The Obama administration knows that most of us cannot concentrate on more than one or two items at a time. That is why they are taking an approach that attacks across a wide front in the dismantling of the United States. The two I have been concerned with have been Obamacare and Global Warming. But, the administration is also going to try terrorists in New York and American courts with American rights. There are others, but I have a hard time keeping up with them all.

The frenzied rush is on to pass the Obamacare bill by Christmas. The vote to approve it is scheduled at 8 am on Christmas Eve. The other bill the Congress wants to pass before 2010 is the Cap and Tax bill. That is where they increase the cost of energy to combat a hoax. Then, when the hoax does not materialize they can claim that their Cap and Tax system was responsible for the hoax not happening.

The first vote is the Obamacare bill. After Harry Reid bribed Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with an obviously unconstitutional use of our money, Senator Nelson caved and is now voting against the Constitution of the United States. Senator Nelson was just the last in a string of Democrats who were supposedly on the fence in whether they would vote for Obamacare or not. In my mind, there was little doubt that every Democrat would vote for the bill. The only doubt was how much it was going to cost us for those that could play poker better than Harry Reid. Since, almost every Senator there can play poker better than Harry Reid; it has cost us at least a half a billion dollars, most likely much more.

One good thing to come out of Senator Nelson’s sell out of America is that he has been exposed as pro-abortion. He had been telling everyone he was pro-life for years. He even had a voting record that was mostly pro-life. He had many pro-life groups fooled into supporting him in numerous campaigns and even up to his cave-in. He was surprised at the outcry over his cave-in. He thought that they would continue to support him even though he now supports federal funding for abortions. How could he be so stupid? I do not know if he is up for re-election in 2010 or 2012, but he will not be around after his next election day. There are a lot of people that felt betrayed by his actions in this Obamacare debacle.

There are reports that a number of lawyers are lining up to challenge this Obamacare monstrosity. The problem right now is that nobody knows what is in the bill, so nobody can start executing any plans of action. As soon as people find out what is in the bill, there will be people lining up to challenge it. That is great to hear. If you challenge it enough, something ought to be obviously unconstitutional. If one part of this monstrosity is unconstitutional, the entire thing is unconstitutional.

The Republicans are trying to have a meaningless vote on whether the Obamacare bill is constitutional. To get any Democrat to admit that the bill is unconstitutional will be difficult. That would require them to actually admit that the constitution means what it says. Since almost no Democrat believes that the constitution means what it says, they will not admit that the bill is unconstitutional. Also, the Senate is unlikely to admit that a bill they drafted would be unconstitutional. But, anyone with a 4^th grade education will know that the bill is unconstitutional. Democrats are just living in denial about the bill’s constitutionality.

The fight is not over. That we are on the ropes is obvious. Even scheduling a final vote for passage is cause for alarm. The vote should never even be scheduled, if anyone in the Senate had any integrity. But, the vote is scheduled and every Senator must vote. Those that believe in the Constitution will vote, NO. Those that do not believe in the Constitution will vote, YES. That the bill will get more than 50 votes is a lead pipe cinch. The odds are that it will even get the 60 votes it will need for final passage. If that happens, the fight truly begins.

The longer we get to look at the Democrat healthcare bill, the more we learn about how they plan to subvert the Constitution and the will of the people. Hidden around page 1000 are some provisions to make it nearly impossible to repeal the bill. A vote of 66% will be required to repeal the bill. Also, the bill requires that the board that is established has to be funded every year. That could be called a poison pill inserted into the bill to prevent sanity from being restored.

The Democrats love to say that the bill will reduce the deficit. That is only true because the taxes are implemented on day one. The actual healthcare disaster does not start until January 2013. So, for the next three years, we will be paying high taxes that can be used to pay down the deficit. That will make the Democrats look great. Then, when the healthcare bill actually gets implemented the deficits will skyrocket. If the bill was judged on ten years of taxes and ten years of healthcare, the entire bill would increase the deficit.

The Democrats healthcare bill does nothing that the Democrats say that it will. It will not accomplish anything that the Democrats laid out was a goal for them to accomplish. All the healthcare bill will do is destroy the American system of healthcare and replace it with a third world system of healthcare. For that, we get to pay much higher taxes, longer waits for health care and earlier deaths. That does not sound like a great tradeoff.

The Democrats are in such a rush to get this healthcare bill passed by Christmas. It is not going to take effect for over three years, so what is the rush? The rush is because Barack Obama wants this bill as his primary piece of legislation. Since that is his goal, the Democrats will do anything to make that happen. If the bill should not pass, then Obama would lose his primary legislative goal. After he loses his primary goal, he would essentially be a lame duck for the rest of his term.

The one question the Democrats any anyone in Congress should ask about the bill should be: “Is this bill Constitutional?” Making sure that any legislation meets the constitutional question is the primary job of a Senator and Congressman. You would think that the first question that any Senator or Congressman would ask would be to insure that the bill was Constitutional. But, since almost all Democrats believe in a “living” Constitution, they never ask the question. A “living” Constitution can mean anything at any time to anyone. To boil it down to its basics, a “living” Constitution does not mean anything.

The only Constitutional question is really, what did the original writers of the Constitution mean when they wrote each phrase in the Constitution? The commerce clause has been perverted beyond all meaning through progressive interpretations by Congress. Other parts of the Constitution have been perverted as well through precedents established in the past. Anyone with a 7^th grade education can understand what the Constitution says. It does not take a Constitutional lawyer to understand what it says. It takes a Constitutional lawyer to understand all the bends and twists that have been put into the words written by the Founding Fathers. I think that a person selected to the Supreme Court should have no legal training at all. They should be able to read and understand the Constitution as written. If they can do that, they would be qualified to sit on the bench. I know that will never happen, but that would put common sense back into the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court rulings.

The healthcare bill is unconstitutional. There is no question that it is unconstitutional. The only problem is finding someone who will have standing and be willing to fight for the United States all the way to the Supreme Court. The person should be in a judicial district that would be the most likely to rule that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional. That would give us the best shot at defeating this in the courts. It would still be a long shot, but we cannot rest until we give it a try.

The Democrats in the Senate showed that they do not believe in the Constitution of the United States. This is true, regardless of how much they might give lip service to the Constitution. How can I make a statement like that? Harry Reid held a first cloture vote at 1 am this morning. The vote was 60-40 to end the filibuster. Of the 60 votes, 59 were Democrats and one was the Socialist from Vermont. It could be argued that all this vote did was allow the vote on the healthcare bill to be held. The problem with that argument is that the healthcare bill is unconstitutional. Anyone who knows anything about the constitution knows that it is unconstitutional. Even the Democrats know it is unconstitutional, that is why they will not discuss its constitutionality.

Each Senator has taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That means that any foreign threat should be defended against. This is something the Democrats are not likely to do, unless the enemy shows up with a gun. The domestic enemy is one who works to undermine the constitution. The Senators and Representatives that do not follow the Constitution are enemies of the Constitution. The Senators have to take action to prevent the Constitution being undermined. That means they cannot make laws that ignore the constitution.

Like Barack Obama said, the Constitution is a bill of negative rights. That means it tells government what it cannot do. It does not tell government what it can do. From a progressive’s viewpoint, that is the problem with the Constitution. But there is a reason the Constitution was written the way it was. The Founding Fathers did not trust government to be always benign. By writing the Constitution as negative rules, they prevent the progressives from making the government do too much. But, the Democrats do not believe the Constitution actually controls their actions. So, they can do anything they want and it is ok as long as they pass it. They are wrong. They have to account for the rights of the minority. But, to Democrats, the rights of minorities do not matter. Only what Democrats want is what they will do. What anyone else wants is obviously wrong in the eyes of the Democrats. Since it is wrong, it must be evil. Since it is evil, it must be stopped regardless of what you have to do, even lie, cheat and steal.

The supposed healthcare bill is not a healthcare bill. It is a control bill. It uses the healthcare system to grab more control over all of the citizens of the United States of America. If the Democrats can control the health care of all Americans, they can control the country. All they have to do is give breaks to their friends and punish their enemies. They will do this under the guise of compassion, but compassion it is not. When rationing of health care becomes the norm, then you will see the favoritism of the Democrats pet groups. All the groups that favor things the left does not like will be discriminated against by cutting their services. How can I make a statement like that? Just look at the stimulus funding and where it has gone. Democrat congressional districts have received over twice the funding of Republican congressional districts. This type of result will continue and accelerate when the Democrats take over the health care system.

America as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers is almost gone. We have slipped a long way from the freedom that our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution. The Democrats want to take the rest of our freedom away. This health care bill will go a long way to enslave the people of the United States. A country called the United States will exist past the passing of this health care bill. But, that country will not bear much resemblance to the country that was founded in 1776 or even the country that existed in 1945. It is sad that my generation gave America away to the slavers of the world. We did it without a fight. The fight is not over as the last nail on the coffin has not been driven in. But, things are looking rather black right now. The elections of 2010 might be too late to save the United States from extinction.

Clarity! That is what the Democrats are planning today in their vote on Obamacare. Those who believe in the Constitution will vote no. Those that do not believe in the Constitution of the United States will vote in favor. It is as simple as that.

The bill they are voting on is unconstitutional on so many levels that I cannot possibly do them justice in a short column. Also, I am not a good enough Constitutional scholar to adequately discuss the various issues involved in each individual clause. All I can go on are the words of the Constitution itself. I believe that the Founding Fathers put those words in exactly that order so that there would be clarity for all time. That we are having problems with the words is a symptom of a greater problem in our culture. We need to get back to look at what the words meant in 1781 and then make provisions for our greater technology. That does not mean change the meaning of the word. It just means that if it talks about freedom of the press, it means the electronic press as well as the print press. That kind of accommodation is perfectly acceptable. It does not change the meaning of the words, just allows that if they wrote it today they would have allowed for our greater technology.

That being said, I do not think that the “Commerce Clause” that the Democrats hang their hat on is something that was intended to be a major force in the Constitution. It is in the preamble to the section it is included in. If they intended it to be one of the main guiding principles, they would have included it in the body of the document, not the preamble. I believe that any law passed that uses the “Commerce Clause” as its basis is not necessarily unconstitutional, but most likely outside of the constitution. That, in effect, nullifies almost all of the Democrat introduced laws since 1932. They grabbed onto the “Commerce Clause” and are trying to run a truck through the hole.

Steny Hoyer is now trying to say that the “Commerce Clause” allows the government to require you to purchase health insurance. That is just nonsense. If the government can require you to purchase health insurance, what else will they require you to purchase. At that point, they can run your entire life. They can make you buy a car, a home and anything else they want. You would be required to purchase it because of the “General Welfare” part of the “Commerce Clause”. If you are still reading you can see how idiotic this position that Steny Hoyer is taking. But, he has to take that position in order to justify the passage of the Obamacare legislation.

The vote today will weed out the wheat from the chaff. The wheat will vote to kill the unconstitutional bill. The chaff will vote to pass the bill. Anyone who votes to pass the bill should be barred from holding public office again until they can pass a class in Constitutional Law taught by a “real” Constitutional lawyer like Hugh Hewitt or Neal Boortz. I am sure that there are plenty of real Constitutional lawyers in this country. We have an artificial Constitutional lawyer in the White House. He has no clue about the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional lawyer and I know more about the Constitution than our current occupant of the White House does.

Watch how your member of the House votes on the Obamacare legislation today. If he/she votes for the bill, never vote for that person again. If that person votes to kill the bill, the legislator is worthy of further votes in the future. You would have to evaluate them on other criteria to determine if they should be retained, but on the Constitution, they get a passing grade.

We are in danger of losing what made this country great. There may be a country that has the name, United States of America, but its heart will have been ripped out. I am talking about all of the assaults on American values by the Obama administration. Part of this is shown by the fact that it appears that it is a requirement that you love “Chairman Mao” in order to be selected as one of the Czar’s. As Glenn Beck said on his show this past week, he always thought that Chairman Mao was one of the worst people that had ever lived.

The worst assault on our values has to be the attack on Fox News. I say it is the worst because it is attacking the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. That first amendment gives us protection from government doing anything to inhibit the free press in this country. The Obama administration is trying to say that Fox News is not part of the free press and is therefore not entitled to protection under the first amendment. That is the crux of their argument that Fox News is not really a news organization. This assault on Fox News has to stop. We, the people, have to demand that the government keep its hands off of the free exercise of the free press. The other news organizations have decided to go into the tank and not be a “free press”. That is no excuse for now attacking any member of the free press to get them to change or shut down.

The next two assaults are on the economy. One is the Obamacare bill that is still in the House and Senate. The other is the Cap and Tax bill that is being debated. The worst of these two is the Obamacare bill. That bill would socialize our healthcare system in this country. Once the medical system is socialized, it would be extremely difficult for us to change it back to a privatized health care system. There would be a window of opportunity between now and 2013, but Obama is President during that entire time. He would veto any bill trying to repeal his crown jewel in the destruction of the US. The fact that the Obamacare bill would destroy the economy is bad enough. The fact that it is unconstitutional is also bad enough. The worst part of Obamacare is that it would destroy the American spirit. That is something that other countries do not have. If we lose that, we are just another country. With the American Sprit, we can do anything. Without it, we become like Europe today, weak and unwilling to fight for our lives. Obamacare would end up being the cause of our destruction by weakening our ability to defend ourselves.

The Cap and Tax bill is trying to solve a hoax. Since the problem it is trying to solve is a hoax, the problem is already solved. The real reason that the Democrats want to pass this bill is the massive tax increase on the country. They look at the increased revenue stream and think of all the social programs they can start (even though they would all be unconstitutional). This Cap and Tax bill would just destroy the economy of the US. It is easily solved by passing a bill repealing all of its provisions. It is not like the Obamacare bill where it would be almost impossible to end the disaster.

As side notes, Moody’s Bond Service has estimated that our bonds will need to be devalued within the next 3-6 years. That is much shorter than the last estimate under George Bush of 10-12 years. That is because Barack Obama and the Democrats are spending like drunken sailors on steroids. If we cut spending and eliminated the programs started under Obama, we could get our spending under control. That would lengthen the time period once again. Then, we could start eliminating programs that were unconstitutional and get to the point where we could actually pay off our debt. As it is today, paying off the debt is impossible and becoming more impossible as each day goes by.

Today, I finished reading “The 5000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. While I knew a lot of that information on an instinctive level, it was great to have it all put out on paper for me to digest. What emerged from the pages of the book was the amazing insight the Founding Fathers had on human failings. They understood what would work in the long run and what would not. They told us what to guard against and how to manage this new invention. It was not a perfect invention, but it was real close.

When I have heard liberals talk about a living Constitution, I have always instinctively known that the statement was wrong. I knew the Constitution worked for any day. I knew that the only reason that liberals wanted the Constitution to be “living” is so they could change it without following the guidelines put in place to change it. The book gives me ammunition in discussions on why the Constitution is not a “living” document, but one that can stand the change in time and technology. It was written to manage human behavior. That has not changed in at least 5000 years.

I see the need to return to the use of the Constitution as our guiding light through these stormy seas. We have wandered away from the Constitution and need to get back on board. One suggestion made in the book that I had disagreed with in the past was to have Senators elected by State Legislatures again. I had always been a bit of a populist and thought that direct election of Senators gave the people the best way to have their say on what goes on in Washington. I had missed the connection between the states and the Senators that existed before the passage of the amendment electing Senators by direct vote. That essentially made the Senate the same as the House of Representatives. The different election pattern gave it a different feel, but since the people directly elected both, the Senators were not looking out for the States. This has led to an erosion of States Rights.

If Senators were elected by the legislatures of the states, they would be acting quite differently in this Obamacare debate. They would see it for what it is, a power grab by the federal government. Since the Senators would be looking out for the states, they would defeat it in a second. They are only considering it now, because they consider themselves to be federal agents instead of state agents. The Founding Fathers set the Senate up as agents of the State Governments. That way the people and the States each had representation in the legislative branch of government. Only things that were in the best interests of both parties would normally pass the House and Senate. Now, the state is ignored in this process. That makes the federal government take too much power.

Electing the Senators by the legislatures would eliminate the worst of the Senators. A bad Senator would not last. If they were not looking out for their state, the state would remove them from office. Senators also would not have to accumulate large war chests to run for office. This would remove large amounts of money from politics. That is always a goal of the left. Senators could be the true statesmen that the Founding Fathers envisioned. They would not have to spend most of their time raising funds and running for office.

Getting back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers would be great for the country. Getting out of debt and staying there would give us financial stability. Knowing what the laws are from time to time would enable investment and innovation. There are lots of positives and almost no negatives to go back to the original intent of the Founders. We obviously could not do that overnight. It would take time to change what we have into what we should have. The change would be like starting a car from a slow start. As we approached the goal of the Founders vision, the faster our society would go.

Right now, we are in danger of becoming the former United States of America. With the debt that our country has and the speed that Obama is printing new money, we are in danger of losing control of the dollar. That would mean hyperinflation. Zimbabwe had hyperinflation a while back. It basically destroyed the country. The money was worthless. There were no investments. Everyone was poor. The Weimar Republic in Germany had hyperinflation and Adolf Hitler emerged from the ruin. We have to stop hyperinflation before it starts, if it is still possible. If we cannot stop it, America as we knew it will cease to exist because our money will be worthless. Something different would emerge after the hyperinflation. An economist on the Glenn Beck show said that hyperinflation is friendly to governments as it allows it to wipe out debt with worthless money. The hyperinflation is horrible for the people, but the government is stronger than ever. We do not want that scenario.

In the book, “The 5000 Year Leap”, Cleon Skousen makes the point that the Founders of this country did not intend for the federal government to be handing out welfare payments to people. The Founders believed in the ideal that people were helped more by requiring them to work for their living, than handing out the requirements for their existence. Part of this ideal came from the Bible and part came from the pioneer work ethic.

Dr. Skousen quotes many of the Founders in their writings against having the federal government hand out money to the poor. Many thought that taxing the wealthy to give to the poor a bad idea. They also condemned the idea of spreading the wealth around. Those statements are taken from quotes of the Founders in their own words over 200 years ago. It is amazing how far we have fallen in that time in regards to taking care of our poor.

Jesus Christ said that we shall always have the poor among us. By definition, there will always be someone poorer than someone else. To try and make everyone have the same amount of “stuff” is impossible. There will always be inequality. If the government mandates equality of “stuff”, it might be able to maintain some degree of equality of stuff for a time. As soon as the control is lifted, some will be richer and some poorer than others. It is the laws of human nature. Some people are going to be more industrious than others and so be richer. Some will want things done for them and so be poorer. You cannot eliminate the poor. What you can do is improve their lot in life. We have achieved that in America. The left talks like our poor are so bad that they would flee the country if they could. But, if you compare our poor to the poor of any other country in the world, ours have more things.

We have a massive federal bureaucracy to fight the war on poverty as President Johnson called it. In over 40 years of fighting this war on poverty, the percentage of “poor” has not changed. That is not really a surprise as you always have poor. That Democrats make us all think that our poor are so poor as to be barely surviving is a joke. Our poor are comparatively well off. That is not to say that I want to be one of the poor. I want to be one of the rich. I am working hard to become one of the rich. The likelihood that I will make it to the rich category diminishes with each passing year, but I keep trying.

My wife and I are firmly in the middle class. We started out in the poor category when we were first married. We stayed that way until I took my first full time job as a Deputy Sheriff in Colorado about a year and a half after being married. During the interview process, my wife was asked if we could live on the salary of a starting Deputy Sheriff, which they thought was very low. My wife replied that we had been living comfortably on half of that. The interviewers were astounded that we could have lived on less than that beginning salary.

Since that first job, we have gradually moved up the ladder financially. We would never be considered rich, but we do make incomes in the top ten percent of households. I do not consider that rich. I consider that middle class. We would have to make at least 2.5-3 times what we make to be considered rich in my book. Of course, Obama put the cutoff point where he would not raise taxes at that point 2.5 times what my wife and I make.

That is a typical story of most Americans. It is also typical of many of those who are poor today. Many of the poor are those starting out in life like my kids. They have little today, but over time will move up the financial ladder. Some have lost everything and will rebound. There are some that have been there for generations. To talk of the”poor” as all the same is wrong. All are individuals and need individual help. Government help is always “one size fits all”. When I worked for the government I was required to do things that made no sense, because they were needed in other states. In my state, they made no sense. Government help is always this way.

The Founders envisioned that the individual would help himself first. Second, the family would step in and help the individual. Then you move up the ladder through Church and other groups long before you would reach the federal government. Their idea was that the federal government was to come in after a natural disaster or something like that, not for everyday assistance. Many of the Founders wrote that general assistance to the poor was unconstitutional.

We have moved a long way from the ideals of the Founders when it comes to helping the poor. It would be wonderful if we could get back to those days. In my family, we try to help those starting out or who need help. We try hard never to go to the government for assistance. Sometimes it is something too big for the family or the Church to handle, so my kids have gone to the government to get some assistance. Those times have been rare. We are trying to live the ideals of the Founders when it comes to the treatment of those in need. It would be wonderful if others would do so as well.

Over the weekend, I saw a video of a former Marine taking his Congressman to task in Washington State. The question he asked that I felt was the highlight was: “I lived up to my oath. When are you going to live up to yours?” I may have misquoted him a little, but the point is the same. The ex-Marine felt that his Congressman had not been living up to the oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

All members of the military take an oath to defend the country against any enemies, both foreign and domestic. The President, Senators and Congressmen also take an oath that says pretty much the same thing. They are to defend the Constitution against any enemies, both foreign and domestic. We then have to ask, what does that mean?

For a member of the military, it means that the soldier, sailor or marine has to be ready to fight against any enemy that might threaten the United States. That responsibility is rather easy to see and understand. The threats basically come from foreign sources, so the people involved are not Americans.

For a President, Senator or Congressman, the situation is a little more nebulous. They do not have the specter of some enemy coming over the hill. They have more subtle pressures to deal with. For them to defend the Constitution, they have to understand the Constitution and be aware of any threats. They do not have to face real bullets. They have to face words and pressures to bend the Constitution to fit the wants of different constituent groups. Once they learn they can bend the Constitution to whatever issue they want, then it is almost impossible to put up any kind of defense against these threats.

Thomas Jefferson said that if the public ever discovers that it can vote itself money and power from the public treasury, the country will fail. The country discovered that gift a few short years ago. As a result, we are finding it more and more difficult to keep the wants of the public within proscribed bounds. We who study such things call it socialism when this situation gets out of control. With the Obama administration, the situation has gotten out of control.

The public has some responsibility in this mess, too. We elect these “servants of the people”. If we elected people that actually knew what the Constitution was and what was contained in it, we would not be in the trouble we are in now. The problem is that we have elected far too many politicians who have no idea what is in the Constitution. If you run quotes from Karl Marx in front of them, they think they come from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. We need politicians that know what the Constitution says and how to get there. We may not like the medicine required to get us where we are supposed to be, but it would be better for us in the long run. That would require about 75-80% of the members of the House and Senate be voted out of office. That would be 100% of the Democrats, 100% of the Socialists and about 50-60% of the Republicans.

I am not advocating a one party rule by any means. I believe in a two party system of government. We need open and honest debate in this country. We just need people in office that believe in the Constitution at every level in and out of the elected bodies. An example of two people that understood the Constitution and disagreed on how to implement it was Hamilton and Jefferson. Both were strong supporters of the Constitution. Both understood how important it was to have a Constitution. Yet, both disagreed on what the role of government was in this country.

We need to get back to the Constitution having a central role in our government. Right now, people talk about the Constitution as if it was some sort of document that would bend to every wind of doctrine. That was not the intent of the Constitution. It was intended to be the rock upon which we could build the country.

Since I work during the Sotomayor hearings, I do not get to hear them live. So, I have to rely on news reports and talk shows to highlight important things that happen during the hearings for each day.

Today, I was listening to the Mike Gallagher show and he played a clip from yesterday’s hearing that would have caused an accident had I actually been driving at that time. I was stopped at a red light when I heard the clip of the question by Senator John Cornyn from Oklahoma asking if there is a right to self defense. As anyone who has read the Constitution knows, the second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. The 14^th amendment says that a citizen of the United States shall not be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law. Put those two amendments together and you have a right to self defense. To my knowledge, every state gives their citizens the right to defend themselves against someone who would try to take it. That would make Senator Cornyn’s question as a no-brainer type of a question for someone who knows anything about the Constitution and believes what it says. A citizen of the United States has the right to self defense.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the other hand gave an answer that shall forever be classified as one of the poorest answers ever given by a Supreme Court nominee. She said that she did not know of any cases that the Supreme Court had taken up that addressed that question. That was not what Senator Cornyn had asked, so he asked again. She again tried to evade the answer. Again, Senator Cornyn asked the question in a different more direct way in asking her opinion on the matter, not whether there was case law. She still tried to evade the answer. During this exchange some telling things were at play. Either Judge Sotomayor has no clue as to what the Constitution says or she knows and wants to end it. It was obvious from her non-answers that she believes that citizens of the United States do not have a right to self-defense. If she felt they did have a right, she would have said so. If she did not believe that they had a right, she would try to avoid the answer. Since that is what she did, the obvious answer is that she does not believe in a citizen’s right to self defense. The logical conclusion from that answer is that she does not believe that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms as well.

One of the important requirements for a Supreme Court Justice is a command of the English language. Sonia Sotomayor displayed a rather poor command of English by confusing imminent and eminent. She used eminent when she meant imminent. That may seem like a small misstep, but in someone who will end up analyzing every word in a case brought before her a mistake like that would be costly. The other Justices on the Court all displayed a fantastic command of the English language, even those that I disagree with know the language well. Judge Sotomayor would be at a huge disadvantage in the court if she cannot use words properly.

Yesterday was not a good day for Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans asked her questions that she was not prepared to answer. As a result, they had her floundering for answers. When she has a prepared script, she comes across as average. When she gets off script, she is obviously over matched by even some of the light weight Senators that were asking questions. Now, to give credit where credit is due, Senator Cornyn is a medical doctor and extremely intelligent. To be outmatched by him is not a disgrace for 99% of the population. Sonia Sotomayor is attempting to be a Supreme Court Justice. She is not part of the 99% of the population. She is supposed to be part of the top 1% of all Americans just to be nominated. She is showing by her answers that she is not in the top 1% at all. She is more likely in the top half at best.

For his first Supreme Court selection, Barack Obama did not pick one of the best qualified. He picked an affirmative action nominee. That lowers the quality of the court dramatically. Stephen Breyer is not one of the top Justices on the Supreme Court, but he is no slouch either. He can hold his own with almost anyone on the bench, with the exception of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. Sonia Sotomayor will not be able to match wits with any of the other justices. She will be the brunt of jokes and will not even understand what is going on.

If Sonia Sotomayor had any personal integrity, she would realize that if she cannot match wits with Senators, she will not be able to match wits with the other Supreme Court Justices. Since she would obviously be the bottom of the barrel, she would either have to spend 10 times more time than anyone else or be the laughing stock of the bench. The bad part is her unintelligent vote would have the same weight as that of Justice Scalia. Talk about injustice. That would be the height of injustice on every case she sat and decided. She should remove her name from consideration and allow Barack Obama to get his first selection right. Since she has always been an affirmative action pick, I doubt that she will see anything wrong with being the affirmative action pick for the Supreme Court. That would just confirm my judgment of her intelligence.

The second of the three disasters that are facing our country is the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. The other two are the appointment of the Supreme Court Justice and the destruction of the best medical system in the world.

The “Fairness Doctrine” was in place for a long time. It required radio stations to balance talk shows. If they had a show with a conservative opinion, they had to balance that with a liberal show. As a result, radio stations were not willing to take the risk over the determination if they had met the standard. They just did not have talk shows that dealt with political speech at all.

Ronald Reagan came along and said that was not acceptable. The First Amendment to the Constitution says that there shall be no law abridging Freedom of Speech. Since this law obviously did just that, he had the law repealed. After the law was repealed, talk radio took off and is now the number one radio format in the country. Interestingly, conservative talk radio has been successful while liberal talk radio has not. That has resulted in well over 90% of the talk shows being conservative shows. All of the most popular talk show hosts are conservative.

When the current administration and Congress was elected, there was a lot of talk about bringing the Fairness Doctrine back. That got shot down in quick order by the fans of talk radio. Since it is the number one listened to format in the country, there were a lot of calls and letters to Congressmen. In quick order, Congress responded with bills that said they would not put the Fairness Doctrine back in place. That should have ended it, but liberals do not give up easily when they almost have total control.

There is more than one way to get the Fairness Doctrine imposed, without actually imposing it. There is talk of having radio licenses being renewed every two years instead of every eight years. That would mean the liberals would have more chances to get the station to drop conservative talk radio. This might work, but would have to be put with some other method to have any real teeth.

The second way to bring the Fairness Doctrine back would be to have local Community Review Boards. These review boards would determine if a station has enough “local” programming. If this was paired with more frequent renewal of the license, it could have a big impact on whether a station could keep conservative talk radio.

A third way is being discussed. That is to require more minority ownership of radio stations. The thinking here is that minorities would be less likely to have conservative talk radio as their radio format of choice. That would then reduce the amount of conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio is highly profitable for a radio station. Any station owner who wanted to make money would see quickly that it pays to have conservative talk radio on the air. This might work, but it would most likely have to be paired with something else to really work.

There are others. The problem is that if the liberals pull off the removal of conservative talk radio, there will be no place to get real news. All you will get are liberal talking points from liberal news outlets. The liberal news outlets get their news from the Democrat Party. All dissent would be stopped in the country and you would have a one party rule. We would be like the old Soviet Union with Pravda, only our news outlets would be voluntary arms of the government.

If the liberals get conservative talk radio, the internet is next. The internet would be much easier than talk radio. There will be no outcry, because there will be nobody to find out and report it. Even if someone did find out and report it, things take time on the internet. Things happen almost instantly on the radio. There would be no way to stop them.

There are three potentially huge disasters facing us right now. One is the Supreme Court Justice. The second is the destruction of our medical system. The third is the institution of the fairness doctrine by the backdoor to shut down talk radio. Any one of these is destructive. I am not sure what would happen if we actually got all three. I am going to talk about the Supreme Court Justice today.

Justice Souter is going to be stepping down from the Supreme Court. For one, I am glad to see him go. He was a disaster from the start. After Robert Bork got destroyed by the Democrats in the Senate and the news media, President George H. W. Bush wanted someone with no record. He picked Justice Souter on the recommendation of the Governor of New Hampshire, who was a friend. That recommendation turned out to be bad. Right from the start, Justice Souter voted with the liberals and continued there until today. He never once voted the conservative position or the position that judged the Constitution strictly by what it says. He always tried to figure out what it meant in today’s terms. In other words, he believed in a “living” (dead) Constitution.

Barack Obama has yet to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. He has said that he wants to select someone with empathy for the needy. That is a bad criterion for selecting a Justice of the Supreme Court. We need Justices on the Supreme Court that read the Constitution and decide cases based on what the Constitution says. Justices used to do that up until Franklin Roosevelt appointed some that started finding things in the Constitution that were not written. As a result, we have abortion is legal from Roe v Wade and other numerous examples.

Liberals believe in a “living” (dead) Constitution. That means that the Constitution can be interpreted to mean different things in different times. That is to say that as society changes, the meaning of the Constitution changes with it. Liberals also believe that it is acceptable for a Justice to use foreign opinions to help him/her decide US Constitution cases.

Conservatives believe that the Constitution means what it says. They believe that the Constitution was written with certain intent. It is up to the Justices today to decide cases based on the words of the Constitution as amended and nothing else. Conservatives believe that only the Constitution and American court cases can be used as documentation to help a Justice come to his/her opinion.

That is the great battle that will now be fought. Conservatives will try to find a candidate that will agree to decide cases based just on the Constitution. Liberals will try to find a candidate that will agree to use the “living” (dead) Constitution concept.

Conservatives frequently accuse liberal judges of legislating from the bench. When they say that, conservatives mean that a liberal judge decides a case on his/her opinion, not on the law. The judge then puts himself/herself above the legislatures of the states.

Liberals have started calling judges that judge cases strictly by the law as legislating from the bench. I am not sure how that is legislating from the bench. The judge is saying, en effect, that the legislature makes the laws and he/she enforces them. That is not legislating from the bench in any way.

The next few weeks should be interesting in determining how this battle will play out. The Democrats hold all the cards. They have enough votes in the Senate to approve any person nominated by Barack Obama. The only thing that could stop the nominee would be a filibuster. Democrats have filibustered Republican nominees. The Republicans have said that they do not anticipate a filibuster on this nomination.

This person will serve for the next 20-40 years. That will be a lasting legacy for Barack Obama. This person could be a joke of a justice like Justice Souter or be a stalwart like Justices Thomas, Roberts, Scalia or Alito. My bet is that the justice will be a joke.

During the election season, Barack Obama was built up as a Constitutional Scholar. He was supposed to have taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. So, he should know the Constitution very well. He should be able to look at something and tell if it is Constitutional or not. That is why what has happened since January 20 has baffled me. I am no Constitutional scholar, but I do have a copy hanging up in my classroom. I read it before class.

For someone who is supposed to know the Constitution, he sure seems to be abusing his authority. He routinely oversteps his Constitutional authority and nobody questions his actions. That is also a problem. Even Congress, who took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, has routinely and deliberately gone outside their Constitutional authority since January. We seem to be living in a time where the Constitution does not matter any more. The Constitution only seems to matter when it is convenient, not at any other time.

How has Congress overstepped their Constitutional authority? Congress has no authority, as I read the Constitution, to give money to private companies. In fact, James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, made comments to that effect when the Constitution was being adopted. Yet, this Congress and the last Congress have given money to a host of companies. They have even acquired stock in these companies. That would make the US an owner of those businesses. The United States should not own businesses or any part of businesses. We operate under capitalism, not socialism. At least, that is the system that the Founders put into the Constitution. It worked well for over 230 years and we became the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. We do not want to emulate the poor socialist countries and always remain among the poorest countries in the world.

How has Barack Obama overstepped his Constitutional authority? He has gotten involved with hiring and firing CEO’s of companies. He has no authority to hire or fire any CEO of any company. The United States should have no ownership stake in any business, so the President should have no authority to hire or fire any of the staff. He is also trying to tell those companies how much they can pay their employees. Again, that is no business of the United States government, until tax time. If a company wants to pay someone $10,000 to do a job, that is ok. If they would rather pay that person $1,000,000 to do that job, that is ok.

The latest occasion of going outside his Constitutional authority is in the Chrysler situation. First, he tells Chrysler that they have to merge with Fiat, an Italian company. The President has no authority to tell Chrysler to do anything. Second, Chrysler felt it had to go through bankruptcy to make the merger take place. Barack Obama stuck his nose into the proceedings and decided who would win and who would lose. He decided that those that held an unsecured place should be first in line and those with secured loans should be last. That is exactly backwards from the way it is supposed to go. Secured debt is supposed to be cleared first and unsecured last. That would have meant that the UAW would have lost a lot of money. Since the UAW is a big Democrat contributor in money and campaign workers, Barack Obama felt they deserved a better place at the table. Obama gave the UAW a majority stock position in Chrysler ahead of the secured debt holders. Of course, the secured debt holders started to scream. When they started to make noise, Obama started calling them names and declaring them enemies of the state. The debt holders that had taken money from the government instantly collapsed and agreed to the decision of the President. Those that had not taken government money went to court and tried to argue their case. The judge decided that their names should be made public. The debt holders had wanted to remain anonymous because they were afraid that Barack Obama would try to demonize them as well. The secured debt holders are starting to cave because of the President’s bully pulpit and his ability to turn public opinion against them.

All of that is against the fifth amendment of the Constitution. That is depriving the secured debt holders of property without due process. The Constitution and the laws that come from it are inviolate. If they need to be changed, there are processes in place for them to be changed. They cannot be changed on the whim of the President or any other individual.

What astonishes me in this whole mess is the fact that NOBBODY in the media or the Republican Party is saying anything. Everybody is just letting Barack Obama get away with trashing the Constitution. Somebody with bigger soapbox needs to start calling Barack Obama what he is, a lawbreaker and a criminal. It is like the little boy who said the King has no clothes. Somebody had to say it before it became clear to everyone. SOMEBODY say something!!!

Barack Obama has now served for 100 days as President of the United States. This has been some sort of a milestone after Franklin Roosevelt had a productive 100 days. Ever since then, Presidents mark the 100 day anniversary and measure their accomplishments/failures. Barack Obama is no exception.

If you are a kool-aid drinking Democrat, the first 100 days could not be better. The United States has changed its foreign policy from one of projecting strength to one of projecting weakness. Liberals believe that other countries will now love us more and peace will reign on the Earth. Barack Obama, as President, has bowed before a foreign ruler for the first time in American History. That was great for liberals as it shows we care about the feelings of other countries. But, bowing before someone indicates that you believe that the person you bow to has more power or authority than you do. Picking a Muslim ruler was a bad choice. Muslims ate it up.

On the domestic front, liberals are beside themselves because every dream they have had for the last 40 years is being realized in the first 100 days. They had been squawking about the deficit being too high under President Bush. But when the deficit swelled by a gazillion percent, they cheered as if their dreams were being realized. The recession, which usually lasts somewhere between 60-90 days, is now approaching 150 days with no end in sight. That is not a problem for the Democrats; it just means another opportunity to add another government program or three.

In summary, for liberals and other assorted Democrats: Barack Obama has been highly successful in his first hundred days. They would like to see this continued.

Now for a real assessment of what has happened. The part that preceded this analysis obviously had rose colored glasses on. The real assessment is that the first hundred days has been the worst in American history. Barack Obama has ignored the Constitution at every turn. He has also made the United States a laughing stock among other countries. There is little he could do to make things worse, except for actually nationalizing everything. He has done everything up to nationalizing our economy.

Let’s look at a couple of specifics to highlight my paragraph above. When Barack Obama took his trip to Europe, he spent the entire trip saying he was sorry. At no time did he stick up for our country and tell the Europeans to stick their plans in their ear. He said we would accept anything they came up with. That is not the mark of the leader of the free world.

When Barack Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, it was an insult to the American people. American President’s do not bow before foreign rulers. We are independent and equal or superior to any other nation on the planet. We do not bow, nor has any President ever bowed before a foreign ruler until Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was scolded for almost bowing. Barack Obama actually bowed and nobody said boo, except for the conservatives.

Obama and the Democrats have undertaken a full court press against the Constitution. Their Porkulus bill that was supposed to be a stimulus bill was almost entirely unconstitutional. That is not even saying that we do not have the money to pay for that Porkulus bill.

In the first 100 days in office, Barack Obama has managed to lower the United States from the leader of the free world to a second class country. He has spent money from our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren to accomplish nothing. Our descendents will curse this President and Congress and the people that elected him for that outrage. They will be paying for his stupidity for generations to come, all to achieve Democrat Nirvana.

Barack Obama has managed to take this country from a center-right position to a leftist position in 100 days. That has to be the operation of a shrewd operator. Yet, you see that he gives gifts to foreign leaders that are insults, not gifts. He has so many gaffes that you could fill up a 3 hour movie and still have some left over. He seems to be smart at what he wants to do and completely ignorant of everything else. His staff is just a bunch of people to tell him how good he is. They are completely incompetent. Axelrod seems to be running the country, while Barack Obama seems to do all the photo ops. Barack and Michelle Obama are all over the print media in pictures and articles at how wonderful they are. We are also told how beautiful they are. It is nauseating.

Michael Savage seems to think that we are on the path towards fascism. If that is the case, we need to take the steps necessary to stop those steps. In other words, we need to stand up to the leftists and say, “NO!” That might be enough to put off the truck careening towards the disaster of fascism. We shall see what happens. I fear for my country, I really do. I love this country too much to see it turn into something that I do not recognize. It has already changed more than I would care to see.

Conservatives by nature do not covet power in the way that Democrats covet power. Because of that inherent difference, Democrats have a distinct advantage when it comes to elections. In general, Democrat voters are more motivated than conservative voters. In general, Democrats are more motivated to actually become candidates than Republicans. Those advantages are difficult for the average Republican candidate to overcome when it comes to elections.

It is time for conservatives to become interested in elections. Elections have consequences. If you were a conservative voter who stayed home on Election Day because of some slight, is Obama leading the country in the way you want it led? Are you happy that the country is taking over the auto industry and the banking industry? Are you happy that the country will be deciding how much money you and I can make? If so, then you were justified in staying home, you got the government that you wanted. If not, then you better wake up and decide that you will not take another election off.

The best conservatives in the country need to become candidates for office. I know that getting a root canal done without anesthesia is better than running for office, but the alternative is losing the country forever. It is 2009, 2010 is just around the corner. Candidates for office need to start now, if they have any chance of being elected to political office. They have to raise a lot of money and get their names out before the public. The candidates that will win these elections over the Democrats in power will be the ones that have innovative conservative ideas and stick to their guns. We cannot have candidates that cozy up to Democrats or think that big government is the answer. Those are the ones that brought us to this point.

Winning an office in 2010 will put some people on the map for Presidential consideration. We need a Republican candidate for office that is articulate in conservative principles and not Democrat-lite like our last Republican candidate. I do not know who that will be. I know that people are talking about Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal in that vein. They both have strong backgrounds and would make excellent candidates. Sarah Palin has made some mistakes recently, though those can be forgiven. Bobby Jindal was not as dynamic as I would have liked in the answer to Barack Obama recently. That does not mean either is out of the running. Both are well in front of the pack for 2012. If Bobby Jindal is not as dynamic as we would like, maybe he could be a VP first. Then he could grow into the job and show what he can do.

Conservatives perceive power as a way to empower the individual. That results in the conservative giving away his power over time. Since a conservative wants to take care of his corner of the world, that suits conservatives just fine. Conservatives also expect that everyone else will want to take care of their part of the world. That is called individual responsibility. That is the entire premise behind conservative principles. Conservative principles are best outlined in the Constitution of the United States. We need to have candidates that stand behind the Constitution.

Democrats, socialists and liberals all perceive power as a way to make others do what they are supposed to do. They perceive power as a way to make the world into what they think the world should be. They believe the government should be there to take care of everyone and force everyone to conform to some set standard. All socialists (Nazi’s, communists and just socialists) believe that the government should run everything and that everyone should be dependent on the government. Classic liberals are somewhere between the socialist and the conservative. They believe in individual rights, but that the government should be there as a safety net to help anyone in “need”. It was a small step for liberals of the past to become socialists of the now.

We as conservatives cannot let socialists run our government. We have to step up and be the “citizen representative” that was envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If you ask why I do not step up and be a candidate, I am older and in ill health. I would not be able to defeat a socialist that was younger and more vigorous.  It is up to those of you between 20-40 to step up and hold the banner high. Veterans make the best candidates because they have been taught that honor and courage can win the day. We can take the country back if we act quickly. We have not gone too far down the socialist road to turn back and be America again. But, we have to rally around “good” strong conservative candidates, not these Democrat-lite Republicans that masquerade as conservatives.

The Congressional Budget Office announced that the Obama administration’s deficit for fiscal years 2010-2019 will be $9 trillion. That is $4.3 trillion more than the Obama administration estimated their budget deficit to be. The Congressional Budget Office is supposed to be non-partisan, and it is for the most part. As a result, it gets budget deficits much more accurately than does administrations as a general rule.

Is this a big deal? Yes, the country cannot afford budget deficits of $9 trillion over the next 10 years. It would fundamentally change the way this country has to operate on a financial basis. The standard of living that we enjoy today would not be the standard of living that we would enjoy in 10 years. The next generation would not be able to look forward to having a lifestyle like that of their parents when they reach their parent’s age. They would be looking at living their current lifestyle all of their lives. In other words, people would not change economic classes any more. As an example, when my wife and I were first married we lived on next to nothing and would have been classified as poor by any definition. We did not feel poor as we were working towards a goal. As we worked in our professions throughout our lives we moved from poor to lower middle class to middle class. That will not happen for our children if these deficits are as bad as projected.

If President Bush was still in office, he would have run up a deficit of about $1 trillion for the current fiscal year. The actual deficit will be in excess of $1.5 trillion. That difference adds up over time and makes a huge difference to our ability to pay it off. If you run a deficit, you should either cut spending or get more income. Since the government cannot get more income easily, the best option is to cut spending. Democrats think that cutting spending is going to destroy our lifestyle. Republicans think that cutting spending and government programs is exactly what you should be doing. With Democrats in the majority, cutting spending is not likely to happen. They would rather raise taxes and reduce the income. Republicans on the other hand, know that cutting taxes will raise more money. It has been successful every time it has been tried.

The actual deficit should be worse than is displayed. The government is buying bad loans from the banks. If they were doing it the honest way, the deficit would go up tremendously. Since they do not want that to happen any more than it has to, they have tried a new trick. This is to guarantee the loan. If the government guarantees the loan the amount does not show up on the deficit until the loan is cleared. Then, the loan is the responsibility of some other administration. The group that actually caused the debt will be long gone and forgotten. This way the public does not see the debt actually being accumulated by the administration as it is accumulated. They only see it when it appears years later. These Democrats hope that it is a Republican administration that has the cards come crashing down on it. That way they can claim financial irresponsibility and get power again. If it is a Democrat administration, they will just try and figure out a way to blame it on the Republicans anyway.

Deficits are a fact of life in Washington. Out of control deficits are not a fact of life. We have an out of control deficit situation. We need to jump in and solve the deficit situation by cutting programs that are unconstitutional. That would be fantastic if applied strictly according to the wording in the Constitution. Most of the current budget would go and most of the current federal programs would be eliminated or transferred to the states. The states could pick up federal programs or eliminate them as the states determined their own needs. Then we would get back to the type of government the Founding Fathers envisioned. Unfortunately, that will never happen as long as we elect people like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and other Congressional Democrats. Unfortunately, the hat also fits a lot of current Republicans as well.

All that can be expected to happen is nothing for the foreseeable future. If the public wakes up even a little bit, the Democrats might be out of the majority in the House and even possibly the Senate. The Senate would require almost a complete wipe out and I cannot envision that happening. Taking over the Senate will almost undoubtedly have to wait until 2012.