You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . ..

Read this and see how you stand………….I personally stand guilty of being a Constitutionalist.

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . .

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America’s current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America’s founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people’s liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three “separate but equal” branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.( They certainly do not)

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings. (Do you know about nullification?)

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.( Can you say 10% unemployment?)

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.( Here’s a history lesson for some people. In May of 1779 George Washington told the Delaware Indian chiefs while trying to convince them to send their children to American Schools……..“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”….from The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources)

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America’s veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge”?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America’s national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage. (This is correct…..Congress is the only thing/people  that can violate the 1st amendment establishment clause, by making a law establishing a national religion. Anything else is not a violation of the 1st amendment as the courts have been unconstitutionally  enforcing since the 1960s. I challenge anyone to find me one, just one example of the founding fathers practicing “separation of church and state” in their day as the courts are making us do today ! You won’t be able to find any…….not even one, because they didn’t do it.)

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and “stimulus” expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women’s breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers’ clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools’ “zero-tolerance” policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination. (Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the Constitutionality of this.)

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world’s policemen, that they are not “nation-builders,” and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority. (Most people aren’t even remotely aware of this truth.)

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America’s merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom’s principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone–from any party–who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don’t just take the test; make the pledge!

ChuckBaldwinLive.com

Is Healthcare in the Constitution ?

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Damon Root of Reason magazine discuss health care and the Constitution.

more about “Is Healthcare in the Constitution ?“, posted with vodpod

Judge Andrew Napolitano- Columbus Ohio Tea Party, August 1, 2009

Let me set down a couple of fervent beliefs that animate everything I do and everything I say.

I believe that God created heaven and earth and every single individual on the planet.

I believe that the God who gave us life gave us liberty and that freedom is our birthright.

I believe that the States created the federal government and not the other way around. And that the power that the States gave to the Federal Government – they can take back.

When we were colonists, and the King and the Parliament needed money from us, and they always seemed to need money, they devised ingenious ways to tax us. One of them was called the Stamp Act. The Parliament decreed that every piece of paper that the Colonists had in their homes; every book, every document, every deed, every lease, every pamphlet, every poster to be nailed to a tree had to have the King’s stamp on it. You think going to a Post Office is bad? You had to go to a British Government office and buy a stamp with the King’s picture.

Question. How did the King know that his picture was on every piece of paper in your house? The Parliament enacted a hateful piece of legislation called the Writs of Assistance Act which let the king’s soldiers write their own search warrants, and bang down any door they chose to look for the stamps or anything else that they were looking for.

It was the last straw.

We fought a revolution. We won the revolution. We wrote the Constitution. The constitution doesn’t grant power, it keeps the government off our backs.

When they were debating the Constitution in the Summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, there were two great arguments – one by the Jefferson and Madison crowd and one by the Adams and Hamilton crowd. Jefferson argued, though he wasn’t physically there in Philly, as he did in the Declaration of Independence that our rights are ours by virtue of our humanity. That as God is perfectly free, and we are created in his image and likeness, we too are perfectly free. The big government crowd – yes they had them even in those days – argued that you can’t have freedom without government, and that government gives us our rights, and therefore, that government can take them away. This is not an academic argument. Jefferson and the natural law argument prevailed because the Constitution was written to keep the government from interfering with our natural rights.

And so, your right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to travel where you want, to worship as you see fit, to keep and bear arms to defend yourself against a tyranny. And, after the right to life, the greatest and most uniquely American of rights – and I say this in front of the seat of the government – is the right to be left alone.

We wrote a Constitution to ensure that the government would never interfere with these rights. Think about it – if rights come from the government, then the government, by ordinary legislation, or presidential decree can take them away. But if the rights come from our humanity, then unless we violate someone else’s natural rights, the government cannot take our rights away.

This is not just a democrat, upper case D, or a republican, upper case R, problem. It’s a problem with government today. There’s a republican version of big government just as assaultive to our liberties as there’s a democrat version of big government.

We fought a revolution because British soldiers could knock on our doors and demand that we house them, and demand that we turn over property to them because they could write their own search warrants. In the Patriot Act, the most hateful piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, a republican congress and a republican president authorized federal agents to do the unthinkable – to write their own search warrants. And the republican administration didn’t even let members of the House of Representatives read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.

Why should the government be able to spy on us? We should be able to spy on them!

When some judge is rationalizing away our liberty, or some congressman is plotting to take away your freedom or your tax dollars, we should know what they do every minute that they do it.

I was speaking to a group of congressman from a neighboring state – I won’t tell you which state it was, but they don’t play football there – and they came up to me and said “this is the first time we have heard that the Patriot Act allows federal agents to write their own search warrants.” Remember, in the Constitution, we put in the 4th Amendment, the right to be left alone, to make sure that if the government had a target, no matter how guilty the target, no matter how widespread is the belief in the guilt of the target, no matter how dangerous is the target, the government has to go through a neutral judge with a search warrant before it can get to that target. These members of Congress said, “we didn’t know that the Patriot Act allowed the government to bypass the courts and write any search warrant they wanted.” Then I asked them a question I knew the answer to already – did you read the Patriot Act before you voted on it? The answer – no. What were you voting on? A summary we received. Let me guess who wrote the summary – some lawyers in the justice department, right? Of course.

Would you hire anybody to run your business that committed you to a violation of the very reason you’re in business if they didn’t even the document by which they were making that committment? Of course not.

The camera is the new gun. There’s nothing that government dislikes more than the light of day, and cameras recording what the government is doing, whether it’s on a street corner, or in there, or in Washington D.C., we have the right to know everything that they do and why they do it, and when they do it, and how they are taking our freedoms.

I have another one of my basic core beliefs. The individual has an immortal soul. Every individual is greater than any government.

Your government is based on fear and force. You don’t have to take my word on it. The 2nd president on the United States, John Adams, said “Of course the government is based on fear.” And the first president, George Washington, said “Government is not reason, it is force.” I think they knew what they were talking about.

Now fast-forward to modern times. Whenever the government wants something, it scares us. During the civil war, Lincoln tried civilians in this state where no battles occured, by military tribunal. After he died the supreme court invalidated everything the military tribunals did. During the first world war, the Wilson administration locked up 2000 people called anarchists – same thing as enemy combatants. No trial, no charge, just jail for the duration of the war. In world war II, FDR locked up 150,000 Japanese Americans, people born in the United States, who got no trial and had no charges, and when the war was over were given $25 and told to go home.

Today we have federal agents. You know I get in arguments with my friends at Fox News, and one of them, I don’t have to tell you who it is, but is truly the most irascible person there. And he said to me, you know you have a problem with Guantanamo Bay, and you have a problem with the Patriot Act, what will you do if I get sent to Guantanamo Bay, will you visit me? And I say, Bill – no, because they’ll probably keep me there as well.

Government likes to say that it’s taking an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the years that I was on the bench, it seemed that every time government lawyers were in my courtroom, if the government was prosecuting someone who was legitimately guilty or whether it was a mistake, or whether somebody was suing the government because government contractors or government doctors, or government workers made a mistake – the government doesn’t come in to the courtroom to enforce the constitution, it comes into the courtroom to evade and avoid it. That, ladies and gentlemen, must be stopped.

This is a great moment in our history. A crowd of this magnitude on a beautiful day, in the boiling sun, in the most middle-American of great middle-American states…comes together not because the president is a democrat, not because his predecessor was a republican, not because a war is just or unjust, not because the Fed is stealing or printing – you’re here because you believe in human freedom.

It is the essence of our existence that we should be free. But remember this: the government hates freedom. It is an obstacle to every one of their designs. Whenever they write laws, whenever they take your tax dollars, whenever they regulate your private behavior, whenever they tell you how to spend your money, whenever they tell you what medicines to take, whenever they tell you what food to eat, whenever they tell you with who you may or must associate, they are taking away your freedom and they love to get away with it. And they cannot get away with it any longer.

In the long history of the world, very few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. This is that moment and you are that generation! Now is the time to defend our freedoms.

Jefferson was no saint but he was the greatest of our American presidents. He believed that the individual was greater than the state. He believed that the states were greater than the federal government. And when he wrote that our rights come from our creator, and that our rights are inalienable, he forever wed the notion of natural rights to the American experience and the American experiment. We must be vigilant about every right that the government wants to take away from us.

You’ve heard the president say, present president and his predecessor, “my first job is to keep you safe.” He’s wrong! His first job is to keep us free. It is his only job to keep us free.

Shortly before he died, Jefferson lamented, that in his view of the world that is was in the natural order of things for government to grow and freedom to be diminished; how ardently he wish that that wouldn’t happen. And in order to prevent it from happening he had a very simple remedy, “When the people fear the government, that is tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty!”

Judge Andrew Napolitano

The Declaration of Independence was approved JULY 4, 1776.

AS WE CELEBRATE THE 4TH OF JULY REMEMBER THESE THINGS:

John Hancock signed first, saying “the price on my head has just
doubled.”

Benjamin Franklin said “We must hang together or most assuredly we
shall hang separately.”

Of the 56 signers:

17 served in the military;

11 had their homes destroyed;

5 were hunted and captured;

Abraham Clark had two sons imprisoned on the British starving ship
Jersey;

John Witherspoon’s son was killed in battle;

Francis Lewis’ wife was inprisoned and died from the harsh treatment;

many, such as Thomas Nelson and Carter Braxton, lost their fortunes;

and 9 died during the War.

When Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be
obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of
the sun, let His kingdom come.”

John Adams said:

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding
generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be
commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion
to God Almighty.”

John Adams continued:

“I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost
to maintain this Declaration…

Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and
glory…

Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we [may
regret] it, which I trust in God we shall not.”

The American Minute .com

Obama’s Plan to Appoint Pay Czar Draws Fire

Well the fascism insanity  continues doesn’t it. A “pay czar” accountable only to the president with no Congressional oversight, we don’t know their salary, they don’t have to report on their spending and that’s the real purpose of “czars” isn’t it, to not be accountable and they’re appointed, not elected by the people. What is happening to “checks and balances”?  In addition, this czar wants to impose “pay caps” not only on businesses that accepted TARP money, but those that didn’t as well, coming to all “public” companies in the financial sector. Where in the Constitution does the executive  branch get this power over the private sector? Can you quote me the Article and section it’s in?

President Obama is expected to offer Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg a government job unlike any other in U.S. history: pay czar.

Obama is creating the position, formally known as special master for compensation, to institute his administration’s guidelines and limits on executive pay for companies that took bailout money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. (And those that didn’t take TARP money I might add.)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made it clear Tuesday the government wants influence in what companies pay their top executives.

“We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry,” he said.

But the top House Republican, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, calls the whole idea of a pay czar “absolute lunacy.”

“I just can’t get over the fact that the American public is going to put up with this because at the end of the day, this is not the government’s business,” he told FOX News.

Other critics of the plan say it is going to hurt already ailing businesses because they won’t be able to woo top management.

“If you keep these kinds of limits on, you’re going to see a talent drain from some of these companies that really need the talent,” said government affairs consultant Peter Peyser of Blank Rome Government Relations.

And business lobbying groups are concerned that other companies that didn’t take any TARP money eventually may have their pay scales regulated, too.

“There is a tendency to over-regulate, and if they do so they will stifle the financial service industry,” said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist with Financial Services Roundtable, which advocates for large financial firms.

But supporters say businesses that took taxpayers dollars should not balk at limits on executive pay.

“They should be thankful that the government stepped in when the private sector would not step in to help their economic viability,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.(yeah, that’s why a lot of the companies tried to immediately give the money back and the gov’t wouldn’t let them.)

Maloney said she doesn’t think the pay czar would regulate private businesses that didn’t take bailout funds. But that’s some of the mystery here. No one is really sure how far this position will go. The new guidelines are expected to be announced Wednesday.

FoxNews.com

GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America

Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.

The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!

In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending. Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.

Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.

Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.

Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck. For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.

DailyPaul.com

GOOD FOR THEM: Graduating students defy ACLU

Good for them……excercising their 1st amendment rights against the bullies at the ACLU, because there is no “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,……”

George Washington, “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

Justice William O. Douglas, once wrote that forbidding public worship discriminates in favor of “those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

---

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Graduating students defy ACLU

Seniors stand and recite Lord’s Prayer

---

Posted: June 05, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Principal Frank Lay

Members of the graduating class of 2009 at Florida’s Pace High School have expressed their objections to ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord’s Prayer.

The incident happened just days ago, but has been virtually ignored by media outlets throughout the region, according to officials with Liberty Counsel, a legal team representing Principal Frank Lay and teacher Michelle Winkler in their battle with the ACLU, which had complained that faculty and teachers were talking about their beliefs.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel.

Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

“Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith,” the organization reported.

“Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,” said Staver, who also is dean of Liberty University School of Law. “The students at Pace High School refused to remain silent and were not about to be bullied by the ACLU.

“Schools are not religion-free zones, and any attempt to make them so is unconstitutional,” he said.

Liberty Counsel has been representing Lay and Winkler against ACLU demands that all statements of faith be censored. The law firm also had volunteered to represent the school board in the dispute, but board members chose their own outside counsel.

The ACLU had sued the school six months earlier and as part of the discussions over that dispute, the school’s separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that “essentially bans all Santa Rose County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities,” Liberty Counsel’s report said.

The ACLU had alleged that during a dinner event at the school, Lay had asked the athletic director to bless the meal. In a second incident, the ACLU claimed Winkler’s husband, who is not a school board employee, offered a prayer at an awards ceremony.

As preparations were being made for the 2009 graduation, the ACLU demanded the school censor students from offering prayers or saying anything religious. As a result, two student leaders traditionally allowed by the school to address their graduation were banned from doing so.

Staver said class members, furious with the ACLU for hijacking their free speech rights, assembled the plan on their own. As soon as Lay asked everyone to be seated for the ceremony, the graduating seniors remained standing and recited the Lord’s Prayer.

A local Fox station had reported that students enjoyed a baccalaureate at a nearby church before the graduation. Class President Kaitlynn Floyd said then class members were grateful for the opportunity to attend that event.

Staver reported concerns over the application of an agreement reached by the school board to students’ rights remains an unresolved issue.

WorldNetDaily.com

From Pravda…News for the New Comrades!

We’re not smart enough to figure it out, our news broadcasters and writers are not telling it, and they wonder why folks are seeking out the truth on the internet while it lasts.

Steve

American capitalism gone with a whimper
27.04.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds were conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

 

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonald’s burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blinds the foolish.

 

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more than happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

 

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

 

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more than ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beaten our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

 

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.

 

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

 

So it should be no surprise that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less than two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

 

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

 

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democrat controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

 

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

 

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

 

Stanislav Mishin

Obama Putting U.S. sovereignty on swap block?

U.S. sovereignty on swap block?

Obama negotiating for seat for U.S. on U.N. commission

---

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Obama administration is preparing to swap U.S. sovereignty for a higher level of U.S. presence at the United Nations, a plan that has alarmed officials working to protect the rights of Americans, specifically the parental rights that traditionally have been recognized across the nation’s history.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said, “The move is little more than another attempt at political correctness by an administration frantic for acceptance by the international community.”

Farris also is a dedicated leader behind the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

WND reported just days ago his warning that parental rights in the U.S. already are being diminished.

“The erosion is upon us,” he said then.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, “the Supreme Court declared that ‘the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.’”

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found “the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights.”

Now Farris is alerting to the plan in the Obama White House to try to secure a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body of 47 member states.

However, it has no legal authority and only offers opinions.

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution

 

“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.   <click here

The report from Farris said to secure its seat, the Obama camp has submitted a series of “Commitments and Pledges” declaring its loyalty and “deep commitment” to the U.N.

Farris is familiar with the U.N. and its operations, having proposed the Parental Rights Amendment to prevent the loss of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. through its treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which could be used to prevent parents from spanking their own children or directing their religious training.

“This (Obama) administration is all about photo ops,” said Farris, “and is apparently willing to trade away U.S. sovereignty for a seat on a council which has no legal authority.”

In the April 27 “Commitments” document released by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the international body, the Obama White House pledged its support for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which also makes the U.S. subservient to the international agenda.

If the two cited treaties are adopted, Farris said, they will “not only jeopardize U.S. sovereignty but hasten the end of the traditional American family.

“All U.N. treaties require strict scrutiny,” he cautioned. “The pledge, as written, expresses no such need but, rather, unilaterally commits the U.S. to meet its U.N. treaty obligations. Apparently, for this administration, membership in a U.N. Council with no authority trumps the right of Americans – not the U.N. or any other nation – to make public policy affecting Americans.”

Farris says the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution a description of parental rights as fundamental, would offer help for families.

“Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served,” the draft states. “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving “faster then we thought we would.” .

The website notes if approved, the Convention on the Rights of the Child would supersede “the laws of all 50 states on children and parents.”

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

• A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.

Worldnet Daily.com

Remembering the Good Ole Days

Law vs. Moral Values

By Walter E. Williams
A civilized society’s first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values.

Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct.

The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.

Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults.

When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn’t have child-raising “experts” to tell them that “time out” is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.

To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted “Senior Citizen Seating.” Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.

You might be tempted to charge, “Williams, you’re a prude!” I’d ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled?

Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal’s office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.

During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia’s Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn’t lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs.

Starting in the ‘60s and ‘70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and ‘50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today’s pathology on poverty and discrimination.

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.

CNS News.com