Barack Obama Hates America

I know, it's quite a leap to suggest that a man would run for president of a country he hates, but let's discuss his desire to bring "fundamental change" to America. Fundamental change. Fundamental change. Lather, rinse, repeat. What exactly does fundamental change mean? The word fundamental means of an originating or original source. In America's case, our fundamentals are the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Now, Barack Obama is generally not careless with words, with the exception of a few rather gratuitous stumbles, so one must assume that he chose this particular construction of "fundamental change" rather consciously. This begs the question: does Barack Hussein Obama really desire a fundamental change of America?

Yes. When properly read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two parts of one whole. The Declaration declares our independence and articulates our founding principles, while the Constitution girds those principles by erecting a compatible framework of government. To wit, our Constitution cannot exist without the Declaration of Independence, and any attempt to separate the two is a fundamental and grossly intentional misreading of American history and tradition. Barack Obama engages in this intentional misreading.

The Declaration informs us of the natural (G-d given), unalienable rights shared by all human beings, including but of course not limited to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And that the purpose of governments (such as the one to be constructed by our Constitution some few years later) is to secure these rights through the exercise of powers given their legitimacy solely by the consent of the governed. It should be noted at this precise moment that never before in the history of mankind had a government been organized around the guiding principle of pre-existing conditions (pun intended) wedded inseparably to the human soul and not bequeathed by the benevolent hand of a dictator or king. And not only did our founders recognize this truth, they purposefully declared it a self-evident truth written into the human condition by our Creator.

Natural law and the truth of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness help to inform us of the purpose of the Constitution, as articulated in the Preamble. The Preamble states many things, but most noticeably its intention to craft a system of government capable of securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their American posterity. Divorced from the Declaration, the Preamble means nothing, and in general the Preamble has no functional authority with respect to Constitutional law by itself. However, when properly viewed together the unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration are noticeably inseparable from the architecture of our government and the execution of its laws.

How so? A few examples. If one accepts the truth that there are rights that pre-exist the founding of the American government, then one must properly view the Second Amendment as being a fundamental and therefore unalienable right. For if the individual right to life is unalienable, then most certainly the individual right to protect it is unalienable as well. If one accepts the truth that the right to life is unalienable for all people, in this instance the Founders and their American progeny, and if one accepts the unimpeachable scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception, then natural law rightfully outlaws abortion as the act of murder it actually is. If one accepts the truth, expressed in the Declaration, that all are created equal, one must also accept the truth that all should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, rather than providing special treatment for some based upon favored characteristics or political connections.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, supports outlawing the possession of firearms among law-abiding citizens, a position that is fundamentally incompatible with our unalienable right to protect and preserve life. Barack Obama believes that a child is a form of "punishment" to be terminated at the evil hands of abortion doctors, a position that is fundamentally destructive of the unalienable right to life granted by our Creator. Barack Obama believes that the tax code should be used to engineer desired sociopolitical results as opposed to being an evenly applied tool to fund the few legitimate powers granted to the federal government. This position is fundamentally at odds with the right to equal protection under the law. Barack Obama believes the Supreme Court is a place to torture the plain language of the Constitution, with the specific purpose of providing special treatment and social engineering a repugnant veneer of actual lawfulness. This position is a fundamentally dishonest interpretation of the American ideal and practice of "the rule of law." Barack Obama believes that the federal government knows what is best for you, and therefore supports an all-powerful centralized federal government that makes your decisions for you, whether they benevolently allow you to actually be born, or they unlawfully make end of life decisions for you under the guise of "health care reform." This understanding is fundamentally irreconcilable with the honest and truthful reading of both the Declaration and the Constitution, which together clearly articulate through the Tenth Amendment that the several States and the people know best how to govern themselves.

When the people of the United States elected Barack Obama, they elected a cipher who used extraordinarily broad language when useful and the language of conservatives when necessary in order to position himself to bring about this fundamental change he so desires. He clearly rejects the ideals of the American founding as well as the true fundamentals of the American tradition, and he lied to the American people in order to secure a position that would entrust within him enough power to destroy the very country he was elected to lead. Ironic? Yes. But does that mean he hates America?

Not in and of itself. However, the unvarnished evidential truth about Barack Obama brings both and indictment and conviction for the crime of America hatred. First, we have his deliberate efforts to deface the truthful understanding of the founding of the Republic and the inseparable relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. Secondly, I know I'm not alone when I say that I'm quite sick and tired of Barack Obama's anti-American apology tour. He has been president for 7 months and he's already apologized to Europe for our supposed arrogance and derisiveness, apologized to the Muslim community for supposed American sins against this "religion of peace," and apologized for supposed American transgressions with respect to what is laughably referred to as the Mid-East peace process (truthfully defined as the active aiding and abetting of the destruction of the Jewish state).

Add to that the following: his embrace of Iranian mullahs who murdered their own countrymen in order to retain power; the purposeful misrepresentation of the truth of the attempted Zelayan coup in Tegucigalpa; his cheerful handshake with Miguel Ortega while happily accepting his anti-American diatribe that some call a book; his nose-rubbing with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez; the laundry list of shady America hating characters like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn with whom he has spent his entire life canoodling; and calling a dedicated and decorated police officer "stupid." From all of this one can only properly deduce that Barack Obama hates America. For at every turn in his entire life he has rejected American tradition and original understanding, befriended and embraced people who hate America, and now as president extends an open hand to regimes hostile to America and American interests while giving only the back of it to allies like Britain and Israel.

It is abundantly clear just 7 months into the first year of this presidency that the man occupying the Oval Office is very different from the man wearing the Barack Obama mask on the campaign trail. The man in the Oval Office, that is to say the real Barack Obama, seeks to separate himself and the country he now leads from American history and tradition and instead take it down a very different path, one that only leads, as Reagan said, to 1000 years of darkness. That is the fundamental change promised to us by Barack Hussein Obama. That is the nightmare from which we must awaken before it's too late. The only remaining question is: will the American people wake up in time to stop him?

Conservative Solutions Part 3: Trusting the American People on Health Care

There's a very basic but profound difference between liberals and conservatives and it is this: liberals believe they can run your lives better than you can; and conservatives believe in the power and ingenuity of the American people. In other words, they don't trust you; and we do.

How do I know this? Well, let's start with a look at the biggest of many elephants currently in the room: health care. It goes without saying that health care in America is not as efficient and cost-effective as it can be. Barack Obama will say that only the Democrats recognize this, and that conservatives would just prefer we do nothing. That is a boldfaced lie.

So what kind of issues are we facing in our current system? First, employer-based insurance is an albatross around the necks of small businesses throughout the United States. Why? The cost to employers increases by about 15% each year. In conjunction with that rising cost, small business are summarily charged higher premiums than large businesses. Prices are artificially increased by the lack of intrastate competition. Reckless malpractice lawsuits are driving up costs that are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Uninsured people get emergency room treatment, which is prohibitively expensive for routine medical care. There are others, but this is a good starting point for a comparison on how liberals and conservatives wish to deal with the problem.

The great liberal plan is not to foster competition to drive down costs; it's not to curb reckless malpractice claims; it's not to allow companies to pursue insurance across state lines, like we can do with car insurance. No. Their plan is to increase federal regulation, which always increases costs with dubious claims of increased efficiency, and to create a nationalized health care system along the lines of Canada or England. They won't tell you that's their goal. They'll say, "We just want to create a government-sponsored alternative to compete with the private sector." That sounds pretty reasonable on its face, until you dig deeper and find the ugly reality. An alternative to the private sector that is funded completely by the American taxpayer and the Treasury printing presses will skew the entire system. This alternative will face no market-based pressures to keep costs down naturally, but rather will have the full force of the federal government to set whatever prices they deem appropriate and therefore force the private insurance company out of business. This isn't a slippery slope. It's a mudslide into disaster. The systems in Canada and England are virtually bankrupt; care is rationed by bureaucrats; people die waiting in line for necessary procedures and tests; taxation is oppressive. That is the truth that Obama and his cronies are trying to hide in the smooth, used car salesman way they're so good at. But we're not buying it this time.

The conservative approach is much simpler and will actually bring down costs and keep the federal government away from this massive illegal venture.

1) Provide a real alternative by allowing employees to disconnect from the employer-based plan, find their own affordable care, and give them the generous tax deduction that corporations get.
2) Allow intrastate purchasing of health insurance plans. This will naturally bring down costs by increasing competition (a natural, iron-clad proven benefit of the law of supply and demand).
3) Malpractice liability reform to curb jury awards at a reasonable level; combined with aggressive, punitive, progressive sanctions for people who file frivolous lawsuits (frivolous can be defined clearly in the law).
4) Create a more robust, state-level free clinic program. This can be accomplished by state funding; incentivizing hospitals to donate current equipment and medicines; incentivize doctors coming out of the top schools to participate in providing pro bono care at these clinics by giving generous tax deductions each year for 5 years in order to help offset the crippling costs of medical school. This will also help allay the costs of the free care that illegal aliens are already receiving, which American citizens oftentimes go bankrupt trying to repay.
5) Allow small businesses to bind together in contract in order to get the costs that large businesses get.

So let's review. The liberal plan is to create another DMV, only worse because it will be run by the federal government as opposed to the states, that determines what care you can receive and when you will receive it. Also, it will have the added "benefit" to liberals of making you more dependent on government as well as bankrupting the nation. As they try to sell you this absolute monstrosity, they'll claim that we don't have any ideas and that we're not coming to the table with anything except the word "no," while they snake-charm everyone into thinking they can manage this better than they can Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all on the imminent verge of bankruptcy. The wellspring of liberal lies never ends.

In contrast, the conservative plan is real reform designed to give you, the American people, more control over your health care at cheaper costs with greater inherent efficiency.

In other words, they don't trust you. We do.

Conservative Solutions, Part 2: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

"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!"

-- Patrick Henry


Liberals play for keeps. To them, politics is win or lose game; compromise has no place in the Democrat policy playbook. It is one area they have a substantial leg up on us. Generally speaking, conservatives are more polite than liberals, and specifically Republicans wilt under the heat of the fire-breathing Democrats. We must match them with the same verve, with the language of stark and vivid choices, and with the attitude of a pit bull.

When it comes to defending America, the Constitution and everything else we hold dear, we can no longer accept the passive approach struck by the elitist, establishment Republicans who have spent the last 50 years trying to accommodate their Democrat allies, who are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing. With the breath of fresh air that animated conservatism in the form of Ronald Reagan, we appeared poised to finally reverse the onslaught of socialism and turn the tide back toward constitutional government. But, alas, Ronald Reagan himself was not enough. Even the Great Liberator failed in his sincerest desire to return our federal government to its proper, constitutional state, deriving its just authority from the consent of the governed. We failed as well by electing country club Republican George Bush to succeed Reagan instead of someone like Jack Kemp, who was the logical successor to continue to advance the cause of liberty.

With the rise of the Obama administration, our government has ceased to even pretend it cares what the Constitution says or what actions are or are not permitted by it. Cap and trade? Nothing in the Constitution. Nationalized health care? Nothing. Barack Obama isn't even likely to be constitutionally eligible, but who cares? The Constitution only demands natural-born citizenship, but why bother with such mundane details as the rule of law when we can install a smooth-talking snake oil salesman into the presidency?

The time has long since passed for the people of this country to rise up together and demand the liberty promised to us in the Declaration of Independence and as protected by the written letter of the Constitution. The time is now to begin to use words of substance to describe the choices before us. We're at a crossroads, and only by speaking the truth will we find ourselves back on the proper path. And the truth is, liberalism must be stopped. Now. When we regain the spirit of men like Patrick Henry and stand willing to die before we submit any further to the chains of tyranny being placed upon us by this illegitimate president, then and only then will we be worthy of calling ourselves by the greatest title in the history of civilization: American.

The Left's Deceit With Disrespect to the Courts

We often hear from liberals how they don't believe in the principles of originalism when it comes to answering questions of statutory or constitutional law. They believe in the idea of a "living constitution" which changes meaning over time. This is fancy language for the fact that liberals do not at all feel constrained by the text or original intent of the Constitution and would much prefer to either make it up as they go or to rape and pillage the language and invent new rights out of the vacant space of the Constitution in order to advance this rabid strain of what they call progressivism.

One must ask, then, why during this hearing of Judge Sotomayor are they using the language of conservatives to sell their radical nominee to the American public? Only when Democrat presidents appoint judges to the Supreme Court do they seem to have any care whatsoever for judicial minimalism, the text and history of the Constitution, judicial restraint, stare decisis, and the proper role of the judiciary in our democratic republic where judges apply the laws written by the Congress as opposed to imposing their own personal political prejudices upon the American people. This is generally the unmentioned strategy of the Left as it relates to the judiciary.

Liberal belief in and adherence to the principle of stare decisis is disingenuous at best and possibly much worse. Their approach to this doctrine of generally sticking by what has already been decided, in order to ensure stability in the law, is eerily similar to their approach to stealing elections, most notably the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state and the recent "victory" by Al Franken over Senator Norm Coleman. In these elections, the Republican earned close, hard-fought victories on election day only to see their Democrat opponent fight the results in court, mysteriously produce heretofore unseen and unaccountable ballots, all until they finally had secured the lead and then declared victory. Like their approach to stare decisis, they will bludgeon the text and original intent of the Constitution until they overturn precedent to their liking, then declare the holy principle of stare decisis as being inviolable. Yet again what is left unsaid by these liberal hatchet jobbers is the most important thing: What has happened prior to our holding the reins of power will only stand until we get our way, and then we will permit no further discussion or dissent. It is how all these years after the Roe v Wade fiasco that people on both sides of the constitutional spectrum admit it wasn't even a remotely proper constitutional decision, and yet it is still inviolable by the Left. You see, even though we all agree that there is nothing in the text or original intent of the Constitution that authorizes the murder of unborn children, the Left will defend this naked act of judicial fiat to the death.

So why bother with the pretense at all? Why is the Left selling us Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next coming of Judge Robert Bork instead of selling her as the next Justice Ginsburg, which is a much more apt comparison? If they believe so deeply in this rigid ideology of outright disrespect for the text and history of the Constitution, why not just say so? The answer is simple: power. The Democrat party knows full well that the American people overwhelmingly reject their notion of a living constitution and their perverted ideas of the role of the judiciary in foisting upon the nation the liberal orthodoxy that proves time and again a losing formula at the ballot box. Their tacit but not so secretive strategy to write their own constitution in the name of our beloved Constitution is so revolting that it must be kept quiet at all costs. That is why you will hear Judge Sotomayor sound more like Chief Justice Roberts in her confirmation hearing than the hack she is replacing, Justice David Hackett Souter.

So then only two intertwined questions remain. Will senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee discharge their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? Or will they further acquiesce to the ongoing Constitutional Convention taking place at the Supreme Court and the congressional liberal assault on the American republic?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Despicable Human Being

Take a look at the modern day liberal ideology behind abortion, and tell me it's just about the "right to choose."

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

I wish more people who support abortion would be honest about their desire to limit "the growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." At least in articulating with clarity their bloodlust to snuff out nascent human life under the guise of population control they'd be intellectually honest in walking in the abhorrent footsteps of Margaret Sanger.

And something tells me that this ideology is what fuels the attacks on Sarah Palin and her young baby Trig.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

I've waited a few days to write about Governor Palin's decision to resign. My initial reaction was extreme disappointment and even a touch of anger. While my anger has faded I am still extremely disappointed by the governor's decision to step down. And a bit mystified by her reasoning.

Governor Palin gave many reasons for quitting: frivolous ethics probes that have crippled her administration and cost the state of Alaska over 2 million dollars; the relentless attacks on her children; her decision not to run for a second term made her a lame duck; mounting legal bills to defend herself from baseless charges; and some other stuff that I can't remember from her disjointed press conference.

I still like and respect the governor. The baseless ethics probes have in fact crippled her administration and her ability to govern. The attacks on her children, especially the vitriol directed at an infant with Down Syndrome, are so over the top and out of bounds that the people who utter such poison should be filled with a deep and lasting shame (though they won't). Her decision not to run for a second term was legit, as it could have propelled her to the front of the race for the Republican nomination in 2012. Her mounting legal bills of over half a million dollars are not easily paid by the governor's salary.

Had she given any one of those reasons and coupled it to a decision to resign I'd be more forgiving. After all, who wants to listen as her son is called retarded and her daughter is the victim of a disgusting rape joke. My stomach turns when I think about what this woman and her family have been subjected to. Maybe the simple truth is that she just had enough. I'm not sure that that's the case; but it does seem at least a reasonable possibility. But she didn't just list one thing. She listed many, which is why people are now speculating as to which is the truth. Regardless of that, I'm more upset about the abdication of her responsibility to her constituents that she has let down. The people of Alaska elected her to a 4-year term of office. They did not elect Lt. Governor Sean Parnell. In resigning early she has certainly exercised an existing right to do so, but she has, in my opinion, exercised poor judgment.

If the attacks on her family and the baseless ethics charges that crippled her administration are truly the two reasons she has resigned, and I tend to believe that they are, then Governor Palin has done nothing more than to fuel the partisan fires that burn in the hearts of her opposition. She might have removed herself from the line of fire, but she proved to those character assassins that their strategy works, and that if given enough time, resources, and venom regurgitated on the primary target, they can force people to flee from the heat of the kitchen. This was exactly the wrong message to send.

I would have much preferred to see Governor Palin hammer her opponents and simultaneously call on the leaders of the Democrat party to renounce these sorts of attacks on family and children much like Obama demanded his kids be left alone, and properly so. In putting the heat back onto those who quietly stoke the fires, people who wanted nothing more than to see Sarah Palin reduced to ashes, she would've turned the debate on its head and revealed the hypocrisy of the leaders of the Democrat party who believe deeply in the politics of personal destruction. Especially when waged against an accomplished, attractive, happily married, pro-life mother of five governor who marches to the beat of a very different drum than their rigid ideology of liberal, pro-abortion feminism. If their goal was to destroy Sarah Palin, their efforts bore fruit. It's now up to the governor to leave them with a rotten taste in their mouths, and to rebuild the trust she has damaged with the people of Alaska and within the conservative movement she was hoping to lead. It is a formidable mountain to climb. Your move, Ms. Palin.

Standards and the Lack Thereof

I make neither secret nor distinction in public or private about my wish for Governor Mark Sanford to resign his office without further delay. Aside from trashing his marriage, harming his children and burning his reputation to the ground, he has let down the people of the great state of South Carolina, who deserve better than a grown man who has wrapped himself in the cloak of adolescent behavior. He has breached the trust of all involved and reduced himself to a parody by his ongoing process of self-flagellation in the media. We should all hope the ongoing spectacle of this lovesick puppy ends sooner rather than later.

I continue to pray for the strength of his wife Jenny and their children. I applaud First Lady Sanford for refusing to play the role of loyal sidekick and instead allowing her disgraced husband to suffer the slings and arrows he deserves, as he deserves to receive them. Alone. But I applaud her for keeping her heart open to reconciliation should the governor repent and take steps down the path of fidelity and honor, the path to which he pledged himself with Jenny, before G-d, their family and their friends. Dissolving a marriage should never be taken lightly, especially when young children are involved. I pray that the governor takes the path his wife has blazed for them both. What a remarkable woman, this Jenny Sanford.

Predictably, the pointy knives of partisanship were unsheathed at the very moment Governor Sanford began his rambling press conference to announce to South Carolina and the entire nation his marital infidelity. We heard words like "values" and "morals" and "standards" and "religious right" and "hypocrisy." The Democrat partisans said "See! Those right-wingers and their religious values nonsense. How dare they lecture us about morals and values?!?! How dare they presume to define marriage when they continue their hypocritical infidelity? Who are they to sneer at us from the lectern of social conservatism when they can't keep their own houses in order? Hypocrites they are!!!"

It's ironic, then, that the party with no standards of conduct should attempt to lecture and brand as hypocrites the party that has standards but, as human beings do, oftentimes fail to live up to them. The party that sanctions the murder of unborn children out of convenience lectures us about notions of "right" or "wrong." The party that preaches tolerance of others will stop at nothing to shout down those whose viewpoints differ from theirs. The party that once promised to bear any burden and pay any price for freedom now stands shoulder to shoulder with dictators and terrorists instead of side by side with freedom fighters and allies. The party who claims to stand for "the little guy" pushes schemes of taxation that cripple everyone. The party who claims to be open, honest and transparent rams bills through in the dead of night, before they're even written and before anyone can read them. The party that preaches about ethics and cleanliness in government supports representatives who are found with wads of bribery cash stuffed in their freezers. And, in the vain of Governor Sanford, the party that mocks the marital infidelity of conservative Republicans and demands their resignations once stood by a president who repeatedly defiled the Oval Office with a young intern, and perhaps others.

It isn't the presence of standards and the failure to live up to them that concerns me. That is humanity, the essence of what we call human frailty, or weakness. No, I'm comforted and buoyed by the standards we hold dear as conservatives. They give us bearings. They give us boundaries. They give us something to strive for, something with meaning and conviction to live up to, given to us by the Creator in whose image we were all created. What bothers me is the lack of standards and the hypocritical finger pointing that comes from those who shouldn't even consider throwing stones. Governor Sanford should resign for a myriad of reasons. But the Democrats who seek to gain from Sanford's shame and the embarrassment felt by his family should be reminded of their pleas for tolerance of others. And then for once do us all a favor and shut their mouths.

Conservative Solutions: Part 1

Over the coming days and weeks I will be committing this blog to outlining conservative solutions to the problems facing America. Our liberal friends say we contribute nothing in terms of ideas, but rather have stamped ourselves solely as a faction of people committed only to saying "No!" Let's be very clear. Saying no to Barack Hussein Obama is a very important piece of the puzzle, but it's only half the battle. What we should be saying, if we wish to be seen as responsible participants in the marketplace of ideas, is "No, but..." So with that in mind, here is a growing and evolving list of things to which I will be saying, "No, but..."

1) National Security
2) The proper role of the judiciary
3) Taxation without representation
4) Immigration
5) The Entitlement Society
6) Energy Independence and the health of the planet
7) Proper procedure in the House and Senate
8) Term limits
9) American exceptionalism
10) The relationship between the American people and our government (discussed on this forum yesterday)

Our friends on the Left have their ideas about a command-and-control centralized federal government, where the elite few tell the rest of us what to do and what is best for us. As the opening salvo, I'll suggest that not only do they not know what is best for us, but they should mind their own business and stick to whatever it is they do best. Because they've proven time and again that governing is what they do worst.

Today's Liberals: An Intellectual Kinship With Tyrants

Today's liberals are interesting people. They are the same in name only to the classical liberals which count among them the greatest thinkers and political philosophers in history, such as Burke, Locke, Rousseau, Washington, Madison, Adams, and more recently John Kennedy.

It was the young President Kennedy who said in his inaugural address, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Today's Democrat party is very different from JFK. Today's president, Barack Hussein Obama, stands in stark opposition to Kennedy's ideals of "bear any burden" with regard to the spread of liberty throughout the world. One need look no further than Obama's stand toward the freedom fighters in Iran and his support of a "wannabe" tyrant like Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. John Kennedy is probably rolling in his grave, because in truth today's liberals are willing to pay absolutely no price and aren't willing to bear any burden in defense of liberty. In fact, today's liberals are at the forefront of an unprecedented assault on liberty here in America and around the world.

Liberals in office like (but not limited to) Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and celebrities like (but not limited to) George Clooney, Sean Penn and Janeane Garofalo cozy up to tyrants and dictators around the world. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi visited Syria against the wishes of the president of the United States. Syria is listed by the US Government as a state-sponsor of terrorism. In 2008, Sean Penn took a trip to Cuba to nuzzle Fidel Castro, proclaiming the dictatorship to be a beacon of human freedom. Janeane Garofalo claims that the anti-tax TEA Party protesters are right-wing terrorists, hicks, have no knowledge of the reason behind the original Boston Tea Party, and that those who participated in the TEA Parties are racists because they dare to opposed the president, who happens to be black. Obama gets buddy-buddy with Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez, insists that the Honduran government abandon their Constitution and reinstall aspiring dictator-for-life Manuel Zelaya, and thumbs his nose at the brave men and women desperately fighting for freedom in Iran, who need to know that the world stands with them a la Reagan and Poland, but gets nothing from Barack Hussein Obama except silence, some mealy-mouthed platitudes, more silence, and finally a determination to continue to press for negotiations with and therefore validate the regime of dictator and terrorist Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. And, let's not forget their insane efforts to bestow the protections of the American Constitution upon enemy combatants waging war against the American people.

How did the heirs of a great philosophy of individual liberty, the concept of self and citizenship voluntarily disregard their roots and pick up the mantle of statism, crippling taxation and a disturbing kinship with and affinity for terrorists and despots? The concept of statism within the Democrat party took firm root during the presidency of FDR. FDR began the corruption in the relationship between the American people and their government to a substantial degree through his New Deal. By using the crisis of the Great Depression to push his massive government intervention plans, he created a dependency constituency who would come to rely on government to solve their problems. While this constituency was indeed small in the beginning, it bestowed a new and heretofore unheard of legitimacy upon this relational corruption between the American people and their government.

The 1960's were a pivotal decade in American history and in the further perversion of the relationship between the American people and their government. The assassination of President Kennedy now added a layer of distrust between the two, as many conspiracy theorists believed that Kennedy's VP and successor Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy's blood on his hands in a coup d'etat in order to keep the Vietnam War machine running (some speculated that Kennedy wanted to have all US troops out of Vietnam by 1965). This fueled the rise of the anti-war, anti-American government hippie generation that believed in a complete abdication of personal responsibility, which dovetailed nicely with LBJ's push for a massive expansion of government into the lives of the American people, also known as the Great Society. Both the New Deal and the Great Society were seizures of power not granted to the federal government through the Constitution and were (and therefore still are) illegitimate.

These policies of social engineering had to be paid for, which started the manipulation of the tax code to the point where 49% of the American people do not pay income taxes. One has to believe that the goal is for the numbers to reverse and to have a majority of the American people not paying taxes, which would simply be the full blossoming of the dependency culture which the Democrat party has been pushing since FDR. Imagine the purest expression of democracy: where a majority of freeloaders punish the working class because they have the numbers to do it.

Barack Hussein Obama's agenda is nothing more than the completion of the Left's efforts to fully and completely corrupt the relationship between the American people and their government. Look at how they control behavior from cradle to grave:

1) Abortion (making choices about who is to live and who is to die before birth)
2) Mandating government-controlled pre-school
3) Hammerlock control over public education; fighting desperately to outlaw homeschooling (making government responsible for dictating what you learn)
4) The fight for single-payer government health insurance (where government makes choices about what care you will or will not receive)
5) Social Security (taking control over your retirement)
6) The push to legalize euthanasia (making choices about who is to live and who is to die after birth)

The classical liberals that brought about the Enlightenment and whose expression of ideals can be found in the wondrous Declaration of Independence have in fact become today's conservatives, the Ronald Reagan's and the William F. Buckley's. It is sad and unfortunate that those who call themselves liberals today have absolutely nothing in common with their namesakes, instead pushing outright socialism and command and control-style statism. As these liberals increase the size and scope of government and push to complete the corruption of the relationship between the American people and their government, Karl Marx must be smiling (in whatever circle of Hell he finds himself). For it is he, the father of communism, who believed that the seeds of America's destruction would be planted from within.

(For further edification, read Karl Marx's Ten Planks of Communism and look how similar it is to the ideology of today's liberals.)

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html.

Independence Day, 2009

Instead of continuing my annual tradition of writing about Independence Day and what it means, both to me and to our nation's history, I'll instead let Henry Lamb speak for me. Our independence as a people is being assaulted by a possible usurper to the presidency, Barack Hussein Obama. The parallels to the rise of the Third Reich are too similar to ignore. Happy Independence Day, America.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102970

Barack Hussein Obama: Usurper?

Questioning the birthplace of Barack Hussein Obama apparently makes one a tinfoil hat wearer along the lines of those who believe that JFK was killed by LBJ or that Neil Armstrong never actually walked on the moon. I disagree. In fact, there are legitimate questions surrounding Obama's birthplace. Let's look at them one at a time.

1) The COLB posted on factcheck.org

Barack Obama posted on his website a Certification of Live Birth. Note the word "certification." The COLB, as it is referred to, is not in fact an actual long-form Certificate of Live Birth. It is a short form copy that omits key information, such as what hospital Obama was born in and who was the delivering obstetrician. As well in fact in 1961, the year Obama was born, the state of Hawaii allowed foreign births to be registered as Hawaiian births within a certain period of time. In this case, a COLB is issued to a child born in a foreign country. Also in this case, no Certificate of Live Birth would be issued by Hawaii. That would be issued by the country in which the natural birth took place.

2) Why has no one ever claimed to be at Barack Hussein Obama's birth in Hawaii?

It's a bit odd, but no one knows. His half-sister has claimed that Obama was born in at least 3 different hospitals in Hawaii. What we do know is that his step-grandmother has filed an affidavit claiming she witnessed his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

3) Why has no hospital in Hawaii claimed themselves as the historic birthplace of our first African-American president?

It's a bit odd, but no one knows. What we do know is that there are dozens of Kenyan's who have professed to know for certain that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.

4) If Barack Hussein Obama was a natural-born US citizen, how was he able to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when it was illegal for America citizens to set foot in Pakistan? What passport did he use, considering he wouldn't have been able to use a US passport?

5) If Barack Hussein Obama was a natural-born US citizen, how did he attend school in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro when only Indonesian citizens could attend school there?

6) If Barack Hussein Obama was really born in the US as he claims, why has he spent 1 million dollars fighting the efforts of the American people to see his long-form birth certificate?

This is the question at the heart of this constitutional crisis and it is one that will affect our ability to continue as a self-governing people. The American people have demanded that their president prove to them that he is who he says he is, and that he was in fact born in the US and therefore able to constitutionally serve as president. If Obama refuses the demands of the American people, he has staked his claim to the presidency on nothing more than the arbitrary desire to seize power and rule. Liberals will argue that he's eligible because he was elected, but someone not eligible should never have been on the ballot in the first place. There is no controlling authority to verify the eligibility of the candidate, a situation that is trying to be rectified in Congress much to the dismay and chagrin of the liberals who discard the Constitution at will. You see, he's "their guy" and because "their guy" won, the American people can stuff it.

Barack Hussein Obama an arrogant narcissist who could be a usurper to the presidency, and therefore a threat to our Constitution that must be investigated immediately. Should he seek to thwart the will of the American people and keep his true identity hidden, what recourse will we have? Perhaps a better question is, will we prove to be as committed to our founding documents and to the defense of liberty as the men who wrote them?

Where is your birth certificate, Barack Hussein Obama?