A letter addressed to the liberal media and barack obama

You and your co-workers are constantly knocking the right and leaving out what the left does on a daily basis, why dont you try telling the truth for once if you think your on the right side of history......
why the deception? Dont you have any trust in what you believe in??

We're going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a President who also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay ...his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

Since obama signed his america destroying healthcare bill into law all I have been hearing from the left is how violent the right is......
how racist we are, how close minded we are......
What do we do about Washington Post columnists who incite violence against conservatives?
The (White)Wash Post's Metro columnist Courtland Milloy told us that, "in addition to wanting to spit on Tea Party activists, he'd really like to "knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."
Will Democrats be lining up to denounce this?

Where was this concern when Liberals were openly advocating the assassination of President Bush?
What do we do about prominent Democrats/Liberals who incite violence against conservative figures?

Sandra Bernhardt said she'd like to see Sarah Palin GANG RAPED. Chris Matthews fantasized on-air about seeing Rush Limbaugh SHOT IN THE HEAD. Bill Maher says he wishes Glenn Beck had been SHOT TO DEATH.
Where is the outrage from our concerned, caring, liberal friends?
Where are the Democrats?
Have they no decency?
Why haven't they denounced these horrific statements?

They haven't denounced them because THEY AGREE WITH THEM AND SO DO YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL CO-HORTS!

You claim to be so smart, yet on a daily basis you go out of your way to show your ignorance and bias....
I know that you see what congress and the president are doing to our country, the constitution, and the american people......if you believe your so right then just be honest about what you believe and what you want, dont play games, twist words, or hide the truth...have faith in what you believe!

I enjoy posting some of your ignorant comments on my blog:
http://hochunk-freedomforamerica.blogspot.com/
for all the world to see how different your thoughts are to my own.
I also believe you have the right to feel the way you do, and to your freedom of speech, what I dont agree with is your constant distortion of the facts to suit your liberal agenda.

This country is in bad shape, between obama and his liberal transformation, the media and their race/class baiting, the simple fact that we have a two party system that really are an extension of the same hand(there really is little difference between the republicans and democrats, except that the republicans want to creep towards their version of socialism and the democrats want to jump into socialism at warp speed)....and just the general attitude of the people who refuse to educate themselves on what I call,
"The liberal destruction of United States of America".

I can only hope that americans in general wake up to what the liberals are trying to do to this country before its too late, although I have very little faith that will happen, and your rhetoric on a daily basis proves that!

The founding fathers are turning in their graves as we speak, its a damn shame all that bloodshed to establish our sovereignty just to be thrown away 250 years later.... by people who want to conscript others to supply them with the goods and services that are not rightfully theirs.
This fight between the liberals and conservatives is not about healthcare, amnesty, welfare, or any other social program, its about freedom and liberty, its about our rights to be free from you, its about hard work and sacrifice, its about making something out of nothing, its about following our founding fathers and the founding document of this great nation. Its about restoring the greatness that was once The United States of America!

Thank you for your time to read this letter,
Christopher S

The Article V Convention's time has come!

"A Meeting to discuss the causes and remedies of our federal crisis".





The Article V Convention is being talked about in every corner of the Republic! Here's the latest...

Rob Natelson comes to the conclusion that Article V is our only way out.


Rep. Louie Gohmert promotes Article V On House Floor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqStgReNu8Y

Sign the "We Refuse" petition for civil disobedience and to call Art. V
http://www.werefuse.com/

Randy Barnett in WaPo says Art. V may be needed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html

Candidates for Congress campaign on calling Art. V
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/natelson1.1.1.html

Article V Convention has its own FaceBook Page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Article-V-Convention-Now/272885644305

Lonely Conservative blog promotes Article V
http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2010/03/23/time-for-an-article-v-convention/

Axis of Right concludes Article V may be our only tool
http://axisofright.com/2010/03/24/an-article-v-convention/

Article V "I LOVE this last option" Opines RedState
http://www.redstate.com/realquiet/2010/03/23/the-three-roads-to-repeal/

Liberals at FireDog Lake are HORRIFIED of Article V (as they should be)
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/37148

NJ Bloggers for Article V!
http://www.gopusanj.com/wordpress/?p=11817&cpage=1

Typical: Talk Radio Mafia fans think Article V is as evil as Obama-give 'em a browser window full
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2476912/posts?page=68

Nutmeg State Conservatives are all in for Article V
http://nutmeg-state-conservative.blogspot.com/

What an event this will be! We have confirmed the following guests to serve of the discussion panel. The event will be hosted by Sirius-XM Talk Show Host Mike Church. Mike is the Writer, Director, Producer and Narrator of the Documentaries "The Road to Independence", "The Fame of Our Fathers" and the "Spirit of '76-Writing & Ratifying the U.S. Constitution"

Dr. Kevin Gutzman - New York time Best Selling Author "Who Killed the Constitution"- JD, PhD


Bruce Fein - Former Associate Deputy Attorney General, writer and scholar currently serving at the American Freedom Agenda

Randy E. Barnett - Georgetown University Law Center - Author "Restoring the Lost Constitution: the Presumption of Liberty"

Rep. Susan Lynn Representative to Tennessee's 57th District for the 103, 104, 105 and 106th Meetings of the TN. House

Tony Blankley - Washington Times Editorial Page Editor, CNN Political Commentator, Author "American Grit"

to name a few.......




ObamaCare is now the "Law of the land" so we can move on to the next phase of stopping it: amending the Constitution. There are 2 methods at our disposal the first is to wait for Congress to craft the amendment repealing ObamaCare the second is for 2/3 of the State Legislatures to call for a convention to propose such amendments. On 9 April, 2010 we will convene a meeting to explore this option "A meeti8ng to discuss the causes and remedies to our federal crisis."

You will hear that Article V is dangerous in the hands of the states. Please consider what Article V has resulted in in the hands of Congress. And lest anyone be lobbied to believe that "The Founding Fathers did not intend for the States and the people to use this power, i present the history of the Article as recorded in James Madison's notes of the Federal Convention.

First, Article V as drafted by the "Committee of Stile and Substance" was presented to the delegates on 12 September, 1787, it read...

V. "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds25 of the legislatures of the several states, shall propose amendments to this constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three-fourths at least of26 the legislatures27 of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the 28th and 29th sections of the article."

George Mason, didn't like what he heard and rose to raise his objections.

"[It] would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. No amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive

When the delegates adjourned Mason took on the task of writing objections to this article and others. When business resumed on Saturday, 15 September, 1787 Mason made his move. Here is how Madison recorded the transaction.

Col: Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.8

Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Gerry moved to amend the article so as to require a Convention on application of ⅔ of the Sts

Mr Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the States as to call a call a Convention on the like application. He saw no objection however against providing for a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum &c. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.

The motion of Mr. Govr Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to nem: con

Thus Article V was amended nem con- nemene contradecente Latin for "Without Objection". The Founding Fathers then, by unanimous vote, left the power to amend the Constitution should Congress become oppressive in the hands of the State Legislatures and thus the people.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Working closely with Kevin Gutzman, we present this Brief outline of suggested amendments to our distinguished panel and to the esteemed men and women in attendance and watching or listening across the United States.



1) Make clear that the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress only to regulate COMMERCE that is INTERSTATE (as the Supreme Court recognized before 1937);
2) Empower individual taxpayers and state governments to bring suit for injunctive relief in case Congress exceeds the bounds of its powers, as clarified by this amendment (lawyers call this giving individuals and states standing to sue for injunctive relief) and declare that these questions are justiciable (not "political questions" that the federal courts should dodge);
3) Make clear that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is about nothing other than Due Process in judicial proceedings -- that is, that it doesn't give federal courts power to invent rights unknown to the ratifiers and does not make the federal Bill of Rights enforceable by federal judges against the states;
4) Repeal the 17th Amendment *and* give the state legislatures the power of recall over US senators (and thus give state legislatures a check on Congress's tendency to usurp state legislative authority);
5) Require a balanced federal budget except in time of war declared by Congress;
6) Empower state legislatures to overturn federal judges' constitutional decisions. This could be done by saying that if 2/3 of legislatures vote to do so, it is done, or in some other way.

Why Bother Having A Senate?

The Democrats cannot explain this because they don’t want to explain it. So they’ve been sent out there with their talking points and their field marshal from whoever is the acting Rommel, or whoever is the acting Stalin of the day. They’ve been sent out there, hey, get out there and defend this. Can you imagine this thankless job? This is literally a squadron of political kamikazes here, being sent out there across the amber waves of fuel to defend the indefensible.

Now, if you didn’t catch it, the thing that O’Reilly dragged out of this loser, Anthony Comrade Weiner, was, yes, there will be a fine. And then O’Reilly comes back and says, so then that’s the criminal activity.
Weiner: No. Well, what is it, then? I usually don’t get fined unless I’ve broken the law, and you’ve made me a criminal. There are statutes on this to where you could, if you refused to pay the fine, you go to jail. What is that? That’s criminal activity

Here is the story, just in here from Media Matters. Oh, Matt Finkelstein. I love this guy. You’re going to be hearing a lot from the Matt Finkelsteins of the world. Hey, Matt. How you doing? “After a bitter political fight lasting more than a year, President Obama signed healthcare reform into law today. However, Republicans are still seeking to strike down a bill that will provide health insurance for over 30 million people....” It wouldn’t provide anything. You cannot provide something by taking it from someone else and giving it to them, ladies and gentlemen. That is not providing. In civilized societies this is known as theft. You are stealing from one man, then you’re laundering it, and then you’re giving it to another. That is not providing. The federal government has nothing to provide other than what it has taken – or stolen, in my opinion – from the people.

“Yesterday, [Congressman] Louie Gohmert ... suggested another response to the passage of health reform: eliminating the right of American citizens to elect U.S. Senators.” I suppose we’re going to be hearing all over the place now because this is just – people are going – the Left’s going to go into histrionics over this. They know that, if the day ever comes when Amendment No. 17 is repealed, that their party is over because the state legislatures will do what they did for 130 years. Wait, hang on, let me – 1789, that’s 11, 111 and 13 is 124. For 124 years we somehow survived. Somehow miraculously survived without the “right,” in quotation marks, to elect your senator.

You don’t have the right to elect a senator. You never did have the right to elect a senator. Read the damn Constitution. The progressives were able to con the states because the people were told, hey, your senators are crooked. The rationale for the Seventeenth Amendment, if you ever wondered, how in the hell did that get ratified, it got ratified because the people were lied to. They were propagandized and told, hey, hey, your senators are crooked because you don’t have the chance to vote out crooked people. It’s a six-year term. The only way that you could possibly get rid of a crooked senator is under the original Constitution, which would allow a state to recall a crooked senator.....

So they’re going into histrionics here, ladies and gentlemen. That means we’re onto something. Anytime any libtard out there gets angry or upset or goes into fits of blogging hysteria over something that we’re proposing, that means that they are threatened. And you know what, you libtards? Hey, hit “Record” on your recorder right now. I want you to feel threatened. You wanted the thunder, you got it. You’ve drawn a line in the sand. You’re on the wrong side. How do you know they’re on the wrong side?” Because I can read. Witness, ladies and gentlemen. You’re going to love this.

So CBS News apparently, egged on by Katie Couric, “Hey, hey, why don’t we conduct a poll and prove just how out of touch, how out of step with the American people all these right-wing crazies are. Let’s have a poll and ask them should those nasty, evil, despicable Republicans and all those other independents out there that want this thing repealed, should they just shut up and take it?” You want to hear the results?
Here’s the poll question, CBS News: Should Republicans continue to challenge the healthcare bill? Those that voted no, 33 percent. That’s 54 percent of your enemies, which are Democrats.

By the way, Daniel Henninger has a brilliant essay in today’s Wall Street Journal. I’m going to read it to you because I think you’re going to love to hear this. Henninger has written some things. He’s always brilliant. But today he is just more spot-on than he ever has been.
So the Dems, the libtards are your enemies. Remember, these people are not your friends on the other side of the aisle unless they convert, unless they denounce ObamaCare, unless they denounce Trotsky, unless they denounce Marx. And unless they embrace individual liberty and freedom, states’ rights and our Constitution, they’re not our friends. They are our domestic enemies, as the oath of office to the Constitution provides for. You will defend that document and little “r” republicanism, which is what it is, that’s the system of government that was established against all enemies foreign and domestic. 54 percent of Democrats say Republicans ought to sit down and shut the hell up. All right, that’s the end of the good news for you libtards.

Here’s who said yes, they should continue to do this: 89 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of Democrats. You got 40 percent of your own numbers telling the Republicans, please don’t stop. Please save me. Please save me from the Obama Alinskyite socialist pigs that have taken over our party. If you’re a Democrat, and you have any conscience left, you can’t be a Democrat.
If you dont want to be an independent because you say your a Democrat.” Then you can register as an independent. Independents, all right? That middle ground, and oh, we hear all about, why, they’re moderates. Oh, they just – they’re in the middle. The people that are in the middle are the ones we should be listening to. They’re not crazies. Remember, who was it yesterday who had the piece about he wanted a Tea Party for the radical center? Who was that?
That was Thomas Friedman of The New York Slimes. Well, Mr. Friedman, guess what your radical center wants, jackass. Repeal, you turd. 66 percent of registered independents want repeal. But that’s the middle, isn’t it. That’s what I keep hearing. Bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, aggregately, 33 percent said no, Republicans should stop the repeal effort. 62 percent, an overwhelming landslide majority, said yes. The numbers are on our side. This republic has not taken a left turn at Albuquerque.

You people on MSNBC and at the HuffPo and all you other little budding socialist wannabes out there, you can stick it in your pipe and smoke it. You’re on the wrong side. You’re going to lose. We’re going to kick your ass. You hear me? Kick your ass. And if you don’t take the legislative ass-whipping that we’re going to give you, then we’re going to resort to actually kicking your ass. “You think that’s violent.” No, it’s not. We’re going to administer a legislative, electoral ass-whipping. And when we’re done, if you don’t submit, which is to just live free and leave us alone – did you hear me, live free and leave me alone, and my family, and my children – then we will kick your ass!

Real Americans are not going down without a fight, do you hear me you damn libs/commies/dems??? You have been pushing us for years, and yes because of the fact that we have been so busy living our lives, and raising our families that we have not been paying attention to whats been going on in the world of politics and you depraved, immoral, and in my opinion crooks have been slowly but surely been passing laws to take away our freedoms, liberties, and properties......but no more I say,
You wanted a war, a fight, well, guess what, YOU GOT IT!

Chris Serna
Mike Church

When it comes down to nationalizing Healthcare, The Arugment Is About Liberty Not Cost Or Coverage

Let’s talk about money for a minute here. In 1913 your dollar was worth a dollar. You could take it to a bank, and you could get a dollar’s worth of gold for it. Try that today. Try it. Your dollar has now been deflated, devalued, destroyed, and is worth four cents of what it was worth in 1913. This has taken place and is arbitrarily foisted upon the people every year through this thing called “controlled inflation.” “Why, the Fed’s got it,come on, get with it, everybody’s a monetarist these days, right?” Not everybody. The conservative position has always been that there should be sound money. Where are the conservatives other than Congressman Paul that think that there should be sound money these days? Where are the conservatives that want to start stockpiling gold? It’s worth something. Why are the Chinese and the Indians buying $10 billion of gold at a time? Conservatism and sound money have taken another ass-whipping. Chalk that one up for the progressives.

Government, Our Constitution is no longer vibrant. It is no longer applicable. It is a dead letter. The assault on it began in 1915 or 1917, and the assault has never ended, and there has not been a solitary conservative victory since the 1930`s Since the Schechter case, I would argue with you that, although the court may have made the right decisions from time to time, they have done so for reasons that have expanded their power and have expanded the power of other guys in black robes. We have an entire society that was convened in the 1970s, conservatives concede to this, called the Federalist Society. My friend Andy McCarthy’s a member of the Federalist Society. The purpose of the Federalist Society was to reverse this, was to put judges in office here that would stop this.

I’m not sure of the exact creation of the Federalist Society. 38 years later, federal judges are still running amok. We have federal judges deciding whether or not a kid can wear a T-shirt to school in Alaska. We have federal judges deciding whether or not something is edible in a school lunch, for crying out loud. We have federal judges intervening in disputes between neighbors. We have federal judges assuming and claiming they have authority and power over the waterways that crisscross your state right now. Another unmitigated defeat for conservatives. An ass-whipping. An absolute bloody battlefield.

Shall I go on? How about the size of government? Show me the agency that has any, any deference whatsoever to a constitutional edict. Show me an agency that is carrying out an enumerated power. Show it to me. Show me an agency that has absolute deference and respect for the Tenth Amendment and recognizes that the states are the ones that need to be implementing most policies, most laws. Show it to me. We have armies of bureaucrats out there, sent out there, swarms of bureaucrats to harass our people. What is the conservative response? Well, we need to manage them better. The government has grown to a station and to a place in its existence where it is the largest amalgam of government in the history of earth. The communists and Russia didn’t have as many bureaucrats as we have. We are number one in bureaucracy. No nation on earth, no republic on earth has ever amassed the payroll that this monster that we created has amassed. Conservatism, again, is defeated. We don’t win much of anything, do we.

In 1965 a shocking 37 percent of all born African American Negro black children were born out of wedlock. 37 percent. This was a shocking number. Shocking. Today it is 70 percent. 70 percent. You know what happened along the way? 40 percent of other children – white children, Hispanic, you name it – are now born out of wedlock. Conservatism bailed on the popular culture, lost every single solitary culture war and is still losing them today as I speak. You think Ward and June Cleaver would be the number one show on CBS if it were to be refilmed and aired as it was written in 1957? Think again. It wouldn’t last a second. Hell, in the pitch session the guy who pitched it would probably be beaten over the head. They would throw him out like the Three Stooges used to get thrown out on the streets in their comedy shorts. And the list can go on and on and on.

In short, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, you, thinking you were minding your own business, playing by the rules, doing what you thought was right for 97 years, have been part of one of the greatest social injustices and shifts in social ideas and shifts in the form of government the world has ever seen. The once great, free and proud American people are now serfs, just as Hayek predicted. He said in 1938 we are on the road to serfdom. We’re on the superhighway in serfdom now. We’re not on the road to it. We live in it. And yet we wonder whether or not Ms. Pelosi will have the votes on Sunday. She will. And yet we wonder whether or not the IRS will actually hire another 17,000 bureaucrats and send them hither to harass – and send swarms of them hither, as Patrick Henry said, to harass our people. They will. And yet we wonder whether or not our states will be victorious in federal court in trying to nullify ObamaCare. They won’t.
There’s not a federal judge alive that’s going to side with the state of Virginia. Bob McDonnell knows it, Mr. Cuccinelli knows it, and I know it. There’s not a federal judge alive that’s going to side with the state of Idaho. Governor Otter knows it. And if he doesn’t, he’s a fool. And I know it. There’s not a federal judge alive out there that’s going to uphold any of these firearms acts in Tennessee, Wyoming, and Montana. Those governors and those state legislatures know it, and so do I. These are all indicators that our way of life that we so cherish and so love to talk about and so pine away for is over. That little “r” republicanism that our founders and our fathers once enjoyed is a pipedream. And we have been participating in every last one of these defeats. Instead of arguing ObamaCare and PelosiCare on the pure issue of liberty, as Mark Steyn has said – remember?
“How did the healthcare debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?” wrote Mark Steyn. “That’s the argument that needs to be won. And if you think I’m being frivolous in positing bureaucratic regulation of doughnuts and vacations, consider that under the all-purpose umbrellas of “health” and “the environment,” governments of supposedly free nations are increasing comfortable straying into areas of diet and leisure. Last year, a British bill attempted to ban Tony the Tiger, longtime pitchman for Frosted Flakes, from children’s TV because of his malign influence on young persons. Why not just ban F.F`s? Or permit it by prescription only? Or make kids stand outside on the sidewalk to eat it?

“It was also proposed – by the Conservative party, alas – that, in the interests of saving the planet, each citizen should be permitted to fly a certain number of miles a year, after which he would be subject to punitive eco-surtaxes. Isn’t restricting freedom of movement kind of, you know, totalitarian? Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks – drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for healthcare, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

“Government healthcare would be wrong even if it “controlled costs.” It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.”

Do you hear any member of your precious Republican representation in Congress ever make that passionate, spot-on, far-out, solid, and right-on defense or offense against PelosiCare or ObamaCare? Name him, I challenge you sir or madam.....you cant, do you know why, because they dont believe in liberty or freedom, they believe in power, wealth, control.....dems and repubs alike except for a few.....
Thats why when you hear them start to squak about repealing obamacare, dont believe it, name one time newly elected officials repealed anything, NEVER, WONT HAPPEN....
The dems know that they are going to take a beating in nov, they dont care, this is the end game, they have been striving for this payoff for 60 years...

Food for thought from a true patriot

I rarely pay attention to any one mans rants and raves, but this one resonated down to my heart and was spot on.......

In 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment was passed. Seventeenth Amendment was proposed and then ratified later. And the Creature from Jekyll Island escaped from that swamp in Georgia, and we were stuck with the Federal Reserve forevermore. This is when the war began.

Now, me and you, you and me, we didn’t actually join this battle, despite what you may think, we didn’t actually join this battle until maybe, maybe six years ago. Maybe eight years ago the battle may have actually been joined. And for the preceding 86 years we were pretending to fight the battle. Let us walk through what has happened here and why it is a no-brainer that Nazi Pelosi will have the votes on Sunday. Because the creep of history shows that liberalism, progressivism, socialism, communism’s march on this shore has been unabated. They have scored unrequited, unbelievable, totally predictable victories from the time they set their sights in 1910 or 1913 to today. Till today.

Where has there been a “conservative” victory, other than the election of Ronald Wilson Reagan? Show it to me. We’ve been getting our asses kicked for 80 years, ladies and gentlemen. 87 years we have been on the losing end of the stick. 97 years, my bad, check it. 97 years we’ve been getting walloped. For one brief moment in that 97 years, a gentleman named Cal Coolidge, “Silent Cal,” as they called him, the man that refused to put a telephone in the White House because he didn’t understand why someone from Congress couldn’t just drive down the street or walk down or ride a horse and deliver the message or ask the question. “Silent Cal” Coolidge overturned and eliminated the progressive DeceptiCon foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. He overturned the monetary system and the inflation of the Fed. And ever since that day we’ve been getting our asses kicked. Conservatism has taken a walloping.

We have nothing to show for the last 97 years. Nothing. Remember back in August of last year, I read to you the 1928 Socialist Party of America platform. There were 13 things on that platform. We checked off 12 of them. 12 things on the 1928 Socialist Party platform have been achieved. Conservatism, and this is not a requiem or a critique of conservative thinking, conservative principles, Burkean conservatism, Jefferson republicanism, nothing of the sort. I’m just giving you the rundown. Wake up here. This “we’re going to take the country back in 2010,” to do what? You going to repeal the last 97 years? I mean, look around. What has happened? Conservatism has been destroyed. It has been beaten at every juncture.

We’ve seen our public schools, we’ve seen schools totally socialized. We send our children to socialist schools. This was not always the case. In 1910, most people still relied on private education. Education was still the responsibility of the parent. No more. Now we sit here as conservatives, whining, carping, complaining about school boards, about public schools, about public school unions, and on and on and on. We allowed this to happen. Conservatism got its ass kicked when it comes to schooling. We lost the universities. The damned Germans and the Russians that escaped communism and Nazism came here, started to apply their craft, and now they control the universities. Another defeat for conservatism. Another defeat for free people, for little “r” republicanism.

At every juncture in the last 97 years, conservatives have lost. We haven’t won a damn thing. We’ve deluded ourselves by thinking that we’ve won. We didn’t win anything. All the Reagan revolution did was slow this monster down, slowed it down, folks. Didn’t stop it. Kicked it in the shins and went, there, take that. And the monster went [snarling and laughing]. And now here we stand with what has been the goal of these nut jobs, these evil, despicable, Trotskyite individuals for 97-plus years, they now stand on the precipice of accomplishing this. And you want me to believe that because Michael Barone has done a headcount, you don’t think they are going to get the votes? Ladies and gentlemen, I’m telling you right now that, if it takes kidnapping [Jason] Altmire’s kids and holding them in a basement somewhere with Wrong Emanuel that has a .45 to some kid’s head, you will vote yes, they will rally those votes on Sunday. Just get ready for it.

The question now remains, after 97 years of successive defeats, is conservatism going to finally make a stand? Is little “r” republicanism finally going to make a stand? Is it? Well, I’d like to see the evidence of that. Understand what you are up against. You are up against a voracious beast whose appetite will never be quenched. If you think that this is the last thing that they’re going to take from you, think again. That’d be nice. Won’t happen, but it’d be nice. Because once healthcare is passed, then they’ll move on to Michelle Obama writing your diet down for you and sending a census worker to enforce it. Then they’ll move on to all the other lifestyle issues that now must be micromanaged because you can’t be allowed to be unhealthy. And then they’ll move on into sticking their fingers into every other manner, every other facet of your life, as if they don’t already have their fingers in every facet of your life.

One final note about where we have – from where we have gone to where we are. At one point in time the John Locke, creed – of life, liberty, and private property was held near and dear. Private property was elevated above all because the founders and generations of Americans before the founders – this is key, before the founders – revered private property, revered it, held it holy and sacred. This is what separated them from their European cousins. You can’t own property in Europe like you can here. Where do you think all these feudal laws came from and what have you? You had to know somebody to get property. There was very little chance a peasant would ever amass enough money to buy property unless he was fortunate enough to have a couple of acres given to him by a duke or whatever.

We were different. This is why people came here. Private property was cherished. It was sacred. Another conservative defeat here. We’ve lost this battle, as well. Many times we surrender the battle voluntarily. Oh, you need to build a road there? Oh, well, sorry, Joe. Your house is in the middle, is in the way. Too bad, pal. But you’re serving the public good because my kid needs to get to that public school over there. We surrender this. We sign off on eminent domain. We sign off on these things. Understand that, without absolute defeat, as they – I just demonstrated to you that in the last century conservatives have gotten their asses kicked every single year, on damn near every issue that they held near and dear at the turn of the last century.

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe conservatives should think the way the DeceptiCons tell us that we should think. Maybe we should. Maybe I’m the antiquated one. Maybe I’m the relic of the past. Maybe we’ll never live like our founders lived. Maybe we should just give up on it. But for those of us that want to try, at least we can say that we had no part in this. Our conscience is clear. As Jefferson once said, “Our union is perfect. Our cause is just.” Now, whose side are you on?



A special shout out to my friend Mike Church....

How low will dems go to pass healthcare plan?

This week was, in my opinion the most dispicable display of tugging at the american peoples` heartstrings that I ever witnessed.....

A health care news conference was held on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 11, 2010, and in this public display of thuggery




Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., along with Gina Owens from Seattle, Wash.,whose daughter, Tiffany Owens died after losing her job and health care....
after more scrutney we find out that her daughter had a inoperable disease and was in fact receiving medical treatment.
Reed marches her up to the podium and in her well prepared speech she goes on to say that it was our(society)fault that her daughter didn`t have healthcare.
I disagree with this misrepresented statement, it wasn`t healthcare that she didn`t have( notice the fact that we have this arcadic law that states quite clearly that NO ONE can be turned down for medical treatment) it was in fact health ins that she was lacking.....
this my friends is a huge misdirection that the left uses whenever they are trying to advance their liberal agenda.

Then at the same press conference "big dick" durbin goes on to say that everyday 70 people die from lack of health ins....really? I would love to see where he gets his facts from. Let me ask you dick, how many people die everyday and HAVE health ins?
Simply the daydream that the libs/dems must be living in is that just because you have health ins you will live forever....is this the case dick?

On February 26, Les Blumenthal of The Olympian reported Murray shared the Marcelas talking point at the White House health care summit:

"Sen. Patty Murray has told the story of Marcelas Owens dozens of times before, but Thursday she may never have had a bigger audience as she talked of the 10-year-old Seattle boy whose mother died after she lost her health insurance coverage."


"I lost my mom because she didn’t have health care," Marcelas said. "Every day it’s hard not having her around. I don’t want any other kid to go through what I have gone through."


Senator Murray’s campaign website had a fuller version of the statement:

Marcelas Owens, whose entire family have been longtime members of the Washington Community Action Network, issued the following statement today thanking Senator Murray for her leadership:

"I want to thank Senator Murray for sharing my story with President Obama and other people in Congress. I lost my mom because she didn't have health care. Every day it's hard not having her around. I don't want any other kid to have to go through what I went through. That's why I don't understand why some politicians are saying that Congress should stop working to pass the health care reform bill. Every day we wait, more kids like me will lose someone they love. Thank you for fighting for me, Senator Murray."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfdsx1OHMfs

Clearly, a ten-year-old boy who lost his mother is a heart-tugging anecdote. But, aside from the desirability of using grade-schoolers in political debates, more knowledge about how organized this Marcelas campaign is displays that CBS and MSNBC are receptive recyclers of liberal Democrat video-press-release ideas.

Then you of course have the liberal media spin on this debate:

CNN's Jim Acosta omitted the left-wing affiliation of pro-ObamaCare protesters during a report on Wednesday's American Morning, referring to them as only "health care advocates and labor groups." Acosta, like his colleague Nancy Cordes at CBS, also highlighted child protester Marcelas Owens, and labeled him a "brave young man."

Kiran Chetry and John Roberts introduced Acosta's report, and the anchors also failed to mention the political bent of the protest, which was organized by the Health Care for America Now coalition (HCAN's members include the AFL-CIO, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood). Chetry remarked that "thousands though rallied in Washington against what they call 'insurance industry bullying.'"

15 percent of all decisions that are made in what is known as – air finger quotation marks – “the healthcare system,” end quote air fingers. 15 percent are actually paid for at the time of transaction by the consumer of the service. 15 percent. That in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. That in and of itself is going to drive costs, and it’s going to drive them up. Because as long as you’re spending somebody else’s money, or what you perceive to be somebody else’s or someone else’s money, or some other entity’s money, you’re not going to be frugal with it. You’re going to assume that they have been frugal with it.

You see, this is the great distraction here. The frugality end of the healthcare industry, then, falls solely on the shoulder of the insurance companies. Because the consumer has abdicated their responsibility. And there’s one surefire way to rein costs in tomorrow morning. And that is to exterminate by act of Congress all tax benefits that accrue to anyone that purchases anything called health insurance. No company gets it. No individual gets it. You have, look, your tax receipts are going to increase. And I’m not a proponent of this because I’m not a fan of the income tax and withholding to start with. But let me finish the statement here.

Your company then can no longer treat the income, which is what it is, that they are paying you through the benefit, which is why they do it. They don’t do it because they care about you. They don’t do it because it’s good business. They don’t do it for any of the other reasons that people lie through their teeth and say, oh, we care about our employees. No, you don’t. You care about profit, and that’s all you should care about. In your community you care about people. In your business, if you care about people – you know what they call people in business that care about other people? You know what they call them? Bankrupt. They call them out of business. They call them nonprofits. Eliminate the tax benefit. When you actually are going to have to go out and shop with the Geico gecko and with some dude that says that, like a good neighbor, some guy is there and what have you there, you’re going to make better deals.

You know those MRI machines that cost a million and a half, from the scarecrow dancing on the GE smart grid lines? You know those things? They’ll be a thing of the past if you have to pay directly for that scan. The way that machine is built today will become a thing of the past when an actual entrepreneur or a doctor actually has to buy that thing, and then actually has to sell the services and has to convince people, hey, the doctor’s not telling you you need that because he’s covering his behind with a slip-and-fall lawyer. The doctor is telling you he needs it because you actually need the service, but you’re going to have to pay for it.

You know, ladies and gentlemen, in most states there are these things that you could buy called catastrophic medical insurance policies. You can buy one with a $5,000 deductible. You can buy one with a $10,000 deductible. I think they ought to make them as high as you want to make it. Meaning that you’re only covered when you need, like the gentleman that just called, a million dollars’ worth of services, well, the first 20 grand could be on you. And the insurance will be priced accordingly. But most people don’t want to hear that because that’s difficult. But you have no problem doing that when it comes to your car insurance. I just can’t figure this out.

Retail sales rose three tenths of a percent in February. Ooooh. Three tenths of a percent. The recovery is here you say, really?. Retail sales posted a surprising increase in February as consumers did not let major snowstorms stop them from storming the malls. How were they out there storming malls when unemployment went up because of the snowstorm? Oh, I see, we’re not looking for a job, but you were out spending money you don’t have. What’s wrong with this picture?

Derbyshire on the Mike Church Show said yesterday that he doesn’t see how we’re ever going to go back to producing things, and that we’re doomed. I don’t know that we’re doomed, that we can never go back to making things, if we just stop lying to kids and telling them that they’re never going to have to fend for themselves, and that some of them are going to have to make things, and that they can proudly make things, and it’s fun, and it’s rewarding to make things. I don’t know. Hell, humans did it for about 7,000 years of recorded history, until the Federal Reserve came along.

If there is one thing you fine people take away from my rant on this subject, let it be this....
This ramrod is not about healthcare, its about the assult on your freedoms and liberties plain and simple, its about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT taking over every aspect of your life, look past all the rhetoric, smoke screens and downright lies from both sides of the political aisle!
Yes, you heard me right, republicans as well as democrats are involved in this major power grab and downright fallacy.

Its about time everyone starts to realize this, good intentions and helping your fellow man is all fine and dandy but take this into consideration, my rights and freedoms are just as important as yours and when you use the coercion of the fed gov to take a percentage of my earnings to do your bidding, you are no different than the local bum, thief, mugger that takes from me at gunpoint!
Not to mention that when you forceably conscript me to support the lazy and shiftless you are making me their slave, one persons rights are no different from anothers!

As my good friend and mentor Mike Church states so elogently and diplomatically, "this will all end in tears!"

The 2nd Amendment And The States - With Dr. Kevin Gutzman

Here is an interview between Mike Church and Dr Kevin Gutzman speaking in great detail about the 2nd amendment and how it pertains to the case in chicago....

Mike: So Judge Napolitano says that the Second Amendment applies to all the cities and all the states and all the municipalities in the United States.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: Right. Well, his book was called “A Nation of Sheep.” And essentially it was a book I could endorse about 95 percent. The one shortcoming was that he has this idea that all of your rights are based on natural law or that they are somehow suddenly the result of philosophical speculation. And so as we heard in the sound bite you played, if we have a right to self-defense, then that must be a right to keep and bear arms, which means you have a right to own a weapon that you might use in your own defense, and therefore no government in the United States can contravene this right.

Well, if he were right about the origin of your rights, that might be a reasonable way to get to that conclusion. The problem is that your right to keep and bear arms, like the other rights in the federal Constitution, is actually a historic right, not a philosophical one. It’s based on people’s experience as English subjects before American independence, where they had a right to keep and bear arms. And that right to keep and bear arms had certain contours. Now, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, it was intended entirely to reserve control over these questions to the state governments. That is the reason why we had a federal Bill of Rights was further to clarify the limits on federal authority.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: So when we have a Second Amendment, essentially what that means is that the federal government is to have nothing to do with your ownership and use of weapons. But that doesn’t mean that nobody is able to regulate your ownership and use of weapons. If neither the federal government nor the states can regulate ownership of weapons, are we saying that retarded people and insane people and felons and children can all own weapons? Clearly some level of government has to be able to regulate the use and possession of firearms.
Now, of course, if you look in the appendix to Tom Woods’ and my book “Who Killed the Constitution?” you see the Preamble to the Bill of Rights which says that the reason these amendments are being referred to the states is that people are afraid that the federal government is being granted too much power, and the point is further to clarify the limits on federal authority. So they were not supposed to be a limitation on state governments’ authority to say no children, no retarded people, no felons, no blind guys can own and use firearms. It’s entirely up to state governments to make that kind of determination.

Mike: Well, I mean, it makes perfect sense to me. And as I have studied it, that’s the conclusion I reach, too. So then today, let’s fast-forward to today. The SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, has already established as what you lawyers call stare decisis that the Fourteenth Amendment – and you can explain this better than I, so I’m going to unleash you in just a second here – that the Fourteenth Amendment and some language in it about due process entitles federal courts to apply certain parts of the Bill of Rights to all the states, which as you just pointed out is not the case. Now, the Supremes have a chance to reverse themselves on this today, and you don’t hold out any hope that they’re going to do that, though, do you.

Kevin: There is zero hope that they’re going to do that.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: Actually Raoul Berger, B-e-r-g-e-r, who is the greatest legal historian in American history, and just by freak coincidence he happened to be a Harvard professor, I mean, what are the chances, the great historian who’s the Harvard professor. But there actually were a couple of other ones. But Raoul Berger, who was the chief source of my knowledge of the fact that the incorporation doctrine is pure baloney, once was asked, well, what are the chances that we’ll get judges on the Supreme Court who will reverse this idea of the incorporation doctrine, that is, the applicability of selected Bill of Rights provisions against the states? And he said, well, I think that’s never going to happen because it’s just too much fun.

You know, if you’re a Supreme Court justice, it’s too much fun to have the final say over every interesting question of domestic policy. So obviously the Supreme Court is never going to say, well, it’s not our business to decide whether you can burn a flag or say a prayer or have an abortion or own a gun. I mean, why wouldn’t judges want to be able to decide these questions for 300 million people? And who cares that we never actually delegated them authority to make these determinations? You know, it’s just too much fun. You’re not going to give up that power.

Mike: So it’s a big incorporation party then. It’s a big lawyer party. We, look what we can do, we’re kings; right?

Kevin: Well, you know, being an appellate judge is actually a pretty boring job if you understand it the way you and I understand it ought to work. And so what they’re generally in the business of doing is finding new areas of policymaking that they can insinuate themselves into. And it seems that now they’ve decided, well, it’ll be really interesting if we could have the final control over questions about gun regulation. So from now on, instead of having local legislators, including state governments and city governments, make these determinations, we federal judges are going to start deciding these questions, too, right along with questions about, you know, mention of God or having abortion or any of these other interesting things that we should think we’d be able to resolve by having an election. We’re going to have the federal courts decide these issues, too.

And now what’s really appalling now is that people on the right are doing the same thing as people on the left. They’re calling for the judges to decide these questions in their favor, even though for 60 years conservatives have been saying the incorporation doctrine is baloney. Now that they have a majority on the Supreme Court, they’re using the same exact argument to get the policy outcomes they want from people on the Supreme Court. It’s – basically it goes to prove that the old liberal assertion that conservative complaints about judicial behavior were really just about the policy outcomes, that they would do the same thing if they had control, the liberals were right. So this is further proof of Tom Woods’ and my argument in “Who Killed the Constitution?” that really both parties behave the same way. They just abuse their positions to get the policy outcomes they want.

Mike: Wow. He is Dr. Kevin Gutzman. You heard him promote his book, “Who Killed the Constitution?” There’s another one, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.” Let me move on to another – and I get this question all the time on the air, and it forces me to go out there and learn and read stuff. And you can answer this, again, better than I. Somebody has already brought up, since you have been on the phone with me, well, Mr. Gutzman and Mr. Church, Mr. Smart Guys, explain how your argument comports with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Kevin: Well, the Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution and laws and treaties made in pursuit of or in furtherance or exercise of powers delegated by the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. That doesn’t have anything to do with whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states. If it’s enforceable against the states, then enforcement of it against the states would be part of the supreme Law of the Land. And if it’s not enforceable against the states, then refusing to enforce it against the states would be part of compliance with the supreme Law of the Land. If has nothing to do with anything. You know? [Indiscernible] Constitution, if the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states, then that enforcement is the supreme Law of the Land. And if not, then not. It doesn’t have anything to do with the question that we’re talking about.

Mike: Yeah, and that’s how I would have answered it, too. It’s supreme inasmuch as there’s got to be a – you have to be carrying out an enumerated power.

Kevin: Right.

Mike: Or doing something that the federal compact gives you the authority to do.

Kevin: Right. So to enforce against the states a provision that’s not supposed to be enforceable against the states is not an enforcement or observance of the Supremacy Clause. It’s actually ignoring the Supremacy Clause. I’d say this whole incorporation doctrine violates the Supremacy Clause because the Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, not that bogus arguments about enforcement of select Bill of Rights provisions that aren’t supposed to be enforceable against the states is the supreme Law of the Land. I mean, you know, I get this question all the time.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: People don’t seem to be able to make the distinction between provisions of the federal constitution that are supposed to limit the powers of people in the federal government and provisions of the federal Constitution that are supposed to limit the powers of people in the state government. We have provisions in the federal Constitution that are enforceable only against the states. So, for example, it says the states can’t coin money or can’t print money. And it says the states can’t maintain a navy. But that doesn’t mean that we have to enforce that same provision against the federal government, say nobody can have a navy because it’s the Supremacy Clause. I mean, it’s just [indiscernible].

This Struggle Is All About Principles

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, this struggle that we are in the middle of is all about principles. It is all about values. It is all about a philosophy, an ideology of how government should work. And those that are in the political system inside the machine, are not going to satisfy your concerns unless you make them clearly.

See, this was the point that I was trying to make to you. Did you extricate promises and will you extricate, will you demand promises from future Scott Browns, like are you going to obey the Constitution, dude? Seriously, no, really. We want you to go, and we want you to run on a platform that you’re going to dismantle the welfare state. Will you do that? We want you to go, and we want you to run on a platform that you’re going to take it apart brick by brick, that you’re going to get my children out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I mean, until you do this, and until you insist on this, and until you are clear about the kind of “change” that you’re talking about, you’re going to get a bunch of Scott Browns. You’re going to get a bunch of fake, phony, fraud conservatives that aren’t conservative at all.

And then after Brown, man, you’ve got to read the write-up on this in the Washington Compost today. I mean, this is just damning. He went out and boasted and bragged about it to the media. Hey, there is one upshot to this, though, ladies and gentlemen. After Scott Brown voted for Harry “Worthless Warbucks” Reid’s non-job-producing job bill last night, Michelle Obama is now once again proud of Massachusetts. So you have that going for you. [Mimicking Michelle Obama] “I’m, once again, really proud of Massachusetts.” Despicable.

You know what I find interesting, on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday the entire text of George Washington’s farewell address was read aloud by Roland Burris. That’s quite a choice to read it, but nonetheless. And contained in that farewell statement are Washington’s warnings and his pleadings about not affiliating with parties, and about parties being the bane of political discourse. And Washington, if you read the farewell address, nailed it on all these things.

Now, how interesting. It was pointed out in the Washington Compost today by Dana Milbank that, why, Scott Brown didn’t go for the party line. Mitch McConnell tried to rally the 41 votes against the jobs bill, which is not a jobs bill, it’s a jobs killer bill. And he was rebuffed by Mr. Brown who said, “I’m not with a party. Why, I represent the people of Massachusetts, there.” I’ll tell you what, though. Contained in Brown’s statements are the seeds of undoing, are the seeds and the evidence upon which you can now firmly make the conclusion, or base the conclusion, that your hero, your tea party hero, the man that was going to change everything, the man who was going to finally, finally put the dagger in one of my predictions and prove me wrong and that I’m the fake and the phony, and I didn’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and I never have, the dagger has now been put into the aspirations attached to Scott Brown.

By the way, I will accept your apologies at any time now, all you so called conservatives that think i`m insane, that defriended me...for telling me that I didn’t get it and for telling me, “You’re going to see, we’re right about this, we know this guy. He was on with Sean Hannity, and he’s the real deal. And if you would just get with the program, we could all move forward together, dude.” [Snickering] I will accept your apologies all day long. My children will accept your apologies for slandering their father. All day today. Let’s be civil about this.

Dana Milbank, Washington Compost, here’s the title: “From the bluest of states, a red senator of a different color.” [Guffawing] He’s red, all right. “So much for the Massachusetts Miracle,” writes Dan Milbank. Boy, that’s just got to cut like a knife. Where’s Bryan Adams when you need him? “[Scott] Brown, his desk in the back corner, was the only Republican in the room as Senate Majority Leader Harry [Worthless Warbucks] Reid ... offered a final denunciation of the GOP before the vote [on the jobs bill].” This is Bride of Stimulus, ladies and gentlemen. This is just Part 1 now. They’re not finished with this. By the time they’re done with this thing, it’ll be a couple of hundred bil. But, heh, who’s counting; right?

“‘My friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for ways not to vote for this,’ [Reid] said, accusing them of putting ‘partisanship ahead of people.’ As Reid spoke, Brown was leafing through a Senate face book, learning to recognize his new colleagues. As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll. ‘Yes,’ Brown said quietly; and then, having become Reid’s first vote” – he was the first one. Benedict Brown, the first one. “Having become Reid’s first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him. ‘I’m not from around here, I’m from Massachusetts,’ he said.

“Back inside the Senate chamber, Maine’s Susan Collins, a Republican moderate” – she’s not a Republican moderate. She’s a shill. She’s a DeceptiCon, big-spending fake – “...Republican moderate, followed Brown’s lead and voted yes. The floodgates opened, and the GOP filibuster was broken with two votes to spare.” Hey, where was the fiscally conservative and upset over all the spending Evan Bayh? Where was the fiscally conservative and upset over all the spending Blanche Lincoln? Where were they? Were they out there protesting? Were they out there – let me see. I’ve got the roll call here. [Muttering] Oh, look at this. All the moderate Democrats that were so concerned about the budget deficit with Obama and so concerned about all the spending that’s going on, Blanche Lincoln, you people in Arkansas voted yes. K Street Mary Landrieu voted yeah. As did all the other Democrats.
Despicable, folks, despicable.

It sure doesnt sound like they have any morals or priciples to me....well I guess that also depends on your definition of morals and principles...