Monday, April 30, 2012



Sunday, April 29, 2012

Saturday, April 28, 2012





Friday, April 27, 2012


An EPA official, Al Armendariz, made the following statement at a press conference, specifically referencing the oil and gas industries in America:

"I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff…the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.

"And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And, that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people.

"So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools.

"Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly. That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly."

“So, that’s our general philosophy,” he adds.

In light of recent litigation against oil, gas and coal producers, Mr. Armendariz’s remarks seem to be born out through the administration actions.

Thursday, April 26, 2012


Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Tuesday, April 24, 2012


Oh! WOW!

Now I understand!

Don't you?

Monday, April 23, 2012

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Saturday, April 21, 2012


"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Friday, April 20, 2012


Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr. (February 14, 1909 – December 27, 1995) was a U.S. Representative from Florida.

Herlong was born in Manistee, Alabama in 1909, and moved with his parents to Marion County, Florida in 1912. He attended the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where he was a member of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity (Alpha Epsilon Chapter), and graduated in 1930. He was admitted to The Florida Bar in 1930 and started his law practice in Leesburg.

Herlong was elected county judge of Lake County, Florida, and served from 1937 to 1949. He served as city attorney of Leesburg from 1946 to 1948. He held a reserve commission as captain in the U.S. Army and was called to active duty in the Judge Advocate General's Department in August 1941.

Herlong was elected as a Democrat to the Eighty-first and to the nine succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1949 – January 3, 1969).

On January 10, 1963, Herlong delivered a speech (entered into the Congressional Record) outlining the 45 goals of Communism as put forth in the book, The Naked Communist written in 1958 by conservative United States author and political theorist Cleon Skousen.

The book describes a geopolitical strategy by which the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union was attempting to overcome and control all the governments of the world that were not members of the Communist bloc.

The following is the list of Communist goals documented in the book:

1. U.S. should accept coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. should be willing to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of "moral strength."

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extend long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China and admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations that are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S. cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

Although I was quite alive in both 1958 and 1963, I really didn't pay much attention to these things, so I can't say with any certainty whether all of them are actual and/or factual, but I can observe how many of them have come to pass after 1963.

If you have any sense of history or the progression of political power it should make you at least a little nervous.

If it doesn't, your brain has obviously atrophied.

Thursday, April 19, 2012


In January, the State Department advised the President to reject the proposal to extend the Keystone XL pipeline because it was not in the “national interest” at this time.

Now, according to TransCanada (that’s the company that was slated to build the pipeline), the pipeline would prevent transportation bottlenecks and significantly increase the amount of oil available, or at least decrease the amount we have to import, which is now at 10 to 11 million barrels of oil per day. (See Forbes.)

In addition, the pipeline would create between 7,000 and 13,000 new jobs with spin-off jobs at around 118,000.

But that would not be in the national interest. Of course it wouldn’t.

Would somebody please tell me why?

What do you think TransCanada is going to do with all of that oil? Do you think they will sit on it, or will they sell it to Saudi Arabia or some other Arab nation?

They are not dumbbells. They know we will still buy the oil.

So how will we get it?

Easy. The will send it via Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad...all the way to the Gulf of Mexico refineries.

Cool! We’ll train it in. And we all know how safe railroads are, with trains never jumping the tracks, crashing and spilling their contents (like chlorine gas and maybe oil). That’s a whole lot better than the pipeline that EPA has said is safe (Did you know that it will be encased in concrete?)

So Burlington Northern Santa Fe will profit from the pipeline not being built.


Guess who, in 2009, bought 22% of Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad. (Hint: It was not I, and it was not you.) It was Berkshire Hathaway, the Nebraska based company owned by none other than Warren Buffett.

Wasn’t he the lucky duck?

Well, maybe luck had little to do with it.

Seems that a certain Nebraska senator, Ben Nelson helped out more than a little.

To start with, he and Buffett go back a long way as friends and cohorts.

In 2010, Nelson pushed legislation that would benefit Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway.
Guess who also voted against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, that’s who.

He also contributed some $27,000 to Berkshire Hathaway, owns almost $6 million in its stock AND he voted for it’s huge government “bail-out.”

And would you care to guess what company contributed over $75,000 to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson over the course of his political career? (Try Berkshire Hathaway on for size.)

Oh. And remember EPA said the pipeline was safe?

They have also admitted that diesel engines (you know…the ones that pull trains) emit significant atmospheric pollution, which pipelines do not do.

OK, let’s add it all up.

Who wins?

Warren Buffett, Senator Ben Nelson and Berkshire Hathaway.

Who looses?

You do.

And gas at the pump climbs to over $4.00 per gallon.

(Watch a couple of lengthy explanations HERE.)

Tuesday, April 17, 2012


One of my favorite songs is one that speaks of liberty, beauty, music and God as the sources and proclamation of our freedom.

The lyrics were written by Samuel Francis Smith in 1831. It is usually sung to the tune of the British national anthem, "God Save the Queen," but that does not diminish its deep meaning one bit.

Until 1931, when the "Star Spangled Banner" was officially adopted, it served as our defacto national anthem.

Every line of this song, perhaps every noun and verb, deserves to be understood in the depths of our being.

Indeed, if we don't start living its precepts again, we will lose all it stands for and all we have been as a nation.

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From ev'ry mountainside
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King

Monday, April 16, 2012


The funiest dog on earth is a pug.

A pug is a punch line looking for a joke.

Ten years ago my wife and I made a 40 mile trip to Arcadia, Florida to get her Christmas present, a cute, bubbly and totally crazy pug.

Pugs are supposed to be difficult dogs to train to do tricks. Charlie (the pug) learned a lot of tricks.

He would come, sit, sit up, lie down and roll over, shake hands and stay on command.

In fact, I could put his favorite dog biscuit on the floor right under his nose, tell him to stay and he would stare a hole in the biscuit until I said, "OK, go get it!"

Make no mistake, Charlie was not that brilliant looking.

For one thing, his tongue didn't fit in his mouth.

His bottom teeth protruded over his upper lip. If you had stuck a cigar in his mouth, he would look like a Chicago thug.

He loved to chase 2 liter bottles until he got hold of the neck of the bottle. Then he looked so proud.

Charlie was a very clean dog, and loved to run the vaccuum cleaner.

Charlie had his own special pillow in the middle of the living room floor.

Here is the dungeon we sent Charlie to when he misbehaved.

He loved to romp our fenced in back yard. He would enthusiastically chase the mail truck, the UPS truck and any motor cycle up and down the fence line in a futile attempt to chase them away from "his" territory.

Last Wednesday, Charlie suffered a doggie version of congestive heart failure and we had to have him "put down."

My wife has taken this loss very hard.

I miss Charlie very much, too.

He was my friend, my side-kick and the best dog I've ever had.

So long, Charlie.

Sunday, April 15, 2012



Thursday, April 12, 2012


Discussion is a potentially good thing. The sharing of ideas can lead to growth, understanding and mutual respect.

There is a difference, however, between real discussion and the sophomoric, "bull session" tripe that ignores certain principles that would lead to those afore mentioned results.

How does one go about changing another's mind about an issue when two totally different mind sets are involved?

As an example, if you are a liberal, what would it take to convince you that government has gone beyond reason, and certainly beyond the anticipated scope envisioned by the framers, when it comes to the influence government should have in citizens' lives?

What would it take for you to develop a respect for The Constitution as a document of principles by which we are to be governed?

Conservatives believe that although the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, its principles and doctrines are timeless and apply as significantly today as they did when it was written. We believe it lives as is and breathes by means of amendment, not by judicial or executive decree.

Because it is a document of principles, the Constitution is better than the constitution of, say, South Africa.

The very fact that the Constitution limits the power of government is a good thing and consistent with the intent of those who wrote and established it.

What would it take for liberals to understand the real meaning of a deep respect for life? They give lip service to it from time to time, but focus more on how to modify the punishment of criminals, while removing many safeguards that protect the general citizenry.

Liberals seem to prefer to believe that criminals can be "reformed" if they are just given enough education and opportunity. They by-and-large reject capital punishment and would rather allow for the possibility that rapists and murderers might one day be "rehabilitated" and released back into society.

They further choose to believe that, although the DNA is distinctive, a "fetus" is part of a woman's body and thus she should be able to do with it as is most convenient for her.

In general, politicians resist relinquishing their ability to intrude in peoples' lives, but liberals reject the idea that the smallest possible government is the best government. What would it take to change their minds about that?

What would it take to convince liberals that everybody is not responsible for the lives of everybody else? At what point will they understand that there is a significant place in society for individual responsibility?

Conservatives believe that if a person is unable to fend for him/herself due to physical limitations, lack of mental acuity or some other handicap, then they deserve to be helped. We also believe that if a person WILL NOT fend for him/herself when fully able to do so, society has no obligation to fend for him/her.

It is appalling to hear an American citizen joyfully proclaim, "I don't gotta worry no more about food and gas prices. We done got Obama an he's gonna fix it for us."

What will it take to convince liberals that there is a valid difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome?

In a school room of 25 children, 5 blacks, 4 Hispanics, 3 Asians and 13 white, when the teacher puts on the board 2 + 2 = 4, every child in that room has an equal opportunity to learn that, regardless of color. What they do with the information is not the responsibility of the government.

In the past, many people who had to struggle to get an education because of poverty, life circumstances and the like STILL managed to learn and succeed, in spite of their life condition.

What is there today that would prevent them from doing so, other than the growing indoctrination by the government that everybody else owes them something?

So I ask, what would it take to convince a liberal that they have been thinking wrongly about a particular issue and what would it take to change their minds?

Wednesday, April 11, 2012


Let’s do one more review of “ObamaCare” and its issues. Let’s try to find out what’s really wrong with it in principle and practice.

1. It was passed in haste with few, if any, Senators and Congressmen having had the time to read it. After all, it is 2,700 pages long! Nancy Pelosi’s sequence of “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” is so convoluted that it has never before been used in legislation.

2. The bill contains a hierarchy of micro-regulation by un-elected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy, so much so that the administration has already granted a long list of exemptions to various companies and especially to unions.

3. It allows the federal government to dictate to employers and employees what their health insurance has to cover.

4. In ObamaCare, decision making power is relegated to bureaucrats, who can pretty much make whatever boneheaded decisions they like about it without fear of retribution.

5. ObamaCare raises the false expectation that anyone can “keep their plan if they like it.” Never mind that the cost of any other “plan” will become so expensive that only the elite will be able to afford it.

Faced with expensive mandates and less expensive fines, many employers will choose the fines and cause their employees to move to government-sponsored plans.

6. The plan also raises the false expectation that it would mandate many “new” benefits while reducing the average family premium by $2,500.00.

According to the government’s own CBO, a typical family health insurance plan costing $12,300 today will cost more than twice that by 2019.

7. Another false expectation is that ObamaCare will not add “…a single dime…” to the federal deficit.

Last October, the administration dropped the long-term care program known as the Class Program from implementation of the new law as financially unworkable. It also added $111 billion premium subsidies to its proposed fiscal 2013 budget.

8. ObamaCare is filled with “ticking time bombs: massive new health entitlement redistribution programs, even for families not in need.

It discriminates against young people, forcing them to purchase health insurance at inflated prices in order to subsidize older beneficiaries.

9. The law includes a multitude of new taxes, wholly inadequate for paying the bill for new entitlements, leaving rationing as a last resort.

10. ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) is unaffordable. It is also unsustainable.

It is my humble, but correct, opinion that the Supreme Court should strike down ObamaCare. If it does not, Congress should repeal it.

Come to think of it, President BO (the child president) should be struck down…by that I do not mean anything other than defeated in November.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012


Some questions for you (with assist, in casy you don't know the answers).

1. Did David Axlelrod really say, "Don't let a crisis go to waste?" Answer: No, that was Rahm Emanuel. The exact quote in context is: "“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

Nevertheless, as a principle, has not the administration lived and ruled by the axiom "Don't let a crisis go to waste?"  Answer: Yes.

2. Did Tim Geitner really not pay his taxes on time? Answer: Yes, he did NOT pay his taxes on time and got caught. Cost him nothing, though.

Did the CBO really conclude that the economy, if kept on this track, will cease to function by 2027? Answer: Yes.

3. Did Nancy Pelosi really respond to a question about the Constitutionality of making American buy something they do not want by saying, "You can't be serious?" Answer: Yes.

Did she REALLY say, "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it?" Answer: Yes.

4. Has the Senate passed a budget in the past three years? Answer: No.

Is passing a budget one of the basic functions of the Senate? Answer: Yes.

5. Did Eric Holder say, "We must brainwash Americans against our right to self defense?" Answer: Yes.

Did he put guns in the hands of Mexican Drug Cartel? Answer: Yes.

6. Did President BO (the child president)'s mother die because she couldn't afford health insurance, as he said? Answer: No. She actually HAD health insurance.

7. As editor of the Harvard Law Review, how many law reviews had he written or did he write? Answer: None.

Then how did he get to be the "Editor" of the Harvard Law Review? Indeed.

8. As a man from a "poor" family, how did President BO (the child president)afford to go to Harvard? Answer: Good question.

9. Did President BO (the child president) have ties to Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko (convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008), Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other anti-Americanites? Answer: Yes

10. Can American citizens be detained without trial or even charges? Answer: Yes, after the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act.

11. Did he really offer to lay down America's missile shield? Answer: Yes.

12. Is this REALLY what you want from the "leader" of the free world and his administration? Answer: That's what you have to decide.

Choose well, my fellow Americans. Choose well.

Monday, April 9, 2012


What a total amateur!

And you fall for his "great intellect?"

Saturday, April 7, 2012


The Constitution of the United States of America was written to and for the American people. It was written in a way they could understand, that is, in elegant but simple American English.

It is only six pages long and is not too complex for anyone to digest.

Unfortunately, politicians, being who and what they are, have done a masterful job of convincing many that it is too complex to be understood by the “average” American, whoever that is.

Now it may be true that those who study “government” in today’s government schools never really get the chance to read their Constitution. In most cases, they are only asked to read what others have said about it, and to read only those who have written about it with a certain tilt and/or agenda.

In fact, students in high school are virtually discouraged from reading the actual document, as it is said to be too pedantic and boring.

Yet those same students are asked to vote for people who have sworn to “uphold and defend” the Constitution.

One might be tempted to ask, “If one has never read the document itself, how is one to know whether or not the person they vote for is upholding and defending it?”


That is by design.

If too many of the electorate actually knew what is in their Constitution, more politicians might be held accountable for their usurping of it.

As author, Lisa Fabrizio has written:

“One of the ways that lawyers and college professors have convinced the nation that the Constitution is way over their heads and way out of touch, is to claim that, as originally written, it is far too fragile to encompass the ways and means of modern D.C. mudslinging; as if politics weren't written into the document itself. The Founders did not live in some ivory tower where the stench of politics never befouled the sacred air. On the contrary, the system of checks and balances was established to create an electoral friction with this very thing in mind.”

James Madison, in Federalist 58 wrote:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Ms Fabrizio continued:

“…the framers never intended the Supreme Court to be the final word in the day-to-day governance of America; that is the purview of the people through the two elected branches of government. But should the Executive and Legislative arms overreach the boundaries so carefully laid out for them by the Framers, it is precisely the job of the Court to chastise them for it.”

She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78:

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

I know that my liberal readers feel cheated for never having been required to actually read the Constitution, but take hope! All is not lost!

Being members of the Information Age (read: Internet Age), even liberals have access to the actual words of the document.

One really good site is:

And if you want to know more, The Heritage Foundation has some very good learning resources.

I especially would encourage liberals to read the document and study its history, its use in legal decisions over the years and its application to the American way of life.

Go ahead! It won’t hurt!

It will, however, open your eyes to the light of our most important founding document.

(If you happen to know President BO (the child president), ask him to read it, too. Based on his recent comments, I’m not really sure he ever has.)

Friday, April 6, 2012


Leave it to Judge Napolitano who taught constitutional law, to school the college professor (lecturer), on the facts of the Constitution of the United States and why our forefathers designed it and our Republic's form of government as they did, with divided but equal powers. 

The following is an article by the good judge. 

When it comes to the Constitution, the Obama administration can't lay a glove on the Supreme Court By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - Published April 03, 2012

Earlier this week, President Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court by suggesting that because its members are ?unelected? they are somehow without authority to invalidate unconstitutional legislation. This is hardly a sentiment that should come from anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution, much less a public servant who is a lawyer, much less a person who once taught constitutional law at one of the nation?s best law schools.

The whole purpose of a life-tenured, unelected, independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic; to preserve life, liberty, and property from the tyranny of the majority. Without such a judiciary, nothing but brute force would protect us from a Congress that recognized no limits on its authority.

Suppose that Congress, over the president?s veto, declared Joe Biden insane and removed him from office, or directed that Mrs. Obama lose custody of her children because she sent one of her daughters on a foreign trip without either parent, or that the First Amendment does not apply to those who hate the Chicago Cubs? Wouldn?t the president expect that ?an unelected group of people? in black robes would interfere with those actions?

Has he actually forgotten that an unelected group of people overturned segregated schools which was the beginning of the end of Jim Crow laws, ordered the government to try or to free people it has arrested, prevented the prosecution of unpopular speech, invalidated the federal regulation of guns near schools, and ordered a president who thought he was above the law to turn over subpoenaed tapes to a federal district court?

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called ?judicial review:? It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years.

The president is entitled to his own opinions, just like everyone else is. He is free to argue and to predict that ObamaCare should and will be upheld. But he cannot seriously suggest, with intellectual honesty, that the Court is without lawful authority to invalidate an act of Congress that the Court determines is repugnant to the Constitution.

Nor can he, with intellectual honesty, issue veiled threats to the Court.

The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that.

This Court, which has no army but does have a rich and unbroken tradition of commanding fidelity from the other branches of the government, cannot be intimidated by him. He can criticize it to his heart?s content; but he cannot lay a glove on the Supreme Court.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." This column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. For more information visit Follow him on Twitter @judgenap and Facebook at Judge Napolitano.

(End of Article)

For your information and edification:

Andrew P. Napolitano joined FOX News Channel in January 1998, and currently serves as a senior judicial analyst. He appears daily on The Big Story with John Gibson, co-hosts FOX and Friends once a week and is a regular on The O’Reilly Factor.

Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987-95, he tried over 150 jury trials, and sat in all parts of the Superior Court — Criminal, Civil, Equity and Family.
For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor (not just a lecturer) at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence (and you liberals thought that President BO [the child president] was the only one ever to have done so). He returned to private law practice in 1995, the same year he began his career in broadcasting.

He is the author of several books about law and justice.

Thursday, April 5, 2012




Wednesday, April 4, 2012


President BO (the child president) challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court on Monday not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

The fact that it is neither "extraordinary" nor "unprecedented" seems on the surface to be lost on the president.

But don't be fooled.

President BO (the child president) hates the Constitutional provision for the separation of powers, and if re-elected will, either by force or by "executive order (read: decree), demote the Supreme Court to non-entity status.

What did YOU think he meant when he promised to fundamentally change the way the U.S. functions?

Speaking of "ObamaCare," President BO (the child president) said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, but he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation.

He also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

He really believes that the federal government SHOULD be able to require people do buy certain things, whether they want to or not.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," President BO (the child president) said.

He noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an "activist" approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black (no race meaning intended).

Up until now, President BO (the child president) has been one of the most supportive people ever of an "activist" SCOTUS.

"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Tell me, liberal reader, has not the Constitution ALWAYS provided that Supreme Court members are appointed with the advise and consent of lawmakers?

Why, then, this sudden revelation that they are unelected? Haven't they always been?

Does their being unelected somehow diminish their role as the Third Estate?

Are there any Americans, educated in government schools, who did NOT know that the SCOTUS is unelected?

If so, why did they not know that?

What have you liberals been teaching our kids?

(Oh, yeah: sex education, self-esteem and political correctness)

Do you think this so-called "Constitutional Lecturer" (not professor, by the way), and former "editor" of the Harvard Review (after having only one article published in it) did not KNOW that the Supreme Court is not an elected body?

Let me warn you of something (and you may think of me as you wish for this): If President BO (the child president) is re-elected in November, it will be the last election you enjoy, because "for the good of the nation and its people" free elections will disappear, as will the remnants of this Constitutional Republic.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012


Two Versions, Different Morals


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.


Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN (newly updated) VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, "We Shall Overcome."

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns the ants. President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight..

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government GreenCzar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.


Be careful how you vote in 2012.

Monday, April 2, 2012


The following is an article from Hot Air by John Hawkins.

The article begins with a quote from President BO (the child president):

"We won’t win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old, worn-out, tired `you’re on your own’ economics that the other side is peddling. It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn’t work. You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness.” — Barack Obama

Hear that?

According to the worst President in American history, “you’re on your own” economics, which apparently extended from the founding of the country until the day Barack Obama took office, didn’t work. Sure, it produced the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, the world’s largest economy, and made us into a super power, but that’s “madness” compared to Obamanomics, which cost us our AAA credit rating, has produced the longest streak of above 8% unemployment since the Great Depression, and is on track to produce 13 trillion dollars of debt over the next 10 years.
Listening to Barack Obama lecture ANYONE else on economics is like getting a lecture from Jimmy Carter on the proper way to execute a hostage rescue.

What’s up next? Will we have Bill Maher explaining civility? Will Keith Olbermann be coming along to explain proper workplace etiquette? Hey, Champ, maybe this wasn’t explained to you at Harvard, but when you’re in the process of decimating the country’s economy through your own incompetence, people may be a little dubious when you tell them going a different way would be “madness.”

John Hawkins is a professional writer who runs Right Wing News and Linkiest. He’s also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon. You can hear more from John Hawkins on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, G+, You Tube, & at PJ Media.

End of Article

President BO (the child president) refuses to look at the results of actions by those who came before him (except, of course, for blaming George W. Bush for everything).

Why can't liberals see that the way out of these economic doldrums is to increase freedom instead of regulations and to reduce taxes, thus increasing the tax base which would result in an increase in revenues?