OUR ELECTORIAL COLLEGE IS IN PERIL

Our freedoms are under attack on a daily basis, and we are working hard not to sound like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It's important to pick your battles, and this one fits the bill.

While the "state controlled' media is not reporting this, New Zeal writes: a "progressive strategy is underway to eliminate the role of the states in electing a U.S. President. By transferring electoral votes to a national popular vote (NPV) this 'Compact' would usurp the role of the states as safeguarded by our Constitution. In doing so, it could also neutralize Obama’s critics — totally."

There is a movement, the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), and, as statists do, it's working its way through each state like a cancer. Heritage writes: a number of state legislatures have "already adopted an agreement in which participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the winner of the popular vote in their state. The agreement would go into effect when states with a total of more than the 270 electoral votes (the number required to win a presidential election) have adopted the agreement."  Unconstitutional doesn't give this assault justice!

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has written extensively about the dangers of a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). One of her excellent pieces "Beware of Attacks on the Constitution", she writes specifically how "The Electoral College Serves Us Well".

If not watched, bit by bit the statists will overturn our liberty, and by the time it's noticeable, tyranny will be the rule of the day. (Respects to Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny")

It's going to take all of us to stop this. You can find your contacts from the local assemblyman, to governor, to senator and above HERE. As my devoted grandfather would say:



WHY LIBERALS HATE THE CONSTITUTION

Nothing irritates the Left more than being caught in a lie.  Reading the Consitutiton in the opening session of the 112th Congress was nothing less than a revelation of how far it has been abused, and why the Left doth protest too much.  It's something that should be done before every new session.

After the shellacking Obama received, and his desire for another term, he has cooled his jets with his new-found moderation.  Can he win?  Youbetcha.  Are we just one-quarter through a two term Obama presidency?  Perish the thought, but Clinton did it, with the help of conservative Dick Morris, and Obama now has Chicago's Bill Daley to do the same.

As Obama has done for the past two years, the next two will be an endless barrage of campaign rhetoric, altering his image in the process, and making it even more difficult to bear.  But conservatives can hold his feet to the fire by making him accountable for his true hard left dogmatism.  If the Republican Party caves to ridiculous pressures such as 'moderation', meeting in the middle with Obama, 'civility', accusations of 'racism', and everything else the Left throws at conservatives, Obama will win, and we will have six more years of him -- at least!

Remembering Reagan, if the GOP sticks to its conservative values, Obama can be beat.  Don't let him hide behind the podium.  Press him on all his pet policies such as Obamacare, press him on reducing [and balancing] the budget, on card check unionization, on carbon tax, on de-regulating small banks, on the FCC controlling talk radio and the internet.  Make him talk about it.  Eventually, his ego won't be able to resist it.

The lame-duck session was not a good sign, but this month the GOP has taken promising steps, including their $2.5 Trillion dollar spending cut proposal.  They need to keep the pressure on, and use this as leverage against the upcoming debt increase.  Force Obama to sign the spending cut, or make him defend why he needs to keep increased spending.  Wonder how centrist that will sound.

If Republicans are to win in 2012, they must force Obama to defend his policies and his actions for the past two years, rather than hide behind the phony moderate he has been playing since his shellacking and the about-face he took on the Bush tax rates.  He would like nothing more than to have the voting public forget his past progressivism of the last two years.  His actions must remain in the forefront in 2011 and 2012, the actions that cost his Party the election last November.  We can never forget.  Remember Pelosi?  Remember Reid?  Remember the backdoor deals behind locked doors?  Remember the name calling of tea partiers?

Who creates a climate of hate? Liberals would have you believe they are the party of the middle class, when history has shown over and over again how they repress and stifle freedoms. From voting against the Civil Rights Movement,to Woodrow Wilson's well hidden demonic rule, and the myth of FDR.

This excellent piece by Frank J. Fleming in Pajamas Media, while laced with humor, is shocking in its truth. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, and I, for one, keep a pocket Constitution on me at all times.

Why Liberals Hate the Constitution
No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction.
by Frank J. Fleming - January 13, 2011

Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.

Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.

But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.

After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?

We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein even stated that “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.” And then we have all these court decisions — much longer than the document itself – that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And don’t argue with liberals on the subject, because they’re really smart and the only ones able to understand what they’re talking about.

Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You can’t hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why they’d rather it not be brought to the public’s attention.

A big way gun rights proponents won their war was by putting the text of the 2nd Amendment everywhere. While “scholars” liked to pretend there was some debate on whether there is an individual right to bear arms, there wasn’t among the general public because anyone literate could read the amendment and quickly identify that the only operative part is “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Words mean things to most people, so asking the average American whether there is a right to bear arms is like asking what two plus two equals. Ask a liberal judge, though, and he’ll say, “Two and two of what? And ‘equals’ can mean so many things. It’s a very complicated question.” So when people see the long, rambling reasons from someone like Justice Breyer on why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says versus the simple language of the Constitution, they start to realize they’d be much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.

The Constitution meaning what it says is only part of the problem liberals have with it, though. In the Constitution are the means to change the Constitution, and liberals are perfectly capable of proposing amendments to force people to buy health care or to get haters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air. Of course, they’d need to get a huge majority of the country to go along with them. And there is the problem. If the Constitution puts strict limits on government power and the only way for liberals to increase that power is to get a huge majority of the public to agree with them, then liberals would have to govern with the consent of the governed! Think of the indecency; liberals could barely do anything unless those nasty Tea Party people and fans of Sarah Palin said it was okay!

And while liberals do like certain freedoms, in their hearts they don’t really like this whole democracy thing. If liberals were only voting amongst each other, that would be great, but you can’t actually let everyone — some who only went to community college — have a say in what the government can and can’t do. Much better to have only the elites deciding themselves what they can do, based on their best intentions. It’s like what now ex-Representative Phil Hare said when questioned on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: He didn’t worry about the Constitution. If liberals are trying to change things for the better, why should there be any limits on them… especially ones enforced by the ignorant masses?

And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability to force people to do what’s best and give the government all the power it needs for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.

Until they’re shipped off to the mines.

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and isn't sure whether there are gold and gems to mine for in Antarctica, but that's besides the point.

OUR DYING CONSTITUTION - and HOW TO REVIVE IT, III

As the November 2010 mid-term elections approach, it is more and more apparent they will be the most critical elections in modern times. For decades, our Constitution has been under attack [ironically] by our court system, led by statist administrations.

If America is to "keep" the republic that Ben Franklin warned us about, we must learn and understand our founding documents. We should learn that it is not a living document, but rather a legal document to preserve individual justice -- not social justice. Its genius is its simplicity.

Obama is chomping at the bit to "fundamentally transform" our founding documents through the courts, as he believes they are a "charter of negative liberties". This is where the 'transformation' of our country will happen -- through liberal far left judicial appointments, and a weak Republican party afraid to stop this assault.

Eagle Forum has put together their "Court Watch", and will have continuing presentations and tools to help us fight and revive our Constitution. Sign up for their updates and join the fight.

Our Dying Constitution - and How To Revive It, III
by Phyllis Schlafly - October 1, 2010

With barely one month remaining before the pivotal elections of 2010, economic policy continues to attract more attention than any other issue area. But the most critical issue in this election — as in American politics and law in general — is the continuous dying process of our venerable Constitution and how we can — MUST — revive it. This issue of constitutional health and survival is gaining more prominence in the public eye, and Court Watch shall continue to focus on Reviving the Constitution! in this series of "Court Watch Briefings."

While our current constitutional miasma is perceived by many Americans as the pernicious product of a Democrat-controlled Presidency and Congress, the court system has actually been for decades leading the battle against the Constitution. Our current deplorable condition was described most forcefully by former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), whose words bear repeating here, as in recent "Court Watch Briefings" on "Our Dying Constitution. In 1981, Ervin wrote that

The usurpation of this power [to amend the Constitution] by Supreme Court Justices does not prove that the Constitution is a living instrument of government. On the contrary, it proves that the Constitution is dead, and that the people of our land are being ruled by the transitory personal notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court bench rather than by the enduring precepts of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

In order to revive the Constitution, we must understand as much as possible about the nature and exercise of the "enduring precepts of the Constitution" and how they are being tossed aside like straw in a windstorm by the "transitory notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court Bench." A firm foundation for our understanding is provided by the preeminent British legal scholar, H.L.A. Hart of Oxford University (Hart is known as the "Father of Neo-analytic" or "Linguistic" "Jurisprudence," and has been cited in at least three different U. S. Supreme Court cases).

In the mid-Twentieth Century, Hart designed a model of a "legal system"; and this model can be applied by us to guide us in our fight to revive our American constitution. In the simplest terms, Hart's model reveals that there are critical characteristics which any legal system must embody if it is necessary to survive and thrive. These critical characteristics we can describe as the "three Cs" — certainty, consistency, and continuity. These three Cs are the focus of Talking Point #1 of the "Fundamental Four" facts which we described in our last "Court Watch Briefing" as truth statements essential to reviving our Constitution.

"Certainty" means that laws (or court decisions) can be objectively and clearly understood. If a body of court decisions considered authoritative at any one point in time contains uncertain decisions, "chaos," not "certainty," marks the system.

"Consistency" means that no individual judicial decision should contain one portion that conflicts with another portion. Similarly, judicial decisions at a particular point in time should not contradict one another. If either condition exists, "contradiction," not "consistency" plagues the legal system.

The critical characteristic of "continuity" requires that a legal system must consist of continuous judicial decisions. That is, current decisions must be consistent with past decisions unless there is authoritative, compelling reason for change in the decisions (the most important reasons being that the U. S. Constitution demands the change). If continuity is not maintained, the legal system will suffer from "convolution."

In upcoming issues of our "Court Watch Briefings," we shall examine the judicial attack on the three Cs and the Constitution. And in the immediate future, we should use these three markers as additional means of evaluating the views and actions of candidates in the 2010 elections. If our Constitution suffers long enough and badly enough from a loss of the three Cs, we will, to use Professor Hart's terms, deteriorate from a mature/healthy system to a primitive/moribund system. The long-term result? Daniel Webster prophesied the sad but predictable result:

. . . if these columns [of American constitutional liberty] fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Colosseum and Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful and melancholy immortality. bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than ever were shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the monuments of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever was — the edifice of constitutional American liberty.

EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD — AND CAN — UNDERSTAND AND EFFECTIVELY FIGHT TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION. SOUND INTIMIDATING? THE BLACKSTONE INSTITUTE CAN HELP! Available online or directly from Blackstone are educational weapons to start you on your mission. (Each of the following can be studied individually or in groups.) These weapons include:

• "Courting Justice Blitz": a spectacular 45" multi-media DVD and printed materials overviewing the battle to Revive the Constitution and the RTC Plan "Blackstone Blitz": two 55-minute "whiz-bang" multi-media online presentations with printed materials arming you to attack Reconstructionism and defend Constitutionalism
• The "Basic Blackstone": our "must-read" piece, included in each of the Blitzes (and available separately), and containing the new second edition of our premier "Constitutionalist Manifesto" and "Constitutionalist Papers"
• Our bombshell "Mega-Blitz": created by combining two Blitzes into a single study to be covered in four separate sessions, a four-hour workshop/seminar, etc.

JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

EagleForum.org/courtwatch or BlackstoneInstitute.org or 325/673-3020

OUR DYING CONSTITUTION - and HOW TO REVIVE IT, II

During the current administration's reign, we have witnesses our constitution shredded bit by painful bit. By the grace of God, America is awakening and becoming more involved. The threat of losing our freedom has never been greater -- our freedoms, as meticulously laid out in the founding documents, written by Christians and founded on Judao-Christian principles.

We are 60 days away from what will be the most important mid-term elections in our history to date. We have lots of work ahead, and knowledge being all powerful, Eagle Forum has, once again, stepped up with some excellent tools in order to help with this daunting task. This is Part II, and Part I is linked here.

Check it out...

Our Dying Constitution — and How to Revive It, II
Eagle Forum, by Virginia Armstrong, PhD - September 2, 2010

As the elections of 2010 loom closer, the politics of Barack Obama's reign are a swirling miasma in which many of the American electorate are caught up. But the most critical issue in this elections — as in American politics and law in general — is the continuous dying process of our venerable Constitution and how we can — MUST — revive it.

This situation is described so aptly by former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin that we repeat here his words as quoted in the opening of our last Court Watch study. In 1981, Ervin wrote that

The usurpation of this power [to amend the Constitution] by Supreme Court Justices does not prove that the Constitution is a living instrument of government. On the contrary, it proves that the Constitution is dead, and that the people of our land are being ruled by the transitory personal notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court bench rather than by the enduring precepts of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

Today, we may correctly argue that the Constitution is not quite dead. It is also accurate to argue that the moribund condition of our basic document is indeed due to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who interpret the Constitution, not according to its "enduring precepts," but according to their "transitory personal notions." And there is every reason to make these judicial death blows — and how to repel them effectively — the center of all our political/legal life.

We must

1. Make it a primary national priority to protect and promote the survival and health of the U.S. Constitution, and.
2. Be armed to declare and defend the "Fundamental Four" — facts/talking points which advance our primary priority.

The "Fundamental Four" talking points are listed below:

T.P. #1: Any legal system (including that of the U.S.) can survive and thrive ONLY if it continues to be characterized by the three Cs — certainty, consistency, and continuity.

T.P. #2: Constitutionalist theory/Judeo-Christian worldview is the only approach to the Constitution which will protect and promote the three Cs in America's law and culture.

1. A "worldview" is a depiction of reality; only the worldview approach adequately explains reality. A "worldview" consists of an orderly arrangement of inherent, interrelated components central to a particular worldview.
2. A central component of a worldview is "constitutional theory," consisting of an organized system of core concepts.
3. The Judeo-Christian worldview and the constitutionalist theory it encompasses manifest characteristics unique to this worldview and superior to any alternative.

T. P. #3: In America's current Culture War, the three Cs are being undermined by Humanists/Reconstructionists' war against Constitutionalists for control of America's Constitutional theory (principles). This fierce assault is most forcefully and clearly revealed in court decisions (products) concerning the specific issue areas of religious liberties, evolutionism v. creationism, life, and homosexual rights/marriage.

T. P. #4: Americans have the mandate — and the muscle — to fight more effectively to Revive the Constitution!

1. Basic principles support the mandate.
2. Specific plans exist for implementing the mandate.

EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD — AND CAN — UNDERSTAND AND EFFECTIVELY USE THESE POWERFUL TALKING POINTS TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUITON. SOUND INTIMIDATING? BLACKSTONE CAN HELP!

Available online or directly from the Blackstone Institute are educational weapons to start you on your mission. (Each of the following can be studied individually or in groups.) These weapons include:

• "Courting Justice Blitz": a spectacular 45" multi-media DVD and printed materials overviewing the battle to Revive the Constitution and the RTC Plan.
• "Blackstone Blitz": two 55" "whiz-bang" multi-media online presentations with printed materials arming you to attack Reconstructionism and defend Constitutionalism.
• "The Basic Blackstone": our "must-read" piece, included in each of the Blitzes (and available separately), and containing the new second edition of our premier "Constitutionalist Manifesto" and "Constitutionalist Papers".
• Our bombshell "Mega-Blitz": created by combining two Blitzes into a single study to be covered in four separate sessions, a four-hour workshop/seminar, etc.

JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

EagleForum.org/court_watch or BlackstoneInstitute.org or 325/673-3020

WOODY ALLEN WANTS TO MAKE OBAMA DICTATOR IN CHIEF

Timing is everything. I say this being a reformed lib, raised in a family of thespians, studying "make believe" with the hopes of following in their footsteps, but eventually becoming a very young mother and raising a child in the 1960's, no less. Personally, liberalism was doomed, as the last democrat I ever voted for was Jimmy Carter -- God help me! But, my upbringing did give me a certain perspective into the mind of far left radicals (which my parents were not), especially in the entertainment field.

Life is make believe, and utopia is a one world order where everyone gets along and behaves themselves. Of course, in this utopia we have one ruler who watches over us, making all the choices and decisions individuals and private businesses are incapable of making. Then America will be just like everyone else, level the playing field, distribute individual wealth and personal property -- take from the have's, and give to the have not's -- sort of like Robin Hood and the Sherwood Forest. And, of course - no more American exceptionalism.

This is very disturbing, but it is so far out in left field. Again, we see how our country is sliding backwards into a world our forefathers fled in order to be free. Unless we keep educating ourselves AND our children (because the left will surely not), history will repeat itself. If you need more proof, take a look at what Woody Allen wants these days, in a piece by Bojidar Marinov from Vision to America:

Woody Allen Wants to Make Obama Dictator in Chief

by Bojidar Marinov, May 18, 2010

Erich Graetz, owner and manager of the producer of kerosene lamps and electrical systems Ehrich & Graetz AG, had inherited the company from his father Max Graetz in 1936. Max and his two sons, Erich and Fritz, were among the critics of the Weimar Republic. Ehrich & Graetz AG profited much under Hitler’s regime. The company employed the services of about 1,100 forced laborers during the war, one third of them Jewish. In 1943 the SS took the Jewish workers to the concentration camps. Erich only complained about the loss of the labor of the “non-Aryans.”

Erich Graetz is better known for his exclamation in the early 1930s, “Ist Hitler nicht ein famoser Kerl?” (“Isn’t Hitler a fabulous guy?”) He supported Hitler’s ascent to power, and he took advantage of the forced labor provided by the dictatorship government of the Nazi Party. Hitler was just fabulous, wasn’t he? He had to have dictatorial powers. That’s what Germany needed. How else would Germany be restored to power?

Of course, we know what Hitler brought to Germany—utter devastation, destruction, and suffering. Erich and Fritz lost all they had. They could have foreseen as early as 1936 what was coming. But they were deceived by their blind worship of Hitler. After all, wasn’t he ein famoser Kerl?

Woody Allen lived his whole life quite comfortably in a nation that more than any other nation on the planet had liberty and justice for all, embedded in its Constitution, and in the very fabric of its society. He had the freedom to make films that most Americans resented, and also movies that didn’t necessarily agreed with the views of the political elite at the time. He could say things that so many of us disagreed with, and he could get away with them. There were no “crystal nights” at Woody Allen’s shop, and he wasn’t sent to a concentration camp. Even when he married his very young stepdaughter, the court didn’t give him what he deserved. He got away with much.

But these days Woody Allen is of the opinion, that Obama is just brilliant, and he must be given dictatorial powers. Obama just must be allowed to force the majority of us Americans to do what he wants. We shouldn’t be allowed to make our own decisions, or have it our own way. We should be under dictatorial rule of this fabulous president. Obama must be given the power to impose “crystal nights” on the rest of us and send us to concentration camps if he considers such actions good for the nation.

In short, after taking advantage of the liberties in America, Woody Allen wants to make sure that other Americans are deprived of that privilege. Why? Because for Woody Allen, Obama ist ein famoser Kerl.

The Left has always been on the lookout to find that promised Messiah of socialism, that famoser Kerl who is “brilliant,” who knows everything, who is by definition sinless and infallible. Every generation of leftists had its demi-god who would bring about the promised kingdom of complete government control, who knows better than the people what is good for them. Leftist American intellectuals have been obsessed with Mussolini, then Hitler, FDR, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kennedy... The list of socialist would-be messiahs is longer than the list of the would-be Antichrists for the dispensationalists.

This reveals a very interesting characteristic of the Left. Even though it generally parades under the banner of atheism or “anti-religion,” the Left is profoundly and hopelessly religious to the core. It is deeply irrational when it comes to belief in its proposed messiahs. I say “religious,” but the word that properly describes it would probably rather be “superstitious.” A religious faith is usually accompanied by a theology, an attempt to rationalize the belief, to analyze and understand the object of worship, to make it accessible intellectually to outsiders. Religious faith is open to consider and meet objections and answer them. It defends itself by presenting counter-arguments and building a worldview that encompasses both personal and corporate thought and action.

The Left has nothing like it. Its faith in its messiahs is a primitive, deeply irrational superstition. It doesn’t attempt to understand or analyze them; it doesn’t attempt to defend them intellectually; it doesn’t attempt to understand any counter-arguments and answer them. They are just “brilliant,” the kind of god that humanity needed all along. Anyone who objects to this irrational superstition is by default a taboo-breaker in the eyes of the leftists; he spits upon their totem.

And of course, since the messiah of the leftists must be by default above any doubt or question, since he is famoser and brilliant, logically he must be given dictatorial powers. Anything less than dictatorial powers would be an affront to the god. The process of political representation in the Constitution of the United States presupposes that politicians are fallible and sinful and imperfect. This comes in direct contradiction with the primitive superstitious faith of the leftists. Therefore, for a consistent leftist, the Constitution has to go, and our famoser Kerl must be given dictatorial powers.

Just like Erich Graetz 70 years ago, Woody Allen is intelligent enough to foresee what would be coming to America if Barrack Hussein Obama was given dictatorial powers. The Founders of this country warned against it, and we have the examples of so many other “brilliant dictators” in other countries in recent history. But just like Erich Graetz, Woody Allen is blinded by his own primitive tribal superstition that blocks his brain and wouldn’t allow him to see the irrationality of his own words. The Apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans about folks like Woody Allen, that,

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Rom. 1:21–23).

In its flight from God and His Law, the Left didn’t find freedom from religious beliefs, neither did it find wisdom. To the contrary, the Left rejected the ordered house of the Christian religion only to live in the jungle of primitive creature worship and superstition; and instead of wisdom, it got irrationalism and stupidity. Woody Allen is an end product of this process.

Irrational superstitious creature-worshippers do not build civilizations. They can only live as parasites in a civilization created by those who worship the Creator. Woody Allen’s faith is dying across America, and his brilliant famoser Kerl will go down in history as the worst President America ever had. God is not to be mocked.

OBAMACARE AT ANY COST

As Americans watch the shenanigans of Democrats, the shock and awe of the latest cheap maneuver may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Imagine the horror of the Founding Fathers if they witnessed a Speaker of the House tell the American people she will "deem" a bill to have passed, because she can't get the votes. Hearing the outrage across the wires, it is mind boggling more people have not protested. Where is the press on this? The Constitution Be Damned, as Red State wrote. With the no votes piling up, tyranny is right at our doorstep.

What's being done by these radicals is worse than unconstitutional. If they get away with "deeming" a bill passed, where does it stop? Deeming Cap & Trade, deeming Illegal Amnesty, deeming youth camps, deeming the next president, deeming him King? God help us.

Here and here is a list of the 64 Congressmen who voted for the Stupak Amendment, the 30 potential swing votes, the ONE Republican yes vote, and a few other potential votes who originally voted yes.

The link to Washington Post's article by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen is an excellent piece describing the fantasy in which the Democrats are living, as Obama continues to chase that big white whale. The Heritage Foundation writes about the blind ambition of these Democrats:

Obamacare at Any Cost
The Heritage Foundation, March 12, 2010

Yesterday the White House circulated a memo by pollster Joel Benenson. It was designed to create momentum for Obamacare by convincing wayward House Democrats that support for the President's plan has been building since the State of the Union. As with everything else that comes out of the White House on health care these days, the memo is nothing but pure fantasy.

This Tuesday, Gallup released its latest poll showing that by a 48%-45% margin Americans would tell their representative in Congress to vote against President Obama's health plan. Compare that to the last time Gallup asked the question in January, Americans supported the President's plan 49%-46%. That's a net six point loss in support for the President's plan since the State of the Union. That is momentum. Against Obamacare.

And Gallup isn't alone. The Associated Press released a poll this week showing that 68% of Americans believe the President and Congressional Democrats shouldn't pass their health care plan without Republican support. "Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan," Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen add in today's Washington Post, "A solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan."

Yesterday was particularly tough for the President's plan. First, the White House underwhelmed the Democratic Caucus in a presentation of the new (still unwritten) reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate Parliamentarian killed the Democrats favored procedural path for passage by signaling he would rule that President Obama must sign the original Senate bill into law before the Senate could act on the President's new reconciliation package. Finally, the Associated Press reported that House leaders have abandoned all hope of finding language to satisfy Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) concerns that the Senate bill funds abortion. By the end of the day, the leftist firedoglake site had dropped its count of committed House Democrats for passage to 189 (Speaker Pelosi needs 216 for passage).

With the loss of Stupak and his 7-12 member caucus opposed to taxpayer-funded-abortions, Speaker Pelosi will have to find the remaining dozen plus votes from the ranks of cost conscious Blue Dog Democrats. For example, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) who voted against the House bill in the fall explained at the time: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House health care bill will actually increase federal health care spending over the long term, while proposals being considered by the Senate would have a net decrease." But according to a new CBO score of the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve (the one with the Cornhusker Kickback), it actually increases health care spending. And the reconciliation bill only make things worse, since, among other increased spending measures, President Obama "fixed" the Cornhusker Kickback not by eliminating the new spending, but by extending it to all 50 states.

With no votes piling up, and "yes" votes materializing, the Democratic plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people are becoming more and more desperate. This Monday, the House Budget Committee will begin markup on the new reconciliation bill even though actual legislative text does not exist for it yet. The Democrats plan to pass a shell of a bill through the appropriate committees so that the Rules Committee can then substitute the bill that is being drafted completely behind closed doors by the White House and Senate and Democrat leaders.

Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian's initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO's Yuval Levin quips: "Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it."

But President Obama's progressive base is way past rational thought when it comes to health care. They want it passed at any cost. And as George Will pointed out yesterday, the very essence of progressivism sublimates the democratic process to the rule of experts in Washington. No one can say if this bill will finally pass, but if it does, it is abundantly clear that our republican form of government will be permanently damaged by it.

OBAMA'S 'ACADEMICALLY APPROVED' APPROACH TO HEALTH CARE

It should not be forgotten that Obama has talked about his desire to re-write our Constitution, because it "is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you; says what the federal government can't do to you; but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf". Exactly!! They knew exactly what they were doing, and it is not your place, Mr. Obama, to change it. This is the underbelly of the man we now have in our White House. It should not be a surprise. This information was out there, but America was sold on his "hopie, changie" thing.

Obamacare is not going away, no matter how unpopular, no matter how many Americans do not want it, and no matter how many elections he loses. But, he tells us he is not an ideologue, so we are sheeple who are to believe in his word, and let him reconstruct our Constitution, 'cause remember, it's 'deeply flawed".

I think not!

This tongue-in-cheek is excellent, while quite eerie, by Andy Wickersham in Pajamas Media:


Obama’s ‘Academically Approved’ Approach to Health Care
The president's Super Bowl Sunday interview provided more evidence of his disdain for the Constitution.
by Andy Wickersham, February 10, 2010

From the president’s interview with Katie Couric prior to the Super Bowl:

Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy.

As you can clearly see, this man’s genius is being terribly underutilized here. All of these brilliant solutions to all of these great problems, but the delivery system is unfortunately quite antiquated. And as a result we have a terrifically wise and benevolent leader who is at the moment a bit hamstrung by a process that could certainly use some streamlining.

Sure, he’s done a pretty masterful job given the restraints that the American system of government have placed on him, but this health care thing has really highlighted the regrettable fact that the Founders really only left him with so much room to maneuver. If only someone as gifted and righteous as The One were able to work freely on behalf of the common good, all would be well. After all, how could America go wrong pinning its destiny to a man that uses the word “elegant” and the phrase “academically approved” in the same sentence? You certainly weren’t going to get that from George Bush.

So you can see where a man of Obama’s brilliance would be a bit frustrated at having to get involved in such a messy legislative process. But you do have to admire his willingness to do so. As he said in his State of the Union address, he “never suggested that change would be easy” or that he could “do it alone.” He knew full well that with the checks and balances the Framers had put in place and with America’s traditional reliance on the rule of law, it was going to take some time to remake this country. Kingdoms simply aren’t created in a day, you know.

In all seriousness, though, this is really quite a statement. First off, Obama puts his freakish arrogance on display, yet again, for those on the left and right to marvel at — albeit for very different reasons. Because, you know, if left to his own devices, our president could come up with a splendid approach to health care, it would receive that all-important academic approval, and it really wouldn’t be all that difficult.

Of course, the ridiculousness of this statement, as is the case with many of the gems that come from this president, goes beyond simply its epic grandiosity. Notice he uses the word “approach” instead of “plan.” Isn’t this precisely what he tried to do in the first place: approach Congress without an actual plan? And I don’t think you can get an “approach” passed. But then, I’m not The One. Although I do know that America is a republic, not a democracy.

But alas, the president is not left to his own devices and the good doctor is instead restrained from being able to liberally apply that miraculous Obama salve to the wound inflicted on America by those awful insurance companies. And this brings us to what I believe is the most disconcerting aspect of this statement. Yet again, Obama is making it abundantly clear that he does not hold our form of government in the highest regard.

While on the surface it may seem that this is simply a candid statement by a person who is confident that he has the best “approach” to fix America’s health care system and that he would obviously like to see his ideas enacted, there is on closer examination a whole lot more going on here than that.

There are Americans everywhere that feel they have better ideas than this president does with respect to improving America. But I doubt too many of them would “love nothing better” than for the Constitution to be discarded in order for these ideas to be implemented. I know I certainly wouldn’t. While I personally would love to see an America freed from a crushing regulatory structure, an America utilizing its natural resources to their fullest potential, an America with a much different tax code, etc., I certainly don’t want the Constitution circumvented in order to accomplish these things.

But then this statement makes perfect sense if you consider it within the context of what we know about Barack Obama. He has said the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He has bemoaned the fact that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is that it is “generally a charter of negative liberties” that doesn’t “say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He has talked to Joe the Plumber about the merit in spreading the wealth. And the list goes on.

Oh, if only The One could be freed from those constitutional chains that bind.


Andy Wickersham has a master's in public policy from Claremont Graduate University. He is the former producer of a prominent Southern California land development publication.

DEMOCRATS, MEET YOUR BIGGEST NIGHTMARE

Over the past 18 months, I have learned more than I ever thought possible, and done things completely outside my little private lifestyle, as have hundreds of thousands -- no millions -- have done. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. What we saw happening got us out of our comfort zone, to become engaged in unknown territory, because the very definition of Conservatives is non-combative, who works hard to earn a decent living, and take care of family.

Many of us saw that our country's foundation was in great peril. We became engaged as never before, and thanks to the invaluable information we absorbed from scholars such as Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, confirmation from people such as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, endless brilliant bloggers, we were able to take action. As the months went by, we became stronger and more outspoken. Our numbers grew to astonishing proportions, and we were unavoidably visible at rallys, Tea Party rallys, and Town Hall meetings. So much so, that we have been demonized by the leftist loons, who have the media to promote their vile rhetoric.

That means one thing -- it's working. We only have to look at the stunning success in Virginia, New Jersey, and the Massachusets Miracle. But, one thing is very clear. If we are to preserve our great republic, we can no longer take our eye off of government officials. If history has proven anything, it is that people crave power, and left unattended, they will take freedom away in order to gain more and more. Our Founding Fathers knew what it was like to live under tyranny, and they constructed our Constitution carefully to protect us from ever losing freedom, but it, too, must be protected. We have seen our Constitution ripped to shreds, especially lately.

A quote from [highly recommended] Mark Levin's last chapter 'A Conservative Manefesto' in his book, LIBERTY and TYRANNY:

The Conservative must become more engaged in public matters. It is in his nature to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger. These are certainly admirable qualities that contribute to the overall health of the community. But it is no longer enough. The Statist's counterrevolution has turned the instrumentalities of public affairs and public governance against the civil society. They can no longer be left to the devices of the Statist, which is largely the case today.

A moving piece written by Carol Peracchio, a nurse, in American Thinker speaks volumns of this phenomenon, and I shared Paulette's emotions on that glorious night.


Democrats, Meet Your Biggest Nightmare
by Carol Peracchio, February 9, 2010

My husband's cousin Paulette called me the morning of January 20 from Massachusetts. Breathless with excitement, her words tumbling out so fast I could barely keep up, she recounted the joy of Scott Brown's win in the special election to the U.S. Senate.

Paulette is 66 years old. She and her husband are retired. She has an active social life which includes lots of friends and competitive amateur tennis. She babysits her granddaughter and checks on her 92-year-old father in Florida every day. She told me she'd never been politically active, "except for voting, of course."

But all that changed after Barack Obama's election. Paulette started watching FOX News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Health care reform, with its 500-billion-dollar Medicare cuts, scared her out of her wits. When she learned I write articles for AT, mostly about health care, she started calling me periodically last summer. We'd commiserate on how discouraging it was that no one in Washington is listening, or even seems to care. Paulette, like so many of us, felt frustrated and helpless.

Then Senator Kennedy passed away, and a political activist was born.

Paulette described her first meeting with Scott Brown. A friend called one morning in late November to tell her that State Senator Brown was coming to town that day to open a campaign office.

"I barely had time to throw on clothes. I didn't care how I looked," she told me. She rushed over to the office and signed up that day to work. "I told Scott Brown that we are going to win this." I asked her how she could be so certain back in November, when absolutely no one out here believed Brown had a chance.

"I knew we would win because I lived there. I talk to lots of people. I knew how we all felt about what Obama and the Democrats were doing."

Then she added, "I just couldn't take any more."

So Paulette went to work. She staffed the office several days per week, answering phones and handing out signs and literature. She knocked on doors all over her neighborhood. She visited shut-ins and helped them request absentee ballots. She helped organize volunteers to drive voters to the polls. Just before Christmas, she called to give me another update. She was off to follow up on some of those absentee ballots. "There's a family down the street that has four. I need to make sure they got mailed."

Every day when Paulette would drive to the elementary school to pick up her granddaughter, she would stand next to her car and wave her "Scott Brown for U.S. Senate" sign at the passing traffic. "I get a few thumbs down," she reported, "but most people honk their horns and smile."

When Paulette called me the Friday before the election, she hadn't a scintilla of doubt that Brown would win. "We're going to do it, Carol!" she exclaimed. "We're going to stop Obama!" The polls reflected her optimism. But on the political shows over the weekend, conservatives appeared afraid to be hopeful. More than once I heard it expressed that a Brown win was a long shot. They consoled themselves by saying that even if he lost by a narrow margin, that would be a victory in blue, blue Massachusetts.

A loss for Brown wouldn't be a victory for Paulette, however. To Paulette, victory meant Scott Brown would be senator.

Conservative internet forums were just as pessimistic as the TV pundits. Over and over I read comments gloomily describing how Brown would have to win by double digits to overcome the inevitable ACORN and union fraud. I asked Paulette about it. She laughed it off. "We're going to win," she repeated.

So on Tuesday night, as Martha Coakley conceded hours, if not days, earlier than the conventional wisdom predicted, I had the feeling that Paulette was the only person who wasn't surprised. The next morning, I could do nothing but offer my deep gratitude to Paulette and the others in Massachusetts who "just couldn't take any more."

Scott Brown deserves credit, of course, for fighting an amazing campaign. But I think it's the Paulettes in Massachusetts who have the most to teach us. Such as:

1. There are a lot of voters out there who agree with us. Poll after poll shows that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in America. It's high time we conservatives actually believed it.

2. There is no substitute, absolutely none, for personal, grassroots involvement in campaigns. Too many of us want to just "mail in" our support. That way, none of our neighbors will know that we are actually (gasp!) conservative. Go back and reread #1. There's a good chance your neighbors are conservatives, too.

3. Democrat and ACORN fraud cannot overcome a tidal wave of conservative and like-minded independent voters, even in liberal Massachusetts and New Jersey. For far too long we have accepted the inevitability of losing because of Democrat voter fraud. Then we just throw in the towel and don't even try to defeat the entrenched liberals. I'm certainly not saying fraud doesn't exist and that we don't need to be diligent in our efforts to combat it. But ACORN is no match for energized, intelligent, informed conservatives.

4. We have to get involved early. Signing up to make telephone calls the last weekend of a campaign, while better than nothing, isn't good enough. It was almost sad to see busloads of SEIU members rolling into Boston for President Obama's speech two days before the election. Outside of giving the media a thrill and depressing Beltway conservatives, the whole effort was a waste of time. Primaries for this year's congressional elections are starting now.

The time for conservative involvement is yesterday. Brown's win taught us that no seat is 100% safe. (My dream is to see that proved again in Barney Frank's district.) My own congressman is a blue dog Democrat who voted for cap-and-trade. I wonder if he has any idea what's in store for him this election year.

So here's to you, Paulette, and all your fellow patriots in Massachusetts. I can almost hear our Founders saying, "Ya done good!"

Carol Peracchio is a registered nurse.

A VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH

A landmark decision was made last week in the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of freedom of speech. A lot has been said for and against this decision, but our most treasured law, freedom of speech, has once again been saved.

It's laughable to hear Obama pontificate about the injustices of this decision. "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."

This, coming from the man who raked in millions from the likes of big corporate George Soros, Warren Buffett, Unions, Goldman Sachs (bailout), Microsoft, Google, Citicorp (bailout), JP Morgan (bailout), IBM, General Electric, Time Warner, etc.

This decision is made to protect everyone, no matter how large or how small, but methinks it will actually benefit the smaller corporations, such as the one who filed this law suit, who do not have the funds to fight off the larger ones. Strike another blow for David against the behemouth Golieth. No wonder Obama hates it.

But that's not going to stop Obama. After all, only God can reverse the Supreme Court!

Because of its very nature, describing the importance of this decision can be complicated, but is important to understand its historic impact. This piece by Jacob Laksin of Frontpage Magazine makes the argument in favor of this monumental decision:


A Victory for Free Speech
by Jacob Laksin, January 22, 2010

Can the government suppress free speech critical of elected politicians? In the home of the First Amendment, that may seem an unusual question to pose. But that was the question before the Supreme Court this week, as it handed down a landmark ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on corporations and labor unions using money from their general funds to produce and air campaign ads in races for Congressional and presidential races. Also overturned was a ban on corporations and unions airing campaign ads 30 days before primary or 60 days before general election.

The case in question dates back to January 2008, when the conservative non-profit group Citizens United produced a documentary critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton titled Hillary: The Movie. When the Federal Election commission used the McCain Feingold campaign finance law to limit Citizen United’s ability to advertise the film during the 2008 presidential primaries, the group sued to protest the restriction on free speech.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizen United’s favor. In so doing, it won approval from free-speech advocates and strident criticism from many on the political Left. To discuss the case and its political implications, Front Page turned to Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

FP: The Supreme Court’s decision has certainly stirred its share of controversy. How do you view the Court’s ruling?

Shapiro: This is a big win for free speech. It is the most significant ruling on campaign finance since [the 1976 case] Buckley vs. Valeo and it continued the trend of this court of allowing greater speech in the political arena. It’s a victory for the marketplace of ideas and it’s a victory for democracy.

FP: Some, especially on the Left, don’t see it that way. The New York Times despairs this morning that the decision is a “blow for democracy” that paves the way for “corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections.” Is there any merit to the objection that the court’s ruling will distort democracy by empowering corporations while diminishing the voice of regular citizens?

Shapiro: I think the concern about corporations is misplaced. Most corporations are not Exxon. They are smaller companies or non-profits. With the disclosure rules that are in place, voters will still be able to judge which candidate is in the pocket of some corporation, whether it’s the ACLU or the Sierra Club, or the Cato Institute for that matter. We still have laws in place going back to 1907 that prevent direct contributions to candidates.

To the extent that there has been a diminution in the public’s faith in the democratic process, the government is probably more to blame than the corporations. Earmarks, special tax breaks, the dispersal of government goodies and baddies – these types of actions harm democracy much more. McCain Feingold was never about regular citizens. It was a creature of the Beltway. There was no great call from the hinterland to get money out of politics.

I don’t think democracy will be diminished as a result of the ruling. What we could see is more ads like the Swift Boats ads during the 2004 presidential campaign or the Hillary movie. But the way the law stood, some government bureaucrat could have simply banned books that were critical of a political candidate in an election year. That would have been far worse.

FP: In part, there is a partisan argument here. Democrats complain that if you make it easier for corporations t o spend money in political campaigns, you empower Republicans, since the Left considers corporations and Republicans natural allies.

Shapiro: I think that argument is laughable. It’s not at all clear which party would benefit from this ruling. Corporations are highly strategic about what they do with their money. It’s because they want political influence that they donate money to both parties. Goldman Sachs gave more money to Barack Obama than to any other candidate in the last election cycle. They were the number-one donor to his campaign. You could go down the list of Fortune 500 companies and find similar contributions. So when Obama rails that this ruling will help Wall Street, it’s a little rich. He set the record for donors from big companies.

FP: Another common claim among critics of the ruling is that corporations don’t deserve the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Shapiro: No one is saying that corporations are human beings. But corporations are groups of private individuals who have legal rights. Take Front Page magazine. It’s not an individual. But the government can’t raid your office and just seize your computer. That would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, corporations have First Amendment rights. Think of it this way: George Soros can spend as much as he wants in an election, but if you and a hundred other people get together to spend your money, suddenly, that can’t work. Individuals don’t lose their rights just because they come together to magnify the effects of their donations.

FP: Some claim that this decision bespeaks a political agenda of the court’s conservative majority, that the court had no business hearing the case and seized on it for political purposes.

Shapiro: Justice Roberts has actually addressed this point in his concurring decision. In legal doctrine, you have something called stare decisis, which means that you don’t reverse a precedent even if it’s wrong. People rely on legal precedent. But in this case the precedent was not that old. On top of that, no one relies on having less speech. No one says, ‘I have an interest in self-censorship.’ The court used the smaller issue of the Hillary film to get at the larger issue of how free speech can be regulated. The court is acting properly when it upholds the Constitution.


Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Weekly Standard, City Journal, Policy Review, as well as other publications. Email him at jlaksin@gmail.com.

OBAMACARE VS. THE CONSTITUTION

Cries of "unconstitutional" have echoed across America as Obama, Pelosi and Reid cram their unwanted government run healthcare system down our throats. Even more so, with the recent closed door actions by Obama, who ran on Hope & Change and a promise of transparency.

Reconciliation of a bill that will affect all Americans and control one-sixth of our economy should not be handled as "politics as usual". The American public has a right to see how this bill is put together, much more... what's in it.

Congress has been asked on numerous occassions "where in the constitution does it give you the right to do this", and they are unable to answer, or are condescending, or declare the "interstate commerce" clause, ignoring the 10th amendment. Betsy McCaughey writes a brilliant piece from Defend Your Healthcare:


ObamaCare vs. the Constitution
by Betsy McCaughey, January 6, 2010

The health bills in Congress rob you of your constitutional rights. Here are five provisions (of many) that fail the constitutionality test and reveal Congress's disrespect for the public:

* Section 3403 of the Senate health bill, establishing a commission to cut Medicare spending, says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This whopper shows that Congress thinks its work should be set in stone. Wrong. The people always have the right to elect a new Congress to change or repeal what a previous Congress has done.

* A Senate health-bill amendment mysteriously allocates $100 million to an unnamed facility that "shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school" (Sec. 10502, p. 328-329). Why not name the facility?

This pork deal was arranged by Sen. Chris Dodd for the University of Connecticut Health Center, although 11 hospitals in the nation technically meet these specifications. If Congress wrote the provision in Polish or Russian to keep the public in the dark, it would be unconstitutional. The language is a deception. The fact that legislators commonly do this makes it more damaging, not less so.

* The bills require you to enroll in a "qualified health plan," whether you want it or not. Forcing people to buy insurance obviously reduces the number of uninsured. But Congress doesn't have the authority to force people to buy a product.

Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Nev.) said on the Senate floor, "If Congress may require individuals to purchase a particular good or service . . . We could simply require that Americans buy certain cars . . . for that matter, we could attack the problem of obesity by requiring Americans to buy fruits and vegetables."

Some Congress members claim the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution empowers them to impose a mandate. But they're taking the phrase out of context. The Constitution gives Congress power to tax and spend for the general welfare, but not to make other kinds of laws for the general welfare.

The Senate bill (pages 320-324) claims the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution gives Congress this authority. But for half a century, states have regulated health insurance. In fact, individuals are barred from buying insurance in any state except where they live, the antithesis of interstate commerce.

Congressional majorities have frequently resorted to the commerce clause to justify their lawmaking. In FDR's first term, Congress cited it to pass the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave the federal government power to micromanage local businesses, setting wages and hours and even barring customers from selecting their live chickens at the butcher. Two Brooklyn brothers, owners of Schechter Poultry Corp., a kosher chicken business, challenged that interference. In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the NIRA unconstitutional.

In 1995, the high court again admonished Congress against using the commerce clause as a basis for expanded lawmaking, even when the purpose is as worthy as keeping handguns out of a school zone (US v. Lopez). The court ruled that Congress must stick to its enumerated powers and leave states to police school zones (and, perhaps, mandate health insurance).

* Never before has the federal government intruded into decisions made by doctors for privately insured patients, except on narrow issues such as drug safety. Nothing in the Constitution permits it. But the Senate bill makes you enroll in a plan and then says that only doctors who do what the government dictates can be paid by your plan.

"Qualified plans" can contract only with a doctor who "implements such mechanisms to improve health-care quality as the [current or future] secretary [of Health and Human Services] may by regulation require" (Sec. 1311, p. 148-49). That covers all of medicine, from heart care to child birth, stents to mammograms.

* Finally, the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment bars government from taking your property without compensation. It should protect everyone, no matter how unpopular -- even insurance companies, but Congress ignored it in writing the health bill. The Senate version goes beyond reining in insurance-company abuses, a just cause, and actually caps insurance-company profit margins at well below current levels, robbing shareholders.

Next year, Congress could impose similar caps on profit margins of bodegas, pizzerias and grocers, by arguing that food -- also a necessity -- is too expensive. Your business could be next.

In 2010, ordinary citizens will have to stand up for their constitutional rights, just as the Schechter brothers did 75 years ago. Congress members swear to uphold the Constitution, but it appears many are ignorant of what it says. They should be mandated to take a course, as pilots and doctors are. Congress needs to be reminded that the Constitution defines and limits its powers.


Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor, is author of "Government by Choice: Inventing the United States Constitution."

REMEMBERING THE PROVIDENTIAL GIFT OF AMERICA

As we begin to welcome a new year, with new hope for the future, we also reflect on our lives -- how far we have come, how we survived the year gone by, how to prepare for the next, and the many things for which we are grateful.

When in doubt, lately I get strength in reflecting on our past, and the strength it took our Founding Fathers to fight on, in the darkest of times. What these men and women went through to get us where we are today, can only be imagined, and I thank God every day for their spirit and supreme sacrifice. They have given us a new nation, with new principles - a truly unique gift, a constitutional government. We cannot let them down.

The Heritage Foundation writes a beautiful Christmas piece:


Remembering the Providential Gift of America
December 25, 2009

Christmas, 1776.

Summer had begun with strong declarations of noble ideals, but by winter the cause of liberty seemed to be at low ebb. Having suffered defeat after defeat, many had all but given up hope. It looked like freedom would succumb yet again, as it had throughout history, to the forces of authoritarianism and tyranny.

Then, on Christmas Day, 1776, a small band of colonial forces under the command of Gen. George Washington, having retreated all the way from New York, again crossed the Delaware River and brought battle at Trenton, New Jersey. Washington not only won the battle but regained the initiative and turned the war in the patriots’ favor. One week later, Washington defeated the British at Princeton and forced the enemy to withdraw, preventing its advance on Philadelphia, seat of the Continental Congress.

When it announced itself to the world in 1776, the United States of America was little more than an alliance of 13 small colonies on a barren continent, thousands of miles from their ancestral homeland, surrounded by hostile powers.

Now, well over two centuries after winning independence from the British Empire, America is the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Along the way it established sovereign nationhood, settled a continent and more and brought unprecedented prosperity to its citizens. It survived a devastating Civil War that threatened its very life, abolished slavery and raised up the emancipated to be citizens equal to their one-time masters. It triumphed in two world wars fought on foreign soil and a decades-long struggle against worldwide communism that, 20 years ago, led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union.

What accounts for this monumental success?

The founding of the United States was indeed revolutionary. But not in the sense of replacing one set of rulers with another, or overthrowing the institutions of society. John Adams queried:

“What do we mean by the American Revolution? The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people. . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Our revolution was about the ideas upon which a new nation was to be established. Permanent truths “applicable to all men and all times,” as Abraham Lincoln later said, proclaimed that principle rather than will would be the ultimate ground of government.

What is truly revolutionary about America is that, for the first time in history, these universal ideas became the foundation of a system of government and its political culture. Because of these principles, rather than despite them, the American Revolution culminated not in tyranny but a constitutional government that has long endured.

To this day, 233 years after Washington and his men crossed the Delaware, these principles–proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the Constitution–still define us as a nation and inspire us as a people. These principles are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other. They are the highest achievements of our tradition, a beacon to those who strive for freedom but also a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere. Because of these principles, not despite them, America achieved greatness.

The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson later recorded, was “neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, [but] was intended to be an expression of the American mind.”

As Americans, our aim must be a clear expression and forthright defense of the nation’s principles in the public square so that they become, once again, an expression of the American mind. Despite constant scorn by academic elites, political leaders and the popular media, most Americans still believe in the uniqueness of this country and respect the Founders’ noble ideas. They may fail a test of particulars – quick: when did Washington cross the Delaware? – but they overwhelmingly want to know about this nation and its meaning.

We must give voice to all those who have not given up on their country’s experiment in self-government, have not concluded the cause of liberty and limited constitutional government is lost and have not accepted America’s decline as inevitable.

The goal must be to restore the liberating principles of the American Founding as the defining public philosophy of our nation. As it was for most of American history, so it can be again.

The joy of this wonderful season is about new beginnings and the eternal promise of redemption. We Americans have the immeasurable benefit, the providential gift, of having inherited a great country.

We must never forget its confidence, optimism and promise, its endless capacity for renewal, are contained in our dedication to the enduring principles of liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator.

May you and yours have a merry and blessed Christmas.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW'S TYRANNY OF COMPLEXITY

Never before in our history have we seen such assaults on our Constitution. But, never in our history have the far left radicals had the power in all three branches of government, with the Executive Branch run in Chicago style fashion. They cannot push through new legislation fast enough, before they lose their power, but the damage may be irreparable.

An excellent explanation of how Congress is violating the Constitution, aided by the liberal radical left court system by Adam Graham in PajamasMedia.

Constitutional Law's Tyranny of Complexity
If we don’t stop rewriting our basic law into gobbledygook that the average person can’t understand, this country faces a dark future.
by Adam Graham, November 27, 2009

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) recently said that, as he is not a constitutional scholar, he could not say whether it is constitutional or not to require an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Nelson’s statement is problematic for many reasons.

The Constitution is a simple document. I read through it for the first time when I was eight. The Constitution is 4,400 words long and takes fifteen to twenty minutes to read through carefully. It was made so that it could be understood by a New England plow boy. This is important considering that Senator Nelson is a two-term United States senator and former two-term governor who four times has sworn to uphold this document he can’t quite understand. Not only that, but he is a University of Nebraska-trained lawyer.

Is the reason for Senator Nelson’s uncertainty merely that we’re not as bright as we once were? To a degree, this might be part of the problem. In The Truth Project video series, Del Tackett recounts the story of a law professor who assigned his constitutional law students the Federalist Papers. One student complained that the papers were hard to understand. The professor responded that this was understandable, as the Federalist Papers were written for the average 18th-century New York farmer and encouraged the law student that he might someday attain their level of understanding.

But there’s a greater problem that leads to a situation where a sitting senator can’t review the list of seventeen powers granted to Congress in the Constitution and see if forcing individuals to buy health insurance is on the list.

The problem is that complexity has been introduced over the past century. It has not come through the passage of constitutional amendments, but rather through those who have wanted to accomplish ends that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to do. To do so, they’ve come up with novel and complex theories to justify government interference that the Constitution never condoned.

This isn’t to say these efforts were malicious. Many were as well-intentioned as an elderly woman writing bad checks to give money to charity. Many meant well in backing things like Social Security, the war on drugs, or the New Deal. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What all of these well-intentioned efforts have created is a labyrinth of a convoluted “constitutional law” that has nothing to do with the written text of the Constitution. Rather, it keeps score of all the ways in which courts have let Congress get away with violating the plain text of the Constitution. Those folks without specialized training in the legalese of “constitutional law” will find their plainspoken objection to a violation of the Constitution greeted with babbling legalese.

Fans of this redefinition of the Constitution claim the Constitution is a living document that changes to suit the times. While this may sound very progressive, it’s scary when you consider the purpose of the Constitution is to set boundaries for the government to protect the freedoms of the people.

The Constitution is like a wall. Who wants a living wall surrounding their home? One day, the wall protects your house, another it expands into the neighbor’s yard, and on yet another day it contracts and breaks through the wall of your extra bedroom. It sounds like a low-grade horror film, but it’s the reality of our constitutional law.

Complexity and uncertainty are the enemy of liberty. Those who play with the boundaries to make it so no one but the “experts” can understand what’s going on are akin to the clerics of the Middle Ages, who kept the Bible out of the mother tongue, so it could not be understood by the common man. Working to create incomprehensibility out of plainness in order to make yourself powerful goes back thousands of years. It was Christ who said to the scholars of his day, “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge.” (Luke 11:52a)

The key of knowledge has been taken away under this current speaker as bills are rushed to the floor with reckless abandon, with members herded to vote without even knowing what they’re voting on. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) scoffed at the idea of reading the bill and knowing what’s in it. Most disturbing about this is that Carper’s committee wrote one of the Senate bills.

Democrats complain that provisions being touted by opponents are misunderstood or, less charitably, misrepresented by opponents. I have to chuckle when people who haven’t read something criticize others for mischaracterizing it. If the bill has been misunderstood, it’s because it was not written to be understood.

Unlike the writers of the 2,000-page monstrosity making its way through Congress, the writers of our Constitution wanted to be understood. So the answer to the question asked of Senator Nelson as to whether individual mandates are constitutional is “no.” But then again, most of what Congress does is unconstitutional.

The danger to our republic is clear. If we don’t stop rewriting our basic law into gobbledygook that the average person can’t understand, let alone respond to, we face a dark Orwellian future. Like at the end of Animal Farm, we’ll discover that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” The bulwark that once protected our liberties will become our prison wall.


Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.