and responsibility. That is what made our nation strong in the beginning and what kept us strong during some of our darkest hours.

You cannot have a free people in a land where the government dictates what freedoms you may and may not have. The Constitution points this out. It was a document not written to guarantee our rights. It was a document written to limit government so that our rights would not be taken away.

How did we flip this around?

Now we have two major candidates that only talk about what government is going to do for you and me what we should be doing for ourselves. And when you give the government that kind of power, they never give it back. So how free are you going to be if the government tells you what to do, when to do it and how to do it?

You are not going to be free.

Isn't it time you stopped voting for what you think the government can do for you and start voting for the Constitution again? I think so. You and I will be better off. Now isn't that what you really want.

Supreme Court Trashes Constitution

The government is now free to break its own laws and you get to suffer for it. No this is not some lame conspiracy theory, this is now Supreme Court fact.

It now seems that the government can arrest you, and search you and your possessions even if that arrest was illegal. Let me tell you how bad this is and will be.

I will be very simplistic here so don't get yourself all in a twist because of what I use for an example. Read the greater moral of this tale.

Lets say you are jay-walking. Yes I said jay-walking. Many of you may not know what jay-walking is. It is when you cross the street at other than a crosswalk or corner. All major cities have jay-walking laws on the books although very few people are ever issued a ticket for doing such a thing.

This kind of law was instituted to help protect pedestrians and car drivers when the auto was first coming into its own. Jay-walking is a ticket and a fine. Nothing more than that.

Now lets say a police officer decides he is going to arrest you. Jay-walking is not an arrestable offense but the officer puts you in handcuffs. Now that arrest really is not legal in his state because it is a ticket offense not an arrest offense.

This cop now has the authority to fully search you and your belongings. If you jay-walk from your car, he can now search your car. What is worse is that any evidence that he gathers during this illegal arrest can be used against you in a court of law and any conviction that comes from it will stand.

Now you might be saying this is against the fourth Amendment to the Constitution and you would be right. In fact some of our Supreme Court Justices seemed to think this may be the case but they voted to allow such a thing to take place.

This full story came from Yahoo! News. It is very disturbing indeed. It now puts us on the path to an official police state. I am sure this is something that will get very little play in the media but every citizen should take note of this story.

You and your family are now in danger of being arrested for offenses that are not arrestable simply because now the police have free reign over you to do what they want. They can conduct and illegal arrest and still convict you on evidence that is illegally gathered.

This is a direct attack on your freedom and liberty. And yes, sad to say, the Bush Administration was fully behind in defending the state on their illegal arrest and search and conviction. What is next allowing illegally gathered evidence in a lawful arrest because the police were only after the truth?

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, this cannot stand. It looks like we may have to enact laws that prevent the state from doing what the Constitution says it can't do in the first place. How sad. And our liberty and freedom suffers for it.

Have we lost our way?

We have spent countless hours in America arguing about this and that in the political spectrum. It has been for the most part, a healthy discussion on what each of us believes. Or has it?

What I have noticed is that there are so many people who believe that the government should be taking care of us from the womb to the tomb. They also believe that the government should not be involved in war no matter what happens yet they will not accept the notion that an unborn child is still a child that has the right to at least be born.

They talk about a womans right to chose what to do with her body but want the government to tell us what to do in just about every other aspect of our life.

Don't get me wrong, the right side of the political isle hasn't been too much better than the left. They often demand that (and I am a Christian Reverend so take that into consideration) Christianity be the national religion. This when Christ Himself said He would force no man to come unto Him. The Christian Right often degrades into hateful groups that denigrate others when they know Christ would have had no part in what they are doing. Don't believe me, then read the bible again and tell me where Christ would have said it was OK to people names and spew hate and vile at them.

As a nation I believe we have lost our way. And it is not all the fault of politicians. We, the people are to blame. Many of us have never read the Constitution let alone know what it really says. (Some polls have said as many as 70% of Americans believe the statement "Separation of Church and State" is IN the Constitution...it is NOT)

The Constitution simply put says that you are the master of your own life, not the government. It is governments job to keep order and to protect you from dangers outside our borders so that you may live to create the life you want within our borders. The Founding Fathers were clear on their intent. You, American man and woman, have the God given right to live your life in freedom and peace free from government interference.

Sadly so many of you want government to be in your car, living room, office and bedroom. You want the government to take care of your kids and your health. You want the government to tell you and your neighbor how to get along instead of talking to each other to find a common ground.

This does not mean we cannot find our way back. We still have a chance. We can embrace true freedom again. We can take responsibility for our lives again. We can vote for those people who believe that the American people are the best judge of how to live their own lives.

We have so much opportunity in our land. This is why so many others in the world risk so much to get here. They see and understand the opportunity we have. They know that if they could only get here that their lives would be so much more enriched. They are willing to risk it all. Some die trying to get here because that is how much our nation means to them.

Yet we who are born here tend to dump on it and demand that the government take care of us. It is sad indeed when someone born outside of our borders has a greater chance of becoming a millionaire here than the person who is born here.

The immigrant has not lost their way. They understand what America stands for and means far better than many of us who are native. The immigrant has not lost their way. We can look to their ambitions, their dreams to shine light on our own. We have hope in ourselves not in government. No one man or party can bring you hope. You bring hope into your life by your actions not by what someone else can do for you.

Yes, we have lost our way, but we are not lost. We can still see the right path if we would only have the guts to put our feet back on that path.

We must become a nation of leaders again. We need to drop this cloak of followers. God did not call on us to be followers of anyone but Him. We must be leaders one and all. Leaders do not depend on another for their very existence.

We have to lead in our homes, in our schools, our churches, public and private organizations, etc, etc. We have to drop this idea that the government owes us everything. The point is, WE are the government so we can only give to ourselves what we give to the government.

Our nation was not founded by weakness. It was founded on strength and principle. We can find that principle and that strength again. In fact we need to demand it.

Government can not give you anything in which you have not given to it. And as history has proven, government cannot do something better for you that you can do for yourself. The Constitution was clear on that. We the people are responsible for our own actions, our own lives. We cannot give government the power to live our lives for us. It will be a total disaster if we give it that kind of power and none of us will ever be happy.

Stop. Think. Vote.

Cradle of our Nations Freedom Attacks Constitutional Rights

Boston is a crazy little town. It is a city of about 500,000 people give or take a few thousand. Also known as Bean Town and the home of the American Revolution. It is a city built upon civic duty and conservative principles.

It is so amazing to look at Boston today and think that it once was a cradle of our nations battle for freedom and liberty. You look at Boston now and you see a city that is run by Democrat hacks and thieves and thugs.

These people do not believe in the freedom of the people. The mayor, Tom Menino, is a Liberal Democrat hack who has been in office since the early 90's. What makes that amazing is this guy cannot talk. In fact he is referred to as Mumbles Menino.

But that is not what this post is about. I ran across another blog that mentioned and talked about one of Mayor Menino's bright ideas. It smacks right in the face of liberty and the Constitution. But that does not bother Liberal Democrats.

But thankfully the people of this great city are beginning to wake up a little and see what is really going on. The city has this project the call Safe Home. In a nutshell, the Boston City Police Department would go from home to home in what they called “high risk” neighborhoods and ask the residents if they could enter the home to search for guns being held by those under the age of 17.

At first glance you might think that this was a great idea. Get illegal guns off the street. But for those of us who know our rights as protected by the Constitution, we know this is a huge violation of the document. Not to mention it opens up a plethora of problems and issues for the owner or occupant of the home.

What the Police are hoping you will do is to voluntarily give up your rights. They think they can come into your home under the guise of “helping you and the neighborhood. This is far from the truth. Grizzly Groudswell put it very succinctly when he described what could happen once the police are in your home even if you invite them in voluntarily.

You must understand whenever the government, no matter what party, says they are doing something for your safety and it involves a direct violation or “voluntary” giving up of your rights, you will not get safety. You will get thugs and bullies with government badges in your home and you will have a damn hard time of getting them out.

Once you let the government in your home, they can do a number of things and you will be powerless to stop them. The Constitution gives you specific protection from government intrusion into your home. So why then would you invite the government in? They cannot protect you and your family. It is not the governments job to protect you and your family.

You cannot abdicate the raising of your children to the government either. Once you do so, you will never be free of the government. This is not liberty. It is not life. It is Tierney.