It’s been so long since I’ve blogged, I almost forgot my password! This has been an exciting summer for my family. My husband went back out on a mini-tour with Steppenwolf and I’ve been travelling with him (and the kids) as much as possible. I’ve also been using the travel time to catch up on some much needed reading. Now to the blog!
So much has happened since I last wrote; I don’t know where to start. I start new blogs in my head every day, but never find the time to put “fingers to keys”. The health care “reform” debate is the most pressing issue right now, so I will start with that.
Health care is NOT a right. The Constitution mentions it nowhere. Therefore, per the Constitution, this should be a STATE issue. Most Government run programs fail miserably. Medicare is running at a loss. So is Medicaid. I can’t even think about Social Security without wanting to punch someone. The VA hospital here in TN,
(a government run program) infected 8 of our most precious citizens, Vets, with HIV!!!! This is happening all over the country. Just last month, Congressional subcommittee hearings were held to discuss the exposure of over 10,000 veterans in just THREE VA hospitals to HIV and other infectious diseases. If they cannot take care of such a small segment of our population, how in the HELL can they care for 300 million people?
For my readers outside of Tennessee, (and for my readers here that may not know the whole story), the state of Tennessee tried government run healthcare called TennCare. Their plan wasn’t even the hugely socialistic plan that Herr Obama wants to pass. Within a few years, it was broke. So what did the powers that be decide to do? They dropped people. They dropped critically ill people. People are still suffering. People have died. Many people HAD insurance coverage, but they dropped it to move to a “better, cheaper” plan. It’s not so cheap when it costs you your life, is it? There’s even a website tenncareadvocacy.org that has been set up to help enrollees get needed medical care. This help includes finding a doctor that will accept enrollees. Because the government is infamous for not paying their bills, doctors have been almost driven out of business and had to cut off TennCare enrollees.
To give you an example of government inefficiency, let me give you the latest example, “Cash For Clunkers”. Car dealerships were promised reimbursement if they discounted new fuel efficient cars $3500 to $4500 on a trade in for a car that got less than 18 miles per gallon. The regulations promised dealers that they would be reimbursed for each car in seven to ten days. Most are still waiting. Not only are they waiting, many dealerships, after following all the rules, have had their application rejected with no explanation whatsoever. THIS is who you want running your healthcare? An administration that can’t even run a junk car program?
The fact that some of you want a government program is one thing. To actually believe that they CAN run a program defies belief. They have yet to run any huge program efficiently, and you expect them to start with healthcare? 2010 can't get here soon enough...
Friday, August 21, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Obama's Outrage
Within the past week, there has been a disturbing trend of murders. On Sunday, an abortionist was shot and killed as he was attending his church. On Monday, an Army recruiting soldier was killed as he was standing outside his place of employment. Both of the murders are HEINOUS acts of violence and should be condemned by every American. However, I know several people that had no idea about the soldier’s murder. How can that be? Let’s compare the two…
Dr. Tiller was a late term abortionist (possibly the only one in the country, more info on that below) that was murdered by an extremist nutjob because of his occupational choice. His murderer, Scott P. Roeder, was an abortion opponent and targeted Dr. Miller because of his opposition to abortion, his political and religious views.
Private William Long was a soldier that was murdered by an extremist nutjob because of his occupational choice. His murderer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, a military opponent, admitted shooting the soldiers saying it was a “political and religious attack”.
Also this past weekend, Chicago had one of the worst killing sprees in recent history. Between 6:00 a.m. Saturday and 6:00 a.m. Sunday, 7 people were gunned down in non-related attacks. (these weren’t the acts of a lone gunman, these were 7 different attacks).
Over the weekend, I’m sure there were many more murders that we didn’t hear about.
Within 7 hours of learning of the murder of Dr, Tillman, Obama released a statement expressing his “shock and outrage” at Dr. Tiller’s murder. Attorney General Eric Holder released his own statement saying “his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment”.
But there was no outrage, not even a statement of sympathy for the soldier or his family, from the Obama camp. Why is one murder and outrage and another not? Why is the murder of a murderer (and yes, in almost every state, he would be considered a murderer because he kills babies well into the ninth month of pregnancy) to be commented on, while a volunteer fighting for our freedoms, not even acknowledged? Why were the 7 murders in Chicago not a tragedy? Is he THAT abortion happy, that he is outraged that the last of the late term abortionists needs to be addressed? What a sad day for our country.
I subscribe to many liberal updates and frequently visit many left-leaning websites. Each of them has many opinion contributions on the murder of Dr. Tiller. So do the conservative websites. Both sides are condemning this. The right has come out as much as the left with their outrage. I do find it interesting though, that the left sites have nary a word on the soldier murder.
Slate.com has article after article about Dr, Tiller’s murder, but not ONE on Private Long’s murder. They even have on their front page today an article called “The Abortions Only George Tiller Did”. They had testimonials from patients who had late term abortions. One was quoted saying “we could consider two late-term abortion clinics—one in Wichita, Kan., the other in Holland! Our initial thoughts were ‘how could we be in a major NYC hospital in the United States and be told these are our only choices?’ To say it was surreal is an understatement.”. I can only PRAY that this was the only late term abortionist in the country. Hopefully, no one else will be evil enough to follow in his footsteps.
Obama is on tour now and will probably never make a statement about the soldier. His death will soon be forgotten. I have no doubt though, that Dr. Tiller’s legacy will live on. Some liberals are even hailing him as a hero and a martyr. How sad is this world when a murderer is praised and a soldier is forgotten.
Dr. Tiller was a late term abortionist (possibly the only one in the country, more info on that below) that was murdered by an extremist nutjob because of his occupational choice. His murderer, Scott P. Roeder, was an abortion opponent and targeted Dr. Miller because of his opposition to abortion, his political and religious views.
Private William Long was a soldier that was murdered by an extremist nutjob because of his occupational choice. His murderer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, a military opponent, admitted shooting the soldiers saying it was a “political and religious attack”.
Also this past weekend, Chicago had one of the worst killing sprees in recent history. Between 6:00 a.m. Saturday and 6:00 a.m. Sunday, 7 people were gunned down in non-related attacks. (these weren’t the acts of a lone gunman, these were 7 different attacks).
Over the weekend, I’m sure there were many more murders that we didn’t hear about.
Within 7 hours of learning of the murder of Dr, Tillman, Obama released a statement expressing his “shock and outrage” at Dr. Tiller’s murder. Attorney General Eric Holder released his own statement saying “his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment”.
But there was no outrage, not even a statement of sympathy for the soldier or his family, from the Obama camp. Why is one murder and outrage and another not? Why is the murder of a murderer (and yes, in almost every state, he would be considered a murderer because he kills babies well into the ninth month of pregnancy) to be commented on, while a volunteer fighting for our freedoms, not even acknowledged? Why were the 7 murders in Chicago not a tragedy? Is he THAT abortion happy, that he is outraged that the last of the late term abortionists needs to be addressed? What a sad day for our country.
I subscribe to many liberal updates and frequently visit many left-leaning websites. Each of them has many opinion contributions on the murder of Dr. Tiller. So do the conservative websites. Both sides are condemning this. The right has come out as much as the left with their outrage. I do find it interesting though, that the left sites have nary a word on the soldier murder.
Slate.com has article after article about Dr, Tiller’s murder, but not ONE on Private Long’s murder. They even have on their front page today an article called “The Abortions Only George Tiller Did”. They had testimonials from patients who had late term abortions. One was quoted saying “we could consider two late-term abortion clinics—one in Wichita, Kan., the other in Holland! Our initial thoughts were ‘how could we be in a major NYC hospital in the United States and be told these are our only choices?’ To say it was surreal is an understatement.”. I can only PRAY that this was the only late term abortionist in the country. Hopefully, no one else will be evil enough to follow in his footsteps.
Obama is on tour now and will probably never make a statement about the soldier. His death will soon be forgotten. I have no doubt though, that Dr. Tiller’s legacy will live on. Some liberals are even hailing him as a hero and a martyr. How sad is this world when a murderer is praised and a soldier is forgotten.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Classless Liberals, Obama, and the Laughter at 9/11
Soooo…did you hear the joke about 9/11 and the terrorist attacks? No? Well I did. It was told at a “roast” of Barack Hussein Obama by a twisted minded comedienne at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. For some reason, I don’t find jokes about 9/11 funny…at all…but Obama does! He laughed and laughed. Let me illustrate for you just how uncaring and arrogant this president is…
Wanda Sykes (the twisted minded comedienne) was trying to be funny and said the following: "Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq'. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason”.
"He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
She then concluded: "Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."
Obama laughed, took a drink of his water, and continued laughing. What was he supposed to do, stand up to her and tell her that it’s not funny? DAMN RIGHT. If he cannot stand up to an ignorant, racist, hateful WOMAN, do you think he can stand up to some of the greatest terrorists known to man? This sure doesn’t say much for the backbone of this president. Is he intimidated into silence by this stupid comedienne or in agreement with her that 9/11 is fodder for jokes? I think it’s more than a little bit of both.
So liberals joke about the worst attack on our country. I guess they find thousands of American lives destroyed amusing. But wait! I have heard from some of my liberal friends that “she was poking fun at Rush Limbaugh, NOT at the people killed on 9/11!” So, if I tell a joke about Hitler and the Jewish people killed in the Holocaust, no matter how hurtful it is, can I say “Oh! I was making fun of Hitler, not the Jews that were killed”. Or how about I make a joke out of slavery, then say, “hey, I was poking fun at Plantation owners!” Not funny is it, you liberal sycophants?
I know of no conservatives who think that anything about 9/11 is humorous. Liberals embrace anything said or done by Obama, no matter whom it hurts.
This is not about defending Rush. If she had said most anything else about him, or any other commentator, I would defend her right to attack a public figure. But to play on the despair of the victims of 9/11, the dead and the families themselves, is despicable. How much lower can libs go, laughing at the murder of thousands of Americans? It doesn’t get any lower than that.
American liberals…the classless of our society.
Wanda Sykes (the twisted minded comedienne) was trying to be funny and said the following: "Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq'. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason”.
"He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."
She then concluded: "Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."
Obama laughed, took a drink of his water, and continued laughing. What was he supposed to do, stand up to her and tell her that it’s not funny? DAMN RIGHT. If he cannot stand up to an ignorant, racist, hateful WOMAN, do you think he can stand up to some of the greatest terrorists known to man? This sure doesn’t say much for the backbone of this president. Is he intimidated into silence by this stupid comedienne or in agreement with her that 9/11 is fodder for jokes? I think it’s more than a little bit of both.
So liberals joke about the worst attack on our country. I guess they find thousands of American lives destroyed amusing. But wait! I have heard from some of my liberal friends that “she was poking fun at Rush Limbaugh, NOT at the people killed on 9/11!” So, if I tell a joke about Hitler and the Jewish people killed in the Holocaust, no matter how hurtful it is, can I say “Oh! I was making fun of Hitler, not the Jews that were killed”. Or how about I make a joke out of slavery, then say, “hey, I was poking fun at Plantation owners!” Not funny is it, you liberal sycophants?
I know of no conservatives who think that anything about 9/11 is humorous. Liberals embrace anything said or done by Obama, no matter whom it hurts.
This is not about defending Rush. If she had said most anything else about him, or any other commentator, I would defend her right to attack a public figure. But to play on the despair of the victims of 9/11, the dead and the families themselves, is despicable. How much lower can libs go, laughing at the murder of thousands of Americans? It doesn’t get any lower than that.
American liberals…the classless of our society.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Obama, Senator Specter, and the Embrace of Slime
Last week, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, decided to switch parties from Republican to Democrat. Just a few short weeks ago, on March 18th, during a press conference he said, “To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket”. However on April 28th, Specter stated that “As the Republican party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic party”.
So what happened in those few short weeks? Did the “red states” decide to secede from the Union? Did the GOP authorize the killing of millions of people? Did the Republican party take over control of the country? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nothing at ALL happened with the Republican party except they seemed to reject left leaning Arlen Specter and polls show that a true conservative was beating the pants off of him.
Specter himself during the April 28th press conference made the following statement; “I have surveyed the sentiments of the Republican party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak”.
So, by his own admission, he abandoned his party for one that he thought he could possibly win. Excuse me? So you are at odds with them, why? Notice no mention of specifics. Just a statement that he could not win with Republicans, so he decided to switch sides.
Now all of this is interesting (and disgusting) enough, but then, the Democrats embraced him. Obama himself said, “Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democratic senator from Pennsylvania”.
So, Obama, you are HONORED to stand beside a deserter of his party, a traitor to his constituents, and a thief of the GOP’s money? Obama, you sure do keep yourself in good company, huh? Well, Democrats, you can have him. He is slime, but I would expect nothing else from someone that Obama embraces. I can’t imagine the GOP slobbering over someone who has no qualms whatsoever about being all of the things listed above. We have more pride and more respect for ourselves than that.
Deserter: A person who leaves or runs away. Check
Traitor: One who violates his allegiance. Check
Thief: One who steals without force. Check
Senator Specter ran on the Republican ticket and because he was an extremely moderate Republican, he won. Citizens voted for him because he portrayed himself to be slightly right of moderate. They trusted him to protect their integrity, but he has proven to them that he has none. He also took lots and lots of money from the Republican party for his election bids. This would be equivalent to me raising money for Mercy Ministries and then deciding to give that money to Planned Parenthood because I hope to get a better job there. It’s repugnant, immoral, and completely liberalistic…but I repeat myself.
Here’s the catch…the reason that Senator Specter switched parties was that a real conservative was challenging him in the primary. THIS is what should scare the liberals. Since the election of Obama, and the way that he has tried to socialize this country, the conservative movement has come out in full force. 2010 is going to be huge for conservatives. Many democrats (like Arlen Specter) and several left leaning Republicans (like John McCain), are going to be handed their walking papers. This is a fact. This is why Specter jumped ship. He knew he could not challenge a true conservative because the people, after just a few short months, are sick and tired of the libs trashing America to other countries. They are sick of the out of control spending, the push for socialization and fallacy behind global warming.
Rachel Maddow and Bawny Fwank are touting the demise of the GOP. The amusing thing is, that with the defection of 30 year Senator Arlen Specter, they should be afraid…very, very, afraid. He did not leave because he was at odds with the party. In his own words, he left because his prospects are bleak. Even in left leaning Pennsylvania.
Libs, we have regrouped. You will not have the minority population coming out in droves for the next election (like the last one) and the country is already tired of your socialist dictators. We are stronger than I have ever been aware of in my life. A resurgence is coming…a bible clinging, gun toting, vet loving, right wing extremist resurgence.
So what happened in those few short weeks? Did the “red states” decide to secede from the Union? Did the GOP authorize the killing of millions of people? Did the Republican party take over control of the country? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nothing at ALL happened with the Republican party except they seemed to reject left leaning Arlen Specter and polls show that a true conservative was beating the pants off of him.
Specter himself during the April 28th press conference made the following statement; “I have surveyed the sentiments of the Republican party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak”.
So, by his own admission, he abandoned his party for one that he thought he could possibly win. Excuse me? So you are at odds with them, why? Notice no mention of specifics. Just a statement that he could not win with Republicans, so he decided to switch sides.
Now all of this is interesting (and disgusting) enough, but then, the Democrats embraced him. Obama himself said, “Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democratic senator from Pennsylvania”.
So, Obama, you are HONORED to stand beside a deserter of his party, a traitor to his constituents, and a thief of the GOP’s money? Obama, you sure do keep yourself in good company, huh? Well, Democrats, you can have him. He is slime, but I would expect nothing else from someone that Obama embraces. I can’t imagine the GOP slobbering over someone who has no qualms whatsoever about being all of the things listed above. We have more pride and more respect for ourselves than that.
Deserter: A person who leaves or runs away. Check
Traitor: One who violates his allegiance. Check
Thief: One who steals without force. Check
Senator Specter ran on the Republican ticket and because he was an extremely moderate Republican, he won. Citizens voted for him because he portrayed himself to be slightly right of moderate. They trusted him to protect their integrity, but he has proven to them that he has none. He also took lots and lots of money from the Republican party for his election bids. This would be equivalent to me raising money for Mercy Ministries and then deciding to give that money to Planned Parenthood because I hope to get a better job there. It’s repugnant, immoral, and completely liberalistic…but I repeat myself.
Here’s the catch…the reason that Senator Specter switched parties was that a real conservative was challenging him in the primary. THIS is what should scare the liberals. Since the election of Obama, and the way that he has tried to socialize this country, the conservative movement has come out in full force. 2010 is going to be huge for conservatives. Many democrats (like Arlen Specter) and several left leaning Republicans (like John McCain), are going to be handed their walking papers. This is a fact. This is why Specter jumped ship. He knew he could not challenge a true conservative because the people, after just a few short months, are sick and tired of the libs trashing America to other countries. They are sick of the out of control spending, the push for socialization and fallacy behind global warming.
Rachel Maddow and Bawny Fwank are touting the demise of the GOP. The amusing thing is, that with the defection of 30 year Senator Arlen Specter, they should be afraid…very, very, afraid. He did not leave because he was at odds with the party. In his own words, he left because his prospects are bleak. Even in left leaning Pennsylvania.
Libs, we have regrouped. You will not have the minority population coming out in droves for the next election (like the last one) and the country is already tired of your socialist dictators. We are stronger than I have ever been aware of in my life. A resurgence is coming…a bible clinging, gun toting, vet loving, right wing extremist resurgence.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Obama and the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices
Last night, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced that he would be retiring in June. He has just turned 69, but has said numerous times that he is sick of Washington life and really wants to go home and live a normal life. Luckily for him, he still has a home. He was one of the justices that ruled in favor of the "Eminent Domain" case (Kelo v. City of New London) that evicted an 88 year old woman from the home that she had lived in her entire life (among other residents). They tore her house down to build a resort, but the company that was fronting it went bankrupt, so the land is sitting there with nothing on it because no one else wants it.
Conservatives knew there was a likelihood that Obama would be in the position of appointing 2 Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 76 and in failing health, John Paul Stevens is 89. Both of these justices are ultra liberal so there really would not be a change to the make up of the court. David Souter was appointed by Pres. George H. W. Bush as a moderate to right leaning justice, but he has proven that he is almost as left leaning as Justice Ginsberg.
There are basically two views on who should be on the Supreme Court. There are the Constitutionalists, (usually conservative) that believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, favoring limited Government, as prescribed by the Constitution. The other side is that of Judicial activism (usually liberal) that believe it is acceptable to legislate from the bench and that rulings can be based on personal ideology. The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate. That is why we have a legislature. Our founding fathers spelled out in the Constitution how this is supposed to work.
For instance, if part our Constitution needs to be changed, abolishing of slavery for example, that change cannot be legislated from the Supreme Court. That needs to be, per our Constitution, changed by Amendment. Our Constitution is very specific about these matters, and I would challenge any and all of you to actually read and look into the law of our land, the United States Constitution. Only 3% of the US population has ever read the whole text, and I would bet that a small percentage of them have bothered to really look into anything that they do not understand.
Now to my point. Obama is judicial activist. While campaigning, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
This goes completely against what our Constitution spells out. For those of you who consider our Constitution outdated, I say to you, if that's the case, then we have NO LAW of our land. You cannot pick and choose which parts you like; it's either all or none. Our founding fathers were very wise. (I recently read a book titled "Something That Will Surprise the World: The Essential Writings of Our Founding Fathers". It is a book of actual letters of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison among others, and will blow you away.) They knew that the world would change and that we as a country would evolve. They put the amendment process in the Constitution so that one person, the President, or even 9 people, the Supreme Court, could not make decisions that explicitly went against the Constitution.
When Obama was running for president, I found the following writings extremely informative. They are short and to the point.
On Judicial Activism: Legislating from the bench is a good way to describe judicial activism. Judicial activism occurs when a Judge or Justice decides an issue based on personal or political ideology or pressure from special interests instead of abiding by the Constitution and/or previous precedent. The United States has a system of checks and balances to insure that one branch of the federal government will not become too powerful. Under the separation of powers doctrine, only Congress has the power to legislate. Judicial activism violates that separation of powers by effectively creating new law that often affects the entire nation instead of settling the particular case at hand.
It makes sense that the judiciary, which is appointed rather than elected and held accountable by the people, does not have the ability to legislate. When judicial activism occurs, it is a usurpation of power. In other words, judicial activism means a Justice oversteps the jurisdiction of the Court or creates a ruling that radically diverges from common law, jurisprudence, and the intent of the Constitution. Judicial activism may also be a case of Judges or Justices overruling existing law or creating legal doctrines without precedent or support, which undermine or recreate policy, usually social policy.
While a judge who engages in judicial activism does not technically write a law, he or she often creates the same effect by handing down a ruling that allows or prohibits a certain action. Take abortion, a very controversial issue, for example. Roe v. Wade created a right for women to have abortions, which soon became the law of the land. There is no rationale for such a right, just as there is no support found in the Constitution for a nationwide ban.
Abortion is a state's rights issue, because it is not addressed in the Constitution, and therefore should have been decided by the states individually. Whether you agree with abortion or not isn't the question, nor is party affiliation. Both sides are guilty of judicial activism. The real issue is that one court does not have the right to decide the rule of law for all states, when it comes to issues not covered by the Constitution.
The same is true when it comes to marriage, and many other hot button issues. The Constitution does not grant such power to the Court or the Federal Government, and therefore these issues are to be decided by the states and by the people, not through judicial activism. The only other appropriate alternative is to amend the Constitution to address those issues not already covered.
On Constitutionalism: A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the Constitution. A constitutionalist favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution. In the beliefs of the constitutionalist, such a government should be small not only in size but also in scope and in power.There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist. While the two share some beliefs, their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted differs to some degree. Yet, no self-proclaimed constitutionalist believes in judicial activism, even it would benefit his or her cause.
It has long been held that the Constitution as well as laws and other legally binding documents should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. The constitutionalist embraces this principle. It is found in both textualism and originalism.
Texualists believe in as literal an interpretation as possible, although it is not always feasible to construe each precept in a completely literal manner. To do so would allow no limits against such things as "arms," which are protected by the Second Amendment. This would then allow the average citizen to legally own and use nearly any weapon known to man, including weapons of mass destruction.
Many people believe that there should be some reasonable limits even on rights that are deemed inalienable. The right itself, the right to defend oneself, is what is inalienable. Yet, many people don't accept it to mean that the methods used should have no limits. The same can be said of free speech and other rights, although some who hold strictly to the constitutionalist philosophy disagree.Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers' intent. The original intent is then more important than the precise words used and is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalists Papers are but one of the favored sources of the constitutionalist. To avoid extrapolations often based in semantics, as has been the case too often where judicial activists are able to provide their own interpretations, originalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought.
The very core of our Country is at stake with these appointments. Barack Obama has said that he will not do what our Constitution demands. He wants to appoint judges that instead of interpreting, "have empathy". That is not what the law dictates. It is not what OUR LAW dictates. This is a very dangerous path, one that could affect the lives of our children and grandchildren, and possibly even their children. So, before you go bashing the republicans for wanting to block Obama’s appointments, please look into these two schools of thought. And I hope that you will find that our Constitution is just as beautiful, important, and carefully scripted as I think it is. If Obama does what he has said he will do, he will be flicking his cigarette at our country and putting it out with the toe of his shoe.
Conservatives knew there was a likelihood that Obama would be in the position of appointing 2 Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 76 and in failing health, John Paul Stevens is 89. Both of these justices are ultra liberal so there really would not be a change to the make up of the court. David Souter was appointed by Pres. George H. W. Bush as a moderate to right leaning justice, but he has proven that he is almost as left leaning as Justice Ginsberg.
There are basically two views on who should be on the Supreme Court. There are the Constitutionalists, (usually conservative) that believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, favoring limited Government, as prescribed by the Constitution. The other side is that of Judicial activism (usually liberal) that believe it is acceptable to legislate from the bench and that rulings can be based on personal ideology. The Supreme Court is not supposed to legislate. That is why we have a legislature. Our founding fathers spelled out in the Constitution how this is supposed to work.
For instance, if part our Constitution needs to be changed, abolishing of slavery for example, that change cannot be legislated from the Supreme Court. That needs to be, per our Constitution, changed by Amendment. Our Constitution is very specific about these matters, and I would challenge any and all of you to actually read and look into the law of our land, the United States Constitution. Only 3% of the US population has ever read the whole text, and I would bet that a small percentage of them have bothered to really look into anything that they do not understand.
Now to my point. Obama is judicial activist. While campaigning, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
This goes completely against what our Constitution spells out. For those of you who consider our Constitution outdated, I say to you, if that's the case, then we have NO LAW of our land. You cannot pick and choose which parts you like; it's either all or none. Our founding fathers were very wise. (I recently read a book titled "Something That Will Surprise the World: The Essential Writings of Our Founding Fathers". It is a book of actual letters of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison among others, and will blow you away.) They knew that the world would change and that we as a country would evolve. They put the amendment process in the Constitution so that one person, the President, or even 9 people, the Supreme Court, could not make decisions that explicitly went against the Constitution.
When Obama was running for president, I found the following writings extremely informative. They are short and to the point.
On Judicial Activism: Legislating from the bench is a good way to describe judicial activism. Judicial activism occurs when a Judge or Justice decides an issue based on personal or political ideology or pressure from special interests instead of abiding by the Constitution and/or previous precedent. The United States has a system of checks and balances to insure that one branch of the federal government will not become too powerful. Under the separation of powers doctrine, only Congress has the power to legislate. Judicial activism violates that separation of powers by effectively creating new law that often affects the entire nation instead of settling the particular case at hand.
It makes sense that the judiciary, which is appointed rather than elected and held accountable by the people, does not have the ability to legislate. When judicial activism occurs, it is a usurpation of power. In other words, judicial activism means a Justice oversteps the jurisdiction of the Court or creates a ruling that radically diverges from common law, jurisprudence, and the intent of the Constitution. Judicial activism may also be a case of Judges or Justices overruling existing law or creating legal doctrines without precedent or support, which undermine or recreate policy, usually social policy.
While a judge who engages in judicial activism does not technically write a law, he or she often creates the same effect by handing down a ruling that allows or prohibits a certain action. Take abortion, a very controversial issue, for example. Roe v. Wade created a right for women to have abortions, which soon became the law of the land. There is no rationale for such a right, just as there is no support found in the Constitution for a nationwide ban.
Abortion is a state's rights issue, because it is not addressed in the Constitution, and therefore should have been decided by the states individually. Whether you agree with abortion or not isn't the question, nor is party affiliation. Both sides are guilty of judicial activism. The real issue is that one court does not have the right to decide the rule of law for all states, when it comes to issues not covered by the Constitution.
The same is true when it comes to marriage, and many other hot button issues. The Constitution does not grant such power to the Court or the Federal Government, and therefore these issues are to be decided by the states and by the people, not through judicial activism. The only other appropriate alternative is to amend the Constitution to address those issues not already covered.
On Constitutionalism: A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the Constitution. A constitutionalist favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution. In the beliefs of the constitutionalist, such a government should be small not only in size but also in scope and in power.There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist. While the two share some beliefs, their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted differs to some degree. Yet, no self-proclaimed constitutionalist believes in judicial activism, even it would benefit his or her cause.
It has long been held that the Constitution as well as laws and other legally binding documents should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. The constitutionalist embraces this principle. It is found in both textualism and originalism.
Texualists believe in as literal an interpretation as possible, although it is not always feasible to construe each precept in a completely literal manner. To do so would allow no limits against such things as "arms," which are protected by the Second Amendment. This would then allow the average citizen to legally own and use nearly any weapon known to man, including weapons of mass destruction.
Many people believe that there should be some reasonable limits even on rights that are deemed inalienable. The right itself, the right to defend oneself, is what is inalienable. Yet, many people don't accept it to mean that the methods used should have no limits. The same can be said of free speech and other rights, although some who hold strictly to the constitutionalist philosophy disagree.Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers' intent. The original intent is then more important than the precise words used and is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalists Papers are but one of the favored sources of the constitutionalist. To avoid extrapolations often based in semantics, as has been the case too often where judicial activists are able to provide their own interpretations, originalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought.
The very core of our Country is at stake with these appointments. Barack Obama has said that he will not do what our Constitution demands. He wants to appoint judges that instead of interpreting, "have empathy". That is not what the law dictates. It is not what OUR LAW dictates. This is a very dangerous path, one that could affect the lives of our children and grandchildren, and possibly even their children. So, before you go bashing the republicans for wanting to block Obama’s appointments, please look into these two schools of thought. And I hope that you will find that our Constitution is just as beautiful, important, and carefully scripted as I think it is. If Obama does what he has said he will do, he will be flicking his cigarette at our country and putting it out with the toe of his shoe.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Tolerance, Liberals, and their Ignorance of the English Language
After years of being unaware, I have come to the conclusion that liberals have no concept of the English language. Either that or they willfully ignore even the most basic definitions of everyday words.
For instance, last week, Obama offered to pay, yes PAY, VOLUNTEERS for service that he approves of. For those of you out there that do not know the definition of volunteer, I will offer it up for you. Per Webster’s Dictionary, volunteer means: without pay. So your illustrious president has taken it upon himself to redefine a primary word in the English vocabulary. No longer does volunteer mean without pay, you can now get paid for volunteer work.
Most recently, a liberal gay activist has redefined the word tolerance. Tolerance, according to Webster’s, and according to everyone I know, means a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. However, most, if not all liberals that I know, only want tolerance to be practiced one way. If you think as they do then you are tolerant. If not, then you are labeled a homophobe, racist, or xenophobe. Please allow me to illustrate the latest example of liberal “tolerance”.
Last week, during the Miss America pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked for her OPINION on gay marriage by left wing extremist nut job Perez Hilton. He asked, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?" Now, mind you, he (she/it) ASKED for her opinion. He knew before the question that she was religious, a Christian, and clearly his intent was to have her waiver in her faith, hoping that a crown would be more important to her than her faith. God bless her. She stood up to him, knowing that it could cost her the Miss America crown. She answered the following: “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman”. This was her opinion, an opinion shared my most of American citizens (if you don’t believe me, just look at Proposition 8, the California ballot proposition that defined marriage as exclusive to one man and one woman. This initiative comes from the most liberal, and gay, state in the United States. Even the majority of California citizens reject gay marriage). Not only did this cost her the Miss America crown, but gay activists have ridiculed and criticized her beyond belief. Perez called her a dumb b---h, and a stupid c—t. Mr./Mrs/It Perez, where is YOUR tolerance?????
It is obvious that tolerance only extends to liberals. Conservatives cannot disagree with anything liberals stand for or we are labeled stupid. We are not allowed to stand up for our beliefs. If we do, we are called horrible names. We are ridiculed on liberal websites and liberal new channels. Where is the tolerance for other avenues of thought?
I have been called intolerant, mean, hateful, a b---h, and a myriad of other labels...all in the name of tolerance. Last week, as I was driving down the road, someone threw something at my car, specifically at my “Right Wing Extremist” bumper sticker. Where is the tolerance from the left? It does not exist. If you are not with them, then you are hated and ridiculed. I am wrong, and there can be no “tolerance” for any other agenda but theirs.
So I ask my liberal friends, where is your tolerance for my opinion? Why do you expect, nay DEMAND, my tolerance, when you will not extend the same courtesy to me?
For instance, last week, Obama offered to pay, yes PAY, VOLUNTEERS for service that he approves of. For those of you out there that do not know the definition of volunteer, I will offer it up for you. Per Webster’s Dictionary, volunteer means: without pay. So your illustrious president has taken it upon himself to redefine a primary word in the English vocabulary. No longer does volunteer mean without pay, you can now get paid for volunteer work.
Most recently, a liberal gay activist has redefined the word tolerance. Tolerance, according to Webster’s, and according to everyone I know, means a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. However, most, if not all liberals that I know, only want tolerance to be practiced one way. If you think as they do then you are tolerant. If not, then you are labeled a homophobe, racist, or xenophobe. Please allow me to illustrate the latest example of liberal “tolerance”.
Last week, during the Miss America pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked for her OPINION on gay marriage by left wing extremist nut job Perez Hilton. He asked, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not?" Now, mind you, he (she/it) ASKED for her opinion. He knew before the question that she was religious, a Christian, and clearly his intent was to have her waiver in her faith, hoping that a crown would be more important to her than her faith. God bless her. She stood up to him, knowing that it could cost her the Miss America crown. She answered the following: “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman”. This was her opinion, an opinion shared my most of American citizens (if you don’t believe me, just look at Proposition 8, the California ballot proposition that defined marriage as exclusive to one man and one woman. This initiative comes from the most liberal, and gay, state in the United States. Even the majority of California citizens reject gay marriage). Not only did this cost her the Miss America crown, but gay activists have ridiculed and criticized her beyond belief. Perez called her a dumb b---h, and a stupid c—t. Mr./Mrs/It Perez, where is YOUR tolerance?????
It is obvious that tolerance only extends to liberals. Conservatives cannot disagree with anything liberals stand for or we are labeled stupid. We are not allowed to stand up for our beliefs. If we do, we are called horrible names. We are ridiculed on liberal websites and liberal new channels. Where is the tolerance for other avenues of thought?
I have been called intolerant, mean, hateful, a b---h, and a myriad of other labels...all in the name of tolerance. Last week, as I was driving down the road, someone threw something at my car, specifically at my “Right Wing Extremist” bumper sticker. Where is the tolerance from the left? It does not exist. If you are not with them, then you are hated and ridiculed. I am wrong, and there can be no “tolerance” for any other agenda but theirs.
So I ask my liberal friends, where is your tolerance for my opinion? Why do you expect, nay DEMAND, my tolerance, when you will not extend the same courtesy to me?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tea Parties and Progressive Journalism
I should be impervious to this, but it still amazes me how the left seems to get everything wrong.
Case in point. I attended one of the hundreds of Tea Parties on tax day. I left feeling refreshed and revitalized. Thousands of like-minded people gathered to voice our disapproval with the way our government is headed. However, listening to the news that night, you would have never known the 5 major points of this story…the who, what, where, when, and why. You see, that’s Journalism 101, but I would never call any of the MSM “progressives” journalists. They report their agenda and rarely get the facts straight. So, my friends, I will give you a REAL report…real journalism, broken down so even my liberal readers can understand.
Who: There were about 4,000 people at the Franklin Tea Party. They were people of all colors, religions, and even political ideals. There were signs held up saying “Lifelong Democrat, but Enough is Enough”, “Democrat Against Spending My Children Into Poverty”, and “Democrat Student, Economics Major, Debt Doesn’t Work”. I was glad that they were there if just to show that this was not a “Republican thing”. There were WWII Veterans, Iraq War Veterans (now called Right Wing Terrorists), children, and lots of middle aged people.
When I got home, I turned on the news. Since there was no local news on at the time, I decided to watch Rachel Maddow (excuse me while I gag)... She amuses me because she has this little sneer when she talks about things she really has no clue about. She talked about how this was a tax protest (which it most certainly was NOT, more on that below), and repeatedly called it tea bagging, referencing the participants as tea baggers. Really? REALLY? Are we still in high school? No one I know that has been involved in this movement has even used those words. She just kept saying it and I just kept laughing. She made herself look so infantile. Like a little kid saying “let’s drive over the dam!!!” Snicker, snicker. THIS is who the libs have as one of their main spokesmen? Embarrassing.
After watching her and flipping back and forth to try to see some legitimate coverage, I finally found a blurb (and by blurb, I mean 10 seconds) on the Tea Party in downtown Nashville. WKRN (local ABC affiliate) said “a few hundred” showed up to protest. WOW, I had friends there and they told me there were several thousand people there. I later found out that the capitol police estimated the crowd to be between 9,800 and 10,500 people! (for the WRKN folks, that would be about 100 hundreds, more than a few).
What: For the lefties out there that listen to your “progressive journalists”, this was not a protest against taxes. Honestly, I have no issue with paying taxes. My police protection is provided by my taxes. Our military is funded by my taxes. I just think everyone should pay their fair share…but I digress.
This started out as a protest “much like the Boston Tea Party”. We used that reference because we felt that our disgust is as strong as the patriots that organized the original Boston Tea Party. It’s an analogy, people. Look it up.
I would like to tell you how the tea party I attended progressed. The first thing we did was say a prayer. An actual prayer to God, and in Jesus name. Guess what? NO ONE WAS OFFENDED! We were there voluntarily, but I would assume that most people were Christians. I’m sure some were not, but they understood that we have the right to pray ANYTIME we want. Even in public!!! (I wonder if a liberal protest has ever started with a Christian prayer? I would be interested to hear of one.)
We then said the Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag. Not to Obama, as the recent YouTube sensation does, but to our flag, the symbol of our country and our freedom.
There was someone there to sing the National Anthem but I couldn’t hear him. That’s because we were ALL singing. It didn’t matter if you could carry a tune or not. We were singing with all our heart. The men removed their caps and held them over their hearts. It made me SO proud to be a conservative. The “progressives” have tried to destroy all that has been traditionally patriotic. I will always hold those traditions dear to me and have taught my children, and will teach my grandchildren, how to honor your country.
None of us stomped our feet, none of us threw anything, there was no cursing. Just bible clinging, gun owning, God fearing Americans. Praying and pledging and singing. Most with smiles, some with tears, all with love for America.
Where: There were over 800 tea parties across the country, in all 50 states, with (at last count) about a million people attending. They were held in small towns, with a gathering of 50 or so, they were held in large cities, like Nashville (10,000 people) and at the Alamo in San Antonio, where over 16,000 true American Patriots showed up. As I mentioned before, my little town of Franklin had about 4,000 there.
When: Unfortunately, because we gathered on April 15th, those that didn’t bother to look into our agenda assumed that we were protesting taxes. Again, we were not. April 15th was just a day that people would remember. Everyone knows it’s tax day. It was decided that, so people could plan ahead and not forget, we would use that day.
Why : We were protesting big government and out of control spending. We wanted to make our voices heard concerning the continued mishandling of the economy. We wanted to show that we are NOT taking part in this recession, and that with sound spending habits and without government interference, we would all come out of this just fine. We want our elected officials to know that should they continue on this path, they would be out of a job in two or so years.
Who do you think is going to pay for this multi TRILLION dollar debt your president is racking up? Possibly me, but most likely my kids. Our founding fathers wanted a country with limited federal authority. Your president wants the exact opposite of everything they intended. Have you read the constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment? Ignorance of THIS is what we were protesting. We want our state back! In Tennessee, we want Gov. Phil Bredesen to refuse the stimulus money! We want no part of these bail-outs! We want to get back to the intent of the founding fathers.
You haven’t heard the last from us. We will never stop fighting. We are true Patriots…look it up.
Case in point. I attended one of the hundreds of Tea Parties on tax day. I left feeling refreshed and revitalized. Thousands of like-minded people gathered to voice our disapproval with the way our government is headed. However, listening to the news that night, you would have never known the 5 major points of this story…the who, what, where, when, and why. You see, that’s Journalism 101, but I would never call any of the MSM “progressives” journalists. They report their agenda and rarely get the facts straight. So, my friends, I will give you a REAL report…real journalism, broken down so even my liberal readers can understand.
Who: There were about 4,000 people at the Franklin Tea Party. They were people of all colors, religions, and even political ideals. There were signs held up saying “Lifelong Democrat, but Enough is Enough”, “Democrat Against Spending My Children Into Poverty”, and “Democrat Student, Economics Major, Debt Doesn’t Work”. I was glad that they were there if just to show that this was not a “Republican thing”. There were WWII Veterans, Iraq War Veterans (now called Right Wing Terrorists), children, and lots of middle aged people.
When I got home, I turned on the news. Since there was no local news on at the time, I decided to watch Rachel Maddow (excuse me while I gag)... She amuses me because she has this little sneer when she talks about things she really has no clue about. She talked about how this was a tax protest (which it most certainly was NOT, more on that below), and repeatedly called it tea bagging, referencing the participants as tea baggers. Really? REALLY? Are we still in high school? No one I know that has been involved in this movement has even used those words. She just kept saying it and I just kept laughing. She made herself look so infantile. Like a little kid saying “let’s drive over the dam!!!” Snicker, snicker. THIS is who the libs have as one of their main spokesmen? Embarrassing.
After watching her and flipping back and forth to try to see some legitimate coverage, I finally found a blurb (and by blurb, I mean 10 seconds) on the Tea Party in downtown Nashville. WKRN (local ABC affiliate) said “a few hundred” showed up to protest. WOW, I had friends there and they told me there were several thousand people there. I later found out that the capitol police estimated the crowd to be between 9,800 and 10,500 people! (for the WRKN folks, that would be about 100 hundreds, more than a few).
What: For the lefties out there that listen to your “progressive journalists”, this was not a protest against taxes. Honestly, I have no issue with paying taxes. My police protection is provided by my taxes. Our military is funded by my taxes. I just think everyone should pay their fair share…but I digress.
This started out as a protest “much like the Boston Tea Party”. We used that reference because we felt that our disgust is as strong as the patriots that organized the original Boston Tea Party. It’s an analogy, people. Look it up.
I would like to tell you how the tea party I attended progressed. The first thing we did was say a prayer. An actual prayer to God, and in Jesus name. Guess what? NO ONE WAS OFFENDED! We were there voluntarily, but I would assume that most people were Christians. I’m sure some were not, but they understood that we have the right to pray ANYTIME we want. Even in public!!! (I wonder if a liberal protest has ever started with a Christian prayer? I would be interested to hear of one.)
We then said the Pledge of Allegiance. To the flag. Not to Obama, as the recent YouTube sensation does, but to our flag, the symbol of our country and our freedom.
There was someone there to sing the National Anthem but I couldn’t hear him. That’s because we were ALL singing. It didn’t matter if you could carry a tune or not. We were singing with all our heart. The men removed their caps and held them over their hearts. It made me SO proud to be a conservative. The “progressives” have tried to destroy all that has been traditionally patriotic. I will always hold those traditions dear to me and have taught my children, and will teach my grandchildren, how to honor your country.
None of us stomped our feet, none of us threw anything, there was no cursing. Just bible clinging, gun owning, God fearing Americans. Praying and pledging and singing. Most with smiles, some with tears, all with love for America.
Where: There were over 800 tea parties across the country, in all 50 states, with (at last count) about a million people attending. They were held in small towns, with a gathering of 50 or so, they were held in large cities, like Nashville (10,000 people) and at the Alamo in San Antonio, where over 16,000 true American Patriots showed up. As I mentioned before, my little town of Franklin had about 4,000 there.
When: Unfortunately, because we gathered on April 15th, those that didn’t bother to look into our agenda assumed that we were protesting taxes. Again, we were not. April 15th was just a day that people would remember. Everyone knows it’s tax day. It was decided that, so people could plan ahead and not forget, we would use that day.
Why : We were protesting big government and out of control spending. We wanted to make our voices heard concerning the continued mishandling of the economy. We wanted to show that we are NOT taking part in this recession, and that with sound spending habits and without government interference, we would all come out of this just fine. We want our elected officials to know that should they continue on this path, they would be out of a job in two or so years.
Who do you think is going to pay for this multi TRILLION dollar debt your president is racking up? Possibly me, but most likely my kids. Our founding fathers wanted a country with limited federal authority. Your president wants the exact opposite of everything they intended. Have you read the constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment? Ignorance of THIS is what we were protesting. We want our state back! In Tennessee, we want Gov. Phil Bredesen to refuse the stimulus money! We want no part of these bail-outs! We want to get back to the intent of the founding fathers.
You haven’t heard the last from us. We will never stop fighting. We are true Patriots…look it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)