Obama........is this a JOKE?

And do you hear CHEERING for what he said?  Want to know why and who's cheering?  HERE is the article you don't want to miss......UN-freakin'-BELIEVEABLE.

Thanks, Impertinent..xx

z

Constitutional Confetti?

That's the Constitution being shredded from the bottom up.......it's TIME MAGAZINE'S Fourth of July cover.    HERE is the article you might want to read, from which I italicize the following paragraphs (though many deserve discussion here) :

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.
The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.

Z:  I refuse to believe that any writer, even for TIME MAGAZINE, still doesn't understand the 3/5 Compromise,....when will they learn, or is this just to continue the misinformation?  And no, they did not give us federal income taxes, they'd have been grieved by it.  Odd that Stengel would be so insistent that the framers couldn't have known the specifics he lists above when the Constitution isn't about case by case situations but about so much more than that.

A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing. Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany. Cuba and Libya have constitutions. A constitution must embody something that is in the hearts of the people. In the midst of World War II, the great judge Learned Hand gave a speech in New York City's Central Park that came to be known as "The Spirit of Liberty." It was a dark time, with freedom and liberty under threat in Europe. Hand noted that we are Americans by choice, not birth. That we are Americans precisely because we seek liberty and freedom — not only freedom from oppression but freedom of speech and belief and action. "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty?" he asked. "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." 

Z:  But, if it 'guarantees nothing', why do so many say it guarantees same-sex marriage rights or encourages illegals or champions health care for everyone??   I'm thinking Mr. Stengel just might be all about proposing the Constitution supports those things, no?  And why is it that liberty, according to someone like Mr. Stengel, only seems to exist for those who might deny the will and liberty of the majority?

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution. 

That's what the framers would say.

So, geeeZ readers....what would YOU SAY?   I don't see how a Constitution serves any nation which doesn't respect and uphold it.

Z

A DELICATE BALANCE....another great Priscilla's Post

Freedom, Security, and Governmental Power

This is about the line drawn between keeping us secure and not impeding our right to be free. It's also about impeding our freedom with regard to issues which have nothing to do with our security.

This is a delicate balance, especially with terrorism afoot. However, who is it whose rights are being impinged upon and why? Will police or other government officials be able to come into our homes, "for the sake of the environment" and check our light bulbs? Our toilets? How far will this go?

We'll be told "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," but, new laws can be passed, bans can be imposed, you name it, and pretty soon, it's a full blown police state. We can't profile can we, that's against civil rights, right?  But, to avoid profiling and offending Muslims, we can be felt up or scanned in an airport. We're at war, but we're the losers, we are the ones losing our rights.

I can envision scanners everywhere if we say nothing. As we speak, there are video cameras at intersections, malls, stores, and a multitude of public places. It seems we have accepted those with little outcry. It's as if all of us are potential criminals.

The American people are being trained to be subjects, serfs, which is counter to everything our founders envisioned for our people. It's up to us to stand up and say, "no more".

While next to nothing is done about our borders, and immigrants from the Middle East and countries on the terrorist list are now ostensibly free to come here (10 East Indians were apprehended only days ago in one of the round-ups crossing from Mexico into America), it's American citizens who are coming under the government's thumb. I believe we either follow the Constitution or we are at the mercy of our lawmakers and those in political power.

I've never even believed the police had the right to drunk driving checkpoints. I consider those to be a presumption of guilt placed on  citizens who the police have no probable cause to suspect of breaking  the law. But they do it, don't they?


These things are always explained away with "if you haven't broken the law, why should you care?" This is how it starts, and little by little, sooner or later, we're closer to a total police state. Crazy laws are passed all the time. And then of course, we have activist judges, and lawyers who can twist anything to arrive at the result they want.

If we're constantly watched or questioned, they'll get a bad guy now and then that they may not have gotten otherwise, but what will we > have given up? Our freedom. I don't think it's worth that and I fear that's what is going to happen. There is an ever growing encroachment, and it doesn't feel like it's going to stop anytime soon.

Thanks, Pris....it's a very difficult balance but something that needs to be addressed.  So, folks, what are we going to do about it?

Z

The 4th Amendment be damned?

There is THIS from Indiana, and THIS from California.

The Indiana case is even worse than California's.  Look at this:

 INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

Z:  At least in California it seems that they can "only" enter your home if you're suspected of having driven under the influence, which is still horrible, of course (the DUI and the entrance):

 (AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.


The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.


Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.


In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."


Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.

Z: I want to thank Carol at HER BLOG for bringing these things to my attention...   Is anybody who lives in Indiana hearing about your situation, which seems EONS worse that in California?  By the way, in California, I can go along with the situation described above because if someone runs from their car into their house while drunk and then a warrant must be served, the breath test will be invalid after some time; the alcohol dissipates with time....so is this as bad as it sounds?  As bad as Indiana's laws?

Since Carol had already blogged it at her excellent blog, I'd have hesitated to post this at all (though I think it needs even more exposure) but I post it so I can tell this funny and very true story:

Most of you know I had the amazing experience of living in Paris for four years.   At one social event, there was a policewoman there who told me something I wanted to share with you.  In France, search and seizure is a daily thing; they see something they feel is endangering or bothersome to people and the cops  take care of it, whether it's into one's home or one's car.   It's been done there forever and they don't look at it as unusual...EXCEPT, the policewoman told me the French love American "crimmies", or TV CRIME STORIES, and I laughed my head off when she told me "Now, we say we are coming in and the people inside say 'Do you have a warrant?'   We have to tell them 'we are in FRANCE, not America, we do not need a warrant, let us IN!"    She had to laugh, too!  I thought that was hilarious........and it seemed fitting for the situations above. (I must admit she didn't laugh quite as hard as I did). 

But, let's go back to America........What's your take on these Fourth Amendment situations?   How can Americans allow this to happen?  Is the California ruling as bad as Indiana's?  What's next?

geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ

The Chosen People?

I'm adding THIS LINK from our pal Chuck's terrific blog because I'd like you to read that and then read my post:

Huffington Posts's headline tonight: "Christine O'Donnell compares Conservatives to The Chosen People".......REALLY? Do the following words from a speech by O'Donnell tonight sound like that to you, or was she making a pretty good, understandable comparison here?:

O'DONNELL: And the Constitution is making a comeback. It's simply unprecedented in my lifetime. I think it's a little like the chosen people of Israel and the Hebrew scriptures, who cycle through periods of blessing and suffering and then return to the divine principles in their darker days. It's almost as if we're in a season of constitutional repentance. When our country's on the wrong track, we search back to our first covenant, our founding documents, and the bold and inspired values on which they were based. Those American values enshrined in the Declaration provide the real answer.

Oh, wait...I see; Maybe Huffington's implying that the only people who want the Constitution to make a comeback ARE Conservatives?? I think most Americans do, don't you, Democrat or Republican? What do you think? :-)

Meanwhile, I'm really glad the Democrats aren't nervous! THIS is quite a story....Their new line is "You may hate us but the GOP is worse"....very effective, but do Americans, including Independents, really want to hear Democrats whining about us hating them? This could backfire on the Democrats.

AND...Sarah Palin's saying THIS........Republicans had better unite. Better yet, CONSERVATIVES had better unite.....the thing is, we need the GOP to get with us$$$....and I think they will.

OKAY...now remember that link at Chuck's............you think ANY Republican's going to get a fair shake in the mainstream media? Do you think they'll highlight any of the terrific things O'Donnell OR Palin have said?....can the media even recognize those things as being what more than half of America wants to hear? This isn't a one-off situation, it can't be...........we need to do something about our media or we're forever going to be stuck in OZ clicking our red shoes and never getting back to OUR AMERICA where we had an honest media taught by honest journalist profs(do they even teach Who, What, When, Where, Why, and you NEVER give your opinion unless it's an Editorial piece? NO, I don't think so, not anymore)............Without changing the media to be FAIR, we'll be stuck with Huffington Post misrepresentations, Democrats getting big billing in the news saying "Republicans are worst than WE ARE" and we all know what this mainstream media did to Palin.
z

Character counts......or did?

Yes, CHARACTER COUNTS. Please see Law and Order's newest blog piece "America?" THAT is good character personified.

NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and others, We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes .

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care . That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair..

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights .

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

The State Department has a new legal adviser.....God help us all

Mr. Obama has selected someone to be the State Department's legal adviser....you need to know about him so you can understand America as we know her is JUST about over and how it will happen. Thanks to I HATE THE MEDIA blog for the 'head's up'.....

Please read this article from the New York Post....here's a taste of it:

"JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

Z: So, what do you think? Has any president who speaks so directly against our sovereignty AND for Sharia Law ever been in this position before? What is Obama THINKING? Who is he working for, folks? I'd illustrate this post with the guy's picture but I don't want it here. Ever. Let him come arrest me.

Is this all CONSTITUTIONAL?

Does it bother anybody that America is now in the business of guaranteeing warranties on cars?
Does it bother anybody that an American president can tell an executive to step down?
Does it bother anybody that an American president has told Chrysler they must merge with Fiat?
GM's plans don't warrant WH appreciation and money? The 'experts' aren't happy?

Most of us don't agree with any of this, some of you will. Put that aside. Can someone tell us where IS all this in the constitution? Where does our president get this power? Is it because he's passing our money around and now can demand all of this? And who says the WH experts are smarter than those in industry? What's happened here?

IS THIS what Mr. Obama meant by "SHOVEL READY?" Because, so far, there's been no shoveling of dirt like we thought he meant then (bridges, roads), but PLENTY of 'shoveling' of ...........ya.

z