I love this guys thinking…

My good friend Jim Bowden has a short, sweet and honest appeal that ought to ring loudly in the ears of American patriots. Welcome back JAB from across the pond. By the way, his post “Another English Baptist Church and More Questions than Answers.”  is another great read!!!

Obama a citizen

Ok, while I don’t consider myself to be a “birther” I believe that it was key to be certain in order to maintain constitutional integrity. However, now that Obama’s citizenship has been confirmed, let’s move on and make this about ideas. Conservatives should know that we have the superior ideas and there is no need to bring gimmicks into the fray.

First, we know that government interference in health care will only lead to lesser quality  and rationing of care. Bureaucrats have less interest in our personal health than in their ability to “streamline” the process. This is ironic because there is no such thing when dealing with the federal government.

Second, we know that bailouts, in any form, are destructive and subsidize failure. The bailouts give no incentive for improved production and ethical management. To the contrary, bailouts do nothing but incentivize poor management. Solution: repay every red cent of the multi-billion dollar corporate welfare program to the taxpayer and slash entitlements.

Third, we know that Obama’s judicial philosophy is predicated upon race. Judge Sotomayor’s well publicized “wise Latina” remark is proof positive that racial discord will be hallmarks of the Obama judicial appointments. The rule of law has been replaced by La Raza… return our government to its constitutional mandated limits which starts with Judges who are dedicated to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

These are but three areas where conservatives have the superior ideas. Oh, wait, nothing is superior anymore, we don’t want the poor politicians to have low self esteem.  I say, throw the bums out.

Rick Boucher – Out of Touch

I’ll include the entire email regarding this meeting with Rick Boucher and his belief in the murder of the pre-born. I know the men involved with this program, Fighting for Life in the Ninth, and they are all men of integrity and humility.

Reflections on the Meeting with

Congressman Boucher

As many of you are aware, we were able to secure a meeting with Congressman Rick Boucher this past Tuesday (May 26, 2009). The nature of the meeting was primarily to address the issue of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and the congressman's support of this bill. Unfortunately, the meeting did not go as we had hoped. Mr. Boucher was very clear as it pertained to his stance on the abortion issue. Sadly, it is a stance that a godly minded individual cannot support. He made it abundantly clear that he is a pro-abortion congressman and one that is committed to upholding and defending the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States).  He gave no denials as to his 100% pro-abortion voting record and also offered no apologies for it. This is something we deeply regret. The Scriptures clearly define life as beginning at the moment of conception (Exo. 21:22-23; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41, as well as others). Aborti on then is the taking of life after it has begun.  This is a position that the congressman made clear he will not accept.

In all actuality, Mr. Boucher did not really want to address the abortion issue at all, but rather his attention was on one aspect of FOCA. It has been the contention of Fighting for Life in the 9^th(FFL9) that one of the risks of FOCA is that it could potentially open the door for lawsuits to be filed against hospitals and health care workers that refuse to perform abortion services. Mr. Boucher expressed that he opposes and would oppose such measures and was concerned that he had been misrepresented on this particular point. It is not the goal of FFL9 to misrepresent anyone. Where we regret that Mr. Boucher feels this way we do not believe this has been the case. Mr. Boucher acknowledged that FOCA needed more specific language in order to protect health care workers and hospitals. Where we respect and agree with the congressman's position that federal funding should not be cut from those who refuse abortion services, one has to wonder if there is no risk for such happening if FOCA were to be passed (as the congressman asserted early in the meeting), why then is there a need for more specific language? If there is more specific language needed, does that not imply then that the potential is therefor such consequences?

In addition, the congressman attempted to lead us to believe that FFL9 is the only group making such an assertion as to the implications of FOCA. This is not true. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has also been very outspoken on this very issue. This is significant because not only has the USCCB performed extensive legal analysis but it also expresses the official view of the Catholic Church (something the congressman expressed was different from FFL9's interpretation of FOCA). Notice the following statement: "The combined impact of these various provisions is likely the invalidation of a broad range of state laws if challenged under FOCA, including. . .laws protecting the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and hospitals, if those create even minimal delay or inconvenience in obtaining an abortion or treat abortion differently than other medical procedures" (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/ FOCA/analysis.pdf).  Clearly, FFL9 i s not the only group concerned about FOCA's potential consequences.

This issue on health care workers and hospitals was the main thrust of the meeting due to the fact that the congressman was uninterested in having serious dialogue on abortion itself. We regret that more time could not be spent on this issue in particular. Again, it is not the goal of FFL9 to misrepresent anyone, only to present the facts as we (and others) understand them. I hope that through our conversation we have motivated the congressman to take steps to provide protection for health care workers and hospitals, but we would still oppose FOCA. The godly minded individual must oppose any measure that would further and expand abortions in this nation (which is what FOCA will do if re-introduced and passed).

Certainly, we wish the meeting would have gone differently but the battle is not lost. We must keep pressing forward.  It is clear where Congressman Boucher stands and that he needs to be reminded that he is to represent the views of the 9^th district of Virginia, not his own personal feelings. As Americans we are guaranteed by our Constitution the right to hold an opinion; however, it is the opinion of the Almighty God that matters most. It is His will that we must strive to keep promoting in an age of godlessness. It does seem at times that we are fighting an uphill battle, but let us be motivated by the words of the great Apostle Paul when he wrote: "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Gal.6:9).

Another reason that Rick Boucher does not deserve to represent the Ninth District of Virginia. The only reason why he continues to do so is that he is in the back pocket of Cecil “I Own Rick Boucher” Roberts and the UMWA. These creeps only care about lining their own pockets, not the hard working men and women they purport to represent. Shame on you Rick Boucher, shame on you indeed for believing in the murder of innocent life.

Obama – The Next Stalin?

H/T to the Examiner:

According to this post on the OFFICIAL White House website blog, he could be. Speech seeking to influence direction of the Administration and others on the so-called Recovery Act will be subject to new restrictions.

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

If you are opposed to the Recovery act and you are a citizen, your First Amendment rights are being curtailed by Executive Fiat. In other words, he’s being a little baby about this. Too much opposition?  “I’ll just change the rules.”  This man is dangerous and makes no bones about it, he’ll not be satisfied until the Constitution is in shreds and he can make the government “in his own image.” 

NOTE: FBI, DHS, and whatever other law enforcement agency who reads this site, take NOTE: I WILL NOT SIT DOWN, I WILL NOT SHUT UP, I WILL NOT BACK OFF AND I WILL NOT LET ONE MAN TELL ME WHAT I CAN TALK ABOUT.

I will bloody well write about what I want to write about. Let’s see them come stop me.

Sotomayor

Here’s a nice summation of what each nominee should be entitled to:

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom elaborated on the former governor's comments, saying that Romney thinks it's premature to discuss the filibuster.

"Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair, thorough and civil confirmation process," Fehrnstrom said. "At the end of that process, senators will decide for themselves how to vote on her nomination."

While I agree with Governor Romney on this, realistically, the ball is in the Obama administration’s court. While not overwhelmed with her judicial knowledge, the pick could have been much worse. Give Judge Sotomayor the fair, thorough and civil confirmation process, but don’t just hand the seat over to her.

IMPORTANT

ConcreteBob has this post over at UCV:

I’ll  include this quote.

In addition to obtaining or confirming the location and time of each “demonstration,” each field office was instructed to obtain or confirm the identity of the individual(s) involved in the actual planning and coordination of the event in each specific region, and include the local or regional Internet web site address, if any. The information collected by region was then reportedly sent to FBI Headquarters.The source alleges that a second directive was issued on or about April 6, 2009 that reportedly instructed each SAC to coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties. Surveillance was to be performed from “discreet fixed or mobile positions” and was to be performed “independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement.”

Outside of the purview of local law enforcement? If this is true, our federal government is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors against the American citizens, of ALL political persuasions. Does federalism mean nothing to this administration? I guess they’re going to scrap our republican form of government.

Please read this. It is vitally important.

Will Lady Liberty Last Beyond 2010?

My friends, it is becoming harder  to argue against the Constitution Party and some of its leaders. The below article is from the CP's 2004 VP nominee Chuck Baldwin. Most Republicans (especially GWB supporters) will view this as nothing more than a load of hooey. However, the man makes sense. Think about it this way, if we returned to original constitutional government, the United States would spend way less than what it does and would interfere less in the lives of its citizens than it does. I pray that each day brings us closer to the realization that 'compassionate conservatism' has NOT worked and it is time to return to constitutional government as enumerated in the Constitution. 

Will Lady Liberty Last Beyond 2010?

 

NOTE: Duncan Hunter supporters, please note the reference to Mr. Hunter in a latter paragraph.

Leslie Carbone: Constitutional Limits

 Ms. Carbone has written a primer on Constitutional interpretation in the below linked post.  I suggest some of our liberal brethren take a cue from this quote. Please note the final portion of this sentence. Nice work Ms. Carbone. 

Paradoxically, because the document that limits federal power also grants federal power, any attempt to ignore or overthrow its parameters in reckless pursuit of inconsistent legislation actually undermines the legitimacy of the government itself.

Leslie Carbone: Constitutional Limits