Change America

Okay, it was disastrous.  Half of the voters chose Barack Obama as President for a second term.  President Obama came out with a sizable lead in electoral votes over Governor Romney.  In Pennsylvania, not only did we go Blue for President, but Senator Casey (D) easily won re-election and the state row offices all went to Democrats.  Disastrous.

This morning after- I am disgusted, discouraged, and disillusioned.  I know, my Democrat friends, you are elated and that is understandable.

As is always the case, the losing party in the presidential sweepstakes immediately begins introspection and finger pointing. The media will soon develop a narrative (they do no news anymore) of how the Republican Party did everything wrong and the Democrat Party had all the right moves.  We know that is not true, and the same narrative was wrong when Bush was winning elections.

The country continues to be deeply divided.  Since the close election in 2000 brought the template of Red States and Blue States, our nation suffers from clearly different visions of what we want for our federal government.

I admit that I grow increasingly distant from the half that wants a government that cares for them and  controls me.  I grow increasingly bewildered that we ask for or accept our federal government to do things that are extra-constitutional.  I think our founders must be spinning in their graves.

There will be much written and said in the coming weeks and months as conservatives examine what went wrong and liberals gloat.  My first thought is that we have reached the tipping point and America has chosen to willfully ignore the Constitution, has renounced Capitalism, and dismissed adherence to a wholesome morality.  Harsh words. Maybe I will moderate them with time, but that is the way it looks right now.

Already I hear the genius talking heads suggest that the Republican Party must change with the times or it will be relegated to a permanent minority party (again, this is always recommended to the loser of the presidential contest).  They must reach out to minorities, particularly Latinos. They must stop the war on women and foolish talk about contraceptives.  They must stop supporting big business over the 99 percent. And so with the caricature of the the Republican Party.

So the Republican Party should change what they stand for to counter the gross misrepresentation of what they stand for?  That is how you become more relevant and a winning party? And if half (or more) of the country believes the Constitution is no longer relevant, or that what we need not defend the innocent unborn should we change?

No my friends, we do not need to moderate or change our defense of the Constitution, of Life, or of Capitalism.  We need to change America.  Too many of our fellow-citizens are ignorant of our founding principles, the utter genius of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Too many of our citizens are adrift morally, having rejected Christianity.  (Our founders cautioned that the Republic is only suited to a moral people, and that without a religious people it would not hold together.)  How sad it is today that success is suspect or outright ridiculed and morality is mocked.

Yes, times have changed and perhaps it has passed the Republican Party by.  But we do not need to change for the times.  We need to change America, or we will lose her.

A Tyrant is Unfit to be Ruler of a Free People

When in the Course of National events, it becomes necessary for Citizens to consider re-election of its President, a decent respect to the opinions of fellow Citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to vote in the negative.  Foremost in any consideration, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of its primary ends, those ends being to secure certain unalienable rights which were endowed by their Creator, that it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  We have the duty and opportunity every four years to review the record of our national leaders as to their adherence to the primary ends of Government and their various other policies and this present President is found hostile to our unalienable rights and well being.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object, if not the establishment of, an unconstitutional restructuring of our system of government resulting in an absolute Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid nation. 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, namely the Defense of Marriage Act.  The law passed by the Congress is ignored by the Executive Branch and even opposed in court by the chief lawyer.  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Likewise, he has refused to enforce applicable Immigration law, and after Congress failed to pass legislation (so-called DREAM Act) he desired providing sanctuary or amnesty for young illegal immigrants, he defied the Separation of Powers of the Constitution and issued orders executing the law anyway.  To add insult he has sued States who have attempted to enforce Immigration law or take action to defend their States from illegal immigration.

Contrary to the First Amendment, he has required people of faith to violate their conscience by forcing them to supply contraceptives, including abortifacients, in mandated health insurance. 

The present President has ignored repeated requests by the Congress to turn over facts regarding the botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), forcing the Majority Party in the House of Representatives to sue the President and the Attorney General for contempt.

He has engaged in the most unbecoming and offensive examples of class warfare, constantly attacking the so-called rich (the richest twenty percent of Americans pay seventy percent of the taxes) for not paying their Fair Share.  He uses the "Fair Share" argument to fuel envious passions for his own political benefit and to the detriment of the American Dream.

He has exhibited an antipathy to Private Enterprise.  He constantly attacks any manner of "Big" business (health insurance, bankers, oil companies, et al), some directly by name, from the platform of his Office, to foster envy and hatred for successful enterprises, and to further his political agenda.

This present President has taken over private industry, such as automotive manufacturing, in the name of saving jobs, but in so-doing robbing bondholders of their investment and value, and unfairly placing the government in direct competition with similar businesses.

In general, he has favored a policy of "spreading the wealth around" and of attacking Capitalism as an evil impediment to his Statist desires instead of understanding the great engine of opportunity and wealth creation it has been for these United Sates.

He has supported, the crafting, and signed into Law, an unconstitutional mandate that requires the Citizens of these States to purchase a commercial good, health insurance.

This present President has embarrassed us abroad by repeated apologies for imagined offenses while abrogating his duty by ignoring real threats to our security. He has lacked moral clarity and failed to acknowledge the rising radical Islamist threat that brazenly attacks us and our interests at home and abroad.


He has placed an immoral burden of debt on future generations by operating this Federal Government at more than a trillion dollars in deficit per year.  He has showered the People with Government programs we cannot afford, to gain favor with special interests, and to trap vulnerable Citizens into dependency.

These are but eleven serious issues Citizens concerned about Liberty and the future Prosperity of these United States should consider.  There are many others we could list, but these alone are more than enough to provide just cause for our negative vote.

Our repeated petitions over these violations of the Constitution, abuses of power, bullying, usurpations, and immoralities have been answered only by repeated injury: were are described as clinging to our guns and religion, we are selfish, we are racist, we are intolerant!  This present President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler of a free people.

We must in good conscience, then, exercise our Right this next election and replace this present President with a new one.

America Should Act on Buyer's Remorse

A sizable portion of America experienced buyer's remorse when they didn't get what they bargained for in President Obama. A definition of buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It may stem from fear of making the wrong choice, guilt over extravagance, or a suspicion of having been overly influenced by the seller.  Obama sold the American voter in 2008 on Hope and Change.  During the last four years many of those people that voted for him realized they were hoodwinked and bamboozled.


America is a nation of good intentions and hopeful people. In 2008 voters wanted to believe in something bigger than themselves and they got caught up in the emotion surrounding Obama's campaign. America's vote for Obama can be likened to an emotional purchase, not a thoughtful one.  Obama voters ignored dangerous signs such as who were Obama's mentors and friends.  They accepted platitudes such as Hope and Change without asking what that really means in policy terms.

Obama saw ready buyers and played them.  Each buyer/voter  placed their own lofty aspirations into Obama's rhetoric and dreamed with others: "yes we can."  For the poor minority he offered hope that America was full of possibility, and by the way, he would see to it that the rich paid more in taxes.  For the white liberal he offered a way for them to assuage their guilt feelings for America's past racism.  For the peaceniks he offered a nonbelligerent America ready to apologize for past warmongering.  For Hollywood and the Entertainment movers and shakers he offered a grand stage to show how much they cared. For young people he offered a hip, new, feel-good cause and their support validated them as member of the in-crowd.  And so on, through many American population segments and many aspirations.

 (For those that didn't get caught up in the emotion and wanted to be thoughtful about this important "purchase," well, they were clinging to their guns and their religion.)

Now in 2012 we have many Americans with a serious case of buyer's remorse.  It is understandable.  Their particular aspirations for Hope and Change have been unrealized.  There is regret at having bought into the rhetoric and a suspicion that they were overly influenced by the seller.

I want to let those voters know that it is okay to feel buyer's remorse.  And you can feel better by returning your purchase!  Send it back and get a new item.

Let's Tax Not Going to Church

I think we should tax people if they don't go to church.  Really, we should. 

The U.S Supreme Court, in its ruling on Obamacare, declared that our federal government could tax the citizens for not buying health insurance.  The precedent has been set.  Logically and legally the feds can tax you for not doing something.  As silly as it sounds that is where we are.

Since that is the case I suggest Congress pass a law that for every Sunday you do not go to church you will be taxed $100.  How do you think the Left would like that one?  They are alright with Big Government mandating health insurance and placing a tax on you if you don't comply.  Won't they have to accept the same all-knowing, all-caring Big Government telling us to go to church or else?

I can come up with a lot good reasons why it would be good for you and for society as a whole.  I could cite studies that say church-goers live longer and are less of a burden to their fellow citizens.

Now that I have offered up my own absurd idea for what the government could tax us for not doing, I am looking for your ideas.  Bonus points if it is something that will really agitate the Left, like going to church.  Comment here or email me.  Should be fun.

Support of Marriage is Now Hateful

Another example of the world turned upside down has been on display the last few days. Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family."  Can you believe the hate that just pours out of this guy!? Well, his (free-for-now) speech has been labeled hateful by gay activists.

In a later radio interview, Cathy elaborated: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."  So if I have this right, Cathy sounds an alarm that our nation is going against God's biblical instruction.  And today this is called hateful.  No, more than that.  Mayors in Chicago and Boston have stated Chick-fil-A is not welcomed.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Cathy: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."

Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, and the Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids' meals.  The Jim Henson company said it has "celebrated and embraced diversity for over 50 years." It says it is directing its revenue from the Chick-fil-A toys to GLAAD, a leading gay rights organization. How nice kids.

I'll tell you what is hilarious: These gay activists demanding that Cathy and Chick-fil-A be more tolerant if they expect to do business in their town!  Their intolerance of supposed intolerance is breathtaking.

Not to be outdone, the Mayor of Pittsburgh chimed into today to say that Chick-fil-A is not welcomed.  Well neither I am then!


On the other side of the Bible and millennia of human understanding, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared next Wednesday, August 1st, "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" to support a business "whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values." 

"As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to 'Eat Mor Chikin' and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday," the Rev. Billy Graham said in a statement, referring to the slogan in the company's ads, which feature cows urging people to eat poultry.

Guess where I'll be on Wednesday?  It ain't Pittsburgh.

The Mandate is a Tax!

The Supreme Court has declared that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) is a tax and since Congress has the power to tax the law is constitutional.  Let it sink in.  The mandate is a tax.

Haven't we tortured American English enough?  Since when can a mandate be defined as a tax?  Just for fun I looked up mandate in my Webster's Dictionary.  Basically it is a command or order.  True, one can be ordered to pay a tax, but the order is not the tax.  I guess once we accepted multiple and creative definitions of "is" anything goes from our public officials.

My point is that the mere statement that the "mandate is a tax" is nonsensical, or at least an oxymoron.  And if that is the case, how could this be the basis of judging the constitutionality of this momentous legislation?

I forced myself to read some of the Supreme Court's decision.  (I don't recommend this on a full stomach.)  Right there in the first paragraph it explains the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health coverage.  Those who do not comply must make a "shared responsibility payment" (the creative language belongs to Congress here) to the Federal Government.

A few paragraphs later we learn from Chief Justice Roberts that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax.  The reason he gives is that the individual mandate commands individuals to purchase insurance and that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.  Therefore, in the following pages he explains it must be a tax.  No matter that Congress, and President Obama, went to great extremes in passing the bill to call it a penalty or a shared responsibility payment.

Does it seem to you that Roberts wanted a way for this legislation to muster the constitutional scrutiny, so a mandate becomes a tax?  His opinion says Congress does not have the power to order citizens to purchase things under the Commerce Clause (Amen), so this mandate must be a tax. The logic is: it must be a tax because that is the only way we can uphold this thing!

In trying to substantiate the illogical, Chief Justice Roberts cites a previous decision, Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657, in that "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."  That's probably a good principle to keep the Court from a heavy-handed, overruling of Congress's duly passed legislation signed by the President.  However, there is no acceptable precedent  for unreasonable, no make that illogical and disastrous, construction.

Next step: repeal the Act.  To be addressed in a future blog, of course.

The Right Thing to Do?

President Obama announced unilateral changes to the country's deportation policies for young illegal immigrants yesterday (Friday June 15, 2012).  By unilateral we, of course, mean unconstitutional. Why is it that political observers on the Right are always objecting to Obama's policies as unconstitutional? Gee, I think it is because Obama is frequently trampling on the Constitution.

Here is another example of Obama using an "Executive Order" to enact a policy that is clearly against current law.  We have immigration laws, passed by Congress, that the executive branch is obliged to enforce. Obama, with a straight face, announced that this new policy of ignoring laws passed by Congress is "the right thing to do."  You got it; when questioned about this blatant disregard of the Constitution, Obama said it is the right thing to do!

Obama's policies would allow certain young illegal immigrants a renewable two-year deferral from deportation and provide eligibility to apply for work.  It's sorta like a get-out-of-jail-free card.  (Although liberals would tell us this provides "undocumented" individuals a needed get-out-of the-shadows card.) 

Obama's new policy would apply to those who are younger than 30 and came to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 with their illegal immigrant parents.  They would need to have lived illegally in the U.S. for at least 5 continuous years and, while being illegal immigrants be attending school or have graduated from a high school, or be illegal immigrants serving in the military (how does that happen?). 

If this sounds to you like it would be almost impossible to enforce you would be correct.  And that is probably part of the reason for Obama's Executive Order.  He knows very well that overwhelmed immigration officials could not possibly do the investigation to determine an illegal aliens status under the policy.  They would simply ignore all young, or young looking, illegal immigrants, granting them de facto amnesty.  In addition, the policy would be a magnet for fraud and inducement for more illegals to enter the country with their young.

These illegal young people are basically the people that the so-called DREAM Act was geared for.  Oh, and this act was NOT passed by Congress.You see, these policies were proposed and debated in Congress.  In an unusual instance of clarity and display of backbone the act was rejected.  Apparently a majority of Congress, our national legislature and representatives of the people, decided against such a law.  Obama wanted to do "the right thing," though, and found it necessary to circumvent Congress and the people and enact the law by kingly fiat.

I repeat my call for Congress to stand up for the Constitution.  Do not cede your delegated power to a tyrant.  Any member of Congress who thinks this Executive Order is the right thing to do has abrogated their duty to the Constitution and is not worthy of the office.