It is a well know fact that once elected politicians almost immediately forget the very promises that got them elected in the first place.  This administration has been no different.  Of course they have kept some of the promises that they made, but those are only the ones that serve their purposes and drive their agendas. 

What promises have they kept?  Well that is easy, we were promised justice for those held in Guantanamo Bay, they have certainly delivered on that.  In fact those who are now held at Gitmo can rest assured that they will have far more legal rights then the very soldiers that captured them on a foreign battlefield.  You see the Obama administration promised them justice and they shall have it in the form of the American civil legal system, something actually denied our brave men and women who serve and die for this nation.  No, military tribunals or courts martial was not good enough for the illegal enemy combatants who fought our soldiers overseas.  They must have far superior legal rights, attorneys paid for by the American tax payer and access to all the case law, precedence and jurisprudence afforded each and every American citizen.  Who cares that our brave servicemen and women do not get this luxury, those terrorist suspects certainly deserve it.  You see when you become a soldier, airman, sailor or marine in service to this nation, you not only pledge your life to the defense of this nation and her Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, you also waive your right to the very guarantees provided by the document that your are duty bound to protect.  You swear to surrender your rights and be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  However, now those who fight against American troops on the field of battle do not have to worry about such details.  Now they can have the same rights as any other American criminal, including the right for some sleaze ball attorney to find a legal loop hole to let them go free, because some bureaucratic bookworm did not fill out some piece of paperwork in triplicate or some soldier was insensitive to the cultural needs of a detainee.  Not to mention the fact that in their utmost lack of wisdom, the Federal government has decided to try some of these terrorist just miles from the scene of the ‘crime’.  I be New Yorkers will welcome any verdict that comes out of these trials that they will be forced to host, even if it is an innocent one, so long as the rights of these terrorist who killed 3,000 innocent New York citizen were not violated in even the slightest way.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is one promise that the Obama administration has kept: Far superior legal rights and proceedings for terrorist suspects than is afforded our very own soldiers, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You want an American trial for these jihadist?  Well, I agree.  Here is my idea.  Dress them in bright pink jumpsuits, pick a day and time to release them in Hoboken or Queens, broadcast the location and time of release to everyone in the Tri-State area, then let them go.  If they can make it out of the city alive, they are free to go.  It is a hell of a better fate than the three thousand innocent civilians that burned to death or were buried alive in the rubble so many years ago.

What other promises have they kept?  Ah, yes, healthcare.  They told us they would ram a Federally controlled healthcare plan down our throats whether we liked it or not.  Almost a year later they are close to succeeding, but here is where some of the broken promises come in.  Now I am not talking about the one we would have plainly been fools to believe, like that he would not have any activist or lobbyist as his advisors or that he would not sign any bill with a single piece of pork attached to it.  No, I am talking about those that he repeated over and over again that gave all the naive liberal votes hope that we would see the shining light of democracy from the unprecedented transparency promised by the Obama administration.  You see he knew this healthcare thing was poisonous.  He knew that the American people would not willingly sacrifice their choices, their rights and their control over their medical decisions if they really knew what was being planned.  No secrecy would be key to the success of this agenda.  The American people could not really find out what what in this healthcare bill or they would resist, but if he promised us that we would get to see each and every deliberation about this  live on CSPAN it sounded awfully good for the campaign.  Complete transparency, it seems, is just a bit more opaque than we thought.  Where has this CSPAN coverage been?  Why now that people are demanding that he live up to his promises is he hemming and hawing about allowing his bumbling press secretary to blurt out one half-witted excuse after another?  It is funny how those promises that you never meant to keep, come around and bite you in the ass, Mr. President.

On to other promises, how about that unemployment rate?  Hey, I know this one personally.  Both my wife and I had good productive jobs to start off 2009.  Nine months later neither of us did.  So what was this about if we passed the TARP bill, or was it the Omnibus, that we would not go over 8% unemployment?  What about the transparency promised with all of these bailout an stimulus programs?  Oh, sure there was a website created and job loss numbers spewed about, but then we find out that those numbers were complete bullshit.  They included thousands of jobs that had not even started yet and did you know that almost one billion dollars, that is right $920 million of your dollars cannot be adequately accounted for from the funds that were spent in the first six months.  Oh and did you also know that much of this money did not even go to create jobs?  Well that is of the money that has actually been spent of the staggering amounts allocated for these travesties that were voted into law.  That is another thing that apparently was just a flat out lie or just something that this administration does not care much about.  You see, for weeks we were told that we had to act now to avert a crisis.  We had to infuse the economy with these staggering trillions of immediately of face collapse.  Funny, that, because as of today only about 20% of the funds for first $890 billion so called stimulus packages has been spent with another 20% or so in process to be spent within the next six months.  That does not sound like a shot in the arm, but more like a long term prescription plan.  So why the rush if we are going to sit on more than $600 billion dollars until well into 2010?  Why did we have to pass this massive bill in its entirety right then?  Could we not have slowed down and voted to spend the roughly $160 billion dollars that we have so far, then taken our time on the rest?  Hell, now there is even talk of another stimulus package, because the first one was ineffective and the economy has not recovered.  Well no shit, Sherlock.  If $890 billion dollars in funds immediately injected into the American economy was the real answer, then spending $160 billion over six months won’t have the same effect.  That is the difference between a shot and a slow drip IV, not anywhere close to the same thing.

You know there is a question that I always hear thrown around at election time.  Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  It seems that is how we are to judge the effectiveness of our leaders, most pointedly the President.  Well, Mr. President, I am not better off that I was four years ago, nor even two for that matter.  Two years ago, my wife an I both had very profitable jobs in solid industries, hers in the middle of a growing boom.  We were making significant salaries, had good future prospects, good health insurance, large life insurance policies, a healthy stock portfolio and plenty of money in the savings.  Yeah, uhm, we don’t have any of that anymore.  My wife has spent the last nine months unemployed because her industry freaked out about Cap and Trade and I joined her for two months as the economy wore into my job as well.  Hell I even worked for a government contract regulatory lab.  People HAVE to have done what we did, but it still cut into our business enough that I am not even sure my former company will survive after being in business since it was founded in 1976.  No, Mr. President I am far, far worse off now than I was before you were elected and there are many Americans who are right there with me.  You have had a year and all your policies have done is make worse an already bad situation.  You have three years left.  The clock is ticking.

Since I am in an analogy mood, this evening I will give you another one.   Let’s say you take your car into a mechanic and he charges you $890 dollars to fix your engine.  A week later you have to take it back to him for the very same problem.  This is when you discover that he only spend $160 dollars to fix your car the last time, hides the invoice when you try to look at it, can’t explain to you what some of it was spent on and tells you that it should be running better because the flux capacitor is now in synch with the primary phase coil, but he promises that if you will give him another $1,000 he will make sure it runs right.  Now, ask yourself, how likely would you be to let this man work on your car again, provided you do not punch him out straight away and take your money back forcibly.  Now ask yourself how likely would you be to let him recommend a doctor for you and your family, or decide what medical procedure you need or do not need?  Scary thought isn’t it?

Well, this is a disturbing pick for a Supreme Court Justice. President Barack Obama announced today that he is nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor has served in the Southern District court of New York since 1991 until she was elevated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 by then President Clinton. In most instances, this level of experience would certainly qualify someone for a nomination to the Supreme Court, but it is her very decisions and opinions expressed during this service that make here unqualified in my opinion.

Allow me to preface this by stating that I believe a nomination by the President to any position should receive an up or down vote by the Senate for confirmation based upon the candidate’s qualification to hold the position and not based upon the political agenda of the candidate or the Senate. Nominees for the Supreme Court should not be asked how they would vote on this issue or that in an attempt to flesh out their political tendencies, because those tendencies should not come into play when they are judging the law. It is insane to ask a Justice nominee of any level to pre-judge an issue without the benefit of hearing all the sided before making that decision. Any nominee, who would willingly give such an answer, obviously admitting prejudice or preconceived convictions on an issue, should be immediately disqualified. However, past decisions and behaviors are well within the scope of the approval process.

Her name was immediately familiar to me when she was announced, but with a modest effort of research, I find myself with serious questions about this candidate’s qualifications to sit on the highest court in the nation. One such glaring case that calls to question the impartiality of Sotomayor is currently awaiting review by the very court to which she has been nominated.

In 2003, New Haven, Connecticut issued a civil service examination to its firefighters to fill eight vacant lieutenant and seven vacant captain positions within in the department. The test material was known to all those tested and was administered to 77 employees who desired a chance to fill the fifteen vacant positions. When the test was completed and scored, it returned almost all white candidates to fill the promotion positions. None of the nineteen black firefighters who took the test made the cut. The City of New Haven made the decision not to certify the results of the test and not to give the promotions that were promised because they felt the test was somehow racially biased toward the white candidates. How this could have been possible is not clear since the testing material was available to all candidates who took the test. The white firefighters sued the city for racial discrimination, claiming that their successful scores had been disregarded based solely on the color of their skin.

To me this is a clear cut case. Even with the New Haven claiming that the test itself was racially biased, it matters not. How can a test asking questions about firefighting, an activity that is performed by men and women of all races, be racially biased towards ‘white’ firefighters? Is it the fault of the successful, high scoring candidates that the city presented a bad test? Should they be punished for the quality of a test that they were asked to take? The test was announced to all, the materials made available to all and it was presented that the top scoring candidates would receive promotion based on their scores. When the scores did not reflect what the city determined was ‘racially appropriate’ they changed the rules. In my opinion this is a clear cut case of discrimination based upon racial factors only. The firefighters who scored the highest on the test for promotion were denied those promotion because the color of their skin. The city was wrong.

This case came before Judge Sotomayor and she denied the appeal, siding with the lower court decision against the firefighters. However, this is not the real issue with her involvement in this case. The 2nd Circuit Court’s decision was unusually quick and their opinion added basically nothing to support their decision or uphold the decision of the lower court. Fellow 2nd Circuit Court Judge Jose Cabranes went so far as to claim that, “Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

This drew the attention of the Supreme Court who heard the issue in April with most analysts agreeing that the City of New Haven did not fare well. If this is overturned, it will be the fifth such decision of Sotomayor’s that the Supreme Court has reversed often citing improper application or misinterpretation of the law.

If this were the only example of such judicial irresponsibility, it would not cause as much alarm, but it seems that Judge Sotomayor is incapable of separating her personal racially tinted opinions from affecting her decisions. Allow her own words to illustrate my opinion, from her 2001 UC Berkeley speech: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Uhm, what? Well that is a purely racist statement in itself. If I said that I would hope that a well educated white man would make better decisions than (insert any other race / sex combination here), I would be chastised as the ultimate sheet wearing racist on the spot. There were plenty more examples that re-enforced my belief that this woman is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

A Justice is supposed to apply the law impartially, fairly and without preconceived opinions about the issues before it. A Supreme Court Justice is ultimately responsible to the Constitution of the United States and is supposed to uphold it regardless of their personal beliefs, political tendencies or opinions. They are NOT meant to reinterpret the law, massage the law or change the law. They are meant to uphold it. It appears that Sonia Sotomayor is simply incapable of doing this.

In the past few weeks we have seen the federal government expand its power by leaps and bounds. Through policy implementation and rapid passage of nebulous massive spending bills that offered no transparency before their passage, the government has taken strides to control aspects of the free market, healthcare and the energy industries in this nation, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Contained in the massive bailout package was several billion dollars allocated to go to the states. However, along with this money were attached restrictions and federally mandated changes to state laws that many state governors viewed as having long term detrimental effects on their states. In what some in Congress are calling acts of defiance, several state governors have rejected these Federal funds outright or done as our state has and told the Federal government that we would only accept the funds with absolutely no strings attached. In a letter to President Barack Obama, the Governor of Texas Rick Perry stated that even though he has always been strongly opposed to the bailout / stimulus bill, he would ensure that, since Texans send far more in taxes to the Federal government that we take back, the State of Texas would accept the funds allocated to us and “use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers.” In other words, thanks for the money. We will spend it as we see fit. You can read the complete letter here.

Days later Democratic Congressional members began scolding the states as if they were wayward children telling them as Senator Chuck Schumer – D, N.Y. said, the states should take it or leave it. He went on to say that this was all just political maneuvering from state governors with their eyes fixed on the White House, claiming that they were already running for President and needed to stop playing politics. Uhm, Chucky… I think not.

It seems that many of the states are quite serious about the matter. As many as twenty-one states have already passed or are in the process of passing laws affirming their sovereign rights underneath the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The State of Texas has now followed suit. Allow me to introduce you to HCR 50 and HCR 66 now coursing through the legislative body in the State of Texas.

HCR 50:

Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

HCR 66:

Memorializing Congress in defense of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirming the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, executive orders, and judicial orders, and asserting that any act, executive order, or judicial order that assumes a power not delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution and which diminishes the liberty of any state or citizen shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution.

Texas is standing her ground, as are so many other states, and affirming their rights to govern themselves as they see fit. This is a core founding principle of this nation and was designed by the framers to prevent exactly what we are experiencing today: an overly powerful centralized government exerting it will upon the states.

What this new step means is difficult to say, but it is a clear signal that the states are tiring quickly of Federal interference in their affairs. As Governor Perry pointed out in his letter, Texas has been doing fine even through this economic recession creating nearly 80% of all jobs created nationwide last year. We do not want the Federal government interfering and destroying the solid stable economy we have created in this state. One of the reasons that Texas can manage to weather this storm so well is that, unlike the liberal paradise of California that has been run into the ground by Democrats spending like drunken sailors, Texas by law cannot go into a deficit. We have an emergency fund that we may dip into, though we have not had to do so in years, but once this state runs out of money then that is it. We are done spending.

Measures such as HCR 50 and HCR 66 are designed to allow states like Texas to protect their economies from the destructive fiscal policies enacted by the Federal government. They allow us the freedom to govern as we see fit according to the original intent of the Constitution and the set up a legal means for challenging imposition of Federal laws which infringe upon state’s rights. I think it is about damn time that this happened.

The question then becomes, are we facing a revolution? The answer will be played out over the next few years. I have never been one to be an alarmist, conspiracy theorist nutcase or wildly speculative about the future. I tend to look towards the past for lessons learned and approach things from a more logical and analytical standpoint. However, with recent events unfolding as they have, it is hard not to wonder if the fabric of this nation can hold or whether it will tear itself apart under the strain. These will be very interesting times ahead. I look to the future now with a level of apprehension for my nation that I do not recall ever experiencing before in my life and I fear for the future of my children should we fail to restore this nation back to her founding principles.

Hat tip to JR over at A Keyboard and a .45 for calling my attention to the actual bills.  I knew Texas had something in the works, but I had not had a chance to find the actual legislation yet.

More to come…

Does anyone remember Nancy Pelosi’s promise of two years ago to bring civility and integrity to Washington? Well, Nancy, thanks for nothing. During the recent elections, the Minnesota Senate seat was challenged by radical leftist Al Franken, most well known for his failed comedic and failed left-wing radio career which helped to send Air America’s rating and funding spiraling into the abyss.

Apparently, since he was a complete failure as a radio personality, he decided to run for public office where complete failure is rewarded. It was a close election in Minnesota, prompting a recount and demonstrating just how dangerous an ignorant and uninformed voting public can be. Franken started down by 215 votes when the recount began and insisted that every Minnesotan’s vote be counted. All well and good I suppose, until more and more strange things began occurring in the Gopher State. The recounting process ended this weekend and it would seem that Franken gained an amazing 440 votes in the exchange and now leads by 225 over Senator Norm Coleman.

I say it would seem that way because there are some glaring irregularities that simply have to be addressed. It appears now that more that 25 Minnesota precincts have more votes being counted after the recount than the number of people that actually signed in to vote in them. It also appears that instead of creating a clearly marked ‘duplicate’ ballot when election officials found a damaged one, they actually created an unmarked additional ballot thereby counting that vote twice. I guess they misunderstood the instructions and thought they should duplicate the vote and not the actual ballot. Also, it is highly odd now that Al Franken gained a significant lead within the past few days, that he all of a sudden wants to immediately end the process and declare himself winner. What happened to counting every vote Mr. Franken? I guess you assume every vote WAS counted if your people were actually counting some of them twice, eh? Not to mention that it seems that every single election board ruling either generated additional votes or prevented votes from being lost for Franken while costing or preventing Coleman from gaining votes. The election officials even reversed their own logic at times using the recounts and at others using the election night tallies, whichever benefited Franken more.

Now it appears that the Senate has ordered Senator Coleman’s office to immediately be closed and Chucky ‘Schmucky’ Schumer is claiming that they should seat Franken immediately. Before the Coleman campaign has a chance to challenge this fraud, Chuck? I see, it is like running the next play before your opponent can throw his red challenge flag in football. When you know you have gotten away with something you should not have, you better get that ball snapped fast so the other team does not have a chance to see the truth. What happened to the integrity and civility? What happened to making sure that every vote counts (oh, and only counts once)?

Well, despite what some my think, we here in Texas are a smart lot and we do not abide any of this thievery. Senator John Cornyn has already warned the Senate that the Republicans will challenge Franken’s appointment to the point of filibuster if they do not allow the legal process at the State level to complete before attempting to seat anyone in that seat.
This is the change you can believe in: theft, corruption, lies. Welcome back to a Democrat majority, I hope we survive long enough to correct this horrible, horrible mistake we have made.

Apparently, a Pennsylvania attorney has filed a Constitutional challenge against the validity of the Barack Obama candidacy on the basis that he is not a natural born citizen as is required under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Philip J. Berg, Esquire, a long time Democrat, has challenged that Barack Obama was never a natural born citizen of the United States of America and is at best and naturalized citizen or in a worse case a current illegal alien residence of this country. An admission was filed against Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee asserting the illegal status of Barack Obama. Apparently no response was filed to this admission, effectively admitting these charges are accurate as far as the court is concerned.

I will offer just a snippet of the actual website that details this case. I suggest you visit the site itself and look at the filings. This could be interesting. If these charges are valid, Barack Obama cannot serve as the President of the United States and this could present a constitutional crisis if he is elected and especially if he is inaugurated. I will not comment on the validity of these charges, as I do not have enough legal expertise to know for sure, but there are some compelling charges that seem not to have been adequately answered or refuted by the Obama campaign or the DNC.

Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit – Obama’s “Not” Qualified to be President

Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President

For Immediate Release: – 10/21/08 – Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

(Continued…)

Holy shit! I am sorry; I cannot put it any other way. What has this country come to?

The following video is some to the most disturbing footage I have seen in a while. It shows the abuse and eventual arrest of Asa Eslocker by the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department and the Denver Police Department. Eslocker was taking pictures of Democrat Senators and financial donors leaving a private meeting at Brown Palace Hotel. The video shows Eslocker standing on a public sidewalk when a Boulder County Sheriff’s Office approaches him and tells him to leave. Eslocker tells him to hold on and the officer tells him that he will not hold on. At this time, the officer grabs Eslocker and forces him off of the sidewalk onto a busy public street. As Eslocker attempts to retreat, the officer continues to push Eslocker into a street with moving traffic while the reporter continuously asks him not to push him. Eslocker ask the officer why he is being forced off of a public sidewalk into oncoming traffic, but he simply continues to force Eslocker into harm’s way. The officer shows absolutely no concern for the safety of the ABC reporter and continues to force him farther and farther into the street. It is plain to see that Eslocker is seriously concerned for his safety as he continues to look side to side watching for oncoming cars.

The video then cuts to a scene where officers of the Denver Police Department, lead by a cigar smoking Corporal, arrest Eslocker at the location where the Boulder County Sherriff’s officer forced him to go. The Corporal grabs the reporter by the throat when he approaches and then twists his arm behind his back so that he may handcuff him. Another police office, if these men deserver to call themselves that, forces Eslocker’s camera crew to once again move from a public sidewalk and instructs them to turn off their camera. All this for a reporter who dared take pictures from a public place of Democrats meeting with their political fat cats.

Watch the video for yourself:

Check out the ABC News story for further details, ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors.

I normally have the highest respect for law enforcement but this is insane. These officers were acting unlawfully and without regard to the safety of Elocker. Is this the change that Obama keeps promising? First, he attempts to use the law enforcement arm of the Federal government to silence political opponents by requesting that Justice Department officials force stations to stop airing an ad linking him to William Ayres paid for by the non-profit organization American Issues Project. Now we get to see how Democrats handle individual civil liberties and freedom of the press.

Take a moment to seriously understand what happened here. A reporter, standing on a public sidewalk, was assaulted by a police officer who placed his life in jeopardy by forcing him into traffic and then arrested. What crime did this man commit? He was trying to investigate the VIPs who donate money to the Democrat Party. A reporter, trying to investigate public officials from a public place had his rights violated and life punt in jeopardy by officials doing the bidding of whom? The people? I think not. How was what these officers did in the interest of public safety in any way? Who are they protecting, the people or the politicians? The creed to protect and server is supposed to be made to us, the people, you assholes not to the politician.

Welcome to the Obama Nation, a police state where freedoms are trampled upon to protect the secrets of those in power. This is a preview of a nation which oppresses political opponents through the strength of the government and arrests those who threaten to expose them.

I hope ABC sues the City of Denver and Boulder County for violating the freedom of press rights guaranteed to them and I hope Asa Eslocker sues the living shit out of them for violations of his civil rights, assault and unlawful imprisonment. I wonder if the ACLU will jump to his defense for these obvious civil rights violations?

This is what we have to look forward to, folks.

Apparently this is what we have to look forward to. If we continue to allow political correctness to dominate the landscape of our free speech, we will eventually become a state where no one can say anything that may offend anyone else or they will face criminal charges.

Just look at the example our British allies are setting for us to follow:

The Guardian, UK
Tuesday May 20, 2008

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

(Read More…)

Ah, so now you can apparently go to jail for speaking the truth in England.

We can clearly see the effect of this moronic notion of political correctness in the current political campaign in this country. Within just the past few days Barrack Obama’s wife has come under fire for comments she has made on the campaign trail. What was the Obama camp’s response to the lashing she has been taking from some in the media?

“Should I be the nominee, they can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable — the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.” Senator Barrack Obama, Good Morning America, May 21, 2008.

No, Senator, I think not. Your wife is fair game. She injected herself into the political foray that has become your campaign and she has to take the punches that are associated with her choice to do so. Had she never entered the political landscape, then your argument might hold some weight, but she cast aside her immunity when she opened her mouth in public to campaign for you.

Further examples of oppression in the name of political correctness surround us everywhere. In California it is now against the law to speak ill of homosexuality if you do so where a homosexual person of a state educator might hear you. They have falsified text books to remove the biological fact that we are born men and women so as not to offend anyone. They have gone so far as to remove gender specific restrictions from all events, such as Prom King and Queen, and they have even done so for the restrooms in the public schools. That is right, you may now go into the restroom of the sex that you gender identify with not just the gender that you actually fraking are! Had I tried a stunt like that when I was in High School, I would have probably been suspended or worse. At the very least I would have been tossed out of the girls restroom on my ear and spent a great deal of time explaining to the principal, my coaches and my parents, exactly what the hell I thought I was doing.

This political correct bullshit that we are being forced to endure is destroying the freedoms that we are supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution. We actually do have the freedom of our speech, not some analogous stretched version of speech that includes urine submerged crosses, faked self abortion videos and pornography bordering on the perceived inclusion of children as some Supreme Court Justices would argue, but real free speech of our conscious, opinion, beliefs and ideas. We have the right to call Scientology the cult that it is, or at least we have that right for the time being.

Senator Barrack Obama stood before a huge crowd a few days ago and proclaimed to the nation that we could no longer keep our homes at the temperatures we wanted them at, eat however much food we wanted to eat and continue to drive our SUVs while we expect other countries to just deal with it. He then added, “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

Excuse me? Who the frak are you to tell me what I can set the temperature in my home to? It’s my home you worthless communist piece of crap. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can eat? It is my life, my body and my fraking money paying for the food. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can drive when I have three children and food to haul from the grocery store so that I can eat too much in my 72 degree home?

What is next? Will you, Furor Obama, tell me that I cannot say these things? Will you tell me that I cannot disagree with you because you are acting on behalf of the environment, or the children or the starving puppies in Uganda? Frak you Barrack Obama and frak this political correctness that we are being strangled with.

There are many aspects of liberalism that are confusing and contradictory by nature. Two of these areas include the way in which they deal with the rights granted to citizens under the first ten amendments of the constitution and their claims of support for individual freedoms and their acts of supporting a large, centralized government. Both of these areas of modern liberal philosophy are riddled with contradiction and attempts to selectively adhere to the intent of the framers.

5. Some aspects of the bill of rights meant more than they say and other parts do not mean at all what they say.

When discussing rights with a liberal, it is often impossible to get them to agree on one simple thing: should we follow what the constitution says, or not? The Bill of Rights was place outside the main body of the Constitution of the United States of America for a very specific purpose. The main rights and duties of the government and its specific branches were defined in the document itself, but the Bill of Rights was included to limit those rights and protect the rights of the people and the states. In essence the first ten amendments are an early restraining order against the federal government.

What is shocking about liberal attitudes toward the bill of rights is the malleability with which they argue them. They believe that the freedom of speech can be expanded to cover a plethora of activities, including a cross submerged in urine and the burning of the flag. However, they also argue that, even though the Second Amendment clearly defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms in very concise text, it really did not mean that you have the right to own a gun. They will enumerate and expand the clauses of the Bill of Rights that support their opinions and disregard those that stand against them. They would almost have you believe that the idea of ‘separation of church and state’ was clearly defined in the constitution and intended on the removal of all religious elements from government entirely, even though this is far from the truth. Liberals equate the establishment clause to mean that there can be not religion anywhere in government and that the two can never be intertwined, even though our founding documents clearly show this not to be the intent by their inclusion of religious elements themselves. They fail to see that the intent was to have a country which respected not only one, but all religions. The establishment clause was meant to ensure that there would never be an official, state sponsored religion forced upon everyone. It was never intended to separate religion from guiding the government or protect the government from religion. It was intended to prevent the government from controlling religion and protect religion from the government. The exact opposite of what liberals assume.

The framers intended for the rights of the individual to be free from control of the federal government and specifically stated that other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution still existed independent of the document. They intended to give the power to the people in deciding what their rights were and never to the government. Today our society is held captive by the decisions of the federal courts. Rights are created and destroyed at the whim of only a few individuals and not by the electorate or by its duly elected representatives. Liberals champion the rights created by Supreme Court decisions even when those decisions fly directly against the will of the people and can find no basis in constitutional law. The courts have also denied rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and rely more heavily on precedence and case law than on their constitutional authority. Many issues that arise to the level of the federal courts should never be brought before them, which tends to lead me to my next topic.

6. Federal Government vs. State Government

For all their championing of individual rights, it is in their activities and practices that the liberal movement exposes its true intent. The framers of this nation envisioned a country of strong states that were united behind a common goal. They intentionally wrote the constitution to prevent the federal government from exceeding its mandate and exerting oppressive control over the individual states. The last amendment in the bill of rights specifically states that any powers not explicitly given to the federal government, nor prevented to the states, remain the powers of the states or the people. This was intended to severely limit the scope and size of the centralized federal government.

It also meant that states were free to decide for themselves which laws to pass and how to best manage their affairs. Only where interstate activities were involved or the states rights interfered with the rights of the federal government, should the federal government have any power.

Today we have much the opposite of what the framers intended for our nation and liberals are intent on expanding the control of the federal government even farther. Federal law has spread into every aspect of state government and supersedes it in many areas far beyond the scope of its constitutional power. Even today liberals are pushing for more socialist programs such as nationalized healthcare and more heavy federal regulation of industry and intrastate legislation. This goes against the very principals of the constitution. Limiting the scope and control of centralize government is essential to maintaining a free and open society. This concept is really quite simple, but liberals will tell you that government is the cure for all woes.

Liberals tend to favor large expansive government which controls most aspects of society instead of relying on the people or states to control it themselves. This concept goes against the spirit and the intend of the founding fathers and the document which they created to guide this nation.

Again, Ronald Reagan said it best when he identified government as the problem and not the solution.

Today we approach an unprecedented showdown between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government that has gone beyond any form of sanity. In a direct challenge to the Executive branch of our government and to Presidential powers themselves, the House Judiciary Committee voted straight down party lines today to pass a bill issuing contempt citations for two of this administration’s top aides.

The 22-17 vote will issue contempt citations to Joshua B. Bolton, the White House Chief of Staff and to Harriet E, Miers, former White House Counsel, for failing to comply with committee subpoenas after President Bush that their testimony fell under the executive privilege of private counsel. Both individuals claimed that due to the right of the President to receive candid and open counsel without the fear of reprisal or examination under oath of said counsel, they were protected from being compelled to appear before Congressional committees on matters that involved such counsel.

In other words, the President should have the ability to receive candid, honest and unhampered advice by those in his administration. If those advisors must weigh their counsel against the possibility of open public scrutiny, under oath before Congress, and possible charges if Congress does not agree with their advice, then they will likely not be as candid with the President as they otherwise would be. This could severely hamper the President’s ability to get good input from his advisors and lay open every decision ever made in the Executive branch to Congressional scrutiny.

Such a challenge to the powers of the President is unprecedented in the history of this nation and is blatantly unconstitutional. The Congress cannot compel, by threat of criminal charges, advisors of the President to disclose or discuss what counsel they may have offered him, nor can they penalize such individuals for refusing to do so under executive privilege or under the 5th Amendment. The only ground Congress may have is for them failing to actually appear before the committees as per the subpoenas issued, but since they were instructed to ignore those subpoenas because of the executive privilege this again returns to a challenge of Presidential authority to direct his advisors. Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich) alluded to this in his statement earlier today:

“If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn’t even have to bother to show up . . . then we have already lost.

We won’t be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other.”

It appears that the administration is giving no ground on this matter. The President has challenged that his advisors cannot be compelled by Congressional subpoena to testify about matters covered under the executive privilege and that presidentally appointed U. S. Attorneys cannot be forced by Congress to defy president’s determination that the materials and testimony sought are protected said privilege.

In a response to the House’s actions today, White House spokesman, Tony Snow shot back challenging the constitutionality and the unprecedented behavior of the house:

“Now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that’s never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington and in particular to use criminal contempt charges against the White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel.”

It also appears that Congress has ignored the advice of Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brian A. Benczkowski, who wrote in a letter to lawmakers on Monday that the Justice Department had a long-standing position, “articulated during administrations of both parties, that the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the president or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege.”

This is a disgraceful act by a childish Congress who is not getting their way. Top this action off with the statements by Harry Reid that he intends to review the testimony of Justice Alito and Justice Roberts from their Congressional approval hearings and possibly challenge their appointments and we have a clear picture of a loose cannon Congress that is completely out of control. They are breaching the rights of both of the other branches of government in an attempt to exert their control over matters which they are constitutionally forbidden. The Congress has no more the right to go back and review or challenge the appointments of Supreme Court Justices than they do to direct the actions or our Armed Services or to compel the testimony of advisors protected under executive privilege.

This is Congress is so blinded by its hatred, lust for power and political servitude to extremist positions that it is attempting to destroy the founding principals of our government by ignoring the legality and constitutionality of its actions. They are breaching the very principal of separation of powers and ignoring all legal precedence. They are demanding the power to control the actions of the Executive branch, challenge Executive powers and priveleges and to supplant the Justices on the Supreme Court with whom they may not agree.

This is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This is treasonous.

What to these morons in the Senate not understand about Presidential appointees? These idiots are trying to grill Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over firing eight U.S. Attorneys which as he stated, he was well within his legal authority to terminate. Gonzales commented during his testimony, “While the process that led to the resignations was flawed, I firmly believe that nothing improper occurred. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. There is nothing improper in making a change for poor management, policy differences or questionable judgment, or simply to have another qualified individual serve.”

Well that pretty much sums it up. Sorry we botched the process. I will admit that I did not handle it as well as I could have, but we still did nothing wrong as far as the law goes.

Senator Lindsey Graham stated this afternoon that he felt it was all a stretch. Graham commented, “It’s clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with Bush administration officials and the Justice Department made up reasons to fire them.”

Hello, will the esteemed Senator from South Carolina please stay awake for the testimony of those before the Senate. Did you not hear Gonzales state that these people could be let go for pretty much any reason they wanted to? Technically if President Bush walked in and told Gonzales to fire every U.S. Attorney who wore blue that day, he would be within his rights as the President of the United States and Chief Executive of our government.

There were calls to fire Gonzales and demands that he resign from protestors outside of the Senate chambers this morning. Resign for what? Stepping on a few toes during the firing of political appointees? That claim would have sent every President and Attorney General packing since George Washington graced the halls of the White House.

This is stupid, wasteful and distracting from the real issues that we face in this nation. These dismissed attorneys are a dead horse and the Senate needs to stop beating it and get back to the real issues before our nation.