He taught what?

One of the things that a quick read of Obama’s biography will tell you is that he has a law degree. His specialty was in constitutional law and he practiced civil rights cases. In fact, he taught constitutional law at Harvard, Why then does he seem to be so ignorant of what the intent of the Constitution is? Or put another way, why does he hate it so much? You see this pattern over and over again.

While not the most recent, at least the most prominent is his stupid comment regarding the first amendment giving them the right to build the mosque near ground zero. What in the hell does the first amendment have to do with it? As I posted on facebook, here is the question that is relevant regarding the first amendment. How many muslims will be prevented from practicing their faith if this mosque is not built on that site? Answer = 0. Forget the Constitution on this one, does not apply. What was the correct answer for the President of the United States of America? “This is a local issue regarding property rights and community standards. Community standards are determined and reflected by Zoning Commissions, Public complaints and opinions should be directed to the NYC local government, this is not a Federal issue. As a private citizen, my opinion is…….” Instead this most learned president decided to try and hide behind a rather stupid interpretation of the 1st amendment. Hey people, I’m not allowed to have an opinion, this is what the constitution says. The first time this buffoon of a president decides to actually read and defend it, he completely botches it. It’s not just me that thinks so, most constitutional scholars (Which I’m admittedly not) came out and concluded, this isn’t a first amendment issue.

So, what constitution did Obama study and teach? Or is there another answer? What would make Obama say such a stupid and obviously wrong statement? While we’ve learned that he’s not exactly quick on his feet, he had plenty of time to get the teleprompter loaded with exactly what he wanted to say. I think it was his own ego and another severe narcissism attack that made him do it. Instead of saying what he knew, he decided to say what he wanted to be true and counted on his cult of personality to make it the truth. (He does this constantly. He just says what he wants to be the facts as if they really are) In his mind whenever there is an open question, the country, even the entire world, is waiting to be led by his brilliance, it doesn’t even occur to him to say it’s not his issue, he’s just another Joe with an opinion. That mindset is more foreign to him than the surface of the moon. For him, there is nothing more important, nothing more worthy of attention than the opinion of Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.

As we common people say, kid, he’s a legend in his own mind

More Tea?

My local tea party group sent out a questionnaire. Attendance is down, people don’t seems to be quite as interested. The question is, now what?

From my perspective, the tea parties came together for people to send a clear message to both Republicans and Democrats alike, conservative values are not held only by fringe groups. The idea of limited government, individual liberties and self-determination are common across all party, racial and social groups. Figure it out or we’ll throw you out. Did we succeed? Possibly, fresh new voices like Rick Snyder, Rocky and Justin Amash are on the ballot for November. (On the down side, 25% was considered a pretty good turnout, why should anyone believe people have had enough?)

What now? Now, we tea partiers need to get behind the candidates that best reflects our views and get them elected in November. The tea party pushed a set of ideals, not specific candidates, and rightly so. I don’t care if they are Republican or Democrat, if they have a conservative agenda I’ll consider them. A conservative leaning democrat may well be a better choice than a RINO republican. In my case it’s an easy choice though, Rick Snyder is running against a democrat that has fully endorsed the Detroit style of politics and agenda. For congress, it’s Rocky versus the Obama / Pelosi / Reid lackey Gary Peters. That choice is no choice at all. The tea parties are not dead, but they have done what they can for now. They must come back after the election to remind these new candidates why they are there, regroup and prepare for the all important push for 2012.

As tempting as it might be to look at a third party candidate, now is not the time to splinter. That time was in 2010 when we knew who was going to win and the Republican party lost it’s way. This time we have affected the choices, the people we will vote for this November. .Even if our preferred candidate didn’t win, a candidate we can live with did. Except in extreme cases, a third party can not win. We MUST take enough seats in November to stop the Obama agenda until it can be put out of our misery in 2012. We MUST have governors that believe in the States and People’s rights and will fight for them.  I can not and will not support a third party candidate in my district races, It is to important a time to jeopardize the future on a wasted vote to make a point. The idea that someone like Peters would return to DC to represent me is repugnant, it can not happen.

So, let’s get the Rick and Rocky show on the road, where are my lawn signs!?

Constitutional Failure

Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a strict constitutionalist. The men who drafted it were clear in both language and intent. Language like ‘shall not be infringed’ and ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ isn’t ambiguous to me, as it seems to be to so many others. However, it was written by men. Men aren’t perfect, so there were bound to be mistakes. or areas where the language wasn’t clear enough. The amendment process is there to correct any mistakes, the Supreme Court is there to clear up any clarity issues. 

Another Obama Trifecta

Let’s see…

1. Obama has completely ignored the protest in Iran, instead choosing to side with the existing government by his inaction. They are shooting their own people, running them down in cars etc. No one is saying call in the troops, but maybe a bit stronger condemnation, call for a emergency UN meeting? Something? Are we in favor of freedom or not? Obama has picked a side and it’s not the one the American people would choose.

2. He has completely miss-handled the terror attacks, calling it an isolated incident before he had the slightest clue if it was or not (it wasn’t), his person in charge claimed the system worked (it didn’t) and he announced that he and his administration would not rest until everyone involved was brought to justice while he continued to vacation in Hawaii. (At least the illness of a family friends child pulled him off the golf course)

3. Once again the arrogance of the man shown like a blinding light. Did you listen to him? “I ordered”, “I directed”. Never, I have acted on the advice of, Secretary whoever will be in charge, while I am in charge I have hired people smarter than me in this area to work on this. Based on his decision making capability shown so far I’d be happier if he had more confidence in the people he put in charge. (But that is a whole other can of worms, Van Jones anyone? I can’t think of one of those people that was brought in as the most capable for the job, instead they were brought in as the most ideologically compatible comrade)

I hope the 2010 election throws the house so far to the right we can start impeachment hearings, even Biden is looking pretty good right now.

Tiger Woods

As the count is now up to 10, does anyone believe he’s sorry? You can be sorry after one affair and wish it never happened, but this guy isn’t sorry. Only that it went public. Only that his life got complicated. This is one of those cases where the pre-nup should be thrown out of court for infidelity. She should get 50% + child support clean and simple. He’s a scum bag and should be treated as such.

That being said, can we get CNN to move on to something else? There’s this little health care thing and an energy policy this dope of a president is getting us in to that we need to pay attention to!

Almost there…..

I’ve heard a lot of teeth gnashing over the White House attacking Fox News. Everything they are doing is obviously trying to marginalize Fox, which has been the only mass-market organization to not join the Obama band-wagon. I’ve read articles about how this is the end of free speech. I’ve heard still others that predict Fox’s future is bleak because it’s the President who is doing the talking and people will listen.

Personally I look at this as great news! For 10 months this administration and the Democratic party have completely ignored anyone that doesn’t agree with them with an arrogance I’ve never seen before. They’ve never stopped to answer the many legitimate questions people have about health care reform and cap & trade because they were sure they didn’t have to. That you, the people of the United States, were merely sheep looking to be led by them. (Make no mistake, Obama / Pelosi / Reid do not think you are capable or qualified to think or decide for yourself) Thanks to Fox News we know that there are questions that need to be asked. It’s up to us to make sure they get answered.

It’s time to re-double all efforts to bring the truth to forefront. It’s time to demand that bills be made available to the public at least 72 hours before a vote so the people can let their representatives know what they think about it. It’s time to ask the hard questions on how they will pay for it before passage. It’s time to demand that the president makes himself available to answer the questions put to him, rather than just publish the same campaign rhetoric that we’ve heard for 2 years running. The chafing from the Obama administration means that Fox has finally gotten their fingernails under the lid and that they realize that people are noticing the lack of answers coming from Washington. Unfortunately Obama’s reaction is to attack Fox News rather than to engage the opposition and answer any questions.

When you hear Obama and other deride Fox News, just remember some of the things that the ‘real’ news organizations would never have told you:

• Acorn gives tax advice to illegal activities
• Obama press secretary Anita Dunn’s favorite philosopher is Chairman Mao
• That Obama appointed Van Jones to a green jobs position and that he is an admitted communist.
• The seemingly endless stream of Obama appointees with tax problems. Including the one in charge of the IRS.
• All the favors Chris Dodd has done for the financial institutions that fall under the committee he chairs, and the favors he received in return. (You or I would be in jail)
• Barney Frank’s demand of favors to him from bailout companies.

…. and the list goes on. I’m interested in these things, even if Obama isn’t. Even if CNN, MSNBC and the others aren’t. Every one of these stories was dismissed and denied until Fox wouldn’t let them go and the truth came out.

Marginalized or not, Fox is the only news source with the integrity to report on stories like these. The other networks have equity in the Obama presidency, with their main reporters and commentators having openly endorsed him. (Chris Mathews, Fareed Zakaria to name a couple) You will NOT get reporting from these people, you will get cheerleading. Chris Mathews went as far as to say that he thought it was the medias duty to support Obama and his agenda. I repeat, you will NOT get reporting from these people.

In his best campaign rhetoric, Obama says that the case is clear, the evidence overwhelming for his agenda. If this is true he should have no fear to go anywhere, anytime to present his case, It up to us to demand that he does. It’s up to the media to investigate if he’s telling the truth. Which organization do you want to trust to do that?

Paradigm Shift

While we have seen evidence in the past of the schism between the right and the left, it has never become as clear and defined as it has during the debate on Obamacare and nationalized health care in general. It often strikes me as amazing how people can look at the same question in the same setting and come up with such different answers. Clearly there is a difference in the base definitions that the two sides are using and how they see the world. I was listening to a radio program the other day that helped me understand it. It was a right wing radio host interviewing a left wing book author and the host asked if he supported Obamacare. Predictably the answer was yes, but it was the reason why that was interesting. The author said he believed that it was part of doing what the US Constitution prescribed, to provide for the common welfare. The radio host corrected him and quoted the correct language, that the government is to PROMOTE the common welfare, but it had no effect on the author. That an author, someone who makes their living with words, would completely disregard the differences between “provide” and “promote” is perhaps a ponter as to why people who read the constitution see issues differently than those who interpret the constitution, such as the book author in this interview. (Link to the US Constitution is in the upper right corner if you would like to see it.)

The definitions…
Promote: contribute to the progress or growth of
Provide: give something useful or necessary to

Synonyms for these words……
Promote:Advance, Boost, Further, Encourage
Provide: Supply, Render, Furnish

If, and this is another question, the American people decide that it is in the general welfare for everyone to have health insurance, the governments role is not to provide it, but rather to encourage it and help it become available. Nothing in the constitution says anything about taxing everyone to provide heath insurance to those that don’t have it.

There are examples of the government looking out for the general welfare in a positive way. The interstate highway system in an excellent example of the government promoting the general welfare. This system opened up opportunities across the country, single handedly creating new industries and jobs. (Not without a cost however. It also brought about the demise of the local economy since it was now just as fast and even cheaper to buy from across the country) In the early history of the United States this clause in the constitution was used to promote the growth of the country and providing it’s citizens with opportunities through actions such as the Lousiana Purchase and other land annexations that eventually redefined the United States’ borders.

On the other side we have examples of the government providing for the common welfare and they are all disasters. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Public Housing, the list of failures is as long as the list of attempts. I would prefer that the federal government start to act on the issues that the constitution requires, securing the borders from terrorists and illegal entry, defense and insuring our freedoms are protected and apply to every citizen. Leave the rest to us, the States and the People.

Wilson was wrong?

Here is a pretty good article that states at the beginning that he was wrong to call Obama a liar. The rest of the article goes on to explain why he wasn’t wrong. I’m not sure how they can make the first statement knowing what they clearly know….
Link to Original Story

WASHINGTON – Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.

In his speech to Congress Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the changes to health care that he’s proposing “would not apply to those who are here illegally.” That prompted Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, to shout “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber. Wilson later apologized for the outburst, but he didn’t back down from his claim.

THE FACTS: The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn’t get federal subsidies to help them. The bill’s exact language: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States.” Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

However, Wilson is far from alone in thinking that the prohibition in the House bill doesn’t go far enough. For him and other Republicans, the problem is not what’s in the bill, it’s what the bill leaves out. There’s no provision for how the prohibition would be enforced, or any requirement for people to prove they are citizens or legal residents before getting health care benefits. In fact, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees defeated Republican-offered amendments that would have required people to verify their legal status before getting care, with some Democrats saying such requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for people legally entitled to coverage. Wilson cited the defeat of those two amendments Thursday when he discussed his outburst with reporters.

“I will tell you this, that it was spontaneous. It was when he stated, as he did, about not covering illegal aliens, when I knew we’d had those two amendments,” Wilson said.

Time to let your feelings be known!

There is a protest scheduled for tomorrow that is being supported by the groups that setup the original tea parties.  See you there?

Representative Gary Peters (D – 09)

The rally for this district will not be held at the congressional office, but in an alternate location:
- Location: Intersection of Woodward Ave. & Old Woodward Ave. (south of Maple Rd.), Birmingham, MI 48009
- Time: Noon
- Contact: Lynn Ellen
- Email: lynn@actionstrat.com

Just how stupid is Massachusetts?

Barney Frank has already weighed in on the question. He thinks the people from his state are from another planet and says talking to them is like talking to a dining room table. And that’s on the record, we’ll just have to guess what he says behind closed doors.  Well, he may prove to be right if the people of his state let the latest amazing bit of Washington double-speak pass.

Ted Kennedy is now asking that the law be changed in Massachusetts to allow the governor to appoint an interim Senator in case he dies during his term. It’s just to important a time in history to allow the system to take it’s time in selecting a replacement according to Ted. The system is to have an election to fill the spot, you know, let the people decide.

Here is the amazing thing… These are the same Democrats who in 2004 said it was too important a decision to have one man make the appointment. This is a democracy they said, the people must make this decision. They campaigned to change the laws to mandate an interim election in case a senator left office early.

What was the policy before 2004? It was to have the governor make the appointment. The only difference is that in 2004 the governor was a Republican, now it is a Democrat. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too! You would really have to be an idiot to fall for that one again.

So, soon we’ll all know just how stupid the people of Massachusetts really are, Barney and Ted have sure let us know what they think. What are the odds they’re wrong?