Please have exact change.

Please forgive my recent absence from the blogging world. Nothing has changed. The world is still upside down. I can not believe what has been going on for the last few months.

I have returned to expose the political insanity going on in this country.

Currently, I am updating the PAGE : OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: an on going saga. So those of you with limited time, don’t miss the updated CliffsNotes version of Obama’s historical presidency.

Soon I will be commenting on the 9/11 mosque, Teacher bailouts, unemployment, perpetual vacations for the ruling class, the Gulf, Obamacare, immigration  and so much more in greater detail.  Please stay tuned.

Regards,

Phantom Lady

Related posts:

1. Obama CliffsNotes… updated
2. Dumbing down of the American presidency
3. Arizona Immigration Law, read it yet??

Related posts

• The truth about America in Crisis… (1)
• Obama CliffsNotes… updated (11)
• OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: An ongoing Saga (0)
• Dumbing down of the American presidency (0)
• CNN EXPOSED at Republican debate, again… (0)

Stark:

“The Federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”

Suggested reading for all that seek to defend liberty.

REFERENCE ___ The Road to Serfdom – a book written by the Austrian-born economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek between 1940–1943, in which he “warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,”

We must understand the past to prevent the destruction of liberty today.  Rep. Stark exposes the ignorance of the constitution and the will of the American people.

By boldly asserting that the authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate not merely voluntary activity that is commercial or even ancillary thereto, but inactivity that is expressly designed to avoid entry into the relevant market, this theory effectively removes any boundaries to Congress’s commerce power–Congress could mandate anything. Under this theory, given that the American auto industry is a highly regulated commercial activity in the national marketplace (in which the federal government has invested), Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year, or a pay a “tax” equivalent to its blue book value.
…
Never in this nation’s history has the commerce power been used to require a person who does nothing to engage in economic activity. Therefore, no decision of the Supreme Court has ever upheld such a claim of power. Such a regulation of a “class of inactivity” is of a wholly different kind than any at issue in the Court’s most expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause. A mandate to enter into a contract with an insurance company would be the first use of the Commerce Clause to universally mandate an activity by all citizens of the United States.

Today, even voting is not constitutionally mandated. But, if this precedent is established, Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people

The Heritage Foundation

Related posts:

1. Healthcare legislation – a continuing liberal fiasco…
2. California… what the hell are you doing?
3. Simple TRUTH about oil in the U.S.A.

Related posts

• MICHIGAN: Whipping dog of the Dems. (1)
• REAL CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING – DEFINED (3)
• Oil, windfall profits tax & Democrats, again? (1)
• Of course we want to drill… (0)
• Obama and the Truth about HOPE/CHANGE (3)

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt, August 23, 2008

“Security” patrols stationed at polling places in Philly, Nov. 4, 2008

Nancy Pelosi at a conference about reform, June 8, 2010

Congressman Bob Etheridge attacking a college student, June 14, 2010.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Mocks Border Security Advocates, June 26, 2010.

Rep. Charlie Rangel Berates Luke Russert and MSNBC for Questions About Alleged Ethics Violations, July 22, 2010.

I guess we finally know what the Hell Nancy Pelosi was talking about:

Democrat Congressmen and Liberals…

Civil discourse is our ability to have conversation about topics about which we disagree, and our ability to listen to each others’ perspectives.

The Death of Civil discourse…

You will be missed.

R.I.P.

<sigh>

Related posts:

1. Stark Smears Troops – Dems support our troops?
2. Oil, windfall profits tax & Democrats, again?
3. Obama CliffsNotes… updated

Related posts

• Healthcare legislation – a continuing liberal fiasco… (4)
• Stark Smears Troops – Dems support our troops? (0)
• Republicans and the oil crisis? (0)
• Oil, windfall profits tax & Democrats, again? (1)
• Of course we want to drill… (0)

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: An ongoing Saga

July 15th additions now posted.

Related posts:

1. Obama accomplishments shine…
2. Michigan adds to the Bloody Battle Royal!
3. Obama; Treaties and Enemy Combatants

Related posts

• OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: An ongoing Saga (0)
• Sarah Palin – Repulican Future Shines (0)
• Obama; Treaties and Enemy Combatants (4)
• Michigan adds to the Bloody Battle Royal! (1)
• Democrats Update Racism Definition… (2)

When this case was brought, a lot of people said, “What do you mean the Second Amendment might not apply to the states?  How can that be?”   Everybody assumed that the Bill of Rights applied to individuals everywhere.

That’s what this case was about.

It’s a Chicago gun case. The Supreme Court in this ruling not only confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, but it uses discrimination and abuses against blacks after the Civil War to make the point.

The justification, in part, for the ruling is that freed slaves would not be free, were they denied the right to keep and bear arms. And so there were several rulings demanding that in addition to their new found freedom they also be granted access to the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s an amazing case when you look at this, because the conservative position, in order to be free, the Constitution must be interpreted as to what it says, and it must apply to everybody.

The Second and Fourteenth Amendments prevented recently freed slaves from remaining de facto slaves forever. If they were denied, for example, recently freed slaves denied the right to keep and bear arms, they still were not totally free. That’s what this court has said today. And yet there were four justices who disagreed with this.

Everybody who cares about how free men are kept free needs to read this ruling.

Justice Thomas on pages 42 to 46 gives a really necessary history lesson that everyone should read.

He documents how blacks were almost denied their right to keep and bear arms and thus subjected to less than full citizenship and left defenseless against those that sought to continue to control them even after the days of slavery.

The US Constitution is the greatest legal document of freedom written. It puts teeth into individual and human rights.

The left has been doing everything it can to revise and to rewrite that history and to say that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, and this ruling just obliterates their logic.

The right to bear arms, the fascinating history that accompanies it and an important role in the freeing of black Americans from discrimination and de facto bondage and slavery.

Starting on page 26 of the majority opinion, the case McDonald v. Chicago, the court supports its conclusion that the right to bear arms applies to states as well as individuals.

They demonstrate how vital the Second Amendment was to recently freed slaves:

“The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that ‘the right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.’”

In order to affirm their notion that the Second Amendment applies to everybody, not just areas of the federal government, the Bill of Rights, they cite post-slavery and the right of former slaves to have guns.

Four justices of the US Supreme Court voted as though the Second Amendment didn’t exist or as though they thought the Second Amendment was wrong or they think.

Section 14 of this ruling thus explicitly guaranteed that all citizens, black and white, would have the constitutional right to bear arms. So I guess we could say constitutional decision here, conservative court, 5-4 has used the illegal discrimination against blacks as proof of the value and intent the Second Amendment.

The liberals, if they weren’t hypocrites, ought to be cheering this reasoning and this decision. Disarming blacks post-slavery was key to preventing them from ever becoming free. The attempt was made even after slavery was declared illegal and it was ended, after the civil war they still tried to keep blacks from getting guns. And everybody back then knew, you’re not going to really be free, and you’re really not going to be an American if you’re denied the right to keep and bear arms simply because of your race.

What liberal can argue with this?

Page 28:

“In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three ‘indispensable’ ’safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.’ 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: ‘Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open –If the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”

Page 29:

“Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: ‘Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.’
‘The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South.”

The only downside is that there were four Supreme Court justices that voted against this — voted against the Second Amendment.

If the Constitution mattered to the left and these four justices on the left may as well epitomize the rest of the left in this country and around the world.  If they had their way, it wouldn’t be 5-4. That’s how close we are to the forfeiture of our freedom.

Supreme Court justices vote on the Constitution. They determine whether something is constitutional or not. The Second Amendment got voted on today, and it squeaked by 5-4.

They don’t just want to amend it. They don’t want to go to the trouble of amending it. The short-circuit way is to get enough of Obama’s people on the court and throughout the federal judiciary so they can simply repeal it by fiat, by virtue of their rulings.

Imagine if it was the First Amendment, free speech that was voted on today and it passed 5-4.  It’s inconceivable…

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS -.PDF

Related posts:

1. Supreme Court ruling on terrorist…
2. Ohio fraudulent registrations OK’d by court
3. Race, Gender and Superdelegates…

Related posts

• Supreme Court ruling on terrorist… (0)
• Populist Vs Conservative (2)
• Explaining What Makes America Great. (1)
• Conservitisim and the Republican Party (0)
• Terrorism analogies; War on Terror – Communism (0)