Tag Archives: Rule of Law

A Constitution Made for the Prosperity of Liberty

By Michael Lewinski 02/09/14

When our country was formed, an extraordinary generation formulated a design for a society of moral people uniquely free to pursue their individual lives, unencumbered by the heavy hand of government. Recognizing our natural, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the founding generation created a Constitution to protect and preserve liberty. This constitutional blueprint then proceeded to generate a great prosperity throughout the 19th century up until the rise of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century.

Inch by inch, these enemies of freedom have altered America’s blueprint. Progressives undermined private property with the 16th amendment, authorizing the taxing of income. They disrupted the Republic’s balance of power with the 17th Amendment, taking from the States’ their constitutional influence with the popular election of Senators. Monetary authority was relinquished to a group of private bankers who own the Federal Reserve, and the discipline of a constitutional bi-metal monetary system was abandoned. Congress no longer declares war, and the executive branch ignores laws and re-writes others without congressional consent. In the land of the free, the government monitors its citizens, limits religious freedom, and regulates the right to bear arms. Today, our constitutional blueprint is but barely a shadow of its original instructions.

And what has this Progressive fundamental transformation of America brought us? Most importantly, we have evolved from a nation based upon the rule of law to one resting upon the injustice associated with the rule of men. They have rendered a deteriorating economy corrupted by crony capitalists and undermined by a government with tax and regulatory regimes that inhibit the creation of wealth. Standards of living are deteriorating and the middle class is disappearing as the economy punishes the working class with boneheaded policies deepening the growing Greater Depression.

Their bitter fruit is an incompetent, dysfunctional government fueled by envious, identity politics which divide the people. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right. “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” for the sake of freedom.

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

Obama Show PapersA significant proportion of the US population feels marginalized and suffers from perceived widespread disrespect. Their desires are discounted and in some instances actively discouraged by state, federal and local government. Families are either split or prevented from coming together, which results in children who are denied the benefits of a two–parent family. Circumstances beyond the control of these individuals have put them in the shadows, outside the mainstream of American society and at the mercy of an often cruel and heartless public.

And that’s why Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Public Policy Center have both come out in support of homosexual marriage. As Daly said in an interview with Christianity Today, “What are the solutions to help get these families together, get them in a lawful state, one that can be recognized, and then move forward? I think that is a healthy situation for the country. Let’s get behind this, not play politics with it left or right and not fearmonger with it. These are people that need dignity. Even though in some cases they’ve broken the law, there’s always that heartfelt story out there where you just tear up looking at what they’re facing now. We need to do what’s humane.”

No wait. That’s the quote Daly used in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. As of the time this post was written Focus and the Southern Baptists still oppose homosexual marriage. But can someone point out to me why their reasoning on illegal aliens doesn’t apply to homosexuals, too? Both groups have been in an unlawful relationship for a number of years and they want to either escape worldly consequences in one case and Biblical responsibility in the other.

I know the Bible says welcome the stranger and not welcome the sodomite, but when you base your theology on feelings instead of Truth, there is no difference in the two situations. A plain reading of the Bible shows marriage is one man to one woman and homosexuality is prohibited — occasionally by fire and brimstone. And strangers are to be welcomed as individuals by individuals, but nowhere does it say stealth invasions in violation of the law are to be encouraged. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible a law breaker or sinner is rewarded for his or her transgression?

Or for that matter, where people are encouraged to emulate a class of law breakers in the future?

The situation is simply not there. Illegals aren’t mentioned by name in either testament, but if we can’t apply observations or analogous situations from the Bible to modern life, then the book is dead and useless.

Look at how similar both situations are. Both population groups feel put upon. Homosexuals and illegals want to come out of the shadows and gain the stamp of approval from government and society at large: A marriage license in one case and documentos de ciudadanía in the other.

If Daly and my own Southern Baptist governing body are to be consistent, then they have to either support both or oppose both.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision that branded people like me who oppose the perversion of God’s institution of marriage as hate–filled bigots, Daly and Focus helped to produce an e–book that contained five questions and answers about same sex marriage that outlined their opposition. The irony is the same questions and answers apply to illegal aliens, but they support legalizing them.

Here are the questions and answers with the marriage–related in regular text and the illegal–related in boldface.

1. Why does marriage matter to the government? Why do borders matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage ensures the well-being of children…Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Borders protect citizens from the incursions of lawbreakers great and small and it makes sure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship go to people who have earned it. Defending the borders is one of the principle responsibilities of government.

2. What are the consequences of redefining marriage? What are the consequences of redefining citizenship?

Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science-including very recent and robust studies-show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Redefining marriage would further separate marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining citizenship would hurt the rule of law. Separating citizenship from the responsibility to obey the law only encourages future disrespect for the law and future illegal immigration. Ideally law–abiding individuals make better citizens.

3. Why do you want to interfere with love? Why can’t we just live and let live? Why do you want to interfere with ambition?

Marriage laws don’t ban anything; they define marriage. Immigration law doesn’t ban ambition, it only defines where one is allowed to be ambitious.

4. Isn’t denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage? Aren’t immigration law supporters just using the law as an excuse for bigotry?

No. Racism kept the races apart, and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two sexes, and that is a good thing. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. No. Immigration law is color–blind, but it cannot be geography–blind. The fact that most illegal border crossers come from countries adjacent to the US does not make the enforcement of the law biased, no more than spraying for mosquitoes means you oppose flying.

5. Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether? Why doesn’t government get out of the employment verification business altogether?

Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life…A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that, between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage. A good job is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Illegal immigrants are exploited by employers and compete unfairly with low–income workers. Americans would be happy to do the work now taken by illegals if the pay rates were not distorted and artificially depressed by law–breakers. Employers who circumvent the market and rig the system against the people who need the jobs the most, create unemployment which increases stress on families and marriages.

There is no intellectual consistency in Daly’s or the SBC’s position on illegal immigration and homosexual marriage. Daly contends, “When you look at it, the immigration issue is not just a legal issue. We respect what needs to be done there and hopefully we can strengthen laws, enforce laws and do all the things that we need to do in that way, because it’s important for a country to establish its borders and maintain its borders. But when you look at the family impact now and the stories we’ve received over the past year or two, it’s pretty tragic what’s occurring.”

Illegal immigration breaks at least three of the Ten Commandments. Illegals often steal the identity of citizens to get papers. They lie about their status in the country. And the motivation that brought them here in the first place was coveting a lifestyle they didn’t have.

And what’s occurring is all self–induced. Would Daly advocate keeping a drug addict supplied with heroin so he won’t feel compelled to steal and possibly break up his family if he’s sent to jail? How about telling a wife to put up with infidelity if it keeps the family together and the children aren’t upset?

Daly and the SBC are busy undermining their credibility and authority. It’s a shame. I expected better.

Republicans Advocate Surrender After Defeat

Evidently Romney campaign consultants were paying way too much attention to Michelle Obama’s War on Cafeteria Lunch Ladies. Consequently, when her husband offered a campaign built around Bread & Circuses; they countered with healthy eating and free–range elephants.

A role reversal that proved fatal.

More than once I’ve heard discouraged conservatives complain that ignorant voters were responsible for re–electing Obama, but that’s simply not true. Misguided and short–sighted voters, yes, but certainly not ignorant.

Obama supporters voted for the candidate who gave them the most freebies. Union members voted for the Government Motors bailout and the prospect of “card check.”

Government employees voted for bigger government and its number one disciple. Hispanics voted for a freeze on deportation and amnesty for illegals. College students voted for low interest student loans and possible loan forgiveness.

Unmarried mothers voted for food stamps, welfare, free contraceptives and — for the sexually disorganized — federally–funded abortion. Homosexuals voted for homosexual marriage. And blacks voted for the black guy.

Now, proving there is no one more gullible than a panicked Republican, some of our “leaders” are considering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Amnesty for illegals will be called “immigration reform,” just as adulterers call fornication “marriage reform.” Passage will be equivalent to allowing a family who squatted on land inside a national park to keep the land as part of “ownership reform.” It wouldn’t be fair to evict them, don’t you know, because they built a house and their kids would have to change school districts.

Unfortunately for Republican leaders who put power before principle, amnesty is wrong for four reasons.

First it’s morally wrong. Rewarding lawbreakers, only encourages more lawbreaking, erodes respect for the rule of law and discriminates against potential legal immigrants who are waiting their turn. Amnesty also serves to take jobs from low income US citizens and depresses the wages of those that have jobs.

Secondly, it solves nothing. Democrats — who make short–term memory loss part of their governing philosophy — conveniently forget the US granted Hispanics a massive amnesty during the Reagan administration. That “never to be repeated” amnesty legalized over 4 million illegals. This final solution possessed such deterrent power that over 12 million illegals are demanding amnesty this time, a four–fold increase.

Third, amnesty will damage Republicans at the ballot box. Let’s assume 4 million of the approximately 12 million illegals are of voting age. These are not Republican votes in waiting, they are, as fellow columnist Mike Adams says, “undocumented Democrats.” All 4 million will be voting Democrat from now on.

It’s a fact the GOP never gets credit for anything involving civil rights. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a larger percentage of Republicans supported the bill than Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit. If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was a Republican, yet even after the passage of amnesty during his administration, the GOP still has a problem with Hispanics.

Four, “socially conservative” Hispanics are like Iranian “moderate mullahs.” GOP “experts” claim Hispanic “family values” mean their natural home is the GOP. Yet on Sunday, November 4th, these “socially conservative” Hispanics sat in Catholic churches and heard homilies about the Obama administration forcing the church to violate basic Catholic beliefs. Then they rushed to the polls to vote for the most radical abortion–supporting president in history.

The only way for Republicans to profit from amnesty is to invest in companies producing the velvet Obama paintings that will soon be joining the velvet JFKs gracing the walls of many minority homes.

No wonder Democrats are so eager to cooperate with the GOP on this “bi–partisan reform” legislation.

Republicans simply cannot win a bidding war with Democrats and remain Republicans. It will take time for a values and civic virtues campaign to be successful, because changing public attitudes is a long-term project. So I suggest Republicans conduct asymmetrical electoral warfare.

Presidential election years have larger turnout that favors Democrats. Off–year elections have smaller turnout and give our base a larger impact. Nationally, during the education process, the GOP can concentrate on winning off–year elections and build up conservative margins in the US House, gain a Senate seat or two and defend the rest during Presidential years.

All the while concentrating our message on the benefits of individual liberty, personal responsibility and marketplace competition. Democrats and “progressives” are now using the ballot box to exploit the cultural pathologies their incompetent policies have created over the past 40 years. Over the short term it may prove to be an indestructible ideological loop.

But if conservatives aren’t in this fight over the long term, why are we in it at all?

I Don’t Care What The Judge Said!

“Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We’ve been at this for 25 days. We’re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You’re the only one left. You’re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You’re going to hang this jury. You’re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge’s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.”

    “The facts are clear as day, aren’t they?” Raymond Dillard ranted. “You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That’s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?” said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30’s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun’s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30’s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, “I don’t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.”

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, “Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?”

John Straun said calmly, “No, I’m not a lawyer. I’m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don’t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.”

“Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That’s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, andAlexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.”

“Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in “US. vs. Moylan,” the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, theWashington,D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.”

Raymond Dillard said, “Yeah, if that’s the case, how come the judge didn’t tell us this?”

“That’s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in “Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.” John Straun said. “That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn’t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.”

“The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That’s why judges never mention a jury’s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders’ defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn’t shut up about jury nullification.”

“And since you asked me,” Straun continued, “I’ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn’t convict, the government couldn’t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.”

“What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we’ve been fighting the last sixty years? It’s the same as Prohibition in the 20’s. It’s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can’t take drugs, just like in the 20’s they said people couldn’t drink liquor. What’s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can’t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?”

Dillard nodded his head, “Yeah, I do.”

“Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can’t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?”

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, “No, I wouldn’t, Straun.”

John Straun turned to the others around the table. “You, Jack, you said you’re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can’t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we’re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?”

“Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can’t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn’t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20’s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven’t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty millioncigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don’t have any political clout.”

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

“OK, Straun,” Dillard said. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn’t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young.President Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can’t judge the law.”

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, “If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders’ liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge’s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn’t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you’ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?”

“Here’s another thing to think about,” John Straun said with passion. ”What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, don’t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?”

“Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called “crime” of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I’m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we’re lost, the country is lost.”

“I’m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I’m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That’s what I’m asking of all of you.”

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said “Not guilty.” Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Obama Promotes Lawlessness in Our Nation's Capitol: Occupy DC Camps to Stay

White House spokesman Jay “The Carnival Barker” Carney announced that  President Obama  is aware of the recent raids on the [filthy, unsanitary, and lawless illegal squatters] Occupy protests across America in which the Occupiers are being evicted in droves from city parks/property, simply because the actual 99% of the people (taxpayers) who are paying for this mess have had enough.  NYC mayor Bloomberg raided Zucotti park on Tuesday night at 1 am, kicked the protesters out and brought in dumpsters, fire-hoses, and thousands of gallons of disinfectant to clean the park up, after which he announced that the park would be kept sanitary for ALL the citizens of NYC, and there will be no more Occupy pajama parties there 24/7. Although Bloomberg’s sudden acknowledgment his duties as per of the rule of law in NYC came about some 2 months late, enabling this debacle to get way out of control, in the end he came to his senses, so to speak. ( with heavy prodding from fed-up NYC businesses, citizens, and Stock Exchange employees) Now that the head of the Occupy Wall Street snake has been cut off in Zucotti park, along with several other cities taking action to eradicate the plague know as OWS, surely the Occupy DC plague will no longer be allowed to break federal laws and camp out in our nation’s capitol right? Not quite. I now refer you to Barack Obama’s personal carnival barker’s statement yesterday:

“We would hope and want as these decisions are made that a balance is sought between a long tradition of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in this country…and also the very important need to maintain law and order and health and safety standards,” Mr. Carney said. (emphasis mine and for a good reason)

When Mr. Carney expresses Obama’s desire to “maintain law and order and health and safety standards” in our nation’s capitol, we have to question just how building a structure and occupying Federal land in DC applies to that statement. The following DC occupancy laws certainly apply to anyone putting up a structure that people will “oocupy” or live in, not to mention trespassing/loitering laws concerning federal land. Before building any structure in DC you must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy:

The purpose of the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) is to ensure that the use of a building, structure or land in the District of Columbia is compatible with the general intent of the Zoning Regulations and the provisions of the DC Building Codes. Consequently, no person can use a structure or land in the District of Columbia for any purpose other than a single-family dwelling until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for that structure. The fee is based on square-footage. No Occupy DC does not have a C of O., nor have they applied for one, therefore Barack Obama is condoning lawlessness in allowing the Occupiers to stay in DC. I supply the following photo from Occupy DC to make my point clear:

Alan Ball, 24 years old, frames a shelter with bamboo on Tuesday at the Occupy DC encampment in McPherson Square in Washington, D.C. (Wall Street Journal photo by Ryan Tracy)

With the head of the OWS snake now cut off in NYC, the Occupy protests will be looking for a new center, or headquarters for their movement, and Barack Obama now wants to give them McPherson Square right in the heart of our nation’s capitol for it. It is simply unacceptable for the President of the United States to be promoting the breaking of laws in DC just to further his reelection campaign and to appease the far left radicals behind this astro-turf, anti-capitalist Occupy movement, period. What kind of a message will this send to tourists from other nations coming to visit our nation’s capitol? Considering the criminal element that has reared it’s ugly head within these camps, what happens when a foreign tourist is robbed, raped, or even worse yet, killed by one of the criminals lurking within the midst of the Occupy DC movement? What would happen if the Tea Party decided to camp in front of the Washington memorial for a few months? Why, they would be run out of DC faster than a bunch of chickens at a national fox convention.

Call your Representatives in Congress and demand the enforcement of the rule of law in our nation’s capitol. Evict the Occupy DC camps before it gets any further out of control. 2012 just can’t get here fast enough !

D-Day for Obamacare

     Last week Judge Vinson gave the Obama administration a one week stay to produce a valid argument against his ruling that Obamacare is illegal under the U. S. Constitution. D-day is now here and we have yet to hear a peep out of  the President or his lapdog over at the Justice department, Eric Holder. Make no mistake folks, Obama and company are on the ropes here, and our founding fathers surely must be smiling  from above, seeing how the proper Rule of law and Constitutional interpretation are being carried out to a tee  in this situation.

   Judge Vinson is teaching Constitutional law 101 to the whole bunch of Liberal academics and misfits trying to rewrite our Constitution to fit their Socialist agenda today, and he is not backing down. Judge Vinson has made several clear statements on his ruling as a direct answer to the Obama administration trying to label him as *extreme*, which is the usual Alinsky tactic deployed by the left today when anyone disagrees with their Socialistic, Nanny-Stateagenda. Here are Judge Vinson’s most clarifying statements on why Obamacare in unconstitutional, and also about the three branches of government and their separate authorities, which Obama seems to need reminding of here, from Newsmax.com;*

“Vinson clarified his ruling on March 3, warning the president’s lawyers that it was “not just a bit of friendly advice.” The administration suggests “that a single federal judge” cannot halt an entire regulatory scheme. Wrong, said Vinson. A court’s judgment is binding.

The delay may have been calculated, Vinson said. “It could be argued that the executive branch seeks to continue the implementation, in part, for the very reason that the implemented provisions will be hard to undo once they are fully in place.”

     Just like the situation where Obama put an illegal moratoriam on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and ignored the Judges ruling several times that resulted in irreversible damage to the oil industry, Obama and Company are trying to denounce and delay Judge Vinson’s ruling  so that Obamacare can pass the point of no return once they spend the initial money to start implementing it. Throughout history we have seen these types of programs become impossible to derail once they get rolling, and Judge Vinson has shown he is well aware of that gimmickry being used here.

  Judge Vinson called for the expedited ruling from the U. S. Supreme Court when he stated:

” The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be,” he said, repeating what Marshall had said two centuries ago: The court is the final interpreter of the law, and Congress and the president must obey.”

  Yes Sir, D-Day for Obamacare is staring down Obama and his self-proclaimed, *Historic piece of Legislation”  Lets hope it gets thrown on top of the scrapheap of attempted and failed Socialistic, freedom-robbing, tyrannical legislation against the people’s will in a very historical manner ! Better yet, let’s build a giant toilet like pictured above, flush all 2500 pages one at a time, and put it on National TV for all to see. Now THAT’S what I would call historic !

      As an afterthought, make it a pay per view event, and pay off the $1.6 Trillion dollar deficit we face for this year alone from these irresponsible corrupto-crats and the teleprompter in chief !

* http://www.newsmax.com/McCaughey/McCaughey-Obamacare-Court-ruling/2011/03/08/id/388744

 

Whitehouse Ignores the Rule of law, refuses to report on Fannie and Freddie once again!

       The Whitehouse continues to stall on reforming the money train known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though they are breaking their own so-called Financial Reform, ( also known as the Dodd-Frank Bill) laws to do it. This article is a part of the continuing exposure of the fraud, corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars by the F&F (Fannie and Freddie) club here at CDN.*

      While decades of fraud, corruption and shifty accounting practices have been exposed within the F&F club, our elected officials seem content to let it continue, from The Whitehouse, to Congress,and right on down to the U.S.  Treasury Department. Today we see another direct, in your face refusal to address this problem by none other than Obama’s own administration. I stumbled upon this latest act of  criminal behavior yesterday over at National Review Online.** I was stunned by the revelations in this article by Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-TX).

“The Obama administration failed to release a report today on how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could be reformed, despite being required to do so by the Dodd-Frank law passed last summer.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), who chairs the House Republican Conference, said in a statement that the White House’s failure to meet the deadline made it “crystal clear that the President is not serious about reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

As this writer reported earlier here at CDN, the GOP called for reform of the F&F club during the financial reform debate last year. Democrats flat out refused to even allow an amendment that would stop the abuse of taxpayer dollars through Fannie and Freddie. Now we have the Whitehouse, which happens to have approved the Democrats most recent blank check written to the F&F club, also breaking the law that required them to submit the report on how to stop the bleeding here. Amazing.

The Financial Services Committee isn’t too happy about this latest revelation either, as exposed further down in the same National Review Online article:

“Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Baucus (R., Ala.) also criticized the administration, saying in a statement that “the Democrats always offer an excuse for not meeting deadlines, even those they themselves impose.”

I also mention the U S treasury department in my opening paragraph, and here is what I found at the bottom of the National Review Online article:

” A Treasury Department spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires that the administration hoped to release a report in February.”

Apparently, when it comes to reforming the malfeasance over at Fannie and Freddie, we are left with nothing more than the hope part of Obama’s Hope and Change campaign theme of 2008. There certainly is no change in the fraud, corruption, and outright theft of taxpayers dollars by the corruptocrats in bed with the criminal enterprise over at the F&F club.

 

* http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/01/fannie-freddie-and-foreclosures-exploring-the-true-costs-to-the-us-taxpayer/

   http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/01/money-for-nothing-and-houses-for-free/

** http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258499/white-house-misses-deadline-freddie-mac-fannie-mae-report-katrina-trinko