Get d'Clu

Get a clue & wake up! The best way to lead a nation astray of its values is to keep it ignorant of its history.

Missile Defense update

Attributed to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, please read these two posts to learn more about just how bad this foreign policy and our dear leader is.  It’s ‘bloody horrible’.

Obama Foreign Policy Adviser Brezinski Calls for Obama to Shoot Down Israeli Jets

Iran, Venezuela, Russia: Obama is the Enemy

Advertisements

September 19, 2009 Posted by | Politics, Wake Up, WordPress Political Blogs | , | Leave a comment

Antios Christos

I do NOT believe that Barak Obama is the Anti Christ. 

The most reliable site I know of for predictions that actually come true (the true test of a prophet!) is Endtime Ministries.  Understand there are many sites out there, some with good, Biblical information.  Endtime is one of them and Irwin Baxter, I believe, is a man of God striving to educate us in a time of urgency.

Given that, here is a list of the characteristics of A/C that we should be aware of, from another site (Hat tip Pat Sperry).

The 27 Characteristics of the AntiChrist
Know how to recognize the beast and not be swayed into believing that someone is the AntiChrist who doesn’t match the biblical characteristics.

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era [Dan 7:25]

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many”, i.e. the Jewish people [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem [see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]

16. He will have “no regard for the desire of women”: He will either be asexual or homosexual
[Dan 11:37]

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave [2 John 7].
He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six—but not necessarily in an obvious fashion [Rev 13:17-18].

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

September 19, 2009 Posted by | Christian | Leave a comment

Missile Defense

Whatever you believe regarding our continuation to defend eastern Europe, my thought is that we should have at least not pulled out on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.  If the Obama administration is truly that stupid as not to realize, I cannot believe.  The alternative; however, is to relize they are utterly cruel.

Some key articles and vids regarding the BO’s foreign policy.

Barack Obama is gambling with Europe’s security
Telegraph (UK) View: a prudent defence policy guards against every realistic menace

Comments:

Don’t come crying now. It was the Europeans who were so in love with Obama, if I remember correctly. You people hated GWB, who would have kept you safe. So, deal with it!! –Jim

Europe now boasts that it is the richest region in the World, and yet we want America to pay for our security.  We have the money to pay for our own missile security system and to expand the European forces is Afghanistan to 20,000, but we love our spoilt life and will not cut back on our little indulgences.  The rich and feeble are an invitation to robbers. –N. J. Mustoe

Although, I agree that Europe needs to ante up on its own defense, this is weakness personified. It’s not even somewhat believable that the latest intelligence changed his mind. His excuse is shortsighted and ridiculous. There will be no meaningful concessions from Russia, and we can expect the US and her allies getting rolled again and again… –Chuck Dickens

I just can’t understand this. Wasn’t Obama an experienced Neighborhood Organizer? Hadn’t he been in the US Senate for all of 155 days? Isn’t it a fact that the US voters knew nothing about this man or his beliefs? Gosh, who could have guessed he was a black Jimmy Carter? —J Ronish

Once again Young Barack’s being taken to school.
There is not a chance that Putin’s band of thieves will put any pressure on their business partners in Iran. Doing so would hit them in the most sensitive spot: their personal accounts, into which flow a goodly portion of any state-supported deal, whether for materiel or technology or civilian equipment.
So, to review, Obama expected the House of Saud to lead the arabs in reciprocating the concessions he’s pushed on Israel. The saudis laughed at him.
Obama expected Ahmadinejad to make serious concessions in return for his dropping any pressure on Iran’s nuclear program when he assumes the UNSC presidency. Ahmadinejad is laughing at him.
Obama expects PutinMobutu and his fellow thugs to forgo many millions of Iranian quid for his quo of abandoning missile defense. The Kremlin’s ringing with laughter now.
Why did anyone believe that this naive and oddly arrogant young man would not get eaten alive by the world’s jackals? —thibaud

If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t Mr Obama favored by overwhelming margins of the European peoples? You advocated leftist governance, and now you cry over the consequences? As a member of the the vast 48 percent of the American public who did not vote for Obama, let me say how gratifying it is to see the very people who lusted for his election now showing remorse.

And let us not forget that had he been defeated we would have been greeted with headlines in the British press about how stupid we were.

The EU is just as rich as the United States. Build the missile defenses yourselves. It really won’t matter anyway. In a few short decades Muslim majorities will rule your countries and European civilization will just been facts in a history book. –Michael Oliver
New Missile Defense Plan Is a Losing Proposition
By Baker Spring & Mackenzie Eaglen

 
Flashback: Obama Pledges Missile Defense Against Iran In April
Remarking in Prague, April 5, 2009: “So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.”

Say one thing, do another strategy.

http://wp.me/pzfHB-bq

September 19, 2009 Posted by | Politics, WordPress Political Blogs | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Lies O’Plenty -or- He Belies Truth; ACORN’s NUTS

There was one high note during the President’s speech to the joint session of Congress: Rep. Wilson’s shoutout, “You Lie!”

Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said what over half the country has been thinking.  The President DID lie.  Since the Dems have voted down amendments requiring verification of citizenship, the bill WILL cover illegals.  Yes, Congressman Wilson was right to apologize for the uncivility of his remark, but NOT for telling the truth!  I applaud the gentleman from South Carolina because he was heard and his comment was recorded into the record.  I’m glad he was honorable to apologize to Obama and that the President reciprocated.  But is should have ended there.  He didn’t insult the Congress and they should learn to keep their traps closed at the RIGHT times for a change.

I wanted to hear four words from Mr. Obama: America, I hear you.  He, of course, went in the other direction.  This speech was no different than the 26 previous ones.  Our president doesn’t hear us. Let’s get louder!

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/10/time-to-get-out-the-iron

The President has NOT welcomed conservatives to the table.  There has been little – if any – bipartisan input into the health care bill.   Conservatives have some pretty good, low-or-no cost measures on the table – HSA expansion, tort reform, dropping state lines – and we KEEP being accused of not bringing anything to the table when we’re not being offered a spot.  The President has NOT met with the Republicans on this issue. We are NOT being listened to.  He does NOT practice what he preaches.  Yes, there is some idiotic language coming out from the right that are essentially “slippery slope” arguments – which could basically be cured with specific language in the bill that keeps being voted down (paying for abortions, illegal immigration, etc…).  Why the Dems keep saying it’s not in the bill when it’s right there in BLACK AND WHITE…

The GOP has been frozen out of the House debate from day one. In the Senate, the 3 GOP Senators that make up the gang of 6 were given a false choice of the Public Option or Co-opts (i.e. a public Option), or a trigger to a Public Option.  That’s it.  Nothing, Nada.  Pro Life lawmakers were either lied to, or told to get lost.  To those who disagreed, Pelosi labeled them Nazis; the President called them liars, and Reid called them UnAmerican.  So much for your “civil discourse”.  Don’t these political self-appointed-nobility realize that THEY WORK FOR US?!!!

Words bandied about the blogospherefantasy, pipe dream, economic oxymoron, pathological liar, arrogant and condescending, profaned the office, sociopath, moral bankruptcy behind glittering words, demagoguery, glossed-over rhetoric, wealth-transfer program, vituperation, disingenuousness, charlatan.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33486   Slick Barry
BO’s door has been closed tightly against the many common-sense plans authored by Representatives Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Louie Gohmert, by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).  Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid will allow those plans a full and open debate.  Which is just the way Obama wants it.

Thomas Sowell described the speech as “both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.”

By not expressly rescinding the unfunded mandates forced upon the states, Barry gets to state that Obamacare doesn’t cover illegals while knowing full well that the states will still be forced to.

Demmy regurgitators have made comments on the blogs about various ‘ought-to-know’ orgs:

Factcheck.org???  You’ve got to be kidding me.  They are part of the Annenberg Foundation.  You know, the same foundation that Obama was a board member of with the domestic terrorist known as William Ayers.  The same factcheck.org that posted a bogus Obama COLB and called it a birth certificate.

Stealing Democracy - Matthew Vadum

 

Here is only SOME of the sewage (yes, that’s crap) about ACORN, a group intimately tied to Obama:

ACORN is a huge multi-million dollar international conglomerate that is devoted to undermining democracy and the capitalist system itself.

The rank subterfuge that is essential to the core agenda of Obama is to read Matthew Vadum’s article in Townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/MatthewVadum/2009/09/10/acorn_exposed_stealing_democracy

“The vast ACORN empire includes ACORN Institute Inc. (leadership training for activists), W*A*R*N (Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, which supports organizing unions in Wal-Mart stores), ACORN Housing Corp. Inc. (arranges mortgages), Living Wage Resource Center (tracks efforts by cities and states to raise the minimum wage above the federal standard), two “social justice” radio stations in Arkansas and Texas, Project Vote (voter registration and mobilization), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Locals 100 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas) and 880 (Illinois, Indiana), Site Fighters (fighting “big box” chains such as Wal-Mart and Target), and American Institute for Social Justice (publishes Social Policy magazine with ACORN Institute Inc. and the Organizers’ Forum). It also operates a handful of “social justice” high schools in New York and California.”

[…]

“Liberals also seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that ACORN was founded not to teach self-reliance but to encourage poor people to get on welfare. By overloading the system, the strategy held, radical change would come to America.”

The roots of this shady/wacko conglomerate go back to the early 1960’s and Tom Hayden, who asserted “[t]he allocation of resources must be based on social needs” and “and so-called participatory democracy.”

“[O]n the far Left, the word democracy has a very different meaning than most Americans assign to it. To many of these radicals, democracy is a code word for socialism. To this end, some leftists have tried to rebrand socialism as economic democracy. Before the Age of Obama, socialist Princeton professor Cornel West, an ACORN ally and advisor on Obama’s campaign team, wrote “Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism,” which holds that the U.S. is under the control of racist, patriarchal, authoritarian fundamentalists.”

Here is more history that illuminates Obama’s radical associations.

“When West visited Venezuela in 2006, he praised its government, which has nationalized industries, jailed and murdered its opponents and threatened the United States. West said he visited Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela “to see the democratic awakening taking place.” By “democratic awakening,” West meant the transmogrification of Venezuela into a socialist state. In other words, if radical leftists don’t end up with the political result they want, it can’t possibly be real democracy. West has also, incidentally, been a longtime supporter of the ACORN-affiliated radical New Party.

“To further its war on “the system,” Hayden and his allies created an organization called Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Although SDS became perhaps the preeminent group of the New Left movement, it failed to achieve its goals and splintered into factions.

“One bloc eventually became the violent Weather Underground Organization. The Weathermen embraced terror as a tool of socioeconomic and political change and became especially enamored of explosives. After getting off criminal charges on a legal technicality, two of the group’s leaders, would-be mass murderers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, decided to poison the minds of the young by turning them against the American system. The unrepentant totalitarian leftists became members of the faculties of, respectively, University of Illinois at Chicago and Northwestern University School of Law. Ayers, who while on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago helped steer grants to ACORN, now teaches students how to indoctrinate their future pupils. Dohrn, his wife, teaches students how to use the law to achieve the left-wing abstraction known as social justice.

“But not all SDS members embraced violence. Among those who rejected terror as an instrument of political persuasion was ACORN founder Wade Rathke, who was an SDS draft resistance organizer. Rathke also organized for the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), an organization whose members physically occupied welfare offices, intimidating social workers and demanding every government welfare dollar that they thought the law entitled them to.”

Marxist sociologists Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward “developed a model of political and economic subversion that called upon activists to pack the welfare rolls to spread dependency, bankrupt the government and cause uprisings against the capitalist system. They outlined plans for a welfare rights movement in a 1966 Nation article titled ‘The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.’”  This crisis strategy proved so effective to recruit the poor onto the welfare rols that “[f]rom 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times [according to Sol Stern].” 

Rathke (1970) developed ACORN’s strategy to carry out the agenda of welfare entitlement, making “ACORN’s focus on registering those dependent on government programs is constituency-building that is consistent with the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Its voter registration drives in Louisiana, for example, have focused on registering people at government offices that deal with welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.”

Vadum goes on to show how closely the Weather Underground and Acorn are related:

“siblings who took different paths to radical change—one through violence and terror, the other through protest and politics—both drew inspiration from Chicago activist Saul Alinsky… (Alinsky) praised Lucifer as the ‘first radical’ who ‘rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.’

“Alinsky said his book was ‘a step toward a science of revolution.’ He acknowledged, ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-nots on how to take it away.

“Alinsky believed that in political combat almost anything goes: ‘In war the end justifies almost any means.’ He wrote, ‘The practical revolutionary will understand … [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.’”

Vadum’s article continues with Hillary Clinton and others associated with this socialist agenda.  It is absolutely abhorrent that these people are now our ruling class in this country and they pervade our government.  Read the rest of Matthew’s article.  Let’s figure out how to get rid of this scourge and all the yes-men connected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk (hat tip Atlas)

This investigation was conducted by a couple kids with cajones bigger than Rudy Giuliani’s when he went after the mob in NYC!

Where is 20/20?

Where is 60 minutes?

Where is CNN?

We all know the answer to this question, they’re busy working for dear leader…

 
Let me explain something to the President.

Your misunderstanding of the terms and conditions of the Constitution, and the relationship of the three branches of government are OBVIOUS, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that you were ‘educated’ and graduated from Harvard by virtue of the QUOTA SYSTEM.

THE CONGRESS WRITES THE LAWS.
THE CONGRESS WRITES THE CHECKS!
THE CONGRESS DECLARES WAR!

NOBODY, in their right mind, has to “bring you” any ideas or proposals for “your approval” like a big daddy.

Obama, you have a misinformed, inflated opinion of yourself as EVIDENCED by the following remark, “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen….”

Barry, or Barak or WHATEVER your REAL NAME is, you ARE NOT “big daddy”

CITIZENS and members of congress do NOT need your approval, you need CITIZEN and congressional approval.

Barry, or Barak or WHATEVER your REAL NAME is,
you work for us.

Sep 10, 2009 @ 02:11 PM
Jingo John, Formerly FREE USA

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33486&page=3#c1

To the Congress:
The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 – you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 – you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 – you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
The “War on Poverty” started in 1964 – you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked and our entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 – you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 – you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the “Stimulus”, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009… none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:
“Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress’ generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

20% of our entire economy?
With all due respect,
Are you crazy?

Alternative Plan:

  1. Tort reform – bring down medical malpractice costs – frivolous lawsuits, loser pays, limits on mental anguish.
  2. Abolish the “state line” mandate – allow purchase of policies from anywhere within country.
  3. Allow the consumer to “cherry pick” coverage – cafeteria plan for the options they want for their family.
  4. Take administration burden off the employer – eliminates anchoring coverage to the job.
  5. Health savings accounts (FSAs) – own dollars, pre-tax, no limits, rolled over, all medical expenses.

If these solutions were applied, there would be significant savings in health care costs.  But it’s not about savings, is it?  No, it’s about government control over every aspect of our lives.  They are not content to G.M., AIG, Fannie and Freddie, many banks, etc.  There is 1/6 of our nation’s economy out there up for grabs.    www.myteamusa.org
Yahooooo!

http://wp.me/pzfHB-9Q

September 19, 2009 Posted by | (Un)Limited Government, Agenda of the Left, Fiscal (Ir)Responsibility, Life with Big Brother, Politics, Wake Up, WordPress Political Blogs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution Search and Find

In celebration of the creation of our nation’s governing document, and because liberals largely ignore the principles upon which our country was founded, we’re going to have a little educational fun at their expense.

In honor of Constitution Day (September 17th) and the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth this year, let’s play a game of “Constitution search and find.”  Grab your copy of the Constitution and try to find justification for various leftist causes that are not provided for in the Constitution.  In this way you can educate yourself and your fellow Americans in a humorous way and attack the left at the same time.  Yah-hoo!

Here we go…

  1. What is the ultimate law of the land?
  2. Who may declare war?
  3. True or False?  The judicial branch is confined to interpreting existing law, not making or executing law.
  4. Who is to promote the “general welfare” (either in Preamble or Article 1, Section 8)?
  5. True or False?  The “separation of church and state” phrase so frequently invoked today means that religion and politics should be kept apart from one another by the First Amendment.
  6. Should constitutional interpretation follow original intent or construct a living document?
  7. What is the Bill of Rights?

 

 Scroll down for answers.  Sources are at bottom.

 

 

 

Answers:

1.  The Constitution is, and must, by its very nature be, the supreme, fundamental, permanent law of the American legal system.  No court decision, statutory law, or other form of “law” is either equal to, or superior to, the Constitution.

2.  Congress (Article 1, Section 8).

3.  TRUE.

4.  The People, NOT Congress.  
In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Constitutional limits on federal power are explained by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”

This is directly out of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 explains the LIMITED role of Congress. We’ve let Congress and the Presidents get out of hand. We’ve failed because we don’t understand the Constitution.
Commie libs think the meaning of “general welfare” means that Congress can do just about anything it wants to. Again, this is because of our ignorance of history and the Constitution.

In a letter James Madison wrote to Edmund Pendleton “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the ‘general welfare’, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one …With respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Pennsylvania Representative Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated… Whensoever the General Federal Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

5.  FALSE.
In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

“It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion.”

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

“Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order (emphasis added).”

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

“[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.”

6.  Such rhetoric makes a living constitution sound appealing, but it is actually a complete misportrayal of the difference between the two philosophies. In reality, both accommodate an evolving society; in fact, under the strict construction (or originalist) viewpoint, Article V of the Constitution requires that the Constitution be a living document. The real difference between the two approaches is not whether the Constitution should evolve, but rather how those changes should occur – and who should make them.

Article III states that “The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior,” and it is not “good behavior” to hand down rulings based on personal social views rather than the Constitution’s words.

David Barton of the Texas-based organization called WallBuilders has published a handbook called Impeachment, in which he lays out the constitutional foundations for using impeachment to curb our present overactive judiciary. (WallBuilders, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008, 817-441-6044)

The Constitution contains six clauses about impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment (the presentation of formal charges). The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Punishment can be removal from office or removal plus a bar against future office-holding.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and Congress cannot impose civil or criminal penalties. Contrary to current popular misconceptions, the offense for which a judge may be impeached does not have to be a crime or have any statutory or criminal basis. Barton quotes numerous Founders to prove that they viewed impeachment as a remedy for a broad range of non-statutory offenses such as (in George Mason’s words) “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” or (in Alexander Hamilton’s words) “violation of some public trust.”

Even that great advocate of judicial power, Chief Justice John Marshall, wrote during impeachment proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase for his arbitrary use of judicial power that “a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.” Carter and Clinton judges are constantly making rulings contrary to what the legislature intended.

The impeachment cases brought during our country’s first half-century involved non-statutory offenses, such as judicial high-handedness. It’s easy to think of some current judges who could be targets for impeachment on that charge…

Americans were shocked when Congressional investigations in 1995 unfolded the truth about the fatal tragedies at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. In the former, an innocent woman and child were killed in cold blood by an FBI sharpshooter, and in the latter, 80 American men, women and children were incinerated by the Federal Government in a full-scale military attack. Both events involved outrageous abuses of power by federal law enforcement agencies, followed by lies, coverups, and destruction of evidence.

Ruby Ridge and Waco were, constitutionally speaking, none of the Federal Government’s business. Neither incident involved interstate activity or posed a threat to the Federal Government.

The underlying problem is that so many criminal laws and laws regulating firearms have been federalized. Until very recent years, everything involved at Ruby Ridge and Waco would have been handled under state and local laws (if, indeed, there were anything to handle at all, since the Ruby Ridge sequence of events started only when a BATF agent entrapped Randy Weaver into committing a minor firearms violation).

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese believes that these outrages require remedies that are much more fundamental than the mere suspension and forced retirement of several agents.

Federalizing crime contradicts constitutional principles, according to Edwin Meese. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. The Constitution left responsibility for public safety solely in the domain of the states.

Congress, however, has created more than 3,000 federal crimes, many of them redundant with state laws. Hardly any crime, no matter how local, is now beyond the jurisdiction of federal criminal authorities.

Meese accurately says that federalizing crime increases “the potential for an oppressive and burdensome federal police state.

7.  First Ten Amendments to the Constitution. Ratified in 1791, these amendments limit government power and protect basic rights and liberties of individuals.

 

  

Sources:

  1. http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/may03/Manifesto.shtml
  2. http://animal-farm.us/definitions/constitution#Art1Sec8
  3. See 1, #13.
  4. http://animal-farm.us/taxes/what-is-constitutional-564
  5. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
  6. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=86 and http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/mar97/psrmar97.html
  7. http://consource.org/index.asp?bid=750  ( http://www.consource.org/ )

 .

September 19, 2009 Posted by | Citizen Patriotism, Constituional Issues, Culture, Wake Up, WordPress Political Blogs | , , , | Leave a comment