Every time I make a post concerning the Constitution I get beseiged with letters from liberals who, like some SCOTUS justices, get verbose in their lame attempts to interpret the Constitution. And they invariably say that "the Founding Fathers meant...the Founders intended..."
Let me be as clear as the Founding Fathers were when they all proclaimed that the Constitution was carefully crafted and worded in such a way that every man, woman and child could understand it, and know their God-given rights. The Founders all expressed that the document says exactly what they intended, and needs no "interpretation". They spent many months painfully going over every word to insure the document said what they meant, and meant what they said.
In short, anyone - regardless of who they are or how much they think themselves a "Constitutional scholar" - anyone who feels a need to "interpret" any part of the Constitution is usurping the Constitution.
It does not require interpretation, as the Founders were determined to insure every American - even uneducated ones - could understand it.
The Constitution was intended to be taken literally, word for word. If it says you have a certain right, then that needs no further discussion. There are no "nuances" in the document.
So, to save you liberals a lot of wasted time trying to convince anyone that the Constitution means this or that, don't bother. It says what it says. And it means what it says. If you need to interpret it, then you are already wrong.
It says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." And that is exactly what it means. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And that is exactly what it means. If the Founders had wanted to keep religion out of government, or out of the public square, the Constitution would state so, clearly and in such a way as to not require interpretation. But that is not what the Constitution says. It states clearly that government is to stay out of religion. Nowhere does it state - or even imply - that religion is to stay out of government.
Liberals who "interpret" the Constitution are, in essence, saying the Founders were a bunch of uneducated fools who sat down over a pint of ale one evening and threw the Constitution together and now "scholars" have to interpret it for "the unwashed masses". That is not the case, as any historian knows.
The Constitution neither states nor implies any "wall of separation between church and state." It only says, clearly, that government may not regulate any religion, create a state religion, or prevent the free practice of religion. Government must stay out of religion. But nowhere does it state or imply that religion must stay out of government.
So, save your 5,000 word dissertations trying to interpret it otherwise. And please note - just because some liberal, activist justices like to play God and exercise their scolastic aptitude, if they "interpret" the Constitution, they, too, are wrong. They are just people, like any other people. And they can be - and often are - wrong. So do not use their lame interpretations to prove your own case.
/
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Unemployment RATE Drops As Unemployment Rises
The latest numbers out today show that only 36,000 net jobs were created this last month - the smallest number in months. Yet, according to government stats, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.4% to 9.0%. How can that be?
Here's what the government is not telling you - although the RATE of unemployment has decreased on paper, unemployment is actually still rising. The drop in the rate has occurred as many of those who are out of work gave up on their job searches. When unemployed people stop looking for jobs, the government no longer counts them as unemployed. And in January alone, 504,000 people dropped out of the job search market - they just gave up.
Frankly, this is nothing more than dishonest accounting. The government owes the people the truth. And if the truth be known, the true rate of unemployment in America stands at around 18%.
And the folks in Washington DC know this. So, the last thing I want to hear from the politicians is the blatant lie that things are getting better and the proof is that the unemployment rate is going down. But I'm betting that's exactly what we will hear from the White House.
/
Here's what the government is not telling you - although the RATE of unemployment has decreased on paper, unemployment is actually still rising. The drop in the rate has occurred as many of those who are out of work gave up on their job searches. When unemployed people stop looking for jobs, the government no longer counts them as unemployed. And in January alone, 504,000 people dropped out of the job search market - they just gave up.
Frankly, this is nothing more than dishonest accounting. The government owes the people the truth. And if the truth be known, the true rate of unemployment in America stands at around 18%.
And the folks in Washington DC know this. So, the last thing I want to hear from the politicians is the blatant lie that things are getting better and the proof is that the unemployment rate is going down. But I'm betting that's exactly what we will hear from the White House.
/
Thursday, February 3, 2011
How Much Are You REALLY Paying For Hamburger? Check this out...
I make the food for our dogs. It's 40% meat, 40% starches and 20% vegetable. Normally I only use all natural, grass-fed beef or all natural free range chickens or turkey obtained from local farms - the same stuff my family eats.
While cooking, I drain off the grease. Normally the fats amount to about 15-20% of the product, and hardens to a cream-coloed grease, as it should.
But the other day I had to resort to buying burger from WalMart while waiting for our side of beef to be cut and packaged.
As usual, I drained off the "grease", and in doing so I noticed something troubling. Instead of 15-20% fat, what was drained off was 15-20% fat PLUS about 20% WATER! Here is a picture of what was drained - the top, cream-colored portion is the fat. The part at the very bottom is small particles of beef. The dark colored middle section turns out to be water.
A full 20% of the hamburger for which I paid nearly $2.00 a pound was water. So it can be looked at one of two ways - either customers are paying $2.00 a pound for water they cannot even drink, or they are getting the water for free and are therefore actually paying about $2.50/pound for the burger.
But no matter how one looks at it, one thing is certain - customers are being cheated, big time, and the FDA, as usual, does nothing about it.
As for me, I won't be buying any more food of any kind from WalMart - their sources obviously cannot be trusted to give an honest accounting.
/
While cooking, I drain off the grease. Normally the fats amount to about 15-20% of the product, and hardens to a cream-coloed grease, as it should.
But the other day I had to resort to buying burger from WalMart while waiting for our side of beef to be cut and packaged.
As usual, I drained off the "grease", and in doing so I noticed something troubling. Instead of 15-20% fat, what was drained off was 15-20% fat PLUS about 20% WATER! Here is a picture of what was drained - the top, cream-colored portion is the fat. The part at the very bottom is small particles of beef. The dark colored middle section turns out to be water.
A full 20% of the hamburger for which I paid nearly $2.00 a pound was water. So it can be looked at one of two ways - either customers are paying $2.00 a pound for water they cannot even drink, or they are getting the water for free and are therefore actually paying about $2.50/pound for the burger.
But no matter how one looks at it, one thing is certain - customers are being cheated, big time, and the FDA, as usual, does nothing about it.
As for me, I won't be buying any more food of any kind from WalMart - their sources obviously cannot be trusted to give an honest accounting.
/
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Judge's Ten Commandments Display in Courtroom Ruled Unconstitutional. But...
A Judge's Ten Commandments Display in Courtroom Ruled Unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (of course - always robbing people of their liberty), and the new ruling by the federal appellate judges marked the second time in the past 11 years they've had to admonish Deweese for his courtroom art. In 2000, he hung on his courtroom wall a copy of the Ten Commandments -- alone without any of his own comments -- before the federal courts ordered it taken down.
But the strange part is that the Ten Commandments are engraved above the bench of the Supreme Court - and THAT court says there is no problem with it. I don't see them tearing down the SCOTUS building.
The whole argument is actually groundless - NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY phrase that states a "separation of church and state." Nowhere. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment is actually quite clear in both its wording and its intent - that Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion, nor can it pass any law that infringes ANY person's right to freely practice their religion.
And the very people who wrote the Constitution also wrote many other papers about the writing of the Constitution, and to a man each one expressed that religion should be involved in government, but government must not be involved in religion.
The only "wall of separation" was intended to be one-way. And Thomas Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" in his first letter to the Danbury Baptist Church made that very point quite clear in his follow-up. The ACLU and many judges, in their intolerance and ignorance have conveniently chosen to ignore Jefferson's follow-up because it does not help them in their pursuit of driving all religion out of America.
UPDATE: Someone from the Baptist Church submitted the following:
"Thomas Jefferson repeated the Baptists' historical words ("wall of separation") back to them in his Danbury letter, describing church/state separation enacted in the First Amendment, and Danbury Baptists (and many other Baptists) in return thanked Jefferson for separating church and state.But, while Baptists thanked Jefferson for helping them secure the establishment of America as a secular nation..."
But here's the problem with revisionist history --- First, "church/state separation" was NOT enacted in the 1st Amendment - it was only enacted by the liberal Supreme Court of the '70's. This is why the Supreme Court building, itself, is adorned with the 10 Commandments, and why every Congress since Washington always began with prayer. Apparently the founders had no problem with the "one-way" separation. Second, Thomas Jefferson played NO PART in drafting the Constitution. He was left out of it, most likely by design because of his liberal beliefs. So, he did not "separate church and state" except in the eyes of liberal justices who decided to ADD his words to the Constitution by proxy, nor did he "help secure America as a secular nation" other than to be taken out of context by those same justices who chose to ignore Jefferson's follow-up that it should only be a one-way separation.
Contrary to common belief, Jefferson was not atheist - he was a Deist. He believed in God, but also believed that once he created us, he moved on and plays no part in our daily lives.
The same liberal Baptist then wrote that I am the "revisionist", stating "Friend, you're not telling the truth about our American and Christian history. The First Amendment DOES separate church and state as a two way road". So, I will leave it to you to decide. Here is the actual word-for-word 1st Amendment that affects religion - you decide if it says "separation of church and state as a two-way road", or if it says what I had stated, above:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seems to me it says precisely what I said.
And every single one of the founders who drafted the Constitution had all written a number of letters and other writings in which, to a man, they stated the importance of having religion IN government, but not established BY government.
EXAMPLES:
"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." --George Washington
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. " --George Washington
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased." -- Alexander Hamilton
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -- John Adams
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -- John Adams
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?-- John Quincy Adams, 1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech"
As these and several hundred other quotes of the founders show, I am not in the business of revising history. I study it, objectively. And I provide the evidence of my findings by quoting the founders, themselves.
/
The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (of course - always robbing people of their liberty), and the new ruling by the federal appellate judges marked the second time in the past 11 years they've had to admonish Deweese for his courtroom art. In 2000, he hung on his courtroom wall a copy of the Ten Commandments -- alone without any of his own comments -- before the federal courts ordered it taken down.
But the strange part is that the Ten Commandments are engraved above the bench of the Supreme Court - and THAT court says there is no problem with it. I don't see them tearing down the SCOTUS building.
The whole argument is actually groundless - NOWHERE in the Constitution is there ANY phrase that states a "separation of church and state." Nowhere. On the contrary, the 1st Amendment is actually quite clear in both its wording and its intent - that Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion, nor can it pass any law that infringes ANY person's right to freely practice their religion.
And the very people who wrote the Constitution also wrote many other papers about the writing of the Constitution, and to a man each one expressed that religion should be involved in government, but government must not be involved in religion.
The only "wall of separation" was intended to be one-way. And Thomas Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" in his first letter to the Danbury Baptist Church made that very point quite clear in his follow-up. The ACLU and many judges, in their intolerance and ignorance have conveniently chosen to ignore Jefferson's follow-up because it does not help them in their pursuit of driving all religion out of America.
UPDATE: Someone from the Baptist Church submitted the following:
"Thomas Jefferson repeated the Baptists' historical words ("wall of separation") back to them in his Danbury letter, describing church/state separation enacted in the First Amendment, and Danbury Baptists (and many other Baptists) in return thanked Jefferson for separating church and state.But, while Baptists thanked Jefferson for helping them secure the establishment of America as a secular nation..."
But here's the problem with revisionist history --- First, "church/state separation" was NOT enacted in the 1st Amendment - it was only enacted by the liberal Supreme Court of the '70's. This is why the Supreme Court building, itself, is adorned with the 10 Commandments, and why every Congress since Washington always began with prayer. Apparently the founders had no problem with the "one-way" separation. Second, Thomas Jefferson played NO PART in drafting the Constitution. He was left out of it, most likely by design because of his liberal beliefs. So, he did not "separate church and state" except in the eyes of liberal justices who decided to ADD his words to the Constitution by proxy, nor did he "help secure America as a secular nation" other than to be taken out of context by those same justices who chose to ignore Jefferson's follow-up that it should only be a one-way separation.
Contrary to common belief, Jefferson was not atheist - he was a Deist. He believed in God, but also believed that once he created us, he moved on and plays no part in our daily lives.
The same liberal Baptist then wrote that I am the "revisionist", stating "Friend, you're not telling the truth about our American and Christian history. The First Amendment DOES separate church and state as a two way road". So, I will leave it to you to decide. Here is the actual word-for-word 1st Amendment that affects religion - you decide if it says "separation of church and state as a two-way road", or if it says what I had stated, above:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seems to me it says precisely what I said.
And every single one of the founders who drafted the Constitution had all written a number of letters and other writings in which, to a man, they stated the importance of having religion IN government, but not established BY government.
EXAMPLES:
"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." --George Washington
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. " --George Washington
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased." -- Alexander Hamilton
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -- John Adams
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -- John Adams
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?-- John Quincy Adams, 1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech"
As these and several hundred other quotes of the founders show, I am not in the business of revising history. I study it, objectively. And I provide the evidence of my findings by quoting the founders, themselves.
/
Has The Fed Secretly "Blown" $9 Trillion Dollars? Check this video
Bear in mind that the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE organization - they are NOT the government. It is made up up 13 banking families to which our government, in violation of the Constitution, gave them the authority to print money back in 1913.
This video is a portion of the Congressional investigation you probably have not heard anything about
This video is a portion of the Congressional investigation you probably have not heard anything about
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
When Is A Democracy Not A Democracy? When it's in...
All the pundits like to talk about forming democracies around the world. But that's really a sad joke, especially in the Middle East.
The "bad guys" like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iranian theocracy, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro - they all have one thing in common: they all used democracy to set up their non-democratic governments.
Certainly, the people who overturn rogue governments all want democracy and freedom. That's a "gimme". But the "bad guys" use that desire for freedom to get themselves "elected" under promises of freedom, democracy and reform. Once elected, they kill off the democracy and the people end up with a government that is worse than the yoke they had thrown off.
This is what happened among the Palestinians. Hamas ran for office with promises of a better life - they used democracy to get elected. And then they took over. Chavez did the same in Venezuela, like Castro before him in Cuba.
It happened in Iran - the people overthrew the "despotic" Shah, demanding democracy. The "democracy" was then used to put the Islamic theocracy into power. And democracy was immediately throttled out of existence.
And this is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood plans for Egypt, and, unless King Abdullah outsmarts them, again in Jordan. The Brotherhood's goal is to become THE power throughout the mideast, isolating, then destroying Israel.
And it will all happen under the banner of "democracy."
/
The "bad guys" like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iranian theocracy, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro - they all have one thing in common: they all used democracy to set up their non-democratic governments.
Certainly, the people who overturn rogue governments all want democracy and freedom. That's a "gimme". But the "bad guys" use that desire for freedom to get themselves "elected" under promises of freedom, democracy and reform. Once elected, they kill off the democracy and the people end up with a government that is worse than the yoke they had thrown off.
This is what happened among the Palestinians. Hamas ran for office with promises of a better life - they used democracy to get elected. And then they took over. Chavez did the same in Venezuela, like Castro before him in Cuba.
It happened in Iran - the people overthrew the "despotic" Shah, demanding democracy. The "democracy" was then used to put the Islamic theocracy into power. And democracy was immediately throttled out of existence.
And this is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood plans for Egypt, and, unless King Abdullah outsmarts them, again in Jordan. The Brotherhood's goal is to become THE power throughout the mideast, isolating, then destroying Israel.
And it will all happen under the banner of "democracy."
/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)