The Constitution on Homosexuals

This has always been a funny issue for me, namely because of my religious upbringing and schooling. It has always been preached that homosexuals are evil humans that are perverting them selves for their own pleasure. Whether that is true or not is up to debate in that arena – in the government arena we have different questions. These questions deal with rights and legal consequences.

I will address two major questions as a fan of small government and constitutional thinking would (not as a religiously focused individual person I am) because that is the only opinion that matters when dealing with laws.

First, can homosexuals get married?

In the present system, states define who can and cannot get married. Under the Constitution, they have that power: under amendment ten. Any powers not given to the federal government are given to the states, powers not used by the states are given to the people – that is simple constitutional thinking. Therefore, if Georgia wants it to be illegal for homosexuals to get married in their state, they have that right. If California wants it to be legal for homosexuals to get married in their state, more power to you.

Ideally, I would like to see states get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage is a religiously defined institution. God came up with the idea according to Judeo-Christian belief systems, and other belief systems. Why does anyone want the government to become a de facto leader and council for their religious organizations. In an ideal system, the individual churches, synagogues, and temples would choose according to their individual religious texts whether or not homosexuals can get married. All laws favoring (or in the present culture, not favoring) marriage should be taken off the books. Let the religious institution not be tampered by government.

Secondly, can homosexuals volunteer in the military?

I would like to begin with a quote from the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee and Republican Senator from Arizona from 1953 until 1987, Barry M. Goldwater:

"After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it 'a bit of an old chestnut'"

Barry Goldwater is correct – homosexuals have served there country honorably and will continue to serve there country honorably. The root question lies, why does it really matter?

Does anyone honestly think that two American soldiers are going to get into a gun fight because another solider is gay?

Do they think a gay solider is going to rape another solider because they think they are attractive?

If these are really the case, than why do they allow women into the military – wait, because adultery is a punishable crime in the military. So, if a gay man cheated on his gay husband, he would be kicked out on the same charges.

It appears to me that this is type of thinking is designed for only one thing – to divide the American people from fighting the real social battles and the true problems facing this country: the rapid detraction of the liberties of the people, the enslavement of the youth of the country in military drafts, and a tax code that is stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars away from the working peoples of this country, and a Federal Reserve Board that is lining their pockets with our tax money.

As long as the people are divided, thought to think everyone is groups instead of as one American People, we will continue down the slipping slope down the road to serfdom until we can not remember, nor recognize the country we once lived in.

Obama Does Something Right – Kinda…

I can not believe I am about to type this…

Obama is right.

Ok – the shock is over.

Obama has done the first thing I can actually say I am proud of and it has to do with his education reform. He is letting local school districts make the choice to raise their mediocre standards or not get any federal money.

Obama is to the right of Bush on education!!!!

Despite this pleasant change – local school districts shouldn't have to have Uncle Sam's money as an incentive to raise the standards. If any school district is able to raise the standard after Obama implements this program – they should have there school board fired. It is obvious in that case that these "public servants" are only after money.

Another slight problem: more than likely, the money will still go to the big city schools with the lowest SAT scores and highest drop out rates after the states get their hands on the money

Also – the Secretary of Education ultimately gets to choose which schools gets the money, and you know that he has the opportunity to favor some districts and states over others.

So – corruption in Washington will more than likely destroy the good intentions of Obama. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

This is why the founding fathers did not want education at the federal level, and why the Department of Education should be abolished, but this plan is better than the Bush administrations "Let Every Child Pass" Program that has caused the students in our Middle Schools and High Schools to become increasingly dumb.

The best plan would to eliminate the Department of Education at the federal level, and allow the states to compete without Uncle Sam's money as a grand prize. It worked before Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, and it can work today.

Budget Stupidity: Food Prices

Alright – their are several things I think government shouldn't be doing.

The following two programs are on the top of my list, and they go hand in hand:

Farmer Subsidies and Food Stamps.

I know, I must sound cruel and insensitive to farmers and the under-privileged – but am I the only one that realizes that these two institutions are counter-productive.

The Government has spent $177,589,000,000 between the years 1996 and 2006 to tell farmers not to grow food.

The official reason the program was started during the Great Depression was to keep food prices high to prevent all of the farmers from going bankrupt to the whims of foreign competition.

So, it keeps food prices artificially high, costing Americans more every year of the food they have to have.

Thats the first step…

…once you can't afford food according to the government list of qualifications, they will pay for your food.

The SNAP program, and other food stamp programs, cost an estimated 61.5 billion dollars in the 2010 budget. That is $61,500,000,000. That is NOT including the millions of dollars these programs received in the Obamanation Stimulus Plan of 2009.

That sounds great at first – but why is the food expensive?

Because they are MAKING it that way with the farm subsidies.

With one hand, they hand billions of dollars to the farmers not to grow in order to keep prices high and with the other hand they are handing billions of dollars to families that now cannot afford food because the farmers are not growing it.

And than here is the kicker – the Constitution does not give Congress the right to do ANY of this.

If Congress would simply LIVE BY THERE OATH OF OFFICE, we would not be handing billions upon trillions of dollars to people in this counter-productive cycle.

In the Time I've Been AWOL

Ok, I have FIVE things to say:

First – sorry for my absence. School was crazy.

Second – Obama has lost the little respect I have for him. He is simply a racist that has used the false promise of hope to get elected. I would say Bush was better, but he promised to end the nation building of the Clinton years. I guess it's all in the family.

Third – I have lost the little respect I had for the GOP. The party went from being Go Bail-Out and McCain canceling his campaign to "Get It Passed" to hating bail-outs. The reason appears to be simple – the president is not a Republican anymore. Therefore the "Grand Old Party" is simply the Old Party. I don't like the old (or new) idea of socialism or fascism. So GOP is now on my list of political parties I will never vote for. Congrats – you have joined the list of shame. I am stuck to choose between my self-imposed two party system now. Libertarian or Constitution. At least it is a choice. The DNC and GOP are simply the same party with a different letter. Do you like the letter R or D. Maybe we can have a system where if your last name starts with letters A-M you are a Democrat and N-Z you are a Republican. Honestly, that is the biggest difference between the two parties. It is sad.

Fourth – I read FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom again. It applies SO much to our time, it is incredible. If everyone in the US were to read that book – both the GOP and DNC would have to take up actual stances they truly believe in, or would cease to exists. Either of those two options seem alright to me right now.

Fifth – Minimum wage went up – yet my pay check didn't change. I wonder if politicians will figure out that minimum wage actually doesn't increase our wages. It does allow us to get second jobs – but the forced wage hike, economic collapse they created, and the tax code that prevents me from keeping MOST of my paycheck (and I earn minimum wage) has done the great job of preventing that.

Obama Congressional Speech Analysis: Back In the Days of Jackson

“And though all of these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations...

Regulations -- regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

President Obama confronts the touchiest subject in government, how to spend the money. As Ron Paul has mentioned in countless speeches and forums, government in the United States have taken the word “compromise” to mean spend the money on both Democrat and Republican projects, increasing the debt and causing money to vanish from tax payers pockets.

He is correct, however, of his assessment, more than likely because he was in the meeting causing this entire deficit. Senator have the power to stop a budget that is not balanced, but he had done nothing to stop it. Now he is President, so his voice will be heard, right?

Obama than looks at history. Surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy. President Van Buren did do all of this to the surplus Andrew Jackson created; the last time the United States had a surplus. What this has to do with our current situation, I do not know. Maybe, President Obama is try to sneak a punch at the Federal Reserve, reminding them when Democrat Andrew Jackson shut down the Bank of the United State, creating the first and only surplus in the United States.

What am I saying!

Obama is referring to the budget surplus of the Clinton Administration, a creation of the Republican Congress defeating Hillary Care. He is stating that this budget surplus should have been spent on the project the Clinton Administration wanted to spend it on. He is trying to stretch a rumor. Yes, there was a surplus in the budget, but that means that we could start to pay off our debts; not start to gain more. A budget surplus is not a surplus, just a profit in taxes. The United States was still in a deficit.

On the housing crisis, President Obama, it was the Democrats that created the loan regulations to allow the banks to spread the wealth and give loan to those they knew could not pay it off. It would have been in their interest to not give these people money, but the Fed made them, Congress made them. It is your fault we are in this mess, Congress and all of it’s members that did not fight against this. Republican and Democrat, Left and Neo-Right. The True Right, those like Ron Paul, was against this, trying to stop it, but you did not listen. We are now in this mess because the government forced banks to give people loans that the banks knew people could not pay. In the Free Market, those people would not have been given loans, but when the Government gives banks a way out, it is a win-win situation. Goodness, just stop trying to help, you are bleeding the economy to death!

Obama Congressional Speech Analysis: Our Schools are Terrible and It's Your Fault, not ours!

“Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities, as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or to look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy, yet we import more oil today than ever before.

The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.

Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.”

The first line made me laugh. He admits that the government isn’t doing its job, than blames the people for it. In other words it is like Obama is saying,

"You chose to vote in these Republicans and they increased spending and caused a huge massive defect with their wars. You should have voted in Democrats to increase spending and taxes causing a massive debt fighting our social wars."

It made me laugh, wasn't he a Junior Senator from Illinois? I guess he didn't think he could change things as a Senator, it is only a minor position, right? Isn't that what Junior means; a person with low rank or status compared with others. Than, he tries to explain this blame game away by saying it is so we can “understand how we arrived at this moment.” I though earlier he said, “You don't need to hear another list of statistics...” Isn’t this another statistic. Oh, I guess he meant not to list statistics that deal with his political parties motives and ideas.

He than gives us more statistics, our economy did not decline over night. He is absolutely correct, it began to decline in the 1990’s. Dot Com boom and bust anyone? The logical thing to do is blame the institution that caused this mess, the Federal Reserve, right?

Than, instead of confronting the institution that led to this crisis, he goes to social engineering, community organizer, "health care is to expensive and our schools are in decline so we need to socialize them" garbage. Our health care is... was the best in the world, until Nixon began to regulate it in the 1970's. HMO was the United States first socialization of medicine. It worked out great, our system is now second to the French!* The only logical solution is to give the people that wrecked health care more control, because that just makes sense. No one would ever to think to let doctors set their own prices and compete in the open market. No one would think to allow the pharmacutical companys to set their own prices. No, that would take lobbying out of medicine, and that would hurt the economy because it would take those jobs away – unless of course it is replaced by government jobs, than we should change it.

Education totals are also lies. Our schools are view to be equal to France and greater than Germany, Belgium, and other European Social Democracies.† I guess Germany needs to reorganize their education as well, they won’t be able to compete with those dirty Americans and French with their good high schools. Maybe he was thinking about colleges? American colleges consistently rank higher than French, German, Dutch, and other European colleges. The only competition is Cambridge in England (might I point out, it was establish a good many years before Harvard and Stanford, two school mainly competing for the number one spot on the college ranking sheets). Of the top ten univeristies, 8 are American (Harvard (1), Stanford (2), Cal Berkeley (3), MIT (5), CalTech (6), Columbia (7), Princeton (8), and University of Chicago (9)) of which 4 are private and 4 are public, and 2 are British public schools (Oxford (4) and Cambridge(10)). I guess we must assume that these two college represent the rest of the world and educate the rest of the world equally.ª

* "Sicko", Micheal Moore
† "Uberpower: The Imperial Temptation of America", Josef Joffe
ª http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm

Obama Congressional Speech Analysis: We the Politicians to You, the People

“But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

More motivational jargon with little to back it up, Obama continues his speech by speaking to the American people directly. The purpose of the Joint-Congressional speeches of old were to speak directly to Congress, today it is a chance to speak to the people. It is a good thing that he is trying to motivate us to move on with our lives, but we also need to remain real with the situations that are affecting us, or we will be doomed to repeat it.

“The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."

"Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.”

Obama sets his agenda in these paragraphs and moves towards addressing Congress and not the American people. He wants America to unite together, under that banner of the Government. In the guise of Uncle Sam of old, we have Uncle Obama today urging the American people to keep up with their patriotic duty. He than gets “honest” about the economic situation, and admits that this was not just Bush’s fault, but all of Congress.

Obama Congressional Speech Analysis: Intoduction

"Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, and the first lady of the United States, who's around here somewhere.

I have come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here.

I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others, and rightly so. If you haven't been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has: a friend, a neighbor, a member of your family.

You don't need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It's the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It's the job you thought you'd retire from but now have lost, the business you built your dreams upon that's now hanging by a thread, the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope.

The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere."

President Obama begins his speech by stating facts that have shaped our economy. His thesis of this speech becomes what is the governments response to this economic collapse. It is a noble goal, but today I will call into question the constitutionality and results of these words and speeches.

Through the coming days, I will be taking this speech, part by part, and show what this results of these words and phrases upon the American economy and people.

Owen's Manifesto

In the early 1820's, a Scottish industrialist attempted to create a new type of society in the Indiana Wilderness. The town of New Harmony was the location, as the western world saw the rise of a new era. Robert Owen called his new philosophy of life Socialism – a movement that sparked a revolution in modern society and culture.

What is true socialism?

The answer is found in Robert Owen's Declaration of Mental Independence. In this pivotal, yet seemingly unknown document, Owen declares war on the "hydra of evils." The "evil Trinity" that the new man must defeat, according to Owen, is "private, or individual property -- absurd and irrational systems of religion -- and marriage, founded on individual property combined with some one of these irrational system of religion."

In order to truly understand the modern political movements found within culture carrying the Socialist or Marxist banner – of which is the Communist, Labour, and Socially Democratic political parties – is to understand the creator of the movement. The New Harmony experiment called for, and put into practice, the end of all private property, marriage, and organized religion. Modern luxury, such as publicly owned schooling for children (beginning at Pre-School and ending with a College education), free food and water to all citizens, equal rights for woman and children, and fair labor practices were instituted and performed (with some chaos). The project ultimately failed, despite the great and universal want for success with the intellectuals that crowded the street and homes of New Harmony.

Why did it fail?

Robert Owen admitted the reason why it failed was because there were to many thinkers and not enough doers. Owen submits that his experiment would have succeeded if their had been more people working the fields and less people thinking about an equal society. The society was unable to support itself because the population could not feed itself, but instead thought about what the world should be. They lived in a fantasy of what they wanted, and failed to see what they had.

In this we have the problem with the Socialistic system. The class structure remains, but is based upon the intellect of the individual. If society were to dictate that one man should think in the offices and another work in the fields, who has done more physical labor (therefore needing more calories to achieve the desire goal of society.). The worker in the fields deserves more food under logic, but in this society the worker in the fields received equal that that of the office worker, who produced nothing tangible physically. The Marxist attempts to solve this problem by eliminating the thinker altogether, but fails to provide the motivation for the worker to think. The New Harmony experiment failed over a century and a half ago, but the intellectuals and high thinkers of modern culture to this date still believe the dream is possible.

Works Cited
1) Heaven on Earth. Public Broadcasting Company, 2006. Youtube. 1 Jan. 2009. 24 Feb. 2009 .

2) "Owen1826." Indiana University. 24 Feb. 2009 .

3) Seth. "The Rise and Fall of Socialism." Weblog post. Seth's Opinion Matters. 23 Feb. 2009. 23 Feb. 2009 .

What If?

A Quick Summary:

• More Government Spending (actually a whole lot more)
• More War (Iraq and Afghanistan)
• Possible Draft
• Worry and Stress about the next days
• Will we still be employed
• Will the dollar have value
  

What happened to hope?

In some sort of sick, twisted irony; both political parties are controlled by the same people. The media is controlled by those same people and the banks are controlled by those same people.



It makes me sick. This guy might actually know what he is talking about, but he can't seem to get heard.

Who do we hear:

• The same people that had the power to stop this before and did nothing.
• The same people that had all the right answers in October, and did everything they could to save the economy.
• The same people that told us that war stimulates the economy as the good old text books say about WWII.
• The same people that got us into this mess and claim that using the ideas that got us into the mess can get us out!

Maybe we should listen to someone else.

World War Two Economics? Really?

"Not since World War II has America spent so much money so quickly. In the last two years, the United States has run up deficits that amount to a combined $2.5 trillion dollars -- almost a fourth of all the debt the nation has taken on in its entire history."
America's Deficit-Spending Spree Raises Alarms - Fox News

As Fox News proclaimed today, the government is spending money as quickly as it had during World War II. This idea would trouble the conservative spenders, who dislike deficits and understand basic economic principles. The said fact is that most students learn that World War II led the United States out of the Great Depression. The logic then becomes that this is a good thing for the country. But is it really good?

Let take a good hard look at what the result of these policy will lead. The youth of America will owe China and other friendly countries big bucks. The American dollar will be depreciated, like during the 1930's and 40's to reflect the large amount of cash in circulation. I know we all can't wait until and Hersey's Chocolate bar is $2.50 and a Coca-Cola is $3.00 at the Dollar Tree! Why would this be?

Basic economic law states that the more a good (money for example) is in the market, the lower the value. So, American money is being increased while those with the powers to end the mess (the Republicans under Bush and the Democrats under Obama) have done absolutely nothing to stop the spending. Ben Bernanke, continues to give the US government unlimited IOU's.

The Economy will correct itself, the longer we delay the inevitable, the worse it will be. Example, the Great Depression. The Great Depression shows us the fruits of the Federal Reserves labor. Past Recessions pale in comparison to this bust because the powers that be understood that when the government has control of an economy, such things will happen. The modern American is so concerned with the comfort of TV and Radio and Video Games that they are not willing to allow the economy to work.

"The Republican need to save us!" In the election year, the Republicans under Bush were willing to bail out anyone (unless you were the competitor for the Secretary of the Treasury's company!) and everyone. They lost, because the policy were going to fail! (and did)

"The Democrats need to save us!" After the Republicans failed by increasing speeding, the Democrats attempt to try the same thing! It like they actually wanted the Republicans to loose in order to do the exact same thing. The Democrats mixed it up a bit, they increased internal government spending along with giving the Banking and Auto industry money.

I guess we need to give up on the Democrats and Republicans, because they can't seem to figure out what every American family facing foreclosure has discovered – when a person, company, government, increases their spending without increasing their revenue they will face bankruptcy, other forms economic failure, or a combination of the two.

So, what does this have to do with Constitutional Thinking?
It is impossible for the Constitution to function properly if the people do not hold their elected officials accountable. The only way a person can hold an elected official accountable, is by threatening them with lose of office. But, as this situation has shown, the Democrat and Republican Parties show very little difference in policy choices. The only way we can get into their head that we, the People, do not want this spending, do not want this lifestyle, that we do not want to pay for the education of the Chinese and Iranian children with our tax dollars is by voting for third parties.

Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc. They have not yet been corrupted by politics, and might be a way out politically.

Sources
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/20/americas-deficit-spending-spree-raises-alarms/
Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism written by Robert P. Murphy
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History written by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Gordon Brown's Economics

Yesterday, Gordon Brown announced "The Road to the London Summit, the Plan for Recovery." Apart of this document is the plan to set up an international board on the regulations of banks around the world. This board was questioned by the ABC News member of the press core. The response of PM Gordon Brown was to be lacking, as in he dodged the question all together. Brown's program would allow an international body of bankers to control all Federal and Private banks in the United States.

What does this have to do with Constitutional Thinking? President Obama is an international socialist, rated as the most leftist member of Congress in 2007. Obama is less than likely to "preserve... the Constitution of the United States" by fighting against an international regulation and internationalizing of the banking systems of the United States designed (according to Gordon Brown) to prevent American Banks from fleeing Europe (specifically Eastern Europe) in order to put domestic problems first. His overall stance on this initiative is as follows according to the Official White House agenda,

"To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy."
(Italics added for emphasis)

Barrack Obama views the "retrofit" of the American towards a globalization as the infrastructure of the country, in the same light as roads, schools, and bridges. The Constitution, however, does not share this same view. On the contrary, the Tenth Amendment, which state, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Due to the fact that banking regulation was not mentioned as a power of Congress under the First Article, the President under the Second Article, or the Judiciary under the Third Article, nor prohibited by the States under the Fourth Article; this power is given to the States, and not President Obama. The only Constitutional way that Obama would have the power to achieve this "retro fitting" is by a Constitutional Amendment giving the President the power to achieve this "retro fitting." It is safe to say that this proposal for G20 this year in London will be approved by Obama as an executive agreement between the United States and the World in order to "retro fit" the American economy with the Global Economic Unity projects of Europe, the Far Left, and the Neo-Conservative Movement (which ironically began under the popular President Bush). However, it is a matter of precedence, dating back to John Adams, for Presidents to ignore the Constitution and the Judiciary, dating back to John Marshal, to ignore the Presidential abuse.



Sources

1. http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-18-voa38.cfm
2. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2490170.0.Brown_unveils_economic_plan_for_recovery_within_months.php
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/19/gordon-brown-apology
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/economy/
5. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
6. C-SPAN presentation of Gordon Brown monthly address of the British Economy (2 - 19 - 09)
7. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History written by Dr. Thomas Woods (Ph.D in American History)
8. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution written by Dr. Kevin R.C. Gutzman (J.D. and Ph.D in American History)
   

My Message to Our President

We the People have been watching,
After you have finished talking,
And waving to the people,
That might as be sheeple.
Yes we can permute.

And after the time is done,
And rhetoric opens from
The pain of lost complacency,
And the country will be angry.
Yes we can endure.

When public opinion falters
Will the face change alter,
Or will you be the Sumter
And face the enemy without slumber.
Yes we can live on.

Will you drive out the elite,
And take out the deceit.
Or will you an equivalent,
And increase their benevolence.
Yes we can struggle.

In the end, your oratory
Must be backed by activity.
Not leading the sheep away,
But through the straight and narrow way.
Yes we can resolve.

------------------------------------------------------------

You have one strike against you, Mr. President Obama.

You are destroying the lives of children by supporting and immoral and uncivil practice that will murder the lives of hundreds of children, everyday.

Not only in our country, but around the world.

Veto your own illegal legislation, on government sponsored abortions!