Third Daily Look at the Obama/Demorat Record

Second Daily Look at the Obama/Demorat Record

Quick (and Sensible) Budget Fix

Comic's Editorial Comment

The White House is now urging Americans not to "read too much" into last week’s jobs report. In fact, they said it would be best if you didn’t read it at all.

. . . Jay Leno

First Daily Look at the Obama/Demorat Record

Where In the Process Are We Now?

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.

. . . Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 1

1787

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

. . . James Madison

Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention

1788

No Comment Necessary

From Mr. Jefferson

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

. . . Thomas Jefferson

Letter to Thomas Cooper

1802

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

. . . Thomas Jefferson

Letter to John Taylor

1816

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

. . . Thomas Jefferson

Letter to William Ludlow

1824

Health Tip

No Comment Necessary

[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.

. . . Candidus

In the Boston Gazette

1772

What Time Is It Now?

There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.

. . . Peter Muhlenberg

From a Lutheran sermon

read at Woodstock, Virginia

1776

In Dependence . . . on Unlimited Government

Thank Goodness We're Free to Choose

A Black-Robed Political Shyster for Our Time

In a piece of legal  craftsmanship worthy of a first-year student (who had not yet taken a basic constitutional law class) at one of the nation’s less-than-stellar law schools, the Supreme Court’s chief shyster has come down – way down – on the side of upholding Obamacare.

Shamefully, his decision clearly was a political rather than a legal one. He succumbed to a highly visible and virulent campaign by liberal politicians and media figures who always decry as political any legal ruling that doesn’t go their way.  An editorial in the July 3 edition of The Wall Street Journal accurately noted that . . . the integrity of liberal justices who reliably line up for whatever outcome is desired by the Democratic Party goes unquestioned. Indeed, the definition of integrity assumes one direction. 

Apparently embarrassed by what he was doing, the author of the deciding opinion sought cover for himself in two ways. First, he tried (without success) to get one of his supposedly fellow conservative jurists to join him in switching sides. And second, he sought exculpation by writing that it is not the job of the court to protect the nation's citizens from their poor electoral choices . . .  neglecting to add that it is not the job of Supreme Court justices to engage in unprecedented legal contortions to achieve a desired political result.

The flaws in the decision and its potential consequences, which go far beyond health care, are spelled out in this excellent Wall Street Journal essay, and in detail by the panelists in the superb Cato Institute forum that can be viewed by clicking here.  

The upshot of all this is that the nation’s high court now has a cowardly political chief who lacks the integrity and character that is called for by the job he occupies. The court and the nation deserve better.

Hooray for New Hampshire

The free state now has fully informed as well as free juries:

New Hampshire's General Court passed it, and on Friday June 22, 2012, the state's governor of New Hampshire has signed it. The law of the state, at RSA Sec. 519:23-a, now provides: 

Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.


For  more information and details on this restoration (in one of the nation's 50 states) of a meaningful right to a trial by a jury of one's peers (without it being compelled to follow the dictates of black robed oligarchs) see this full report.

A Way to Curb the Court

Proposed Amendment XXVIII

to the

Constitution of the United States of America

            Section 1.  Any decision by the Supreme Court against a claim by a private party of governmental infringement of the private party’s rights under the Constitution or invalidating as unconstitutional any state law and any such decision by an inferior court that the Supreme Court refuses to review shall, if at least [twenty percent (20%) or thirty percent (30%)] of the judges of the Supreme Court dissent from such decision or refusal, be subject to further review by the people of the United States as provided in this Amendment.

            Section 2.   Decisions specified in Section 1 shall be submitted to, and affirmed or reversed by a majority vote of the people at the election of members of the House of Representatives next following the decision or refusal by not less than 180 days.

            Section 3.   Only the dissenting opinion or opinions in cases in which a court decision is reversed by a vote of the people may serve as precedents for any subsequent decision by the Supreme Court or any inferior court. 

            Section 4.  This Amendment shall become effective immediately upon its adoption; provided, however, that there also shall be subject to this Amendment and affirmation or reversal by a majority vote of the people at the election of members of the House of Representatives next following adoption of this Amendment by not less than 90 days the decisions of the Supreme Court in: Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, decided June 23, 2005; Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454, decided June 6, 2005; Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633, decided March 1, 2005; McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, No. 02-1674, decided December 10, 2003; Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102, decided June 26, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241, decided June 23, 2003; [add recent objectionable decisions including those in the Arizona immigration and Obamacare cases].

Fair Is Fair, Mr. Holder

Where the Court Took Us

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

. . . James Madison

Letter to Edmund Pendleton

1792

*     *     *     *     *

With its Obamacare ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court destroyed the last vestiges of Constitutional restrictions on the ability of congress to encroach without any limitations on all but a few specific and narrowly defined rights of individuals and the states.

Chief Justice John Robber and his cohorts have made it clear that individual liberties and a free society probably will require restoration by people doing more with their firearms than just clinging to them.