Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Feds shut down Amish farmer for good citing Constitution

Another case of Government intervention into our daily lives!!!

Feds shut down Amish farmer for good citing Constitution

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

“One Nation, Under God” By: David Barton

“One Nation, Under God”
By: David Barton

Despite America’s great diversity, nothing unifies Americans more than their support for public acknowledgments of God. Consider:

1. 93% want “In God we Trust” to remain on coins and currency

2. 90% support keeping “under God” in the Pledge

3. 84% support references to God in schools, government buildings, and public settings

4. 82% support voluntary school prayer

5. 76% support Ten Commandments displays on public property

6. There are few other subjects on which over three-fourths of Americans consistently agree; and while the Left complains that religious expressions are divisive, the evidence proves otherwise; religious expressions have unified Americans from the beginning.
In fact, at the first-ever meeting of Congress in 1774 when it was suggested that Congress open with prayer, some delegates predicted that the act would be divisive.

7. But John Adams reported exactly the opposite, noting that “it has had an excellent effect upon everybody here.”

8. Several Supreme Court Justices still believe that such acts are unifying, noting:
[T]he founders of our Republic knew…that nothing, absolutely nothing, is so inclined to foster among religious believers of various faiths a toleration – no, an affection – for one another than voluntarily joining in prayer together to God Whom they all worship and seek.

9. Yet the public acknowledgement of God was more than just a pleasant practice in early America; it actually formed the basis of our government philosophy – a philosophy set forth in eighty-four simple words in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government.

10. Thus, five immutable principles constitute the heart and soul of American government:

1. Government acknowledges that there is a Creator

2. Government acknowledges that the Creator gives specific inalienable rights to man

3. Government acknowledges that it exists to protect God-given rights

4. Government acknowledges that below the level of God-given rights, government powers are to be operated only with the permission of citizens – i.e., with the “consent of the governed”

5. If government fails to meet the four standards above, the people have an inalienable right to abolish that government and institute a new one that does observe the four criteria above.

Significantly, without a public and official recognition of God, there is no hope of limited government, for rights come only from God or from man. If rights come from God, then we can require man to protect those rights – as we did in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. But if our rights come from man, then man is permitted to regulate or abolish those rights, and government’s power over our lives therefore becomes absolute and unlimited, as has been the growing trend since the 1990s.

The Founders understood that irrevocable limitations can be placed on government only when God is recognized as the source of our rights; they also understood that if we became complacent in our recognition of God as the center of our lives and government, then we would lose our liberties. As Thomas Jefferson warned:

[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? – that they are not to be violated but with His wrath?

11. According to Jefferson, the only “firm basis” of our national liberties is a “conviction in the minds of the people” that our liberties are from God and that government cannot intrude into those liberties without incurring God’s wrath.

President George Washington likewise admonished:
[I]t is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.

12. President John Adams similarly urged:

[T]he safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.
13. And Samuel Adams agreed, reminding Americans:

May every citizen . . . have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of the declaration recorded in the Bible, “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [I Samuel 2:30].

14. To restore honor and restore America, we first must restore God to His rightful place in our own lives and thinking. We must then reintroduce those original principles back into the public arena, thus restoring the foundation on which our Declaration and Constitution were built and the only foundation which allows them to operate as intended.

It is time for us to re-embrace the truth of President Reagan’s warning that:
If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under!

Ani Tzarich Lalechet Achshav

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Obama Says He Deserves a Second Term; Let's Consider

Obama Says He Deserves a Second Term; Let's Consider David Limbaugh Feb 07, 2012 President Obama told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview Sunday, "I deserve a second term." Well, let's see. He had the courage to tell the Supreme Court off for daring to defy him in its campaign finance law ruling. And he did it during his State of the Union speech, when they weren't in a position to object, showing just what a marvelous tactician he is. He was not about to be stymied by an obstructionist Republican House that didn't buy into his Euro-fashionable idea that we're all going to die from catastrophic man-made global warming. So when those knuckleheads wouldn't pass cap and trade, his Environmental Protection Agency lawlessly imposed its own emission standards. He showed those Republicans. He was sick and tired of our being in Iraq, an action approved by a joint resolution of Congress, so he telegraphed a date certain to withdraw. But he wasn't going to let Republicans think he couldn't flex his own muscles in the nominal cause of freedom, so he one-upped those dolts again by intervening in Libya without consulting Congress at all, much less getting its approval. When he crammed through Obamacare against the people's will, he adroitly claimed he was acting on our behalf. Every year he's been in office, his deficits have greatly exceeded $1 trillion, and he is on course to double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10. How many presidents could pull that off? Though he has driven us to within a molecule's width of national bankruptcy and achieved -- like none of his inferior predecessors -- a downgrading of our national credit rating, he deftly managed to deflect the blame for this on Republican opposition to his wholly reckless budget plan. Not too shabby. His Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days, and he has declined to exercise leadership on this but somehow managed to shift equal blame to Republicans for their inaction. Then again, what do you expect from a man who can straight-facedly blame his predecessor for his own policy failures three years hence? He's convinced many that Republicans' only driving force is to protect unfair tax advantages for the wealthy when in fact these "wealthy" pay significantly more than middle- and lower-income earners and pay a higher rate, as well. It's not just any old Joe who without any experience can ride a perfect economic storm into the presidency and convince people against all the evidence, common sense and reason that Warren Buffett is paying a lower income tax rate than America's secretaries. That takes skills. How many presidents have you known who could pass policies to exacerbate our national debt crisis, refuse even to negotiate on entitlement reform, mischaracterize Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan as robbing seniors of their Medicare benefits, form a bipartisan deficit commission and ignore its findings, and implement an $868 billion wasteful, corrupt stimulus bill with phantom ZIP codes and no shovel-ready jobs that he promised yet boldly insist on more "stimulus" spending? How about Obama's ingenious exploitation of the Gulf oil spill to impose a Draconian drilling moratorium on the evil oil industry while encouraging drilling in Cuba and Brazil and his brilliant end run around a federal district judge and an appellate court by lawlessly rewriting the rule? Or his public relations coup in announcing the end of the moratorium while silently imposing a de facto moratorium through onerous rules for drilling permits, all while fibbing that he has opened more land for drilling than an Arab sheik? This, my friends, is no lightweight we're dealing with here. Some of you barbershop political quarterbacks might think you are savvy, but how many of you could have marshaled the requisite executive prowess to prevent a major corporation from relocating one of its plants to another state to help your union friends and simultaneously claim you were acting in the national interest? Or how about killing the Keystone XL pipeline project -- with all the jobs and economic activity it would have generated -- while holding yourself out as focused on job creation? Or incinerating $535 million in Solyndra despite being warned it wouldn't work and then bragging about your courage in forging ahead with other such projects? Could you have committed homicide on the coal, oil and natural gas industries while insisting you were pursuing all options? I didn't think so. Are you sharp enough to accuse the Chamber of Commerce of taking foreign contributions and, when called upon to prove it, masterfully claiming it is up to the chamber to prove a negative? Have you ever taken separate taxpayer jets on vacation for you, your wife and your dog while contemporaneously savaging the private jet industry? Some of you still won't get it, probably because, like most Americans, you have "become too soft and lost (your) competitive edge." If you don't have the sense to re-elect Obama, that's your own -- I mean Bush's -- fault.