Capsizing Island Fears Allayed

You may have been unaware, but capsizing islands are a major concern of the Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkbhidoEe0

This is serious. There is a solution, though. The Navy is now installing motors on the stern of each island in which it has a base. By the way, "stern" here means "the back of" in nautical terms. And "nautical" here means relating to ships or sailors. "Ships" are great big boats, and the United States Navy has some really big boats, so they know all about installing motors on the back or stern of islands in order to keep them from capsizing, which means "tipping over."

Islands tipping over with bases on them was a major point of concern of the Navy until the solution of placing motors on the stern of the island was brought in by the Obama Administration. The plan was originally proposed by the Roosevelt Administration following the attack on Pearl Hardbor back in 1941, but only Obama the Messiah was able to pull it off. This, too, means that the military budget has been slashed since big boats will no longer be needed since we have movable islands now that are safe from capsizing. This is also how the health care plan will be paid for and the budget deficit reduced simultaneously, which means "at the same time," since no more big boats will be needed for the Navy. All of this is found on page 2,649 of the health care signed into law by President Obama. However, the EPA is expected to block any further installation of motors on islands as it is feared motorized islands are a major cause of man-made global warming. Greenpeace is joining in on the lawsuit as dophins have been known to get hit by the rudders which are powered by the motors on the back of the islands that are no longer capsizing. "Rudders" are great big things mounted ("mounted" means placed on or attached to) on the stern, (remember, the back of the boat) that guide the great big Navy boats and islands. "Guide" means to direct or steer. "Steer" can be a big animal called an ox that has been castrated in its youth. "Youth" means "young," and is the opposite of "old." (I REFUSE to explain castration!) In this case, however, there are no castrated ox or oxen ("oxen" is the plural of "ox," and "plural" means "more than one," although some of you may just go ahead and say "oxes" since you are a product of public education run by the NEA) steering or guiding motorized islands. The Navy wanted to use steers to steer their islands and great big boats, but PETA prevented, which means "stopped," this from happening.

Not A Right

Last week I was talking to my oldest son, who informed me that finally the members of the union where he works were getting angry with President Obama and the Democrat Party. Why? Because they had been informed that John Deere would be subject to an additional $150 million tax liability due to the signing into law last Tuesday by President Obama the health care legislation, and that the union should not expect any bonuses. On the following day from when I spoke to my son, Caterpillar also announced that they, too, were going to have an increased tax liability of $100 million. Although I am happy to have these people on board now, it saddens me that it took a hit to their pocketbook for them to come around, and not the fact that the Constitution has been trampled upon by our elected officials. To me, that should be the paramaount and overriding cause for concern regarding any legislation: Is it Constitutional?

During all the debate, the supporters of this universal health care plan have not once pointed to the Constitution as their authority for what they were doing. They have appealed to emotional reasons as their justification. In fact, when asked last week where the Constitution permits such legislation from the Federal government, John Conyers, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who is head of the Congressional Committee which oversees:

1.The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal.
2.Administrative practice and procedure.
3.Apportionment of Representatives.
4.Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
5.Civil liberties.
6.Constitutional amendments.
7.Criminal law enforcement.
8.Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories and possessions.
9.Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.
10.Interstate compacts generally.
11.Claims against the United States.
12.Members of Congress, attendance of members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
13.National penitentiaries.
14.Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and trademarks.
15.Presidential succession.
16.Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
17.Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United States.
18.State and territorial boundary lines.
19.Subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.

replied, “Under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the Constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

I guess the "couple others" clauses to which Rep. Conyers refers that permit this encroachment by the Federal government on our liberty must be the Good and Plenty Clause, or the Scrumpdillyicious Clause, or maybe even the Good and Yummy Clause, because as he has so comforted us, if this was not Constitutional "under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others," then good golly Miss Molly, he would not have allowed it to pass! (America, can we PLEASE stop sending men and women like this to Washington and place them in positions of authority who obviously are so CLUELESS as to what the Constitution actually says? Is that REALLY too much to ask? And by the way, in case you are reading this and you have never read the Constitution before, there really is no Good and Welfare Clause in the Constitution, in spite of what our illustrious Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says. I also will have to disappoint you by informing you that there are no Good and Plenty, Scrumpdillyicious, or Good and Yummy Clauses, either. Sorry.)

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.” And I will add that this legislation also imposes fines for those who do not buy the mandated health care insurance. Funny, I do not recall any other "right" requiring anyone to purchase it. Hmmm.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A "right," then, is something that no one else has the moral authority to take away from someone else, because they are "unalienable," which means they are not transferable to another and neither are they capable of being repudiated; they are "self-evident," meaning that anyone with 1/10th of 1% of 1 brain cell should be able to understand; and they are "endowed by their Creator," meaning these rights come from God, and not some bureaucrat or politician in Washington, D.C. They are not something that is subject to the whims or doctrines of men.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says,

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let's say that no one chooses to be a doctor. (Many doctors have told me they will quit rather than continue working as doctors under this legislation.) If no one chooses to work as a doctor, then the government cannot provide "health care" as a "right," proving health care is not a "right," but a privilege received through a service provided by another.

As we demonstrated earlier, rights are derived from God, not government. If no one chooses to enter the medical profession as a doctor, then the government would have no other alternative than to have to force people to become doctors against their will, creating a class of slaves, and violating the 14th Amendment.

The Law and the Rights It Violates

At last count, as it is written the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law this week by Presdient Obama, violates at least four of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the amendments commonly called the Bill of Rights.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This law gives the government unfettered access to your private medical history. There's a "health care integrity data bank" in the bill that gives the Federal government access to everyone's medical records. Once the government has everybody's medical records, none of that information is secure. We have already witnessed how the privacy of “Joe the plumber” was violated by a Washington bureaucrat who did not like the audacity of “Joe the plumber” daring to ask candidate Obama about his proposed tax increase plan. A government bureaucrat took it upon herself to release “Joe the plumber’s” confidential tax records to punish him for not toeing the line with candidate Obama. Giving the government access to our most intimate, private health information gives them the opportunity to abuse and misuse it. And they will, I guarantee it.

Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Forcing everyone to buy health insurance or be fined is depriving one of his property without due process of law. It is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Under the government takeover of health care, the law allows for the government to have access to your banking records as well, in violation again of the Fourth Amendment. Prior to passage of this health care law, government had no access to your finances without a court order. Under the new law, the government will have access to your bank accounts to make sure you are paying for that government-mandated health care or paying the fine on that failure to have insurance. This 2,700-page bill gives the Feds the authority to automatically debit your bank account in direct violation of depriving one of his personal property without due process.

Private medical records and bank records are none of the government's business. Instead of providing better health coverage, the opposite will occur. People will no longer confide to their doctor about problems they are having anymore because they will know that somewhere in the deep, dark, dank dungeons of Washington, D.C., some anonymous and faceless Federal bureaucrat will be reading their medical records and their bank statements.

This is just the beginning, too, for everything we do will be construed as affecting our health care, which means the government will have the authority to dictate to you what you can and cannot do in every aspect of your life. Do you like to eat an occasional Twinkie or buy some fast food? Forget that, for that is unhealthy, and it will cost the federal government money. Do you like driving your SUV? No longer will you be able to drive that vehicle for it is too big and “dangerous,” and if it hits a smaller car then someone will be injured, and their health will be at risk. Do you believe in God, and call Jesus Christ His Son your Lord and Savior? You cannot do that, either, because the government will deem that belief system to be “unhealthy” and “offensive” to those who are unbelievers. Do you want to gather and assemble with like-minded individuals to petition the government? That no longer will be allowed, too, because when you gather together, especially if you are conservative and a member of the Tea Party Movement, your blood pressure may rise, a riot may erupt and both of these are detrimental to one’s health and would cost the government money. Therefore, they will not be allowed, either. Every last one of these items is part of our guaranteed liberty found within the Fifth Amendment that has been obliterated and rendered null and void by this law. Some are also part of the rights we are guaranteed under the First Amendment, which says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This, in layman’s terms, can be construed as saying, “Government, just because something isn’t specifically mentioned here in the Constitution doesn’t mean that right doesn’t belong to me. Stay out of my way and keep out of my private life!” So just because the Constitution does not say I do not have to buy health insurance does not mean that that right does not exist. It does exist, and it is guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment. And if the Ninth Amendment was not enough to get it through the heads of those in power in the federal government that their powers are enumerated, which means they are specifically spelled out and very limited in scope and power, our Founding Fathers also had the wisdom and foresight to include the Tenth Amendment for all the dunderheads who could not understand the Ninth Amendment.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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

What this means is that what is not stated specifically in the Constitution as powers belonging to the federal government of the United States do not belong to them. Period. They belong to the individual States and to the people. So if the Constitution does not say the federal government has the authority to require citizens to buy health insurance, regardless of the motives of that government, even if they are as pure and benign as the wind driven snow, then the federal government has no authority or power to enact and enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

Although President Obama bemoans the fact that the Constitution limits the scope and power of the Federal government, that is exactly what the Consitution does. On January 18, 2001, Mr. Obama was interviewed on WBEZ radio and described the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” a statement that is certainly at odds with the preamble and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. He further lamented that the Warren Supreme Court “could not break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” It is absolutely deplorable that the American people would vote into the highest office of the land a man who, by his own words, held such disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is unreasonable to believe that a person who held such contempt for the Constitution would then turn around and protect and defend that very document, as he himself did when he was sworn in as President of the United States. And the actions he has taken in forcing down the throats of the American citizens and signing into law this health care shows how he cares not one bit in protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

If it is the will of the American people that universal health care is a “right” (which is itself an argument for another day), our Founding Fathers had the sagacity to provide the means whereby universal health care could become the law of the land and do so legally. It is through the Amendment process. But that was not the method used by our President and the Democrat controlled Congress, for they know it would fail because what they have passed is not what “we the people” desire. So until that amendment providing universal health care is passed, this law is unconstitutional and every American citizen has the right and the moral authority to reject it.

Planned Parenthood Caught Admitting Infanticide!

The following are links to YouTube videos in which a worker for Planned Parenthood ADMITS that babies born alive in an attempted abortion are left to die. This is a crime, people, and it cannot be glossed over and prettied up, anymore than what Hitler's goons did in the last century. This is the same organization lauded by Senator Obama, would-be President of the United States, and man who voted three times to deny medical assistance to babies who survived attempted abortions.

Is this REALLY the type of man we whould have as leader of our nation? If you are a Christian who is supporting Obama are you prepared to stand before God on Judgment Day and explain your support for this man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnlHNbAh6xY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6wea065aYs&NR=1

Obama Campaign Begins to Stumble

It seems to me that the Obama campaign maybe beginning to unravel. Joe the plumber has now become the butt of late night TV jokes. His "crime"? Daring to point out the fact that Obama's plan to increase taxes is not good for the economy.

tp://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl97

Since his buddies and cronies in the mainstream media felt it would be "funny" to attack a man who was trying to live out what used to be the American dream, Barack Hussein Obama thought it would be a good idea to make fun of this man and John McCain, too, for supporting him. Here is a video clip of Obama attacking Joe the plumber:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=7664458&version=1&locale=EN-US

It is a sad commentary on America if a politician running for the Presidency of the United States is laughed at for wanting to support an average American man who is only wishing to follow his dreams. How said, indeed.

It is my opinion that this strategy will backfire and be the undoing of Barack Hussein Obama's drive for the Presidency. The elitism and disdain for the average working Americans are there for all to see. Joe the plumber will be to Obama in 2008 what the Swift Boat Veterans were for John Kerry in 2004.

Americans are tired of being called racist if they do not support Obama. Those who are making this false charge are the ones who are the true racists. Unfortunately, this negative attitude has filtered down into the schools across the country. Here is a video of a 12 year old 7th grade girl who has been accused of being a racist for her suppport of John McCain and Sarah Palin:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=7664458&version=1&locale=EN-US

When it comes right down to it, the truth is hard to fight against. The truth has nothing to hide. The same cannot be said for Barack Hussein Obama.

Sarah Palin Hits Home Run!

It will be interesting to see the results once the daily tracking polls come out, but I have no doubt that Sarah Palin laid to rest any doubts that she is ready for the big time as she hit a home run (or maybe in her case as a self-proclaimed hockey mom it would be better phrased to say she scored a hat trick) in her VP acceptance speech given earlier tonight at the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, MN. If the left thought they were going to knock this woman out of the race with the garbage and personal attacks they have levied against Palin and her family this week since McCain announced her to be his choice as VP in one of the best rope-a-dopes of all time, they are sorely mistaken. If they were frightened at the mere nomination of Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate, I can only imagine the angst and anguish they must be feeling now after seeing and hearing her deliver and land punch after punch tonight. What was amazing was that afterwards the pundits seemed to be all in agreement that she gave a great speech with little time in which to prepare for it (and this was compounded by the endless charges and personal attacks being levied against her by the mainstream media and the left), but then they still wondered if she would be prepared for the Presidency. Well, what more evidence do they need that this woman can walk through fire (in heels, I might add) and still come out no worse for the undertaking wearing a beaming, infectious smile upon her face, short of her actually serving and being the President?

As I wrote earlier this week, Sarah Palin is the left's biggest nightmare, and it has only gotten worse after seeing this woman who has been nicknamed "the Barracuda" in action. She is a mother with a lovely family who embodies the Conservative Republican message of God, family and country. She is what the feminists have always said they wanted, but because she is a Conservative woman who is pretty and has a winning smile, but more than that, she has brains and a good track record of personal and professional success to boot who got where she is without their assistance, they despise her. Add to that the fact that she is a Conservative woman who is passionate about the right to life (isn't it ironic how those who claim they are for a woman's right to choose only support that right to choose if it means taking the life of a baby from its mother's womb, and decry the choice made by mothers who choose to be pro-life?), their despising of her turns to hatred as has been demonstrated by so many on the left who have done their utmost to destroy this woman and her family, particularly her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, these last few days. And accompany this with the fact that she is member of the NRA and a proud and unashamed supporter of the Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution, by the way, then the vitriolic from the left is manifested fully. This woman just must be stopped!

Palin had to have scored major points this evening with women voters as she stated she would be the voice in the White House for families with special needs children. What better spokesperson would there be than the mother of a Downs Syndrome baby herself?

John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, and his willingness to stand by her in the face of the media frenzy and maelstrom that followed, are galvanizing the Republican Conservative base behind him as nothing I have seen or imagined could do. He may have had his initial doubts in wanting to select her, but I do not care. The bottom line is when push came to shove, he made the right choice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin was not the only candidate scoring a hat trick. John McCain did with his selection of Sarah Palin.

Obama Wrong Again . . . But Will Anyone Know It?

Senator Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Governor Sarah Palin because he has managed his Presidential campaign for the past 18 months. This in and of itself is not true, but let's go ahead and concede the point that Barack Obama is managing his own political campaign. Senator Obama claimed this experience running his campaign makes him more qualified to be President. (Did Obama forget, however, that the Presidential nominee from the Republican Party is not Sarah Palin, but John McCain? But I digress.) Obama stated, “Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.” (So what have you been doing as a Senator paid by tax payer dollars during this time, Senator Obama?)

So why is Obama comparing what Palin was doing as mayor, instead of what she has been doing as governor? Did he miss that she is the governor now? Apparently not, since he does refer to her as "Governor" in the quote above. Why would Barack Obama compare his current job with her former job? Why not make an apples to apples comparison, instead of an apples to oranges comparison? Could it be he is engaging in a little chicanery to throw off people, and hope that we will all be so stupid that we will not catch his trickery and sleight of hand? Lets's do a little number crunching to see just how Obama, the Democrat Presidential nominee, compares to Sarah Palin, Republican VP nominee and current Chief Executive from the State of Alaska.

Barack Obama has raised about $21 million a month during his campaign. That is a great sum of money with a large organization undeniably, but when you compare it to Governor Palin it becomes miniscule. Sarah Palin is handling revenues 47 times larger than Obama, which translates into a billion dollars per month.

Additionally, Obama is engaging in circular logic. This would be laughable except it just goes to show how inexperienced this man is, and how much he lacks in good judgment. Barack Obama arguing that he is experienced enough to be President because he is running for President is a fallacious use of logic. It is circular reasoning, and it seems to me to highlight the desperateness his campaign is facing with the choice of Palin, a Conservative woman with traditional family values, to be the VP running mate with John McCain.

Barack Obama says he has 2,500 people working for his campaign. Governor Palin, however, has 77,000 employees in the State of Alaska.

Republican National Committee Victory 2008 Chairwoman Carly Fiorina spoke for many when she said, “I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a mayor and governor than Barack Obama has made in his life.” Fiorina added that the Obama camp’s attacks raise the question of sexism. “Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin,” she said. I certainly hope this is true, but my experience has taught me that all those people who are so quick to shout "sexism" at the drop of a hat, even where it is not warranted, are suspiciously silent when true sexism rears its ugly head when it comes to horrific treatment being given to a Conservative woman.

So if it is true that running an organization the size of his campaign is a sign he is qualified to be President, then just what does it say about Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President? She is much more qualified than Barack Hussein Obama!

A Question of Judgment?

During the last few days it has become quite clear, for any with eyes to see and ears to hear, that the "mainstream media" has lost any semblance of credibility . . . that is, if it even had any credibility left to lose in the first place. There is absolutely no attempt being made to be unbiased reporters or journalists. Instead, the "mainstream media" is nothing more than a lap dog for the Democrat Party and the leftist groups it is beholden to. Since the announcement last Friday by Republican Presidential nominee John McCain that he was choosing Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, to be his running mate in this Presidential sweepstakes, the "mainstream media" has done everything in its power to destroy this woman and her family. Three, yes, three, front page, above-the-fold stories about the pregnancy of 17 year old Bristol Palin were ran yesterday in the New York Times, and we are now supposed to believe that the Boston Globe suddenly is worried about and cares about teenage pregnancies. Bristol Palin, 17 year old daughter of Sarah and Todd Palin, is expecting a child and the left wing "mainstream media" is "concerned" that Palin is not spending enough time with her family. I see no concern on the part of the "mainstream media" that Barack and Michelle Obama are not spending enough time with their young daughters, however. Why are the women of NOW silent and not voicing their outrage and disdain at the treatment of Sarah Palin compared to that of Obama? Why the double standard? Could it be that the women of NOW do not care one iota about how Conservative women are treated, and that sexism is only a problem if it is happening to a leftist such as themselves? But wait, we already know the answer to that. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones.
Chelsea Clinton and her life was always off limits, and rightfully so, but when it comes to a Conservative woman ahd her family the "mainstream media" has declared open season. Bristol Palin is taking responsibility for her actions and planning on marrying the father and keeping her baby instead of having it murdered in her womb, and her family is supporting her in her right decision. But according to the "mainstream media" the responsible thing would have been for her to have had it aborted, which is their nice little word they use to mislead what is actually happening: An innocent child is being murdered.

We are now supposed to believe, however, that because John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, a woman who has a 17 year old unmarried, pregnant daughter whose family is standing by her with lover and support, that his "judgment" is now brought into question. So let's take and llok at teh judgment (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama since the "mainstream media" has no inclination to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment was that he should have as his mentor and spiritual adviser the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, a racist who refers to the country that Obama wants to be President of as "the U. S. of KKK America!" This "spiritual man" also shouted from the pulpit as the raucous crowd cheered its approval, "God d - - - America! God d - - - America!" And we are supposed to believe Barack Obama that after spending 20 years as a member of this man's congregation that he never heard the "Reverend" speak such outrageous remarks, although he removed Wright from being a speaker when Obama announced his intention to run for President.

Barack Obama's judgment was that he should associate himself with unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohm.

Barack Obama's judgment is that a child who survives an attempted abortion is not entitled to medical attention.

Barack Obama's judgment is that he can make no judgment as to when a child is entitled to human rights because it is above his pay grade, and yet his judgment is that a woman should be entitled to have her unborn child killed. Wouldn't it be prudent and wise and exercising good judgment NOT to support abortion if one is NOT sure when a child is entitled to human rights because the answer to that question is above one's pay grade? Maybe this might help Senator Obama: "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything." (Ecclesiastes 11:5) Or this: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. . . ." (Jeremiah 1:5) Obama might be advised to have better judgment and consider these passages the next time he quotes this his favorite passage: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40)

John McCain's judgment was to support the surge in Iraq, something that Obama judged to be unworthy of support, and the increase in troops has brought success, something the "mainstream media" is failing to report in spite of the fact that just two days ago the United States military transferred control of Anbar providence directly to the Iraqi security forces. (Have YOU heard any news reports on the "mainstream media" about this great victory?) But how can this be? I thought we were supposed to believe that Iraq was an unwinnable quagmire!

John McCain's judgment was to pick a Conservative woman with a family whom she loves and supports, and for that we are supposed to disdain his wisdom. I can hardly wait to hear Sarah Palin speak at the Republican convention later on this evening!

Palin: The Dem's Latest Nightmare!

Last week, Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain tabbed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who rose to national prominence on the back of her less than faithful husband, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin has gotten where she is on her own. That is not to say she does not have a supportive husband. It means that she did not rise in the political world due to her husband being in the political world. He is not.

Sarah Palin is the ultimate nightmare for the left, particularly the members of NOW, because Palin, the ultimate feminist, is not one of them. In fact, it is not hyperbole to describe her as being the antithesis of the left's definition of feminism: She is a conservative wife and mother who loves God and her family, she is a self-described hockey mom, she owns and shoots guns as an unapologetic member of the NRA and supporter of the Second Amendment, she eats moose burgers, and she treasures traditional marriage and values innocent human life. She did not abort her Down's Syndrome baby, even though it was her "choice," but gave birth to her son, Trig, this past April 18, the anniversary of Paul Revere's famous ride. She did not push her 17 year old daughter, Bristol, to go out and have an abortion, either, something that could have been performed secretly in order to have spared Palin the political fallout this revelation created, since Governor Palin is a staunch supporter of abstinence education. Instead, Governor Palin has this to say about her daughter: "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates." Contrast this to what Barack Obama said in a town meeting in Johnstown, PA: "I’ve got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby." In the eyes of Barack Obama a baby is a punishment, even though the word of God tells us they are a blessing. Yes, Sarah Palin is the left's worst nightmare, and her biggest "sin" is that she is attractive and articulate to boot!

The left is attempting to make political hay out of the pregnancy of Bristol Palin. How sad a commentary is this on the state of affairs in America today that the private life of a 17 year old girl becomes political fodder for the left. But it is my prediction that this will backfire resoundingly on the left, and I certainly hope it does. I believe they are in for quite a surprise because they have no idea what it means to face the beautiful hockey mom Sarah Palin. As she was quoted saying recently, "Do you want to know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The hockey mom wears lipstick!"

Calling Evil Good: Obama and His Support of Infanticide

Isaiah 5:20-21 says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!”

During the Presidential campaign of 2004, Swift Boat Veterans of the Vietnam War and POWs for Truth ran a series of ads debunking the claims and false charges made by John Kerry in which he stated repeatedly that he had witnessed them committing “war crimes” while on duty in that war-torn country decades ago. Although Kerry stated on numerous times that he was going to prove the Swift Boat Veterans wrong, never was he or the mainstream media ever able to refute any of the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans. What is so sad about this is that the Democrats, along with the help of their friends and cohorts in the mainstream media, have been able to “call evil good and good evil.” Although the Swift Boat Veterans were speaking the truth, while Kerry told lies as an expedient for getting his party’s nomination, the Democrats and mainstream media have successfully invented a new term, “swiftboating,” and introduced it into the election campaign lexicon, denoting one who is being attacked by an untruth. But the fact of the matter is that when this term is used to denounce an individual speaking out against a Democrat seeking office, you can take it to the bank that what was just said was true. Such is the case with Democrat Presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama whom party strategists are now claiming has been "swiftboated" regarding his voting record as State Senator from Illinois.

While chairman of an Illinois State Senate committee in 2003, Obama voted down a bill which would have protected survivors of attempted abortions, even after the panel had amended the bill to contain language that was copied verbatim from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002. Is this the man we should elect President of the United States, a man who when asked recently as to when did a baby get human rights, responded by saying that it was “above my pay scale” to answer that question? It would seem to me to be fair to ask this would-be leader of our nation the following questions: Senator Obama, at what point were your daughters granted human rights? Senator Obama, if it is above your pay scale to determine when a baby has human rights, then what right do you have voting against a bill which would have provided protection to those innocent babies who have survived attempted murder at the hands of abortionists, if you have no idea at one point they have human rights?

Here is what Obama had to say about this bill:

"I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."

A pro-choice lobbyist who wished to remain anonymous had this to say about Obama:

“I read about that months ago, and posted it everywhere, but no one seemed to believe it (even though they could have looked it up themselves). I think this is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard (and I have always been pro choice). The reason this bill was brought up in the first place was because a nurse in a neonatal unit found these babies in a dirty linen closet left there to die. This was a hospital with a high level neonatal unit and they were fully equipped to save these babies, but because the mothers were aborting them and they had survived they were left to die. How sickening is that??”

It was and is quite sickening, just as it was and is quite telling (and sickening) to see Democratic strategist Bob Beckel on Hannity and Colmes last week reacting to and defending Obama when this story finally "broke" became “news,” even though it is over half of a decade old. This is what Beckel had to say: “Are you suggesting Barack Obama wants babies to die?” (Yes, Bob, that is EXACTLY what Obama wanted to happen.) “I've never thought the Republicans would go this far.” (Why is that, Bob? Republicans should not go so far as to tell the truth about your party’s choice of Presidential candidate?) “This is about as low as you can go!" (Which is it, Bob: Telling the truth is about as low as you can go, or trying to defend the rights of the most defenseless among us is about as low as you can go?)

Yes, all of this is most certainly true. Barack Hussein Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against a bill that would have granted legal protection, human rights, to already-born babies still alive after a failed and botched abortion, babies that are above Obama’s pay scale to determine if they are, indeed, entitled to human rights. He used his power to prevent those innocent babies from having the best chance to survive, and he refused to even listen to a nurse describe how she cradled these little innocent babies in her arms (Jill Stanek of Chicago's Christ Hospital). The evidence speaks for itself. This man has no business leading our nation.

If the people of the United States of America choose to vote into office this man as their President, a man who will not answer the question as to what point a baby is entitled to have human rights, a man who does not even believe a baby who survived an abortion is entitled to medical care, is not a country worthy of receiving any more of God’s blessings.

2008 Major League Baseball All-Star Game

It was a very exciting baseball game to watch this past Tuesday evening as the National League and the American League met and played in the 79th edition of the Midsummer Classic, the Major League All-Star Game. But it seems in this fan's mind that the managers have yet to figure it out as to how to manage this game to win.

Now this may seem as if I am second guessing or "Monday night quarterbacking," but this is what I told my kids the other night during the game. I said if I was manager I would not take Lance Berkman, Albert Pujols or Chipper Jones out of the game. If the powers that be in Major League Baseball (translation: Bud Selig and the FOX network) have decided that the All-Star game is going to determine what team has home field advantage in the World Series, and since this rule was made precisely because the game played in Milwaukee in 2002 went into extra innings in which all the players were used and the game resulted in a 7-7 tie, then why on Earth would the manager for the National League team lift the three best hitters in baseball, not just the National League (Chipper Jones, Albert Pujols and Lance Berkman), especially when the game was playing out to be a pitcher's duel? Statistically, it makes no sense whatsoever to have removed those three since they have shown themselves to be the best hitters in baseball. You needed hitters to win the game!

I recall many times during the 70s when the game supposedly did not matter that players such as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Pete Rose and Roberto Clemente routinely played the entire game because they were the best players. It was not unusual at all for this to happen, which meant that sometimes some players did not play. It just seems ironic to me that in a time when the game supposedly did not matter the players played as if it did, and the managers managed as if it did. And now when an exhibition game is the determining factor in what team is awarded home field advantage for the World Series, the ultimate series that does matter, the managers still have not figured out how to manage to win, when it is not complicated at all: You use your best players, and you use them as long as they are needed. That means your starting pitcher pitches until he gets into trouble, just as you do each and every game of the baseball season. And if that means he throws a nine inning shut out, so be it.

The Second Amendment Stays Part of the Constitution

In a 5-4 ruling the Unites States Supreme Court upheld the rights of citizens to own and keep guns in their homes. Here is a link to the story from Associated Press writer Mark Sherman:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

At the risk of appearing pessimistic, and although I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the decision being handed down from the bench, I am not jubilant today. In fact, I am somewhat frightened. I feel trepidation and a bit of apprehension because I am flabbergasted that only five of the Justices to the Supreme Court felt compelled to corroborate the Constitution of the United States, a document they have sworn to uphold and defend. Here is exactly what the Second Amendment to the United States says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What these four dissenting Justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer) have attempted to do is to circumvent the Constitutional process and by judicial fiat declare null and void an amendment to the Constitution of the United States!

It is frightening that a member of the United States Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, could read the Second Amendment and say the following of those on the Court who upheld it: " . . . (the majority) would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Unbelievable. And if that is not enough to turn your stomach, read what dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer had to say: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Simply mind-boggling. The same people who wish to take away the guns and rights of law-abiding United States of America citizens to defend their home and property are the same people who wish to grant Constitutional rights to armed terrorists! As I said earlier, unbelievable.

I am not a member of the NRA, and I have never owned any firearms in my life other than a BB gun as a child. But I am a full supporter of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has no right, according to the Constitution, to declare an Amendment to that Constitution null and void. It becomes more apparent each and every day that our education system has failed miserably in teaching United States history and our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Each day that approaches it becomes very apparent just how important the upcoming presidential election will be, for the next President of the United States invariably will appoint one or two Justices to the Court. Do we wish to continue as a Republic form of government, where are basic rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and the Right to Bear Arms are upheld and defended, or do we wish to continue on the downward spiral and fall into the hands of a leftist ruling dictatorial oligarchy? But whatever happens, we can rest assured that God's will will be done: "Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:" (1 Peter 2:13-15)

Barack Obama and His Christian Credentials

Barack Obama, in an attempt to appeal to the Christian right,

portrayed himself in the run up to the Kentucky primary as a Christian. (Isn't it interesting how this was overlooked by the mainstream media, even though the Christmas message from Mike Huckabee was fodder for the pundits for weeks?) The images in this article are from fliers passed out by the Obama campaign in Kentucky.

According to the Obama campaign, the purpose of the fliers was to counteract the claim that Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim. They were also intended to woo "evangelical" voters into the Obama camp in the upcoming general election.

The flier to the left has a quote attributed to Obama which says, "MY FAITH TEACHES ME THAT I CAN SIT IN CHURCH AND PRAY ALL I WANT, BUT I WON'T BE FULFILLING GOD'S WILL UNLESS I GO OUT AND DO THE LORD'S WORK." These are fine words, but as James, the brother of our Lord, writes in James 1:22, "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves."

Is it the will of the Lord to support the murder and slaughter of millions and millions of the most innocent of all of God's creatures, babies in the womb? Is Obama doing what God would want him to do by supporting abortion on demand, and even voting against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban? From his own words, Barack Obama proudly supports the slaughter of babies. On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the greatest sin we have committed as a nation, Obama proclaimed:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election. Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis' bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.

"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there's affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it's not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that's filled with hope and possibility for all Americans."

Once again, here are Obama's own words on the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

Being born into a Christian family does not make one a Christian; being born again does (John 3:3). Being immersed in Catholic education, which Obama also claims as his Christian credentials, does not make one a Christian; being immersed into Christ does (Galatians 3:27). I hope and pray that Obama is a Christian, but I can not see he is one based upon the fruit he is producing. As Jesus Christ told His followers in Matthew 7:15-20, "15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16. By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20. Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Jesus then added, "Not every one that saith unto Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father Who is in Heaven." (Matthew 7:21) So I ask you to judge for yourselves: Is Obama's support for abortion on demand in line with doing the Father's will?

May the Lord bless you!