The Liberal War on the Constitution and Religion
The battle launched by Barack Hussein Obama’s administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions violate their collective consciences and church law on artificial birth control has less to do with contraception than with liberal disdain for America’s Constitution.
The ongoing uproar over contraception simply reinforces the disdain shown when our alleged “constitutional scholar” president arrogantly complained to Matt Lauer that Congress was impeding his insatiable lust for power and autocratic rule by performing checks and balances on the executive branch and by his earlier declaration that he would, unconstitutionally, bypass the legislative branch to accomplish his goals.
The president was recently joined by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in his public contempt for the US Constitution.
Arch-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on Egyptian television, praised other national constitutions, but said of ours, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” As a member of SCOTUS, Ginsburg is charged with interpreting that 225 year old document yet doesn’t consider it worthy of emulation.
As a reminder to the constitutional scholar . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12673.)
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Misperceptions and Misconceptions on War and Oil
Misperceptions and Misconceptions on War and Oil
Old Heraclitus knew the only constant was change. Most moderns also perceive the undeniable truth that nothing stands still and that nothing endures indefinitely. One need only refer to politicians to understand the mutability of their most deep-seated beliefs.
Take America’s distinctly non-Heraclitean Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden. Good Ol’ Joe has never been at a loss for words, especially when he can mangle them and his thoughts better than his boss or when he can simply be obtuse.
Like his boss, his beliefs and opinions are written on the wind and he was markedly windy when, among other utterances, and after deep study of the Constitution, he eruditely concluded that, ”The Founding Fathers had vested the power to authorize even the limited use of military force in the Congress not the president—unless it was necessary for the president to act swiftly to repel an attack on the United States or to rescue U.S. citizens:” http://bit.ly/h8uSRp
That was then, in 1998 as the senior senator from the State of Delaware. Now, as VP during the reign of Obama, he remains eerily silent as the president launches an undeclared war in Lybia without so much as an obeisance, a request for a consult, or a May I? from Congress. For all his faults, GWB did his constitutional duty with Iraq and Afghanistan and received the advice and consent of Congress before going to war.
The more things change, the more Joe changes as does President Changeling, the constitutional scholar, who also flipflopped on the Constitution last weekend.
When asked on December 20th, 2007 during his campaign for the presidency when a president “would have the authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress,” candidate Obama was adamant in declaring virtually never: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation:” http://bit.ly/eGkLhT
George W. Bush was commander in chief in December 2007, Barack Hussein Obama in March 2011. Either Libya was about to attack America last week or Obama acted in violation of the Constitution when we hurled Tomahawk missiles at Khadafy. Or, everyone, including members of his own party, are misreading the law of the land.
Another misconceived perception is the illogical belief that if America pumps more oil, we would have more oil. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3937)
Old Heraclitus knew the only constant was change. Most moderns also perceive the undeniable truth that nothing stands still and that nothing endures indefinitely. One need only refer to politicians to understand the mutability of their most deep-seated beliefs.
Take America’s distinctly non-Heraclitean Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden. Good Ol’ Joe has never been at a loss for words, especially when he can mangle them and his thoughts better than his boss or when he can simply be obtuse.
Like his boss, his beliefs and opinions are written on the wind and he was markedly windy when, among other utterances, and after deep study of the Constitution, he eruditely concluded that, ”The Founding Fathers had vested the power to authorize even the limited use of military force in the Congress not the president—unless it was necessary for the president to act swiftly to repel an attack on the United States or to rescue U.S. citizens:” http://bit.ly/h8uSRp
That was then, in 1998 as the senior senator from the State of Delaware. Now, as VP during the reign of Obama, he remains eerily silent as the president launches an undeclared war in Lybia without so much as an obeisance, a request for a consult, or a May I? from Congress. For all his faults, GWB did his constitutional duty with Iraq and Afghanistan and received the advice and consent of Congress before going to war.
The more things change, the more Joe changes as does President Changeling, the constitutional scholar, who also flipflopped on the Constitution last weekend.
When asked on December 20th, 2007 during his campaign for the presidency when a president “would have the authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress,” candidate Obama was adamant in declaring virtually never: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation:” http://bit.ly/eGkLhT
George W. Bush was commander in chief in December 2007, Barack Hussein Obama in March 2011. Either Libya was about to attack America last week or Obama acted in violation of the Constitution when we hurled Tomahawk missiles at Khadafy. Or, everyone, including members of his own party, are misreading the law of the land.
Another misconceived perception is the illogical belief that if America pumps more oil, we would have more oil. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3937)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Obamacare Unconstitutional! The Gaffe Machine Gets His Comeuppance
Obamacare Unconstitutional! The Gaffe Machine Gets His Comeuppance
Now that Senior Federal Judge Clyde Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida has thrown out as unconstitutional Obama’s historic gaffe, the Patient Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, less than affectionately known as Obamacare, it may be time to review what Michelle Malkin calls “The Gaffe Machine.”
Preliminary reports as of noon EST, January 31, 2011 are that Judge Vinson ”ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, ‘because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void:’ “http://tiny.cc/goo4l
That determination comes as no surprise to many observers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who knew from the outset that Obamacare was both an abominable and unconstitutional federal power grab. However, Democrats rushed for passage of the 2309 page bill, were so hell-bent on ramming the monstrosity down the throats of Americans, were so busy that no one bothered even to read it before voting on it. Too bad. The nation and the president might have been spared the debacle that is the PPPACA.
It will be difficult for Obama to sluff off the significance of Vinson’s ruling and impossible for his mainstream media to provide its usual cover with this president’s mistakes and misstatements. All his previous screwups pale by comparison with the monumental gaffe of Obamacare which should be hung around his neck like a dead albatross, the ultimate symbol of a failed presidency.
It’s not so much that President makes mistakes, uses solecisms, and just says stupid things, such as confusing Iraq with Afghanistan the other day. We all make mistakes. It’s that they have either been totally ignored by most of his mainstream media or, if mentioned at all when they somehow become public knowledge, were quickly buried and forgotten as if they never happened or were never spoken.
That same MSM seems to possess a preternatural ability to publicize, retain, and enshrine in its archives to be dredged up on command any slip by Republicans such as George W. Bush or, more lately, by Sarah Palin, but they have done Barack Hussein Obama a major disservice: They made him think and believe his pre-and post-election press, that he was flawless, that he was a modern messiah, that he could virtually walk on water, was real and true.
Had the MSM humanized him, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3530)
Now that Senior Federal Judge Clyde Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida has thrown out as unconstitutional Obama’s historic gaffe, the Patient Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, less than affectionately known as Obamacare, it may be time to review what Michelle Malkin calls “The Gaffe Machine.”
Preliminary reports as of noon EST, January 31, 2011 are that Judge Vinson ”ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, ‘because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void:’ “http://tiny.cc/goo4l
That determination comes as no surprise to many observers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who knew from the outset that Obamacare was both an abominable and unconstitutional federal power grab. However, Democrats rushed for passage of the 2309 page bill, were so hell-bent on ramming the monstrosity down the throats of Americans, were so busy that no one bothered even to read it before voting on it. Too bad. The nation and the president might have been spared the debacle that is the PPPACA.
It will be difficult for Obama to sluff off the significance of Vinson’s ruling and impossible for his mainstream media to provide its usual cover with this president’s mistakes and misstatements. All his previous screwups pale by comparison with the monumental gaffe of Obamacare which should be hung around his neck like a dead albatross, the ultimate symbol of a failed presidency.
It’s not so much that President makes mistakes, uses solecisms, and just says stupid things, such as confusing Iraq with Afghanistan the other day. We all make mistakes. It’s that they have either been totally ignored by most of his mainstream media or, if mentioned at all when they somehow become public knowledge, were quickly buried and forgotten as if they never happened or were never spoken.
That same MSM seems to possess a preternatural ability to publicize, retain, and enshrine in its archives to be dredged up on command any slip by Republicans such as George W. Bush or, more lately, by Sarah Palin, but they have done Barack Hussein Obama a major disservice: They made him think and believe his pre-and post-election press, that he was flawless, that he was a modern messiah, that he could virtually walk on water, was real and true.
Had the MSM humanized him, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3530)
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama
Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama
Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1837)
Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.
Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1837)
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Rules? Who Needs 'Em?
Rules? Who Needs 'Em?
Kids generally don’t like rules whether they’re spelled out by parents or whether they’re dictated by custom yet most also generally conduct their lives according to the rules if only to avoid the repercussions for breaking them. Most kids innately understand that without rules life as well as the games they play would be chaotic.
Congressional Democrats don’t seem to understand what kids do and trample on rules established in order that congressional business is conducted in a fair and judicious manner.
Last month during the non-debate over Obamacare we witnessed an obscene disregard for the rules set forth in the Constitution and the written and unwritten laws of deorous behavior attendant on lawmaking.
Repeatedly, various Democratic congresspeople voiced doubts about facets of the Obamacare bill that they felt were unconstitutional–for example, forcing Americans to buy health insurance. However, almost to the man or woman they voted for it anyway.
Time and again they departed from the bounds of moral behavior–such as publically bribing Senator Mary Landrieu in order to secure her vote–in the monomaniacal interest of passing their leader’s legacy law.
Usually, people are discreet about breaking the rules and manufacture stratagem, and lies, to hide their brazen behavior. However, that wasn’t the case with two Democrats recently, Reps. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Phil Hare of Illinois, both of whom flouted the rules and seemed proud about it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1612)
Kids generally don’t like rules whether they’re spelled out by parents or whether they’re dictated by custom yet most also generally conduct their lives according to the rules if only to avoid the repercussions for breaking them. Most kids innately understand that without rules life as well as the games they play would be chaotic.
Congressional Democrats don’t seem to understand what kids do and trample on rules established in order that congressional business is conducted in a fair and judicious manner.
Last month during the non-debate over Obamacare we witnessed an obscene disregard for the rules set forth in the Constitution and the written and unwritten laws of deorous behavior attendant on lawmaking.
Repeatedly, various Democratic congresspeople voiced doubts about facets of the Obamacare bill that they felt were unconstitutional–for example, forcing Americans to buy health insurance. However, almost to the man or woman they voted for it anyway.
Time and again they departed from the bounds of moral behavior–such as publically bribing Senator Mary Landrieu in order to secure her vote–in the monomaniacal interest of passing their leader’s legacy law.
Usually, people are discreet about breaking the rules and manufacture stratagem, and lies, to hide their brazen behavior. However, that wasn’t the case with two Democrats recently, Reps. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Phil Hare of Illinois, both of whom flouted the rules and seemed proud about it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1612)
Saturday, January 9, 2010
"We the People"
“We the People”
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Those stirring 52 words of the Preamble to America’s Constitution, which has been called the most perfect political document in the history of man, are words which many of us have forgotten and which many of our leaders have abandoned.
They assert the rights of “the people” to seek perfection in our system of governing and government even though the framers understood perfection was beyond the reach of man. They call for justice and peace within our borders, security from foreign invasion, and the well-being of our people. They seek freedom now and freedom for our future citizenry under the guidelines set forth in our Constitution.
Drafted in 1787 and adopted in 1789 by the 13 original states, in the year Anno Domini 2010, 221 years later, we have lost our way.
Singer Ray Stevens has captured . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1415)
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Those stirring 52 words of the Preamble to America’s Constitution, which has been called the most perfect political document in the history of man, are words which many of us have forgotten and which many of our leaders have abandoned.
They assert the rights of “the people” to seek perfection in our system of governing and government even though the framers understood perfection was beyond the reach of man. They call for justice and peace within our borders, security from foreign invasion, and the well-being of our people. They seek freedom now and freedom for our future citizenry under the guidelines set forth in our Constitution.
Drafted in 1787 and adopted in 1789 by the 13 original states, in the year Anno Domini 2010, 221 years later, we have lost our way.
Singer Ray Stevens has captured . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1415)
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Senator Burris' Conflict with the Constitution
Senator Burris’ Conflict with the Constitution
Democratic Party hack Roland Burris, (D-Il) who got his job as a United States senator as a result of disgraced governor Blago’s greed and because of the color of his skin, made a profound observation on Obamacare’s mandated health insurance.
Sen. Burris, a constitutional ignoramus, “pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government ‘to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.’ “
Advised in an October 21st interview with CNS that the word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution, Bumbling Burris, an over-achiever if there ever was one, blustered, “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here.”
Excuse me?
Burris then rambled on about private options, yada, yada, yada, and resorted to the Democrat default position by dredging up a number constantly in flux: ”We’ve got the 48 million people who are without it. [health insurance]”
Disregarding the fact that his number is baloney . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1309)
Democratic Party hack Roland Burris, (D-Il) who got his job as a United States senator as a result of disgraced governor Blago’s greed and because of the color of his skin, made a profound observation on Obamacare’s mandated health insurance.
Sen. Burris, a constitutional ignoramus, “pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government ‘to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.’ “
Advised in an October 21st interview with CNS that the word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution, Bumbling Burris, an over-achiever if there ever was one, blustered, “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here.”
Excuse me?
Burris then rambled on about private options, yada, yada, yada, and resorted to the Democrat default position by dredging up a number constantly in flux: ”We’ve got the 48 million people who are without it. [health insurance]”
Disregarding the fact that his number is baloney . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1309)
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
GUNS Part II
Addendum to “Guns Don’t Kill People, Liberals Do!”
Please see previous article, “Guns Don’t Kill People, Liberals Do!” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1058.
On reconsideration, that article title is woefully incorrect due to misuse of the word, “liberals.” In point of fact, that word is really another language distortion by the Left, a distortion comparable to their calling abortion “reproductive rights.”
There’s nothing remotely reproductive about aborting a pre-born baby’s life and there’s nothing even vaguely liberal about today’s American liberals.
The first definition for “liberal” on Dictionary.com is: “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs,” whereas those who purport to be libs in America are diametrically opposed to true progress or to anything remotely resembling reform in either politics or religion.
What they endorse and advocate is not progress and reform. It is nothing less than retrogression and deformity, destruction, dissolution, and deviance from what Americans have long held true and inviolable. And it is the responsibility of all Americans to resist any efforts to impose those deviances on the rest of us.
Take the whole issue of guns, for example. Conservatives are often accused of living in the past, thrashing about in antiquated ideas and seeking to preserve the outdated meanings and intent of our Constitution, such as Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
(Again, to save the writer the onerous task of repetition, please see the previous article on this subject.)
The past has many enticements, aside from outdoor plumbing. However, we do seek to preserve those beliefs which are anything but antiquated and which were, and are, the foundations of the greatest nation ever created on the planet.
We do indeed believe in less government, greater individual responsibility, moral and national integrity, and we believe in the Almighty God that helped make all we are and all we have possible.
We may not always live up to our ideals but we hold dear those values of patriotism, honor, and morality without which America would long ago have ended up on the scrapheap of so many other pretenders to greatness and success.
We are accused of being flag-wavers by liberals who often seem ashamed of our flag and we are often sarcastically reminded of the definition of patriotism by the 18th century curmudgeon, Dr. Samuel Johnson.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” but only for those who wrap themselves in a nation’s flag while living lives antithetical to that nation’s values. (Johnson also defined oats as “A grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.”)
Aside from the incessant, discredited, blather about banning of guns in order to keep our streets safer, refuted in my original article on this subject, another distortion of intent behind that lib nostrum, is absolute gun, and ammunition, control.
Such is the dream of the pacifist minions of the Left and such is the quickest path to subjugation and tyranny by unbridled, usurping government.
Similar to the proven wisdom of the adage that, “Si vis pacem, para bellum–If you wish for peace, prepare for war,” if we wish to continue as a free, independent, and democratic republic, we must be prepared to struggle and fight for that privilege.
Before some dolt reports me to the FBI as an insurrectionist, let me clarify . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)