Will 2016 Be the Year America Wakes Up?

"O God, You have rejected us.
You have broken us;
You have been angry;
O, restore us."
--- Psalm 60:1

CHARACTER FLAWS

To a large extent the current content of the character of America is embodied by what we have accepted or allowed to exist in our society: Abortion; Same-Sex "Marriage"; Pornography; No-Fault Divorce; Fornication; Adultery; Homosexuality; Lesbianism; Pedophilia; Greed; Deceit; Slander; etc.

IS THIS PROGRESS?

Wake Up America and smell the "progress" we've made over the last 10 years. Many of the things noted above have intensified or become normal and acceptable. Thanks to an interwoven web of decadent trends and evil forces, namely:

* lawless Presidents,
* activist unaccountable bureaucrats and Courts,
* a corrupt & ineffectual Congress,
* increasingly immoral & tasteless Entertainment;
* an apathetic, disengaged, apostate Church
* burgeoning taxpayer-financed Abortion Businesses;
* a degraded decadent Academia;
* a violated Constitution;
* ignored, but growing threat of Islam-inspired terrorism, home & abroad;
* a socially engineered & weakened Military;
* an undeterred invasion of Illegal Aliens;

and these are just the highlights - we head speedily toward permeant residence on the ash heap of history. But as a people, we've got pretty much of what we wanted and what we deserved the last 2 or 3 elections.

A CROSSROAD

Now we face another crossroads. Do we continue riding on the speeding train to nowhere, or do we stop the train and correct the course by getting it on the right track? Do we aggressively work to undo the deliberate damage of 8 years of the perverse progressive agenda of Valerie Jarrett and Barrack Obama?

As unwillingly as I would like to admit, Jarrett and Obama have been highly successful in what they set out to accomplish, the fundamental transformation of America. They have had virtually no opposition from the Republicans, put in power by the TEA Party and other patriots with the promise that the GOP would resist and counter the leftist President and his socialist endeavors. No such thing occurred. In fact, the GOP is very much complicit for the state of our union is in today, for essentially sitting on the sideline and doing nothing of any significance. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell ranting and raving didn't accomplish much. It's action that speaks louder, and it's action that was missing!

The world and America are in more turmoil than before Obama (bO). The country is more polarized than bO. Our economy and real unemployment are in worse shape than bO. Our society and culture are significantly more corrupt than bO (same-sex "marriage," refusal to enforce laws (DOMA, immigration) failure to prosecute lawbreakers by the Department of (in)Justice such criminals as Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, tax evader and race-baiter Al Sharpton, etc.) 

WHAT'S NEXT?

So what will America do, assuming we survive Mr. Obama's final fling at jackhammering its foundations? Two things are necessary: Judeo-Christian inspired revival and the election of a true Reaganesque Conservative President and more Constitution-abiding Congress persons to fortify those already there. The next election may be our last unless 2016 is a year of fundamental transformation of We the People!

Vote No on Ohio Issue 1, 2015

Issue 1 is a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution which would change the apportionment process and rules for redistricting Ohio house and senate districts.

Issue 1 does nothing at all about the apportionment of congressional district seats.  This is where the vast majority of the gerrymandering occurs. 

Issue 1 takes the job of drawing the district lines out of the hands of the legislature and gives it to a new board called the “Ohio Redistricting Commission”.  I oppose this because, if at all possible, all of the laws of our state should be made by the legislature.  That is the definition of a republic, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.  Having said that, I realize that redistricting legislation is a special case that deserves special consideration.  It is legislation that must be enacted in order to preserve the state.  But the commission issue 1 describes should only be used as a last resort (that is, if the legislature fails to pass a redistricting bill).  But issue 1 would do the opposite, making the legislature’s choice the last resort.  If the amendment contained enough precise rules to virtually determine the drawing of the lines, then there would be no need to involve the legislature and a redistricting board would only be charged with finding the correct map.  For example, a provision could have been added to the amendment that would say that of all possible maps which satisfy the other redistricting rules, the one that has the least variation in district population is the one that must be used.  But this amendment has nothing like that.    

The “Ohio Redistricting Commission” would consist of the same members as the current Apportionment Board plus two members appointed by the minority party leaders in the House and Senate respectively.  I oppose the addition of these members because it grants a privilege that is based on party affiliation.  George Washington said in his farewell address that political parties are bad for America.  We should not do anything to encourage them.  The addition of these two extra members favors Republicans and Democrats and discriminates against third parties and independents.

 

The amendment contains language that says that a redistricting plan must not favor any particular political party.  Do you really think that the “Ohio Redistricting Commission” is going follow such a subjective provision as that even with two minority party members out of seven?  I oppose any law respecting political party for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.   The only way to prevent the lines from being drawn in a way that favors certain groups of people is to add more objective rules so that there is only one possible choice for how the lines can be drawn.  It is not necessary for any of these rules to take into account the party affiliation of voters.

The amendment contains language that says the districts must be compact.  It does not say how compact the districts must be in order for it to be an acceptable map.  I am in favor of compact districts, but the word “compact” is not defined in amendment and is therefore just as subjective as the concept of favoritism based on political party.  The amendment is not clear about which of these two objectives should have precedence in a case where both cannot be achieved.

The amendment cow-tows to the judiciary.  It contains language that basically says that if the court
(of competent jurisdiction) rules that it doesn’t like anything about this amendment, then we must disregard the parts that they don’t like even if they aren’t really unconstitutional.  The whole process would be subject to this scrutiny, not just what’s being changed by the amendment.  Remember, Jefferson said that the courts are not the final arbiters of the constitution.

The amendment contains basically the same constraints on the how the lines must be drawn in regards to existing boundaries of counties, cities and townships.  Issue 1 has some language that more precisely defines these rules and their order of precedence.  This is the only advantage I see in issue 1, but in my mind, it is far outweighed by all its disadvantages. 

Redistricting reform is needed, but issue 1 does not do what is really needed.

Stop Term Limit Violators

This is in response to Greg’s posts “Time for Tiberi Term Limit” and “Why Term Limit Congress!”. 

I personally oppose term limits because they disqualify candidates who may be perfectly able to serve their country.  There is no magic bullet for stopping tyranny.  There is no substitute for education, vigilance, and a virtuous, Christian majority.

However, Ohio’s voters went to the polls in 1992 and legally voted for a state constitutional amendment to impose term limits on its U.S. Representatives and Senators.  The Supreme Court, without constitutional basis, struck down this amendment.  But the law is still on the books for all to see:

“No person shall hold the office of United States Senator from Ohio for a period longer than two successive terms of six years. No person shall hold the office of United States Representative from Ohio for a period longer than four successive terms of two years. Terms shall be considered successive unless separated by a period of four or more years. Only terms beginning on or after January 1, 1993 shall be considered in determining an individual’s eligibility to hold office.”

Article V, Section 8, Constitution of Ohio

So, though I don’t personally agree with term limits, term limits for Ohio’s Representatives are just valid as any other law.  The Supreme Court’s decision was nothing less than pure tyranny.  Therefore, any honorable congressman will abide by these limits despite the opinion of the black-robed bandits.  And it is the duty of Ohio voters to refrain from voting for the term limit violators.  Otherwise, you are abetting a criminal.  Those who have violated the law (or will violate it if elected this year) are: 

Steve Chabot, Jean Schmidt, Mike Turner, John Boehner, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Tibieri, Marcy Kaptur, Steve LaTourette, and Tim Ryan.

None of these candidates are a “Good Choice” in this election!

22 other states besides Ohio also passed term limits on their representatives in Congress.  These are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. If you live in one of these states, check your state constitution or state code to find out what the laws are, and don’t vote for any who are in violation of it!

Become an Inside Poll Worker

An inside poll worker is someone who is appointed to work at the polls on Election Day to make sure that the election is being conducted fairly.  You should become an inside poll worker.  Why?  Well, the following story will illustrate the point.

There were several races in my county in 2010 which were very close.  In one such race, only 23 votes separated the two candidates.  The losing candidate claimed that there were some provisional ballots which were not counted, that should have been.  So the case ended up in federal court (where it does not belong).  The losing candidate claimed that there was some “poll worker error” which resulted in some voters voting in the wrong precinct.  She claimed that the federal court had the right to reverse decision not to count these ballots on the basis of the “equal protection” clause of the 14^th Amendment. 

This is really bad for several reasons.  Whether or not the initial result of the election is eventually reversed is only a minor part of this story.  The real danger is that the Federal court could set a new precedent giving them more authority to get involved in local elections.  Imagine unelected, federal judges telling us how we are supposed to conduct our elections, and in some cases telling us who the winner is! 

It might be too late to stop this dangerous precedent from being handed down by these corrupt judges.  If you become an inside poll worker, you can possibly help to stop future cases from being litigated in similar manner. 

Although I believe that the responsibility of finding the proper polling place belongs to the voter, a poll worker may assist a voter.  Doing so will save a lot--both in saving money spend on lawsuits and by saving us from the tyranny of heavy-handed federal judges.  We want inside poll workers who are fair and unbiased and who will help voters (regardless of their party affiliation) to find their proper polling location if they show up at wrong precinct.  We especially need poll workers who are not registered Democrats to work the polls in heavily Democratic precincts so that there is a balance and the Democrats can’t get away with any funny business.

Being an inside poll worker would basically involve the following:

1.  Completing a poll worker training session

2.  Working the polls on Election Day for the entire 13 hours that the polls are open

Contact your local board of elections for more information.

Overturning Proposition 8 Has US Marching Toward Oblivion

TYRANNICAL ACTIVIST JUDGES LEAD THE CHARGE

The recent decision made by an openly and activist homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, in California overturning the State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the exclusive preview of one man and one woman is extremely significant. I heard Family Research Council President Tony Perkins comment on this case and ruling yesterday on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues program. Here is an excerpt of his poignant critique, which cautioned America not to take this ruling lightly, but to consider its long lasting ramifications.

“This is an opinion of a federal court that, if it is allowed to stand, is binding as law on America. And it sets judicial precedent … If this does not outrage you and you are not incensed over what this judge has done, and what this will do to our country … there is something wrong with you!

“This is a deadly attack on America. This will undercut the family even further from what our bad public policy has done over the last 40 years. This will not only silence the church and its ability to speak the truth, this will change the course of human history and move us so rapidly down the slippery slope that we won’t know what hit us.”

Mr. Perkins is correct. The 9^th circus court of appeals has stayed same-sex marriage until it takes up the case in November. It wouldn’t be at all surprising to me that when the court meets it will rule on the side of Judge Walker and homosexual and lesbian advocates for same-sex ‘marriage.’ By the way, marriage in any context outside of one-man, one-woman marriage is oxymoronic, not to mention it is immoral and unlawful in God’s eyes and any civilized society.

Once the appellate court concurs with Judge Walker’s decision, it will be further upheld by the Kennedy factor tipping the decision in favor a verdict as disturbing and destructive as Roe v. Wade. It will serve as the death knell for America. It is the final nail in our coffin. Prepare to me your Maker, Judge Walker, Judge Kennedy and all my fellow Americans!

Our courts: Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Vaughn Walker is no Texas Ranger. Newest Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is no ragin’ constitutionalist. No, they are tyrannical, unaccountable radical politically activist judges. Mark Levin wrote about the likes of Walker and Kagan, et al in his book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.” Likewise, did Phyllis Schlafly in her book “The Supremicists, the Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” Radical oligarchs reigning and ruling from the bench. This is not what the Founders of America envisioned. This is what they feared, freedom-robbing usurpers of the rights and freedoms of individual Americans.

Yes, elections do have consequences. We have Sonia Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan, unfortunately, who prove that point.

What Judge Walker did was criminal. To overturn in one 138 page pack of lies, 5000 years of civilization and espouse that homosexuality is normal, moral, and natural and on top of that that same sex pairs could claim a right to marriage is beyond outrageous. I agree that this judge should be impeached. See the American Family Association call to impeach this poor excuse for a fair minded and honest jurist,

Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker.

Jean Schmidt: The [Federal] Courts are the “Ultimate Power”

Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt admits to voting for unconstitutional legislation. Her excuse is the typical one, its up to the courts to decide what is and what isn't constitutional. "The [Federal] courts are the ultimate power", she said. Not according to Article III section 2, Ms. Schmidt. It reads:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases* before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

*includes "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"

President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1821:

You seem … to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy … The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party its members would become despots.

Source: “An End to Judicial Tyranny?” by Thomas R. Eddlem, The New American, October 18, 2004, p. 44.

Tell Jean Schmidt that her actions are unacceptable.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 12

This is part twelve of an ongoing series of articles containing proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. These amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

I got this one from a well written article, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Guideposts of Limited Government, written by William J. Watkins, Jr. This is a fascinating historical account of the struggle to impose proper restraints on the federal government with particular respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which plainly denied Americans their first amendment right to freedom of speech over 200 years ago. It’s well worth the time to read and share with others this lesson from history, which illustrates the need for the following amendment, which was included in the article.

Section 1. The Constitutional Commission shall settle questions presented by the several States concerning the constitutionality of measures or actions taken by the government of the United States.

Section 2. The Constitutional Commission shall be composed of one Commissioner from each State chosen every second year by the people of the several States from two candidates chosen by the State Legislature, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; each Commissioner shall have one vote.

Section 3. No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of Commissioner; nor shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, and been nine years a resident of that State for which he shall be chosen. No person shall be elected to the office of Commissioner more than four times.

Section 4. When vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall choose two candidates to present to the people to fill the vacancy.

Section 5. The Constitutional Commission shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. The Constitutional Commission shall choose their Chairman and other officers. The Commission shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members, and three-fourths of its members shall constitute a quorum to do business. The Commission may determine the rules of its proceedings. The Commission shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.

Section 6. The Commissioners shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. No Commissioner shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States.

Section 7. Whenever the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission shall receive petitions from one-fifth of the legislatures of the several States requesting a ruling on the constitutionality of a specific measure or action of the government of the United States, the Commission shall convene. The act or measure of the national government shall be void and of no force if three-fourths of the Commissioners present vote against its constitutionality, or if three-fourths of the Commissioners from one section of the United States shall vote against the constitutionality of the act or measure.

Section 8. The three sections of the United States are defined as follows.

The Western Section shall be composed of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

The Southern Section shall be composed of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The Northern Section shall be composed of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Whenever new States are admitted to the Union, the Commission shall make the necessary modifications to the sectional compositions.

Section 9. The Constitutional Commission shall not sit as a Convention as prescribed in Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Click here to read the next article in this series.

Cleveland Freedomfest July 3, 2009

Downtown Cleveland, Ohio 7-3-09

WEWS-TV in Cleveland reported that hundreds of people met in downtown Cleveland to “celebrate our country's independence and to protest what they call the "tax and spend politicians of today."” You can see additional photos of the Cleveland gathering here. I checked the four major TV stations in Cleveland this morning and only WEWS-TV ABC had any news about the Tea Party in Cleveland. Saw a lot about Michael "the accused pedophile" Jackson and Shaq. I guess that is more important than preserving and protecting personal freedom and rights or the growing protest of the socialistic moves of the current Congress and President. The opposition media, the Soetoro aka Obama controlled or sympathetic media continues to try to ignore the real freedom movement in Ohio and America.

Judge David Hamilton Should Not Be Confirmed!

Stop this radically pro-death judicial appointment

Beginning in the following paragraph is part of an email, which I received from the Ohio Christian Alliance, regarding President Barry Soetoro's (a/k/a Barack Obama) first judicial nominee, David Hamilton. Like himself, Soetoro's (alias Obama) and his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, Hamilton is vehemently and radically pro-death (pro-abortion) as well as being a judicial activist.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing today (Wednesday), on Judge David Hamilton, the abortion advocate who Obama has appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as his first judicial pick. The 7th Circuit covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana.

"Hamilton served in leadership with the ACLU and as a fundraiser for ACORN. . .

. .
"Hamilton was initially appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994. ABA gave him a “not qualified” rating. Over a period of 7 years Hamilton proceeded to issue a series of rulings preventing Indiana from implementing its informed consent law which would have given women information about abortion's risks and alternatives. The 7th Circuit Court, (the very court to which he has now been nominated), overturned Hamilton's rulings and issued a statement rebuking him for holding up the law.

“For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. Although Salerno does not foreclose all pre-enforcement challenges to abortion laws, it is an abuse of discretion for a district judge to issue a pre-enforcement injunction while the effects of the law (and reasons for those effects) are open to debate. What happened in Mississippi and Utah does not imply that the effects in Indiana are bound to be unconstitutional, so Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put its law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.”

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.684.01-2107.html

TAKE ACTION

Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on the confirmation of David Hamilton. Click on the link below for their contact information.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here is a sample email that you can use as you email your Senators. This wording was suggested by Liberty Council. You can chose, as I did, to also send faxes to your Senators as well as some or all the members of the judiciary committee. Or you can email your senators at the email address given in the link above.

Senator _______________:

I urge you to vote against the confirmation of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.

Hamilton’s views are far outside the legal mainstream. In 2005, he ruled that prayers to Jesus were sectarian and unconstitutional while stating that prayers to "Allah" were acceptable. In addition, Hamilton is also ardently pro-abortion. This former ACLU attorney blocked an informed consent abortion law in Indiana that is nearly identical to a law approved by the Supreme Court. In fact, the 7th Circuit called Hamilton’s obstruction of the informed consent law "an abuse of discretion."

Hamilton should not be confirmed. The President cannot be allowed to politicize our courts with partisan, ideological appointments.

More Judicial Tyranny Coming Soon . . .

To a Courtroom Near You

.

Cartoon by Chuck Asay found on TownHall.com 11/12/08