America’s Rating as a Free Country Continues to Plummet

Comments Off on America’s Rating as a Free Country Continues to Plummet

This is a sad article for me to post….we are losing our freedoms folks.

Freedom can be defined in many ways. However, one of the greatest indicators of freedom and liberty is economic freedom. True free-market capitalism is the basis of individual liberty. However, America is no longer a top 5 contender, and we haven’t been for a years. Actually, America is barely even in the top 10. The 2012 Index of Economic Freedom study reports that America continues to fail. Who took first place in economic freedom in 2012? The



answer may surprise you. It was Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s score was an 89.9%, which was a 0.2% increase from 2011. Following Hong Kong in order: Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, Ireland, and finally America at number 10. America’s economic freedom score was a 76.3%, which is down 1.5% from 2011. In fact, America is no longer even rated as a “Free” nation, which is a title granted only to countries with a score above 80%, but a “Mostly Free” nation. Right behind America rated at number 11 is Denmark. Denmark places the highest total tax pressure on its citizens in the world.

This study takes the following 10 benchmarks into account when rating countries: Freedom from corruption, property rights, individual fiscal freedom, restrained government spending, monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, trade freedom, investment freedom, and financial freedom. As mentioned earlier, economic freedom is more vast than it may sound on the surface. It includes all of the above benchmarks, which affect our everyday lives. Money is not the root of all evil; however it is at the root of our lives and if we are not economically free one must ask themselves if our freedom simply a fallacy. There are 9 other countries more economically free than America and our rating is dropping drastically. In 2010, America was rated number 8.  With the numbers trending down and all of the benchmarks trending towards negative values America’s rating should not be expected to improve when the 2013 ratings are released.

There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty. -Margaret Thatcher

Read article

Top 12 Reasons to Vote for a Democrat

Comments Off on Top 12 Reasons to Vote for a Democrat

This one is funny and sooo true at the same time!!!

When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted for a Democrat, give them this list.

1. I voted for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

2. I voted for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.


3. I voted for a Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.

5. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years because of Global Warming if I don’t start driving a Prius or a Chevy Volt.

6. I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted for a Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill for our own because it might upset some useless endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.

11. I voted for a Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE.”

12. I voted for a Democrat because my head is so firmly buried in the sand that it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Political Outcast

Chief Justice Was Smart..BREAKING NEWS!


Did John Roberts KNOW this would happen? If so, he may have pulled the smartest coup in modern times…from the Manchester Examiner…

Breaking News

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) may now be invalid because the Supreme Court ruled that it relies on a tax for implementation.

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase – not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.

Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law.

US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare (Raises Taxes) and Empowers the President Even More


More liberty lost this morning, with this bizare ruling today and earlier this week with striking down most of the Arizona Immigration Law the Supreme Court has empowered the office of the President even more……thank you SCOTUS for disregarding the Constituton as the Founding Fathers meant it to be and tipping the checks and balances in the favor of the executive brance contrary to the intended separation of powers in the Constitution. The American people were against this mandate (56%) and bill on the weekend it was voted in and in a poll taken this week were (60%) against it still. Yet the Supreme Court rewrites history again. For those that like this ruling today, just remember that now Congress can pass a law to make you do something and the next time it may be something you don’t like.

Here’s what one other blogger said:

So, the health care debate comes down to this: the Federal government, our Lord and Master can do anything it wants to us as “free” individuals, despite our God given unalienable rights. It’s not about liberty, it’s about finding a justifiable rationale.

Well, they can’t do that which is an unconscionable assault on liberty under the Commerce clause, nor can an unconscionable assault on liberty be justified under the Necessary and Proper clause, but in the name of Taxation, there are no limits to the Federal government’s power to harpoon you. And this from John Roberts?

In a victory for the New Deal bastardization of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can mandate at gunpoint that Americans buy monopolized health care insurance.

“The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory,” reports USAToday.

In order to avoid arguments that the law is a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Court ruled that the requirement is a tax.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who held the court’s swing vote, dissented. Reading from the bench, Kennedy said he and three conservative justices believe “the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

Polls conducted prior to the landmark vote indicate most Americans do not favor the law.

Today’s ruling is important because it is the first time in history that the federal government has required citizens enter into contract with private corporations to buy a product or service. It also represents one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in American history.

“The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,” writes Ron Paul. “This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.”

“The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.”

continue reading

Dems vow to Legislate against SCOTUS Decision

Comments Off on Dems vow to Legislate against SCOTUS Decision

Boy, some folks need to read up on the rules. Constitutional Rules. If SCOTUS rules that Arizona’s law is constitutional, and then congress does this, it would be an act of defiance of the final arbiter of the constitution. Do you think that falls in the realm of the definition of failure of their oath to the Constitution and sedition against the 10th Amendment? Whether it could be called Treason is shaky, but certainly within the realm of abuse of elected powers. From the Washington Post


Democrats plan to force vote on Arizona immigration law if it’s upheld by court

By Rosalind S. Helderman, Published: April 23

Senate Democrats are making plans to force a floor vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona’s controversial immigration statute if the Supreme Court upholds the law this summer.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will announce the fallback legislation at a hearing on the Arizona law Tuesday, a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a suit to determine whether Arizona had the authority to enact the 2010 state crackdown.

The legislation would have little chance of passing in a stalemated Senate or being approved by a GOP-held House, but it would allow Democrats to push their electoral advantage with Latino voters just as the presidential campaign heats up in July.

The plan is to allow Democrats a route to express displeasure with the Arizona law if the court allows it to stand, and it would force Republicans to take a clear position on the law during the height of the presidential campaign. The immigration law is deeply unpopular with Latino voters, who could be key to the outcome of the presidential and Senate races in several Western states.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration, Schumer will hold a hearing Tuesday on the impact of the Arizona law. The state senator who wrote the statute will appear, as will opponents of the law. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), the law’s chief proponent, was invited but declined to attend.

The Obama administration sued to prevent implementation of the Arizona law — which included a provision requiring local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is in the country illegally — arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration laws and that the state’s statute interferes with federal efforts.

In response, federal courts have blocked key portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state has the power to pass the legislation because Washington has failed to deal with the illegal-immigration problem.

Schumer said he believes the court will side with the federal government. But if it does not, he will propose a new law requiring federal approval for new state immigration laws, essentially blocking implementation of Arizona’s law and others like it that have passed elsewhere.

The legislation would also bar states from imposing their own penalties, beyond federal sanctions, for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Some business leaders have said they are concerned new state rules on hiring could lead to a patchwork of conflicting employment rules across the country.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he opposes the federal lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to block the Arizona law.

But he has been working to improve his popularity with Hispanic voters, who according to the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll favor President Obama by more than 40 points.

Those numbers come after Romney took a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary season, opposing the Dream Act — which would provide a path to citizenship for some young adults brought to the country illegally by their parents as children — and indicating that he supports making life in America tough enough for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport.”

His campaign has protested that his February comments describing the Arizona law as a “model” for the nation were misinterpreted.

Campaign officials have insisted that Romney meant only a provision requiring employers to use an electronic database to check the immigration status of potential employees. They have said recently that he believes states should be able to decide whether Arizona-style laws are appropriate.

A congressional debate on the issue would probably force Romney to take a more definitive position on Arizona’s statute and the broader issue of the proper balance of state and federal power in immigration enforcement.

At the same time, Republicans would surely cite the proposed legislation as another example of Democratic attempts to expand the federal government and squash state power.

“It’s a calculated decision,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School who has been following the case. “It would keep focus on an issue, but in a way that may or may not be a winner for Democrats.”

What’s at Stake as Obama Tries to Intimidate the Supreme Court

Comments Off on What’s at Stake as Obama Tries to Intimidate the Supreme Court

This article is long, but very informative on the history of things like this Obama did. The part about what FDR attempted with threatening the Supreme Court is informative if your not familiar with it.

arrogant obama

This article appeared in Forbes on April 8, 2012.

President Obama’s recent attack on the Supreme Court seems to be unprecedented.

There have been cases where a president was upset about an opinion after it was issued, but not cases where a president tried to influence a decision in the making. That might be comparable to jury tampering — usually treated as a felony.

The vehemence of Obama’s attacks makes one wonder whether an ally on the Supreme Court has leaked a preliminary, confidential vote against Obamacare.

By trying to bully another branch of our government, Obama appears to be challenging our federal system itself, based as it is on a separation of powers.

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves how hard people struggled and how much they sacrificed to develop this, the most successful political system ever devised for limiting government power and protecting liberty.

The most dramatic struggles took place in England, but the fullest development occurred here in America.

The whole point of the Supreme Court is judicial review — to determine whether the legislative or executive branches exceeded limitations on power specified by the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “Limitations of this kind can be preserved in no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare [as void] all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution.”

Madison shared this view: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null and void.”

Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) confirmed the principle of judicial review. It was also reported to be the first time in the Western world that judges overturned a law because it violated a Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson won the presidential election that was decided on February 17, 1801, but he wasn’t scheduled to take office until March 4, 1801. During the interim, Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 that increased the number of circuit courts and judges. Until the last minute of his term, President John Adams appointed men who became known as “Midnight Judges.” Jefferson was outraged. As soon as he was inaugurated, he began terminating many of the judges. In 1803, Federalist Samuel Chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, denounced Jefferson’s efforts. The following year, Jefferson’s allies in the House voted eight articles of impeachment, generally charging Chase with biased opinions, but the Senate voted to acquit him. Chase was the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. Since then, justices have been more careful to avoid the appearance of bias, and the prevailing view has been that impeachment is justified by legal or ethical misconduct rather than opinions.

The closest case to Obama’s situation is probably President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s effort to pack the Supreme Court.

In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act that was a hallmark of the New Deal. It empowered the president to issue executive orders authorizing industrial cartels for fixing prices, wages and output, a variety of economic fascism fashionable at the time. The following year, by a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act that provided the basis for Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace’s program to create food shortages in an effort to raise farm prices, by plowing under some 10 million acres of farmland and destroying some 6 million pigs. This law made food more costly for the three-quarters of Americans who weren’t farmers.

FDR was furious. He complained that the justices were dragging Americans back to “horse and buggy days.” He fumed, “Are the people of this country going to decide that their Federal Government shall in the future have no right under any implied power or any court-approved power to enter into a national economic problem?”

FDR didn’t take action against the Supreme Court until after his overwhelming win in the 1936 presidential election (the electoral college vote was 523 to 8). Then FDR urged Congress to take up Supreme Court “reform.” This meant giving him the power to appoint one new judge for each judge who didn’t retire at a legally mandated age — 70. There wasn’t a law requiring Supreme Court justices to retire at a particular age. If Congress passed this reform, FDR figured he could appoint a half-dozen justices to his liking, and there wouldn’t be any more successful legal challenges to the New Deal. FDR’s court reform was broadened to include lower courts with three-judge panels, because more than a hundred lower court federal judges had ruled that various New Deal measures were unconstitutional.

FDR unveiled his court reform on February 5, 1937. He started selling it in his “Fireside Chat” of March 9, 1937. Among other things, he suggested the justices were so decrepit, they couldn’t fulfill their responsibilities. FDR claimed that his aim was “to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”

Despite FDR’s popularity, most people didn’t seem to believe him. There was widespread skepticism about FDR’s claim that he was only trying to help aged justices do their job. Admirers of 81-year-old liberal justice Louis Brandeis were offended. Soon increasing numbers of New Deal supporters were expressing opposition to FDR’s plan that was derided as “court packing.” Historian Frank Freidel observed, “Indignant though many of them had been over the anti-New Deal decisions, a considerable part of the liberals viewed the court as the bulwark of American liberties. At that very time, when European dictators were stripping people of their liberties, they were especially sensitive to the danger that the United States might suffer the same malign fate.” Americans were concerned that court reform would set a precedent that might be exploited by an unscrupulous successor.

On Capitol Hill, many members of the president’s own party became alarmed by his over-reach. For them, the issue wasn’t the future of the New Deal, which is what FDR was thinking about. The issue was the importance of defending the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution. Virginia’s Democratic Senator Carter Glass denounced FDR’s court packing scheme as “a proposition which appears to me utterly destitute of moral sensibility and without parallel since the foundation of the Republic.” Democrats Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary and Arthur Vandenberg.

Senator Wheeler thundered: “Create now a political Court to echo the ideas of the executive and you have created a weapon which in the hands of another President could… cut down those guarantees of liberty written by the blood of your forefathers.”

The Senate had the votes to defeat FDR’s plan. “Presidential pride was sorely scorched,” recalled James Farley, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “For weeks and months afterward I found him fuming against the members of his own party he blamed for his bucket of bitterness.”

Since President Obama seemed quite agitated about the possibility that the Supreme Court might be focusing on the constitutionality of Obamacare, one wonders whether he might be more comfortable with the situation in Venezuela where President Hugo Chavez has more power. Chavez ordered the arrest of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni after she made a decision he didn’t like. Chavez reportedly had called for Afiuni to be given a 30-year prison sentence.

In Pakistan, in 2007, President Pervez Musharraf arranged to have himself elected to a second term, but the Supreme Court determined that there were irregularities. Musharraf ordered Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to resign and suspended the inconvenient Constitution.

The most disruptive attacks on an independent judiciary involve large-scale firings.

Continue reading

Federal Judge’s Request of Obama’s Comments About Supreme Court a Disgrace

Comments Off on Federal Judge’s Request of Obama’s Comments About Supreme Court a Disgrace

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Older Entries