Since Arizona passed law number 1070, there’s been an increase in the public discussion of illegal immigration. I’ve seen, listened to and read many of those discussions and notice that no one provides a good analogy of the problem. Many discussions about illegal immigration leave out the word illegal in an attempt to get people thinking about the policies while ignoring the crime.

Before I get too far into this subject, let me give a little family history. My mothers side of the family are not, for the most part, Americans. She and one sister were born in the U.S., the child of legal immigrants, and was raised in her parents homeland. She returned to this country, legally, after marrying my father. He and his parents were born in America but his maternal Grandmother was not. She, her husband and their son also came to America legally. They had two more children while here and, after more than three decades, returned to her homeland. Her daughter, my grandmother, had married  by this time so she remained in this country as a citizen. I’m a product of legal immigration and fully support it.

Illegal immigration is another situation entirely. Let me warn those of you that are not opposed to the idea of people entering this country without permission, my analogy will inflame you. Your frustration level may rise out of control because, while you’ll hate the analogy, you can’t deny its truth. I use it because it’s so accurate, not because it makes you angry.

Illegal immigration is no different than breaking and entering a persons home. Whether it’s done to improve your living conditions, in hopes of employment, to be with family or any other excuse, it’s the same as entering someone’s house without their permission, and it’s a criminal act. Those insensate fools that talk about “law abiding” undocumented immigrants don’t want to acknowledge that there is no such thing. They broke the law upon entry. If you go on vacation and someone breaks into your house to live there until they get caught, do you care if they kept it clean, mowed the lawn and didn’t steal anything? Will you tell the police that they’re not really criminals because they committed no additional crimes? Seriously, if you think they’re not criminals, I think you need a brain transplant because yours died.

Ironically, in most parts of this country, you have the legal right to shoot someone that breaks into your home, but our government doesn’t even want to question those that break into our country. I’m not suggesting we shoot them, I’m suggesting that we should have recourse against them and the Federal Government is blocking our options. States like Arizona have taken the protection of it’s citizens more seriously than our so called representatives in Washington.

Most of the immigration debate focuses on Mexicans, as though they’re the only ones entering illegally. While they may be the majority we need to remember that every year we have thousands of illegal’s from all over the world. They may cross mostly from the Mexican border but they’re not all Mexican. The problem isn’t with the people as much as it’s with the governments of Mexico and the United States. The American politicians don’t want to anger the minorities and the Mexican politicians want to keep the money flowing back into their country. Do you have any idea of just how much money we’re talking about? According to the Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Developement Bank, the figure for 2009 was $58.8 billion. No wonder they don’t want to stop it, that’s Mexico’s second largest source of income.

How do we stop this problem? First, fine employers a hefty amount for each illegal they employ with a minimum of $25,000 per employee for the first offense. Second, charge the home countries of the illegal’s, as a surtax on their goods, for all costs associated with incarcerating and deporting them. Third, put up the fence and maintain it. Fourth, give illegal’s six months to leave the country. After that, as illegal’s are found, deport them and blacklist them from ever returning. Fifth, add a Constitutional Amendment requiring a child be born of at least one parent that is a U.S. citizen, the other being here legally, before any child, born in this country, can automatically be declared a U.S. citizen. Finally, allow more immigrant workers to enter legally, for up to two years at a time, as long as they remain employed full time. Require their employers provide them with health care coverage and deny immigrants any form of government assistance. Carry your own weight or go home to give someone else an opportunity.

If you’re tired of our country being invaded, while Washington does nothing, there’s only one option. It’s time to throw out any politician that doesn’t take the security of our nation seriously. Come November we need to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth through the halls of Congress as career politicians are sent home. Maybe then we’ll be an important step closer to a safer Country in which to raise our children.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The 1st Monday in October marks the beginning of a new term for the Supreme Court of the United States, commonly called SCOTUS. The October 2009 term includes at least one lawsuit regarding the 2nd Amendment with a second one, brought by the NRA, waiting to be granted a writ of certiorari. Both cases deal with the same issue, but each uses different reasoning. The one that has already been granted certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, who successfully argued Heller v. DC last year, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.

08-1521 MCDONALD V. CHICAGO

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as
against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due
Process Clauses.

Rather than rehashing the details of the case I’ll direct you here to read all the pertinent information. What I want to discuss here is my view of the question presented by the case. There are two views on the subject and I believe both sides have valid points. I won’t disparage those that hold the other view, we can simply agree to disagree.

The disagreement deals with States rights, and whether SCOTUS can require that the individual States follow the 2nd Amendment because of the 14th. Don’t confuse this with an actual 10th Amendment case, it’s really a 2nd Amendment case whose decision could end up impacting States rights, and that’s a concern for many. Don’t get me wrong, I am a firm believer in the 10th Amendment and States rights, however I don’t think it applies here. Allow me to explain my reasoning.

In past cases, SCOTUS has ruled that certain parts of the Bill of Rights incorporate to the States through the 14th Amendment. The 1st and 5th Amendments are two of the better known ones. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States must allow free speech and cannot allow self-incrimination. The 2nd Amendment, however, is a bird of a different feather. Both the 1st and 5th Amendments concern rights granted by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment concerns a right granted by our Creator and acknowledged by the Constitution. That’s a huge difference and it needs to be clearly understood.

The right to keep and bear arms stems from the concept of defense of ones self, family and property. In a land void of any laws, most believe they still would have the right to defend themselves, because the right doesn’t rise out of laws or governments. The right to keep and bear arms is no more than a method of that defense. Since the Constitution of the United States doesn’t grant the right, it can only recognize its existence. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

When an entity applies for Statehood, they must create a State Constitution which is republican, and doesn’t violate the Federal Constitution. This requires individual State and local governments not infringe on inalienable rights acknowledged by the Federal Constitution, and is the real crux of what the Supreme Court needs to address.

In addition to the main question of incorporation in MCDONALD V. CHICAGO, the Supreme Court should, but probably won’t, define the word ‘infringe’. Doing so would strike down any and all laws that violate that definition and provide clarity to the Lower Courts. This would end the need for SCOTUS to hear further 2nd Amendment lawsuits.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander! Since the liberals think we should teach children to chant about Barack Hussein Obama, I thought we should give them something worth chanting. Now, if only we could find a group of kids to make a video.

Everybody chant along! 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

Healthcare reform is just control

Trouble for both young and old.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

He’ll talk to Ahmadinejad

While ignoring both my Mom and Dad.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

He thought the White House was too small

Now it’s filled with Czars, wall to wall.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

We’re still in danger from terrorists

But the CIA can’t slap their wrists.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

To fix the poor’s financial health

He wants to redistribute wealth.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

The Town Halls and Tea Parties too

Show that we don’t share his view.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

He spends more money than we’ve had

My future’s looking pretty bad.

 

mmm mmm mmm

Barack Hussein Obama

As a President he’s not so great

Come on 2012 we can hardly wait!

 

Copyright 2009 Patriotic Wisdom. All rights reserved.

Some people have questioned whether Barack and Michelle Obama love America. I think those people are misguided because they don’t understand how the Obama’s could say what they say and do what they do if they loved this country. I hope this post helps them to see what they’re missing while showing how the Obama’s love America.

The video clips have been played over and over again and I’m not going to link to them here. If you haven’t seen them you must have been in a very long coma. Video of Michelle saying “America is a mean country” and, on 02/18/08, her two “proud of my country” speeches. The first, in Milwaukee, WI was

“for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Then, in Madison, WI

“Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change”.

Don’t confuse pride with love, I’ll explain how the lack of pride can co-exist with love shortly but first, let’s look at some of Barack’s statements.

September 2001 Chicago public radio program:

“Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?”

“I-I-I think it’s a remarkable document –“ he began haltingly.

“Which one?” Helfrich interjected.

“The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments,” he replied. “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

During that same radio program:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, …

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

During his European tour in 2009:

“I would like to think that with my election, we’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”

“There have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive”

“The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.”

“I’m grateful that President [Daniel] Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” (referring to JFK’s Bay of Pigs actions)

To Joe Wurzelbacher, October, 2008:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.”

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.”

“We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

“When you question the cause or character of my country, think about the concrete actions of the last nine months.”

I chose those quotes to provide an overview of the way Barack and Michelle Obama see the United States, its foundation, its history, its place in the world and themselves. Several things stand out in the things they’ve said. These statements show, among other things, that they see America as a racially segregated country. That the segregation problems come from flaws in the Constitution created by the Founding Fathers and not addressed by the Supreme Court. That America is a mean country because we have not achieved what they see as “political and economic justice in society”. In their view, “political and economic justice in society” means “redistributive change” in the form of “the redistribution of wealth”. They don’t believe in the old saying “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for life”. They believe that you shouldn’t have to learn to fish, the government should take the fruits of the fisherman’s labor to feed those not trying to learn to fish.

Most people think the above mentioned statements mean the Obama’s don’t love America, however they’re missing a very important, yet basic, point. Your view of America, and mine, is not shared by the Obama’s. The America we love is the country begun, and fought for by the Patriots of the late 1700’s, formed by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution and protected by the blood of our heroic men and women through many wars and military conflicts. Barack and Michelle Obama do not see it that way. The America they love, and believe in, does not yet exist. When Michelle spoke of how “it feels like hope is finally making a comeback” she referred to the hope of an America that can be changed to fit their progressive vision. When she said “I think people are hungry for change” she was thinking of a change to the fundamental course of the country. The new course takes us away from our “flawed” Constitutional roots and toward a new “just” society. They believe that Barack can, and will, steer us in the direction we should have been going all along. “it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” “When you question the cause or character of my country, think about the concrete actions of the last nine months.” The Obama’s believe “Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans” and they can change that.

The time has come to decide which America you will fight for. If you agree with the Obama’s, then fight to elect progressive liberals that agree with you. If you believe, as I do, that America needs to return to the values of the Constitution, allowing all to achieve by their own labors, then fight to elect the representatives that share those ideals. Either way, it’s time to stand up and be counted.

The two party political system in this country has been dying for the past few years. A  new, single party, has replaced both the Democratic and Republican parties. It's true each group still has separate talking heads in Howard Dean and Michael Steele, but that's only because they haven't figured it out. Their respective members have joined forces to create the Republicrat Party whose symbol is the Donkephant.

In rhetoric they maintain separate positions but, in practice, they're walking hand in hand while singing Kumbaya. More Government control, excess spending, cronyism, deception, corruption and immorality are just some of the qualities that have united them into a single party.

What has brought about this co-mingling of the parties? Too much time spent crawling in and out of bed with each other, legislatively, over political careers that have lasted far too long. Legislative careers shouldn't last 40 years or more but that isn't uncommon to see. Voters, too often, fail to see the big picture and vote only with their own interests in mind. Rather than thinking in terms of whether a politician is good for their community, they think only of themselves. Of course you want a representative that serves your needs but how about also considering the needs of others.

A good example of what I mean is found in Charlie Rangel, representing the Fifteenth Congressional District of New York. He continues to get re-elected in spite of proof that he's a tax cheat and an all around scofflaw. Why? Because the voters in his district look only at what he does for them, not at how he damages their district and the country as a whole. If they thought about the big picture, they'd find a new representative that met their needs while not harming the community. Unfortunately, it's easy to find many dozens of similar examples throughout the country.

It seems as though the only workable solution is with congressional term-limits. We can't rely on politicians to place term limits on themselves, only the best, most honorable ones would do that. We, as voters, must insist on a Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of years someone can serve in Congress. We had to do this for the Presidency after FDR kept getting re-elected and the country is better off for it.

Term-limits will stop the domino effect of corruption. The more time spent in Congress, the more power that's gained. The more power they gain, the more power hungry they become. The more power hungry they become, the more corrupt they get. The more corrupt they get, the more difficult it is to get them out of Congress.

The total effect of this is a group of politicians that wind up working for their own self-interests. They start ignoring the people they were sent to represent and pass laws to expand their powers even further. Come time for re-election they throw a bone to their constituents and proclaim themselves to be servants of the people. The voters, distracted by the nice bone they see, put them back in office to re-start the cycle of corruption.

It's been said recently that Congress awoke a sleeping giant. I hope it stays awake at least long enough to fix what's broken. Let's get the self-serving, corrupted scofflaws out of office, and keep them out. The country will be better off without the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and all their cronies. The time has come to limit Senators to 3 terms (18 years), Representatives to 6 terms (12  years) and not allow more than 24 years total time in Congress. If you can't accomplish what you came to do in that amount of time, you're not going to anyhow.

Look at the big picture before you vote. Do away with the one party system we currently suffer under. Let's think about the multiple party system where we may find leaders that hear our voices and heed our wishes. Look for leaders that are willing to start reversing the abominations of their predecessors. We can have a smaller, less restrictive government if we really want it. We can realize the freedoms enjoyed by generations past and provide them to future generations. As Patrick Henry said:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was, in my view, absolutely astonishing. They  foresaw many potential problems while setting up our Government and did everything they could to avoid them, and warn us about them. In the Preamble to The Bill of Rights, which many people are no longer aware of, they gave us their reasons for the 10 Amendments along with a warning. Here it is in its entirety:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Take note of the warning they give when they say "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:". They were warning us that steps needed to be taken to prevent the Federal Government from overstepping its' powers. This was the purpose of the Bill of Rights. One particular Amendment was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government, the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X

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 10th Amendment was intended to put the Federal Government on notice that it had no powers outside of those spelled out in the Constitution. The powers it was granted are found in Section 8 of Article 1 as follows:

Article. 1.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erecting¹ of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That is the sum of Federal powers, or so it was intended.

Politicians were supposed to be ordinary citizens, temporarily serving, then returning home to their original professions. In time though, they started to become professional politicians attempting to spend their entire working lives in the Government. As they did this they gained more power and started taking steps to make the Federal Government  more powerful than ever intended.

One of their favorite areas to take control comes from Article. 1. Section. 8. Clause. 3., commonly known as the Commerce Clause. The purpose of this clause was to have consistent regulation of interstate and international commerce. There is no mention of the Federal Government being granted power over intrastate commerce in the Constitution. That right, to regulate any commerce remaining within their own borders, was retained by the individual states.

Empowered by a Federal Judiciary following the concept of a "living Constitution", the Federal Government began overstepping the restrictions of our Constitution. The concept of a living Constitution requires a re-evaluation of how laws should be interpreted in light of modern need, rather than the original intent of that law. This is how they justify the idea of judicial activism.

One of the favorite rulings cited to usurp control from the States is an abomination from the era of FDR known as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). They ruled that, since a farmer grew some wheat for sale and some for his families use, interstate commerce could somehow be affected by the wheat for his family, therefore, Federal regulations on that personal wheat were Constitutional. Talk about activist courts rewriting the meaning of our Constitution!

A recent example of how Congress continues to use this concept to trample States rights is found within H.R.45, known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009". This piece of trash is currently in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Here are a couple of excerpts from section 2:

(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;

Today is the eighth anniversary of the worst attack on American civilians in our entire history. The blood of thousands of innocents was shed at the WTC's twin towers, the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field. As time marches on, it seems like the general public has lost some of their resolve to prevent future attacks. We no longer reflect on that day, and how we felt about America, the victims and their families. The losses of 9-11 didn't just take an emotional toll on the friends and families of the dead, they affected all caring Americans. Today it seems as though those of us that had no friends or family members killed in those despicable acts have allowed the passage of time to quench our emotional fires.

It's time to reflect, not just for a moment, but for as long as it takes to bring those feelings back. We need to remember how we were affected on that historically tragic day and how we all came together on 9-12-2001. I still recall the emotional devastation felt upon the realization that the news wasn't a horrible nightmare, it was an appalling reality. I remember too, the pride I felt in seeing a new, heightened wave of patriotism overtake our country. Do you recall the displays of public appreciation when people saw members of our Military, Law Enforcement and Fire Departments? Can you remember your swelling of pride on hearing the Star Spangled Banner and other Patriotic music? Have you forgotten the emotion within you upon hearing the heroic words "let's roll"?

Now, 8 short years later, we see members of our very own Government verbally attacking the patriotic citizens that stand up for their rights in Townhall meetings and Tea Parties across the country. They use inflammatory claims of teabagging and hate mongering, descriptions of patriots as brown shirts, Nazis, KKK members, racists, Astroturf, white supremacists and even more vile terms. Our intelligence community is under attack for protecting us from evil, and for strictly political reasons. They bring disrespect to the memories of the victims of 9-11 and each of their families. They dishonor the many acts of heroism related to the attacks.

Renew your commitment to our country and its Constitution. Remind yourself of how you felt on 9-11, reflect on 9-12 and the resolve you had. Don't simply reject the attacks from within our Government, fight back and reclaim our countries leadership. Don't just feel proud to be an American, assail those that diminish you and your Patriotism. Write, call and email your Congressmen, and the White House, continuously. Attend Tea Parties and join social networking groups. Fight against combative politicians that ignore your wishes by defeating their re-election attempts. Encourage and assist those willing to run against them when they reflect your beliefs. Ignore party affiliation and focus on where they stand and what they want to accomplish.

Remember 9-11, renew your resolve from 9-12 and take back the United States of America from those that want to turn it into the socialist states of amerika. This isn't the Union of Amerikan Socialist Republics, it's America the Beautiful where the Stars and Stripes forever wave. Stand and be counted or sit back and watch your freedoms eroded out of existence.

God Bless America and all that she stands for. For the sake of those that no longer can, for our children and theirs, for the very future of our country; LET'S ROLL!

On September 8th President Barack Obama is going to give a one hour speech to America's school children. Some of the things being said by the President are positive statements that the kids need to hear. Encouraging them to work hard, do well, achieve in school and get the best education they can makes for some great PSA's. This, however in not a series of PSA's, it's a full blown speech bolstered by provided teaching materials.

While he talks about "taking responsibility for their success in school" he will also call for "a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens," According to a press release from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Why does that statement on "shared responsibility" include students? Parents and teachers should share responsibility to see students get the best education possible, with parents taking a larger share for their children. Adding students to the mix isn't just to give them responsibility for their own education, it's a way to begin an indoctrination.

The intention is to get children, starting in Kindergarten, to be responsible for each others education. Those students that are more able to achieve will be expected to help those that have difficulties. It's time for kids to stop being kids and start shouldering responsibility. The materials provided to teachers for this event are the beginning of this process. Students as young as 5 are expected to write letters to themselves about how they can help the president. Really? Five year olds writing letters? What's next, will you teach them how to goose step in gym class?

Maybe it's time for President Obama to write a letter to himself about how he can help our children. Making them shoulder responsibility that should fall on parents and teachers isn't the answer. Piling trillions of dollars of debt on their shoulders isn't the answer either. Perhaps a place to start is with the Secretary of Education. Did you pick Arne Duncan because he's qualified, or because he's another Chicago crony? He was the head of Chicago schools but he has a Sociology Degree and has never been a teacher. Why didn't you choose an educator for the position? Wouldn't they go along with your indoctrination plans? I guess Bill Ayers wouldn't have passed the confirmation process so you picked the next best thing.

I have news Mr. President, your poor choices and bad policies don't help our children. Have you considered dropping your Socialist ideas and following the Constitution? Of course not, you wouldn't know how. I guess your elite education, as good as it was, lacked some important values.

The separation of Church and State is a concept often talked about when discussing the section of the Constitution that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". These, of course, are the opening words of the 1st Amendment. The words are very specific and plainly worded and they do not mention the concept of a separation of Church and State. That concept actually comes from some writings, taken out of context, of the Founding Fathers, and has caused a serious twisting and misunderstanding of their beliefs.

While they argue, correctly, that the Founding Fathers believed in the concept of a separation of Church and State, they fail to understand, or honestly say, what the term actually meant, and more importantly, what it didn't mean. Their false claim stems from twisting the meaning of the term "Church" when used by the Founding Fathers, by modern secularists.

When the Founding Fathers referred to separating "Church" they were speaking of religious institutions such as "the Catholic Church", "the Methodist Church", "the Lutheran Church" or "the Church of England". They were not speaking of houses of worship such as "the 1st Methodist church of Boston" or religion in general. For the sake of clarity, let me state it this way. The Founding Fathers believed in the separation of religious Institutions and the Government, not religion and the Government. Unfortunately, many have used the statement to claim that the Founding Fathers actually believed in the separation of religious beliefs and the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth, as their writings clearly show when honestly viewed in context.

The Founding Fathers strongly believed in the role of religion in society, education and our Government. Many of them wrote that people could not maintain any sense of morality without a religious foundation and that education needed to include such teaching. This isn't my opinion on the subject, it comes directly from the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves.

One example of the connection between religion and education comes from the Northwest Ordinance, also known as the Freedom Ordinance. This Ordinance was passed unanimously by the Congress of the United States on July 13, 1787. Here is a link from the Yale University School of Law website. Let's look at what was written in Article 3.

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington offered his opinion on religion, morality, education and their need to co-exist. You can read the entire address here.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

His sentiments, shared by nearly all of the Founding Fathers, seem foreign to today's view of the role of government and religion. The thinking of the time was that religious instruction should avoid any specific Doctrine and must remain universal in form.

The various State Constitutions of the late 1700's also had something to say about religion and worship. These concepts are no longer taught in schools, but they were until the early 20th Century.

Constitution of Vermont - July 4, 1786

III. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as In their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatsoever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship: Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

Constitution of South Carolina - March 19, 1778

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.

And that every inhabitant of this State, when called to make an appeal to God as a witness to truth, shall be permitted to do it in that way which is most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

SECT. 45. Laws for the encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in force, and provision shall be made for their due execution: And all religious societies or bodies of men heretofore united or incorporated for the advancement of religion or learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities and estates which they were accustomed to enjoy, or could of right have enjoyed, under the laws and former constitution of this state.

I could go on and on but by now you've gotten the point, or you never will.

From before Americas founding, religion was thought to be necessary in order to maintain morality. It was to be taught in school as a way to promote doing right and avoiding injustice. While our government was against the promotion of Church, it viewed religion as something different. The Founders did not want Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism or any other Church to take control the way the Church of England had. They did, however, understand that religion was different. They found universal truths to be common among the many beliefs.

Benjamin Franklin described the "Five Fundamentals of all sound religions". These were often referred to as the "religion of America" by nearly all of the Founders.

1. There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship Him.

2. The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.

3. The Creator holds mankind responsible for the way they treat each other.

4. All mankind live beyond this life.

5. In the next life mankind are judged for their conduct in this one.  1

These religious fundamentals, in one form or another, were taught in schools across the entire country. They didn't impose a Church or a Religion on Americans. They were the foundation for teaching morality, charity, personal responsibility and good citizenship.

It's time to bring back these concepts to our schools. There is too much confusion, even among the Courts, as to the role of religion in the education of America. Too many rulings have trampled the 1st Amendment rights of individuals in schools. Preventing a student, or a teacher, from saying a private prayer is an affront to their rights. Banning non-denominational student groups, literature and teaching runs counter to the intent of the Constitution.

Progressive Secularists fight to keep God out of our schools, our Government and society in general. Lawsuits are filed against Government entities by Atheists that want God banished from all public life. Their belief that there is no God drives them to impose that belief on the majority of Americans. They don't care about the history of mankind that shows, beyond any doubt, that societies that abandon religious beliefs soon crumble and fall. Only by maintaining religious fundamentals can a society, and its people, remain truly free.

 

1. From "the 5000 year leap" by Skousen pg. 78

Senator Jay Rockefeller has introduced S.773, the Cybersecurity act of 2009. Hold on to your Civil Rights folks, this bill could eat them faster than Congress spends our money. In the name of "Homeland Security" this legislation could allow the Government to shut down your Internet access and put them in control of the power grids and oil refineries. You'll find the actual bill by going here and, in the search box, type the words "Cybersecurity act of 2009" (without the quote marks). I know this sounds like tinfoil hat stuff so let me give you some quotes directly from the bill.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

... `a successful cyber attack against a major financial service provider could severely impact the national economy, while cyber attacks against physical infrastructure computer systems such as those that control power grids or oil refineries have the potential to disrupt services for hours or weeks'

... `a growing array of state and non-state adversaries are increasingly targeting-for exploitation and potentially disruption or destruction-our information infrastructure, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers in critical industries'

... `our nation's security and economic prosperity depend on the security, stability, and integrity of communications and information infrastructure that are largely privately-owned and globally-operated.'

President Obama said in a speech at Purdue University on July 16, 2008, that `every American depends--directly or indirectly--on our system of information networks. They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being. But it's no secret that terrorists could use our computer networks to deal us a crippling blow. We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet.'

These findings are setting up the case for why the Government needs to have control of what they acknowledge to be "largely privately-owned" computer systems. Did you notice in the above listed quote by Obama, he used China as the example of a country on top of the situation? CHINA? This is one of the worst countries in the world to use as an example of anything good. It's well documented that China blocks access to sites it disagrees with and shuts down access entirely if the people speak out. When Obama says something like this you had better pay attention! Remember "I just want to spread the wealth"? How's that working for you?

There's more built into this bill than just a concern over a potential threat. As usual our so-called Representatives want plenty of over-reaching Government control. When they start talking about this bill more publicly you'll hear its defenders warning of Apocalyptic consequences if we don't do something immediately. They'll claim a meltdown will occur if we don't pass this legislation. They won't tell you that this "cure" will be worse than the illness. There are ways to handle the problem without resorting to these Civil Rights shredding methods.

Take a look at some of the things they want to do.

...completely specifying the configuration of software on computer systems widely used in ...private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

...security settings for operating system software and software utilities widely used in ...private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

 

The Institute shall establish a standard testing and accreditation protocol for software built by or for the Federal Government, its contractors, and grantees, and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

 

(b) MANDATORY LICENSING- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act , it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President's designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.

 

(6) How to determine the origin of a message transmitted over the Internet.

(8) How to address the growing problem of insider threat.

 

The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce--

(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;

Did George Orwell write this stuff? If this hasn't scared the bejeezus out you, try this:

The President--

 

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

Did you read "shutdown of Internet traffic"? When they say "United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks" they mean if private computers (like yours or mine) are compromising, in the Governments opinion, their ability to remain secure, they'll shutdown private access in the name of National Security. No wonder Obama pointed to China as his shining example of Internet security!

Late last year we started to see individuals use the Internet, especially social networking sites, to voice concerns over the direction in which our country was headed. That escalated into a grassroots movement to promote Tea Parties starting early this year. The Tea Parties continue, and continue to grow in attendance, much to the dismay of liberals. It’s as though a sleeping giant, the average citizen, has awoken to find their country being taken from them by the very leaders they sent to Washington.

Now begins the next step in that awakening. Members of Congress have started receiving more calls, letters and emails than ever before. Town Hall meetings are being attended, in record numbers, by members of that grassroots movement. They speak, they shout and they chant in an effort to be heard by their so-called representatives. Still, they see and hear Congress acting against the will of the people. The Congress, and the White House, seem to be dumbfounded by this reaction. They respond with cries of organized mob activity, rather than listening to the people, as they should.

Let’s see what Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and author of the Declaration of Independence, had to say about our Government.

“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

“Government as well as religion has furnished its schisms, its persecutions, and its devices for fattening idleness on the earnings of the people.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1815.

“The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation [of elections] can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1820.

What were the thoughts of some of the other Founding Fathers? Let’s take a look at their comments and concerns.

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. George Washington, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

“If ever the Time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.” - Samuel Adams in a letter to James Warren, October 24, 1780

“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” - James Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 14, November 30, 1787

A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired. Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845. Member of the Sons of Liberty.

Many of the people that now appear at Town Halls and Tea Parties are beginning to feel as Patrick Henry did nearly 235 years ago.

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry in a speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

Our liberties, the very foundation of our country, have slowly been eroded over the past century. The modern Patriots are becoming wise to this loss and now begin to demand its return. This may well be the beginning of the end of the tyranny being hoisted on us by our very Government. It’s time to shed the shackles of oppression and remove the chains of shrinking liberties. The reduction of States Rights, the usurpation of power from the people, the ever expanding debt and the overly burdensome taxes must stop. The people have awoken and are rising up against their oppressors. The claims, by the Speaker of the House, that we carry Swastikas to Town Hall meetings only serve to increase our resolve. The attacks on our very Patriotism, the claims that our agenda is only to disrupt, that we’re pawns of anti-healthcare groups, the characterization of us as mobsters, these things will not deter us.

After the elections In 2010, as the electorate remembers these attacks on our character, our Patriotism, our very Liberty, there will be a wailing and the gnashing of teeth by those incumbents defeated and sent home. Every seat in the House and one-third of the Senate will be on the ballots. I urge every voter to reject the re-election of any member of Congress that has served 10 years or more. It’s time for a new attitude in Washington and that will only come from a thorough shake-up.

Remember the words of our Founding Fathers. “If ever the Time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.” “… cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government …” and “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

The more time they spend in Congress the more pompous, supercilious, greedy and power hungry they become. It’s like an infection that only a very few can resist. Our Founding Fathers envisioned people of good character representing us. They intended for them to serve a short time and then return to their families and their communities. The pay was to be kept low, George Washington refused his salary as President, so that only those principled enough to sacrifice would choose to serve. Public service wouldn’t last long enough for any individual to gain power because it would have meant personal sacrifice. Now we have professional Politicians that may be in office for decades and serve only their own selfishness. For our own sake, and even more so, the sake of our heirs, make this the beginning of the end of their reign of terror.

The United States Congress is currently working on legislation to do what they refer to as "reform" healthcare. In fact, the proposals will not bring about reform, they'll bring about healthcare control. The Congress, as usual, is working on overly burdensome regulations designed to shift the control of healthcare from the private sector into the hands of Government. The truth of the matter is that only four changes are needed to truly reform healthcare.

The first change is Tort reform. Eliminating frivolous lawsuits will reduce the overhead of Doctors, Hospitals, Clinics, Drug companies and other healthcare providers. While they're at it, capping Attorneys to a maximum of 50% of any award is also fair. Attorneys need an incentive to fight for their clients but some are now victimizing the victims. It's not uncommon for Attorneys to charge 1/3rd plus expenses. Unscrupulous lawyers can pad fees until the victim ends up with no more than 30% to 40% of the money they're awarded.

The second change is to allow healthcare insurance to be purchased across state lines, just as automobile insurance is. This will lower costs as competition opens up throughout the country. Imagine the TV ads touting "we'll save you hundreds on your healthcare insurance" and "come to our website to compare our rates with the rates of up to four of our competitors". This will have the greatest affect on lowering costs.

Third, to cover the "uninsurable" and those with pre-existing conditions, form a consortium of healthcare Insurance providers to pool their resources and provide coverage. That would spread the costs among many companies, making it easier to absorb. Incentivize it to get insurance companies to join in. Provide tax credits to those that join the consortium and tax penalties to those that don't. If the insurers try to pass the penalties on to their customers, they'll become less competative and lose business.

Last but not least will be a tax credit to anyone buying their own healthcare insurance. Some of this could come from the Billions of dollars lawmakers say we currently spend on the uninsured. Those choosing not to buy insurance could be required to pay up front for non-emergency services, even in an Emergency Room. In the case of actual emergencies, the un-insured could be required to sign, and have on file with some central agency, a legal document allowing for garnishment of a percentage of whatever source of income they have.

Four pieces of Legislation needed, problem solved, healthcare reformed. What's the downside? None for the people but, for the Government, they don't gain the control they want. All I can say to that is; Boo freakin' Hoo.