Good Richard's Almanac

August 13, 2010

Obama Endorses Ground Zero Victory Mosque

From Obama's terrorism-pandering dinner at the White House tonight...

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose -- including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious -- a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in stark contrast to the religious conflict that persists elsewhere around the globe.

Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

Well isn't that kosher? Barack H. Obama givin' us a lesson on the Founding Fathers. We all know what your religious views are, sir.

Related

Obama Finally Breaks Silence on Ground Zero Mosque by Michelle Malkin
Obama defends Ground Zero Mosque to Muslims at White House “Ramadan dinner” at Fire Andrea Mitchell
Citing Overwhelming Support by Vast Majority of Muslims Living in Foreign Countries, Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque at Doug Ross Journal

Posted by Richard at 9:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 12, 2010

Who Said It?

Tax reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher income bracket alone. ... In the false name of economy, millions of children have been deprived of milk once provided through the federal school lunch program. This was the payoff of the Republican's promise. And this is why we must have new faces in the Congress of the United States - Democratic faces. This is why we must elect not only President Truman, but also men like mayor Hubert Humphrey...While [the Republican] is the banner carrier for Wall Street, mayor Humphrey is fighting for all the principles advocated by President Truman: for adequate low-cost housing, for civil rights, for prices people can afford to pay, and for a labor movement freed of the Taft-Hartley Law."

Continue reading "Who Said It?"

Posted by Richard at 6:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 6, 2010

DOJ Omits "Shall" From Constitution

The Department of Justice's suit against the state of Arizona is based on a lie. It's based on the idea that the President has the ability to decide whether or not to enforce law. The only problem is that to make the argument, they omitted a key word from the Constitution. Here's the DOJ's basis for their argument (page 5, line 12):

The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Hmm. According to the DOJ, the Constitution affords the President the authority to enforce law. There's one small problem, however. Here's the Constitution...ahem...in context (article 2, section 3):

He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Interestingly, the DOJ cut the quote of right after the word "shall." Shall has a very specific meaning in contractual arrangements. It means action is required to fulfill an obligation. The action MUST occur, or the obligation is not met. In this case "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The President has the responsibility to enforce all law, and faithfully. He doesn't have the ability to decide whether or not to enforce law. The Constitution compels him to enforce the law. However, the DOJ bases their entire argument on this misquote.

Their complaint describes at length how the administration has to balance many competing priorities when deciding how to enforce the law. It says explicitly the President can decide NOT to enforce the law (page 7, line 12):

In the exercise of discretion, the administering agencies may decide not to apply a specific sanction and may, among other steps, permit the alien to depart the country voluntarily at his or her own expense and may even decide not to pursue removal of the alien if deferred federal enforcement will help pursue some other goal of the immigration system."

Deferred federal enforcement?!

Where does the Constitution say anything about "deferred federal enforcement?"

This is in direct conflict with the responsibility of the President as prescribed by the Constitution. The DOJ has cut the word "shall" out of the relevant constitutional text and granted the President the unconstitutional ability to decide whether law will be enforced.

Imagine if this were extended to other areas. Imagine if the President decided not to enforce tax law in certain situations. Imagine if the President decided not to enforce the income tax on his crony buddies; unions; himself, or his political party. He could grant enormous privilege to particular groups of people on a whim.

You might think "well the equal protection clause would disallow the President from extending privileges to particular groups." However, for this to have any meaning, the equal protection clause must be enforced. Oops. Once you take enforcement out of the picture, the Constitution isn't worth spit.

If the President has the ability to decide not to enforce law, he could also decide to not protect the nation from military invasion. Does that sound like something the founding fathers intended?

Posted by Richard at 12:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 21, 2010

The ConProstitution of the United States of America

I've been watching C-Span all day. It's a foregone conclusion the federal government is about to make health care insurance an entitlement. First, a retort...

Second, a cry of desperation. This is from a letter I sent to a dear friend back in November...

My real concern is this: where is the real Conservative activism? It's great that we've had tea parties this year. It's great to see people so vocal, but I just don't feel "the folks" are doing as much as we need to. I wrote earlier this year that 2010 will be the year of Conservatism because we demand it...but...I have doubts. I feel strongly that our nation has drifted so far away from Constitutional governance that putting Republican majorities in Congress and the White House just isn't enough.

Even if, and I doubt this would be the case, Republicans led a truly Constitutional government, it's only going to be a matter of time before Libs get fed up and re-elect the ReidPelosiObama-set.

The first income tax was instituted after the Civil War. It was a 3% tax on incomes over $800. We now have a graduated, progressive income tax up to 38%. At times, it's been as high as 90%. I've argued in the past that taking a portion of someones income is a form of slavery, since it basically means you work some portion of your time for the sake of the government. Since when should the government take time from you when you could instead spend that time with friends; family; loved ones?

Who in today's society gives a damn? People just don't care. As long as they get their chicken nuggets and hollywood drama magazine, they're happy. For Conservatives, I'm concerned that tea parties are the new chicken nuggets. As long as we get to protest, then we are placated. We will sit idle until 2010, vote in Republicans, but then what? Do we really, honestly believe we will return to solid, Constitutional governance? I sure as hell don't.

What's the solution? Lots and lots and lots of hard work. Taking back Universities (leftist universities must be dismantled). Getting people back into church. Repealing unconstitutional law. Electing conservatives. Amending the constitution a few times to triple-iterate the 10th amendment. Re-establishing the role of the Supreme Court (required judicial review of all Congressional action). Even then, we'll still be required to have eternal vigilance. After all, here we are 233 years since the Declaration of Independence. Here I am complaining we've lost our Constitutional compass. We'll always have to make sure people understand why the country was founded as a Constitutional Republic.

If we don't make a huge step towards at least a few of these things, we're going to end up watching the second American Revolutionary war. But, it won't be between the patriots and the King, it will be between the patriots and the Federal Government.

Protestation is not protection. To secure freedom, we must take action.

Related

Where Were You When the Republic Died? at American Thinker

Posted by Richard at 5:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2010

Many Fail To Understand Obama's Plan To Grow The Deficit

Back in March '08, when Obama was in office only two months, I created a video showing what Obama meant when he promised to "cut the deficit in half." It was clear to me that Obama didn't intend to cut Bush's $459 billion deficit in half, rather, he planned to grow the deficit to $1.75 trillion, then cut that in half.

In analyzing some of the backlash of Scott Brown's historic victory in Massachusetts, pundits from both sides of the political spectrum are incorrectly claiming Obama reneged. Obama didn't reneg, they just weren't paying attention. Sadly, many voters weren't paying attention either.

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over.

Wrong. Obama never claimed fiscal sobriety. He misled voters to believe he was going to reduce the deficit when he planned to increase it.

Mort Zuckerman writes:

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it.

Wrong, Mort. You didn't get it. Obama explained he was going to grow the deficit, you just weren't paying attention.

Chris Matthews, speaking to Rachel Maddow said:

That is the problem the Democrats face right now -- a sense not that their values are wrong, not that people don`t want to help, but there`s a sense of fiscal overreach. The debt is too big. The government`s taking on too many responsibilities.

Hey, Chris, perhaps that tingling up your leg was that sense of fiscal overreach?

These analysts failed to understand what Obama meant when he said he would be cutting the deficit in half. Let's go over it again...

Every single person who voted for Obama voted to increase the rate at which we grow the National Debt. They voted to grow the National Debt even faster than we had under Bush. Obama told you so.

Posted by Richard at 2:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 19, 2010

Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Teddy Kennedy's Seat

This is, by far, the best YouTube video I have ever seen. Bar none.

Posted by Richard at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2010

Harry Reid and the Negro Thang

Posted by Richard at 5:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Haitians Refuse Food

Watch as ungrateful Haitians first fight for, then refuse biscuits from the UN.

Consensus is that we all must do everything we can to help Haiti. While this platitude is easy to agree with, reality isn't so simple. While self-important aid groups demand money, I'm forced to question where will my money go? Will it help to prop up gangsters as seen in this video, or will it help people truly intersted in saving Haiti?

Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and you'll have saved Haiti.

Posted by Richard at 3:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)