Do the birthers have a legitimate point?

I hate to keep returning to this story but it won't go away. Much to the delight of Obama birther conspiracists everywhere, Hawaii's dopey governor Neil Abercrombie has been keeping the birth-certificate issue alive for months. He's been promising to produce the document, from the one hospital on the island where babies were born in the early 60's, that proves once and for all that Chairman Zero was born in Hawaii. But he has yet to produce it.

As an Obama lick spittle, gov. Ab cannot accept that his hero may not have been born in the US and is therefore disqualifies from being President. Lapdog Obama supporters point to the newspaper announcement as proof, but any grandparent could have called in the birth announcement. Also, not a single doctor who worked at that hospital at the time can be found who remembers the Obama birth. A black baby being born to a white woman would have been remembered in the early 60's....even in Hawaii.

I've never been a birther but I'm starting to pay attention to the glaring questions right in front of me, thanks to Abercrombie's incessant rambling about, but failure to produce, the document. Specifically, if the Constitution says that the President must be born in the US, why isn't every candidate compelled to prove that? Just askin'.

The New York Times plays the race card

New York's most famous fish-wrapper wasted no time in mocking the reading of the Constitution aloud on the House floor by republicans, now in the majority.....

"In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person."

I've heard this red-herring argument many times before and I'll bet that every single person who's ever used it thinks that each black person was actually counted as 3/5ths of a person during pre-Civil War census taking. Well, here's the truth.....

In the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the northern(anti-slave) states struck a compromise with the southern(pro-slave) states regarding the census. Northern states didn't want any slaves counted and southern states wanted all slaves counted. It was called not surprisingly the "Three Fifths Compromise". It was designed to reduce the congressional representation of slave states and increase the relative representation of northern states by counting all the non-free people in the slave states and then multiplying that total number by 3/5ths.

It was not, as race hustlers, craven democrat politicians, and NYT op/ed writers like to tell you, that the Constitution viewed each black slave as 3/5ths of a person. It was about enumeration and nothing else.

That the NYT would trot out this tired, false argument shows what despicable excuses for journalists are employed there, why nobody reads it any more, and fully explains why the stock price is below junk status. What a rag! I wouldn't line a litter box with the NYTimes.

Two MSNBC tools discuss the Constitution

Liberals have always been hostile to the Constitution. It's the only thing standing in the way of the totalitarianism with which they would destroy America. But rarely do liberals display openly their contempt for it like half-witted tool Ezra Klein did.....



More than 100 years Ezra? How about more than 200? Ezra thinks it's hard to understand because he's never read it, nor bothered to try to understand it. To him the Constitution is something to be skirted in pursuit of a radical liberal agenda that empowers the imperial State and disenfranchises the individual.

Check out how Norah O'Donnel smiles derisively as she describes the republicans reading the Constitution aloud in the House. She's about as loathsome a wench as there's ever been in the media.

Democrats skirt the Constitution whenever they feel like it

Watch democrat Jan Shakowsky (D-Il) squirm when she's asked about the Constitutional provision that allows the government to force a citizen to enter into a financial contract.....



The difference between Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare is that with M/M participation is voluntary and we are taxed to pay for it, while Obamacare forces private citizens, under penalty of law, to enter into a contract with a private company.

To utterly corrupt democrats, the commerce clause of Article I and the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble give them carte blanche to do literally anything they want without actual, specific Constitutional justification. Obamacare is unconstitutional because no where is it suggested that the federal government can compel private citizens to purchase anything. This is why it is ripe for total repeal as soon as the political environment in DC is more conservative. Let's hope the republicans have legislative power in 2013 when hopefully Obama leaves office and they still have the guts to repeal it despite the bleating and lamentations of degenerate liberals like Jan Shakowsky.

Fred Phelps' free speech rights

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the free-speech rights of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of soldiers. Glenn Beck and others argue that free speech is free speech and must be defended, especially the most reprehensible, detestable speech.

I get that argument but it's not like all speech is completely unregulated. Take the 'yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater' example. That's free speech of the worst kind and yet the court regulates the time and venue where you can use it. There is nothing wrong, for instance, with yelling "FIRE" as loudly as you like in the middle of a cow pasture or an empty theater. The court has held that provocative, controversial speech has appropriate times and venues.

A similar ruling could be made here. As much as I detest Fred Phelps and his inbred, retarded followers, I support their right to be obnoxious, reprehensible degenerates through speech, just not in a way that directly hinders a private family from grieving during the burial of a loved one. This speaks to the issue of the family's Constitutional right to pursue happiness. I would without hesitation support this groups right to protest, march, and say whatever they like anytime and anywhere else in America, but they should not be allowed to disrupt a family's funeral observance.

All speech, especially detestable speech, should be free, but time and place can be limited.

Jan Shakowsky is an embarrassment

If you are deluded about how democrats view the US Constitution, look no further than Illinois democrat Jan Shakowsky...



The 10th amendment to which she derisively refers is of course the states' rights part of the Constitution. Specifically, it is the part that limits the concentration of power in the federal government, and the part that Congress regularly and most often violates. She probably has no clue about the meaning of the document and why we as Americans defend it to the death. Moreover, she's obviously resentful that we insist that our representatives abide by their solemn oath to uphold it.

To conservatives, the Constitution is the most perfect government document ever written. It defines us as a nation and adherence to it guarantees that the US remains intact for our children. To liberals, it is just as troublesome piece of paper that has to be skirted every day in order to implement their big-government, socialistic world view of what America should be.

A vote for a democrat in 32 days is a vote to further erode the Constitution. If you can argue otherwise, have at it.

28th Amendment?

In light of the obscene health care reform bill from which congressmen exempted themselves, there is a movement to amend the Constitution so this sort of ruling aristocracy cannot persist.....

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

Who would have thought this was necessary in America? When the people allow their representatives to seize more and more power for themselves, human corruption and self-interest always, ALWAYS play a role in subsequent legislation. We don't have a ruling class in America that is exempt from the same laws as everybody else. I am in total support of this amendment and I would like to see any politician from either party defend his opposition to such an amendment.

The democrats are playing with fire

Over at RedState they have an excellent explanation of what's likely to happen with the health care bill this week if the democrats decide to ram it through using trickeration, over the opposition of the American people. Basically, since they can't pass, even with reconciliation, a bill for Obama to sign, they're considering what's known as the Slaughter Rule, named for House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter. Here's the gist of it....

Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution says basically that any bill brought before the President must have been passed in precisely the same form, word for word, by both houses of congress with a yes/no vote having been taken. But the democrats haven't been able to do that yet with health care so they have an ace up their sleeve called the slaughter rule:

Unable to pass the Senate bill in the House, unable to pass ANY bill in the Senate (thank you Massachusetts), and thwarted in their attempt at reconciliation parlor tricks, the Democrats have hatched a plan. The House will vote on and (presumably) pass a new bill, which is the Senate Bill with amendments. Call it House Bill #2. House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter will propose a rule deeming the Senate bill to be “passed”, the new rule will be voted on and (presumably) approved by the House, and the amended bill — House Bill #2 — will be sent to Obama to be signed into law

Essentially the House democrats will pass a bill that declares the health care bill to be "passed" without actually voting on the health care bill itself. They'll send it to Obama and he'll stupidly sign it....essentially sealing his political fate to one-term. The national ramifications of doing this will be immediate and apocalyptic, starting with a Supreme Court ruling within days and various states passing legislation basically voiding it. It'll be a mess. Head on over to RedState and read about it.

UPDATE: Here's what Constitutional scholar Mark Levin had to say about this:

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

…It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law… the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

Pay attention this week people. America is at a crossroads.

Bill O'Reilly would suspend the Constitution over some bad weather

Here's Fox's #1 populist arguing that local governments may disarm law-abiding citizens during a declared state of emergency....



This guy totally schooled O'Reilly! You cannot suspend the Constitution for any reason and, a local state of emergency like the one that existed post-Katrina is precisely the time when citizens would need their guns to defend themselves and their property from marauding gangs of thugs and looters. Half the cowards on the N.O. police force fled the scene and stopped doing their jobs. Who protected the citizens then?

Not even the federal government, much less a local authority, has the right to suspend the Constitution...not even for bad weather. O'Reilly is a populist schmuck for suggesting that the position of preserving the Constitution in emergencies is "a pretty extreme position".

Another eminent-domain travesty

Once again the heavy hand of government stretches the Constitution and abuses a private citizen in the process. This is just awful!

From Northjersey.com.

[Bloomfield] is again hoping to use eminent domain powers to undertake its long-sought downtown redevelopment, despite renewed legal threats from at least one local business owner.

A slew of ordinances were enacted during a Nov. 9 township council roundtable, granting the Bloomfield Parking Authority (BPA) the ability to use eminent domain to construct a 700-space parking garage on Lackawanna Place.

Having successfully fought off the township's planned use of eminent domain several years earlier, property owner Anthony Ellenbogen is again threatening legal action.

This private property owner rents his building to several small businesses yet the city of Bloomfield is holding a virtual gun to his head to force him to give it up, so the city can build a parking garage to benefit other businesses and apartments in the area. His previous fight cost him tens of thousands of his personal savings and all he got out of it was the right to keep the land that he already owned. This is outrageous! At the very least, the government should have to pay all legal fees associated with forcing an American to give up his private property.

How is this kind of thing happening in America today? No citizen of the US should have to pay anybody for the privilege of keeping the property he already owns.....unbelievable!

The problem with policy Czars

These are just 12 of the 30 or so czars that Obama has installed as a shadow government. These people who carry the weight of the office of President behind them, answer only to Obama, not the American people. Normally people with this much power, cabinet members, have to be confirmed by the US Senate just like all other high-level Presidential appointees but, not these people. Read their names....have you heard of any of them? This is what the Constitution says about Presidential appointments.....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.

This is how Obama is skirting the Constitutional process of advice and consent. He can have these drones do his bidding as he seizes control of every facet of American life, exactly the way the cabinet members do except that, these shadowy automatons don't have to be confirmed by the people, i.e. the Senate, before they are given control over us.

People, what you are witnessing is the incremental, methodical dismantling of the United States and it's devolution into a second-rate, welfare state, managed by diabolically evil socialists who've abandoned the Constitution in favor of political correctness and nanny-State governance.....and we've nobody to blame but ourselves.

Harry Reid hypocritically forces Constitutional Crisis

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid displayed staggering hypocricy when he judged Roland Burris unfit to be a Senator for no reason other than his loose association with Rod Blogojovich. The US Constitution clearly states that if a person is a US citizen, a resident of the state he represents, and over the age of 30, he may serve his state in the US Senate. There are no Constitutional provisions for denying a lawfully-appointed man his place in the Senate. Once seated, the Senate may punish or even expel a member for misconduct but, that's not the case here.

If guilt by association is grounds for disqualification for public service, then where were these democrats when Obama's much closer associations with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezco, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Khalidi, and Farrakhan surfaced? Seems to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to The One.

Governor Blago hasn't even been indicted of a crime, much less convicted. He's got every right to appoint any qualified person to fill Obama's Senate seat. Hopefully, the dispicable Harry Reid will have over-reached his powers and will be humiliated when Roland Burris gets sworn into the Senate.

Whoopi holds Civics class

The vapid harpies over at The View last week were treated to a civics lesson on voting rights from respected U.S. historian Whoopi Goldberg.....

"Do you know that we[blacks] are the only people in the United States who have to have their voting rights okayed every couple of years? Did you know that they have to vote on the Voting Rights Bill for black folks? Can we just, can one of you candidates- can we just take care of that so I don’t have to worry every year, my God am I not?"

Even more disappointing than Whoopi's  utter stupidity about the U.S. Constitution was this...

The show’s sole "conservative" Elisabeth Hasselbeck agreed "it’s ridiculous" and "something needs to be done."

Surely Mrs. Hasselbeck is familiar with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, and that amendments don't have to be voted on....ever. Now, all the soccer moms who sit at home in their robes, swilling Scotch, smoking cigarettes, and watching The View actually believe, because a celebrity said it, that blacks are at constant risk of losing their voting rights.

See, people who were learning to put condoms on cucumbers and having their self-esteem stroked in government schools instead of learning about U.S. government and civics, will believe any stupid thing a celebrity says. And that's exactly how liberals want Americans to be. A dumb electorate, distracted like children by celebrity worship and reality TV, will not even notice politicians screwing us nine different ways from Sunday. The mind-numbing decadence of the bourgeoisie will be the downfall of this country if we don't wake up.

Indentured servitude

Would somebody please show me in the Constitution where it says Congress can force me to pay for the stupid decisions of others?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate was expected to approve as soon as Wednesday the biggest government program yet to tackle a deep housing market slump feared to be dragging the economy into recession.

The legislation would create a $300 billion fund to help up to 400,000 troubled homeowners refinance costly, exotic mortgages into more affordable, government-backed loans. It easily cleared a Senate test vote by an 83-9 vote on Tuesday.

I get that families are losing their homes. I get that they feel tricked by the government, finance companies, and banks. I get that it's painful and humiliating to go through a foreclosure. I get that having to start over is an awful position to be in.

I get all that. But what they have to understand is that.....I DON'T CARE!

No Americans should be obligated to pony up their tax dollars to bail out other Americans who made poor choices and uninformed financial decisions. Home-ownership isn't a birth-right any more than affordable health-care or a living wage is a birth-right. If I make a bad financial decision and I lose my butt, I don't go next door to my neighbors and stick my hand out for money to bail me out. But that's exactly what this Senate bill does. It compels wise Americans who live within their means to cough up some of their hard-earned money to compensate stupid Americans for their bad decisions.

I swear, at some point there needs to be a tax-payer revolt of some kind. I'd sure get behind it.

Finally, some sanity in Washington

It's about time Congress revisited this. I'd hate to think it would take the Supreme Court to figure this out.....

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic – the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

From the floor of the House, Poe addressed the dangers of the CFL bulbs, explaining the extensive cleanup required by the Environmental Protection Agency for simply breaking a bulb. When a bulb, which contains mercury, is broken, according to the EPA, the room must be evacuated for 15 minutes and aired out with windows, but not before all glass is removed, placed in a sealed glass jar and disposed of outside. Any remaining glass must be picked up with tape. In addition, central heating or air conditioning units must be turned off.

Typically, legislators in Washington ferret out ways to skirt the Constitution on a daily basis. It's refreshing to hear one of them actually invoking the Constitution as a basis upon which to overturn idiotic legislation. And hopefully this means that my wife and I can stop hoarding incandescent bulbs.

The Spitzer Example

If you want to know how backwards most law-makers are when it comes to the Constitution, look no further than this tidbit from South Carolina...

COLUMBIA, S.C. --
Exotic dancers would have to stay six feet from strip club customers and those businesses would have to close at midnight under a bill being considered by House lawmakers.
Scott Bergthold is a Tennessee-based lawyer who told a House subcommittee on Thursday that late operating hours for strip clubs creates more crime and problems for police.

Bergthold says stripper dances may be protected by courts, but not when they touch customers, which is commonly known as a lap dance.

He says there's no constitutional right to lap dances.

What a puritanical, ignorant moron! There's no constitutional basis on which to ban lap dances either, which means they're legal. Clearly this dolt hasn't read the Constitution. If he had, he would know that it limits the scope and power of the federal government, not the individual. Sure, lap dances can be regulated, but only because they tend to occur in places of business where liquor is being sold. If somebody's wife or girlfriend wanted to perform a lap dance somewhere else, there is no law stating that they cannot, unless it violates laws prohibiting lewd, public behavior. And even then, what qualifies as "lewd"?

No, this hand-wringing do-gooder is trying to get rid of adult businesses by regulating them to the point that they just quit. Have all the other problems in South Carolina been solved that he has time to waste legislating morality by forcing free citizens to conform to his world view? I'll bet if somebody looked at this guy a little closer, we'd find that guilt and self-loathing about his adult-entertainment fetish compels him to rid the world of temptation....exactly like Eliot Spitzer.