The conservative path back to the Constitution

Much has been made about the “Tea Party” movement and other American’s calls to “return to the Constitution” and get “our government back” from the politicians and special interests that have stolen it. There are many thoughtful plans being promoted that should the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives, they should pursue. These plans offer various degrees of remodeling the federal system but do nothing to alter its inexorable course toward either an Oligarchy or acting national democratic legislature.




I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”

With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.



Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.

1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.

Can we really shrink the size of government?

One of the core beliefs of the Tea Party movement is that the government is too big, too powerful, and costs too much money. Of course, this is also a core conservative belief that over the years has not necessarily been championed by the Republican Party. But now, with Republicans poised to make massive gains in Tuesday's elections and Tea Party activists motivated to exert their influence past Election Day, could this be the time when we can actually shrink the size of government?

Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."

The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.

The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!

There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.

In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.

With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.

(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.

The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)

If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.

Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!

Our Constitution Means What It Says, and is not open to interpretation!

Written Constitutions mean exactly what the writers and ratifiers say they mean and nothing else in the form of this essay from MI Supreme Court Judge Thomas McIntyre Cooley.

Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.




A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.

A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.

Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.

What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."





I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....

Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?

Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?

Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?

Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.

Mike: Okay.

Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.

Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?

Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...

Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?

Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.

Mike: Okay, all right.

Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.

Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?

Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.

Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.

Kevin: Right.

Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?

Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...

Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”

We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.

Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?

Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...

Mike: Right.

Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.

Mike: Which is...

Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?

Mike: Well, how...

Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.

Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?

Kevin: Right.

Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.

Kevin: 1688.

Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?

Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.

Mike: Right.

Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.

Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.

Kevin: Yeah, yeah.

Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.

Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.

So Obama IS a Socialist after all.....

The big story of the day is that things that were barely touched upon, barely covered, barely reported, barely discussed back in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for the presidency, have now been proved to be unequivocally and factually correct. Correct . That includes his relationship with Bill Ayers, his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his palling around with radical nut jobs like Rashid Khalidi and other sorts of America-hating whack jobs. It always has been Obama’s goal, his mission, hell, his purpose in life was to call into mind and to question the actual existence of these United States. I mean, folks, it all makes sense now that all the facts are being exposed....



Now, look. This is not news to I. I was well apprised of this a long time ago because I’ve been a fan of and I’ve been reading what Dr. Stanley Kurtz has been writing about Obama. So I was not surprised by this one iota. Now, apparently many of you people are not surprised by it, either. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But here’s what remains the challenge: What are we going to do about it?

And what I’m talking about is Dr. Stanley Kurtz’s book, it comes out next week, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.” The most shocking part of this, as I told you when I was reading this, was that it was the goal of those who were promoting Obama or someone like Obama that they would use groups like ACORN and Project Vote to swell the ranks of Democrats with poor and minority voters. And that their socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots. This is a takeover of the American government. This is a takeover from within of our social systems and our institutions.

Now, they’re not finished with their takeover yet because it was quite a massive undertaking to try and consume all of it. This is the radical change that Obama has always been talking about. As a matter of fact, this is what change and hope meant. Change and hope meant throw out liberty, or what little liberty remained after the socialists began their conquests back in 1913, throw out the remaining remnants of liberty, throw out the remaining constraints against what limited the power and the reach of government, throw that out and replace it with something that felt good. It was all sticky and sugary sweet. Why, we’ve got to get rid of these banks. We have to get rid of these people, these shysters, these crooks, these criminals that are out there loaning money to your kids in student loans and what have you, and that own these car companies and these other corporations. We must get rid of them and replace them with the kind of people we want to put in there. And then we will loan them government money, and we will invest in this and that and the other.

I will make Obama’s radical past today’s story, because you people that have been called wackos and nut jobs and racists and hicks and hayseeds and what have you because you oppose Obama so vehemently, and that Obama’s rise to power and the way he has used his power has set alarm bells ringing off in your head, this justifies your alarm bells. This gives credibility to your fears. You feared this guy for the right reasons. He is a Marxist lunatic.

Now, let me take you back to August of 2008, as I have been suffering under this for over two years now. “Oh, you’re just jealous. You know what you are, Chris, you’re just a racist. Why don’t you just come out of the closet, admit it? Get the sheet and hoods out of the closet.” And as I’ve been telling you, and I have been talking about this for over two and a half years when I heard Obama give this particular speech:

"that he’s running for the presidency because he wants to bring philosophy to an end, or a particular philosophy. Well, that philosophy is the philosophy of what you people call the free market. We haven’t had one since the 1800s. But it has been called a free market. And the other philosophy is the philosophy of embracing liberty in the individual over collectivism in the state."

I heard him give the same speech on consecutive days, when I heard him give this speech I was shocked and mortified. i remember thinking,"I’m the only one that thinks that there’s anything wrong with this????" Was anyone else listening to this radical marxist racist???? I guess not, I mean hes the president right?

You see, socialists, in order to operate, they must confiscate the wealth of the people. And then they put all-knowing, all-caring, social engineers in the place of people that were running businesses before. And they run them for the social good. They don’t run them for profit. It doesn’t work anywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s not going to work here. As a matter of fact, it’s not working here. Look at the state of economic affairs around you. But it was shocking to me that Obama was out there saying he wanted to bring philosophies to an end, and people were cheering.
You don’t bring philosophies to an end....
Dictators bring philosophies to an end....
Violent revolutions bring philosophies to an end....
But there was Obama, out there throwing this stuff up, like a mama bird spitting up chewed up worms down her chicks throats on the campaign trail and being cheered for it. So let me take you back and remind you what this madman has said:

Obama: ...have a stake in each other, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.

Question: Yes or no, eliminate the electoral college, yes or no. Obama: Yes.

Obama: We need to stop sending $3 billion a year to banks that provide student loans the government could provide directly to students for less.(hows this one worked out for you lazy, shiftless, mooching off your parents, college pukes???)

Obama: We can’t afford to wait any longer. We need this fund to help New Hampshire and states across the country pay for healthcare and education, police and firefighters.(because you dumb pions in your individual towns can`t seem to handle it)

Obama: I think, when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.(you mean good for the losers that won`t go out and take care of themselves or their families)

Obama: That does involve us spreading around opportunity.

Obama: And this economic catastrophe is the final verdict on this failed philosophy, a philosophy that we cannot afford to continue. And one of the reasons I am running for the presidency of the United States is to bring this philosophy to an end.(only because of these oh so many liberal policies and dem interventions into our so called free market)

Now, he said it. I didn’t say it. He said it, “is to bring this philosophy to an end.” Now, when you read Kurtz’s piece here, it all makes sense. And again, if you missed it last hour, I’ll read you the summary:

“The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama’s political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the President’s socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration. As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama’s radical and only ... partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the President’s ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama’s past is the best way to safeguard our future.”

That is why everyone must know the facts about this true racial divider, and i suggest you all start with this small but factual article written by Dr. Stanley Kurtz......

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249390/obama%E2%80%99s-radical-past-stanley-kurtz

and then read his book, "Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism"



So it shouldn’t come as a shock, really, if you have been watching what’s been going on, have been watching what this guy has been doing, have been watching who he has appointed to positions of power and the way he’s operated.

What ought to be a shock, though, is the dismissal by so many in the Parrot Press Corps, fringe media, academia, political circles and what have you, when you admit that, wait a minute, there’s just something not right about this guy. And you say that, why, the first reaction is “racist, bigot, hick, hayseed,” you know, you hear it all the time, radical Tea Party extremists, they’re just responding to Obama’s race. No. You people, or many of you people, have been correct all along. Your instincts were good. You smelled out the socialist. You sniffed it out. You knew as soon as he started it didn’t seem right. You knew as soon as this stuff started, and the explanations that were given for it, that it just didn’t seem right. There is something intrinsically and inherently wrong with being president of a country that once upon a time prized individual achievement and individualism and has thrown that overboard.

So, for how long has the left claimed that all this comes from conservative conspiracy theorist nut jobs. It’s not a conspiracy anymore. It’s only a conspiracy if you don’t know about it. I mean, this isn’t Mulder and Scully tooling around in the Antarctic, looking for Obama’s buried ancestors in the Antarctic ice that came from some faraway planet, are we? This has actually happened in real-time, right in front of your face; hasn’t it?

The Supreme Answer To Westboro Baptist

I think we can all agree that protesting at the funeral of a dead soldier is a distasteful, classless, heartless, despicable act. I am of course referring to the offensive protests of the Phelps family of Westboro Baptist Church. What we might, but should not disagree on is whether or not this is a first amendment case. Most of you say it is because you have been taught Supreme Court precedent and not the Constitution. I respectfully dissent.







The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were written and ratified to erect bulkheads against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passing laws and acts or judicial rulings in the area of religion, the press and free speech, these matters were left to the sole discretion of the states. Anyone that is “for a return to the Constitution” must therefore then be for a return to the Bill of Rights as it was ratified but alas, most conservatives and Tea Party members do not want this return.






These protests are a matter for the towns where they are organized to occur in, to vigorously oppose with dedicated anti-Phelps crowds wielding pitchforks and torches and if that doesn’t work, try bare knuckles.