U.S. Supreme Court Precedent States That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President

Interesting reading here:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

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.

Steve King's Immigration Bill

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 20

This is part twenty of an ongoing series of articles containing my 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.  My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

After a long hiatus in this series, I have most recently come up with this:

Section 1.  An amendment to this Constitution may only be presented by Congress to the States for their consideration if two-thirds of the whole number of the members in their respective houses shall concur with the amendment.

Section 2.  Congress shall make no law penalizing or rewarding a State for ratifying, rejecting, or failing to ratify an amendment to this Constitution.  If Congress passes a law in violation of this section and if the affected amendment has not yet adopted into this Constitution, the presentment of the amendment shall be null and void.  Congress may withdraw an amendment which it has proposed at any time before it becomes a valid part of this Constitution.

Section 3.  Whenever an amendment is pending before the States and is not yet adopted into the Constitution, any State may change its position on ratification.

Section 4.  Ratification by a State of a pending amendment shall not be valid unless the State approves of the amendment exactly as proposed by Congress including all punctuation, capitalization, wording and spelling.

Section 5.  Any amendment purportedly adopted into this Constitution which would not have been valid if this amendment had been adopted prior to any purported action taken to adopt the purported amendment by either the Congress or the States, shall henceforth be inoperative until the conditions for adoption of amendments of the previous sections of this amendment and of Article V of this Constitution have been met.

Section 6.  This article of amendment shall be inoperative if not ratified under the conditions for adoption of amendments of the previous sections of this amendment and of Article V and shall not take effect until seven years following its ratification.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

One purpose of this amendment would be to repeal the 14^th, 16^th, and possibly the 17^th amendments.  The 15^th amendment would also be lost through this amendment, but this amendment could probably easily be passed again and perhaps in an even better form (one which would, for example, not permit states from disqualifying people from running for office based on race and prohibit literacy tests).  I don’t know if there would be any other amendments removed from the Constitution, but the Corwin Amendment (a pro-slavery amendment) would be no longer be pending before the states because its passage in Congress did not meet the qualifications of Section 1.  Another purpose of the amendment would be to prevent any future amendments from being enacted which do not truly reflect the will of the people.  It corrects wrong interpretations of the Constitution concerning the amendment process like the two-thirds requirement being only of those present, the ability of the Congress to force the states to ratify an amendment, and the validity of inexact ratifications.  These misinterpretations have lead to the (alleged) adoption of these bad amendments without the proper super-majorities and great care which the Framers of the original Constitution intended.  This amendment would not be such a broad brush as an amendment which I had formulated earlier.

John Boehner Suggests Changing the 14th Amendment

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/08/pol.boehner.immigration

CNN reports Ohio congressman John Boehner has suggested amending the Constitution to repeal the portion of the 14th amendment which gives citizenship to all are born in the United States.  The reason is that those born to illegal immigrants should not automatically become U.S. citizens.

We don't need to amend to Constitution for two reasons.  The clause under scrutiny only applies to those "subject to their (the United States') jurisdiction".  Secondly, the 14th amendment was not properly ratified.

Chicago Gun Ban Struck Down by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has finally used its authority to do something right! Though I don't believe that the fourteenth amendment was properly ratified, I don't think that it was needed in this case. The right to bear arms is a natural right which should be upheld regardless of what the Constitution says. The Constitution does not merely forbid its infringement, acknowledges that it is a unalienable right by calling it "the right". Thanks to SCOTUSBLOG for this great analysis and insight on this breaking story which follows:

McDonald – Incorporation, Irony, and History
McDonald debate, Robert Cottrol

Robert Cottrol - Guest | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 5:26 pm

Robert Cottrol is a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has written on the Second Amendment, including a 1991 Georgetown Law Journal article, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” which was cited by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald

Yesterday’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago will be examined and debated by constitutional scholars and legal historians for decades. Justice Alito’s decision for the Court, accompanied by Justice Thomas’s concurrence stand as convincing if narrowly accepted rebuttals to two great examples of result oriented historical denial that have long plagued American constitutional debate. The first of these is that the constitution protects no meaningful or enforceable right of individuals to have arms for their own defense. The second is the idea that the incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment was purely a judicial invention with little or no foundation in the text or history of the amendment. The careful and accurate historical analyses provided in the Alito and Thomas opinions provide a convincing rebuttal of both views as well as furnishing some delicious ironies along the way.

Read the rest of this article.

Articles of Freedom, part 18

This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Last week, I wrote about the “Divine Providence” portion of the Articles of Freedom. I will continue with “nationwide civic action”, the text of which follows my comments.

As mentioned last week, it’s great that a group of people have undertaken the task to take our government officials to task and apply some pressure on them to revert back to the Constitution. The civic action ideas are good and I like the idea of a pledge of non-violence. But as I mentioned in last week’s post, the Continental Congress left out a key element because they didn’t want lose support by mentioning a “divisive issue”. Therefore I cannot sign the pledge.

If you watch the tape, you will see that whole thing started to become a farce toward the end. A delegate had to be removed from being disorderly. Another delegate called for a vote of no confidence in President Badnarik. The measure failed, but had substantial support. Several delegates resigned in disgust over various issues, most notably the tabling of the issue of the improper ratification of the 14^th amendment and its resulting (supposed) enslavement of the American people (see above video for a partial explanation). People on both sides of that debate behaved unprofessionally to say the least. They were pathetic. If you want to see this fiasco click here and then click on Part 5 under 11/18/09 and skip to 96:30 then continue on with Part 6 and Part 1 under 11/19/09.

NATIONWIDE CIVIC ACTION

Delegates to Continental Congress 2009 and others from Each of the several States, shall serve this document titled, “Articles of Freedom,” with its Remedial Instructions, on each United States Senator and Representative in their offices located in their respective States, placing them on notice that We, the Free People of America, believe them to be in violation of their Oath of Office and the Constitution for the United States of America.

Below is a PLEDGE to be signed by individual Americans signifying their belief that: a) for decades and over many administrations, both political parties have been violating the Constitution and the states have acquiesced; b) the Articles of Freedom should be served on key elected officials in the federal government and all 50 state governments; c) the federal and state officials should comply with the Remedial Instructions designed to put an end to the violations and restore constitutional governance; and d) if the government officials refuse to comply, the People shall engage in a nationwide, well-organized, pro-active, non-violent series of civic actions, including economic sanctions if ultimately necessary, to peaceably procure the relief they are entitled to under our system of governance.

PLEDGE

In full view of The Creator as my witness, I hereby pledge my signature, and vow to join with a goodly number of millions of Americans to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for all of their violations, with a firm reminder that each one has sworn an Oath (or Affirmation), to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution for the United States of America. In seeking to hold them accountable, I shall hold myself accountable to do the same.

I renounce and condemn any and all INITIATION of violent force and will pursue all lawful and Constitutional means to fulfill my duty.

When a goodly number of millions of American people agree, we will act in a lawful and constitutional manner until all violations of the Constitution for the United States of America CEASE.

I place my name and shall participate as an Eternal Record of the Will of the People to be Free.

Take The Pledge!

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 4

PARENTAL PRIMACY

This is part four 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?

Before I get to this week’s proposed amendment, I want to point a correction to something that I had written (in regards to who should decide who is a U.S. citizen) last week. "Without the 14th, the states would have the legal right to decide that question, which is a much more appealing idea to me." This is not true, the Constitution does charge Congress with the duty "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I section 8. I have made the appropriate correction in the text of that post.

Here is my fourth proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the up bringing and education of their children is a fundamental right. The United States shall not infringe upon this right.

Section 2: No portion of this Constitution or of any law of the United States shall be construed as a limitation of authority or responsibility that parents have over their children. Neither shall any treaty, international law, nor executive order be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to this authority.

Section 3: The thirteenth article of amendment of this Constitution, if rendered inoperable by a subsequent amendment, shall be again operable upon ratification of this amendment.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

As I mentioned in the last post of this series, a parental rights amendment is needed not only because of the U.N. Convention On The Rights Of The Child, but because of flaws in our own Constitution. It’s possible that the Founders took parental rights as a given, and did not even dream of the day that we would have to worry about governments intruding on them. It is clear that in these cases, the authors of some later amendments did not intend these intrusions. Sometimes the courts recognize intent when interpreting the Constitution, but sometimes they don’t. It’s best, as much as possible, not to leave this for them to decide.

The 13th prohibits involuntary servitude. A straightforward interpretation of this amendment, without any regard for the Bible or God-given rights, would lead one to believe that parents are constitutionally prohibited from requiring their children to do chores. This is a perfect example why one must be very careful in amending the constitution—it can lead to an inadvertent usurpation of authority by government.

Similarly, the 14th amendment forbids States from denying “equal protection under the law” to any person within its jurisdiction. This would mean that all laws must equally apply to all people. So you couldn’t have, for example, statutory rape laws. If a parent sent a child to his room, this would be like sending a complete stranger to his room (kidnapping). It just isn’t a well thought out piece of legislation.

Even the 2nd amendment needs tempering with a parental rights amendment. Notice it doesn’t say that “the United States and the Several States” are prohibited from infringing on the keep and right to bear arms. It just says it “shall not be infringed”. But obviously parents should have the right to decide when or if their child should be allowed to have a gun and if so, what type, and to require supervision, etc. Notice that, unlike other parental rights amendments, my amendment forbids a limitation on parental responsibility by the Federal government. Thus, an irresponsible parent, leaving his or her child unsupervised with a loaded gun, would not be immune from prosecution (by his or her State) on the basis of the 2nd amendment.

There is a joint resolution in the Congress (H.J. Res. 42/ S.J. Res. 16) to introduce a parental rights amendment which you can read about at parentalrights.org. But it is much weaker than mine. They are trying to do too much with this amendment by restricting the States with the same language as Federal and multinational government. Their proposed amendment contains this exception:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

This exception is so vaguely worded that the courts would take it to mean anything (so long as it’s in THEIR interest). Obviously, local government should intervene in cases of child abuse. That is obviously the primary reason for the exception. These cases are difficult to define and shouldn’t be left up to bureaucrats in Washington or federal courts to decide. That is why I only limit Federal and international authority in my version. It is easier to get rid of a local judge who makes a bad decision on a child abuse case than it is a federal judge or an international tribunal.

I do, however, applaud the intentions of the authors, the sponsors, and the cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42/ S.J. Res. 16. It did call this issue to my attention and served as a starting point for the development of my own amendment.

To continue reading this series, click here.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 3

This is part three 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?

Here is this week’s proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: Every article of amendment to this Constitution of the United States ratified after the year 1799 and prior to the year 1972, excepting the 15th, 20th, and 24th is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The certification of all articles of amendment to this Constitution shall be operable as if all ratifications thereof were proper and in accordance with this Constitution.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

I will go through all of the amendments that would be repealed and explain why they are repressive, flawed, and/or unnecessary. Section 2 is necessary to put to rest the issue of the questionable legitimacy of the ratifications of the 14th, 16th, 17th and possibly other amendments.

12th Amendment. It is better for the Vice President to be the one who gets the second most electoral votes than for it to be the running mate of an elected President. Since the VP gets to break ties in the Senate, repealing the 12th would be a slight check on the power of a dominant political party. I also don’t think that it’s good to reduce the number of candidates from 5 to 3 that could be elected in case no candidate won a majority of the Electors.

13th Amendment. I would hate to see this one go, but its flaw is that there are cases in which forced labor is appropriate. The amendment itself has an exception, namely “as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. This is a good exception, but I think that it should be clarified to include those unable to repay private debts. But the most serious flaw is that parents have the God given right to require their children to do chores. If an overriding parental rights amendment were added, then I would consider including the 13th among the other exceptions.

14th Amendment. Section 1 is the most contentious part of the 14th. The first clause, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” has also caused a lot of problems. What does it mean to be “subject to jurisdiction”? The authors of this amendment obviously meant that it shouldn’t include all people born in the United States, or else that phrase wouldn’t have been included. But everyone physically in the United States is in some way subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because certain federal laws would be enforced with respect to such a person regardless of other factors. They should have instead written “born to another citizen” or left the phrase out altogether depending on what they really meant. Without the 14th, the Congress would have the unrestricted right to decide that question, which is a much more appealing idea to me.

Also the clause, “No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens…” is harmful because “privileges and immunities” are not well-defined—a better term to use would have been “constitutional rights” or else the desired rights to be protected should have been explicitly named. Because of this kind of nonsense, we have courts saying that this means that a woman has the right to an abortion and that we can’t have prayers in schools or Ten Commandments displays. Similarly, the word “liberty” is vague with respect to a right that one cannot be deprived of by a State.

Next, the phrase “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Pro-lifers like to use this to say that the unborn should always be included in any law against murder. And what about this idea with respect to other issues? To say that a child should have the same protection under the law as an adult conflicts with parental rights and disallows things like statutory rape laws.

I like section 3, but the 14th isn’t worth saving for the sake of that. Section 5 makes this amendment even more dangerous, giving Congress added authority to violate states’ rights. The content of the rest of the sections either have to do with slavery and the Civil War or are redundant and are no longer needed. The validity of the ratification of this amendment is extremely questionable.

16th Amendment. This gives the Federal Government the right to extort its own citizens for money. This renders all of benefits of the 13th and many other parts of the Constitution completely useless. No need to say more.

17th Amendment. This made the election of U.S. Senators dependent upon their ability to raise large quantities of money. That promotes corruption.

18th and 21st Amendments. The 21st has already repealed the 18th. So there would be no effect as far as these are concerned.

19th Amendment. I guess I’ll take a lot of flack for this one, but I think that the issue of whether or not a woman can vote should be left up to the states.

22nd Amendment. I am against all term limits. They place an undue limitation of choice on the voter, disqualifying possibly good candidates. If no efforts succeed to dissuade people from electing a corrupt President over and over again, then we deserve to reap the resulting destruction. In the years since this amendment was ratified, Presidents have become even more corrupt. A better solution is to change the way Presidents are elected.

23rd Amendment. It’s wrong that some citizens are not represented in Congress and that Washington D.C. gets a full three Electors in the Presidential election. Washington D.C. should not be made a State, but there are better ways to address the problems addressed by this amendment.

25th Amendment. The President should not be allowed to fill a vacancy left by a departing Vice President. The original contingency of appointment by Congress is much more prudent (see under 12th).

26th Amendment. The issue of how old someone must be before they can vote should be left up to the states.

Click here to read the next post in this series.

The Question of the President’s Citizenship Remains

Ted made the following comment to my article, "Ridley’s Believe It or Not" and I thought it was worthy of being made a separate article. It seems like this major affront to the United States Constitution - the possibility that the president is not a natural born citizen of America - is being swept under the rug. It needs to stay alive until President Barry Soetoro (a/k/a Barack Obama) is forced to prove that he is a natural born citizen. Too much is at stake by ignoring the principles and precepts upon which this nation was founded. President Soetoro must come clean as to whether he meets the basic qualifications to hold the office of President. This is the reason I continue to refer to the President with his adopted Indonesian name, Barry Soetoro. There is no record of his ever changing his name . . . Actually, there is some suspicion that he even attended those prestigious American universities as a foreign student and thereby garnering grants to pay for his education.

Ted wrote, “Since Obama's earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, have confirmed the very threats to our Republic's survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION.

“The question of Obama's Kenyan birth and his father's Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingness to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his Internet posting of a discredited "after-the-fact" short form 'certificate'. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

“Being a 14th Amendment "citizen" is not sufficient. A "President" MUST BE an Article 2 "natural born citizen" AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS' INTENT.”

Well said, Ted, and thanks for your precise and pertinent comments.

David Macko for Congress

No, this is not a picture of Ben Stein. This is David Macko, candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 14th district. Macko is a Russian Orthodox Christian, and is (or was, personal communication) the chairman of the Ohio chapter of Libertarians for Life. I don’t know why he is not listed among the candidates on either the national LP site or the Ohio LP site. But here he is listed as Libertarian. I wonder why.

He supports the Sanctity of Life Act . “Abortion is against Christian principles and L/libertarian principles properly understood…I believe that abortion is murder but punishment for that crime should be administered by the states,” he says. “Use of embryonic stem cells is the moral equivalent of cannibalism,” he says.

Macko believes that 14th amendment was improperly ratified because southern states were not included in the voting even though they had been readmitted to union, their votes for 13th amendment were counted, and Abraham Lincoln maintained that their secession was not legitimate in the first place. Although this amendment grants the right to “life, liberty, and property” and “equal protection under the law”, Macko believes that this amendment is heavy-handed and points out that this is the very amendment which the Supreme Court used to justify their authority to impose Roe v Wade. He argues that repealing it would be an admission that it is legitimate and passing a law through Congress to invalidate the 14th (and all ruling based on it) would set a bad precedent that would open the door for legitimate amendments to be repealed without the necessary approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures. The solution is to resubmit legislation to ratify the 14th. Quite interesting, wouldn’t you say?

http://www.mackoforcongress.com/webpage/7

He believes that real marriage is between a man and a woman, but would “vote to repeal all federal laws which discriminate against homosexuals, except where it would compromise our national defense,” and would not deny homosexuals the right to ordinary, voluntary contracts. He would not include sexual orientation or gender identity in federal anti-discrimination laws.

He supports the Liberty Amendment which would sell all unconstitutionally held federal businesses and lands and end the personal income, gift and death taxes. He would also get rid of the Federal Reserve and replace it with a sound, commodity-based monetary system. He also supports the RTBA (Read the Bills Act) as well as an amendment to the Constitution which would state: “Neither Congress nor the states shall hinder, impede or otherwise limit commerce among the states.”

“I support … a two to three percent tariff as the only tax which is necessary for the legitimate functions of the federal government, to protect the lives, liberty and property of citizens from foreigners, operate federal courts and make sure that federal elections are honest,” he says. He opposes the U.S. involvement in WTO, the FTAA, NAFTA, the North American Union and “other underhanded deals”. He supports the Bricker Amendment to end anti-sovereignty trade deals and other ill-advised treaties. He supports ending all foreign aid as it is both costly and unconstitutional.

Macko supports the limited, sound use of our military. “We should bring all of our troops home safely now from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea and everywhere else in the world and put them on the southern border where they are needed,” he says. He goes on to say, “We invaded Iraq in less than 90 days. We can safely get out likewise…Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gates and the rest of them should be tried as war criminals for lying us into the Iraq war, murdering hundreds of thousands, bankrupting this country and making us hated.”

“I oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner ‘Defense’ Act, the Real ID Act and all of the police state measures which the Bush and also the Clinton administrations scared the Congress into supporting,” he says.

Macko opposes the draft, the Selective Service System, and any other forms of compulsive "national service" by reason of the Thirteenth Amendment.

He believes that all federal campaign laws are a violation of the Constitution and supports instant run off voting.

On crime, he says, “Drug laws, prostitution laws, gun laws and all other victimless ‘crime’ laws should be repealed and prisons should be used for criminals.” He would abolish the ATF and FDA. He opposes the National Minimum Age Drinking Act.

He favors the elimination of the Department of Education and supports vouchers, but says they should be phased out with the income tax. Tax credits are better than vouchers.

He opposes the funding of Child Services. (He calls them kidnappers.) He opposes the Violence Against Women Acts of 1994 and 2005.

On energy, he says that global warming is a “nonmanmade natural cycle” and that we have a 200 year supply of oil reserves on Gull Island, Alaska.

He believes that the right to bear arms is a God-given right and is “the last barrier preventing the establishment of a police state”.

Macko believes that healthcare should not be tied to either employment or government and that this is the real cause of rising healthcare costs. He would eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid. “If the American people allow the government to take over health care completely, you will be regulated from morning until night in your eating habits and other behavior, just like livestock.” He believes that Social Security should be phased out gradually.

He believes in the principle of jury nullification. This concept, while almost entirely unheard of in modern America, is an essential feature of the Republic and has made us what we are today. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

A vote for Macko is a vote for sound libertarian principles. Click here to contribute.

Huckabee on Meet the Press, part 1

The Huckster says, “I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage.”


At first I thought that this was just him saying that he doesn’t want women to go to jail, just as you would hate to see anyone go to jail because just punishments aren't pleasant. But he clearly said (On Meet the Press) that he would not criminalize women who seek abortions and would NOT EVEN put an abortion doctor in jail, but would “find some way to sanction him”. He clearly does not understand biblical principles of justice and does not take the 14th amendment seriously.

He just got through saying that his beliefs about abortion go beyond religious reasoning and that they come out of the same convictions that say we should treat people of different races and religions same. But yet he is advocating a much, much, lower penalty for those responsible for murdering an unborn baby than would be conceivable for the general population. How is this treating people equally?

¡Viva la Veto!

Like addicts overcome and overdosed with an overdue fix of power, the profane, pro-socialist, pernicious Democrat-led United States House of Representatives last week recklessly pushed through and readily passed a piece of clearly unconstitutional "hate crimes" legislation – H.R. 1592 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or the Senate version (AKA the Matthew Shepard Act) S. 1105. What is the remedy for this resulting malady, this needless and heinous ‘Hate Crimes’ law? The treatment plan includes a defeat of the same bill in the United States Senate, and if that fails, an injection of a Presidential veto vaccination, followed by a regimen of self-administered reading, rehabilitation and remedial education on the United States Constitution itself. If unsuccessful then all 237 Congress people should be summarily removed from office by the voters in the 2008 election cycle.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement found on the Family Research Center’s website: "Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims are unconstitutional. The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'”

Mr. Perkins’ statement caused me to look up and see for myself what the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says. What follows is the first section of the Constitutional Amendment.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

.

Perkins continues his website article saying, "There has been no proof that violent crimes perpetrated against any of the groups listed in the bill have not been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, yet now Congress is asking the federal government to get involved in issues that are, and should remain, local concerns.” See my recent article on AGC where I provided a recent example of the extent to which the supporters of “hate crimes” laws will go to sell their evil wayward agenda.

Perkins concludes his article with a warning and a call to action, "By far the most disturbing threat we face by this legislation - is the threat it poses to free speech and our religious liberties. In some jurisdictions that have adopted similar laws, 'hate crimes' have been defined to include not just physical acts of violence but merely verbal ones as well. When 'thought crimes' laws are interpreted this way, they pose a serious threat to freedom of speech and religious liberty."I strongly encourage people to let their Senators know to vote against this unconstitutional legislation and encourage President Bush to follow through with the White House statement issued today and veto any such measure should it reach his desk."”

I have written to both of my senators urging them to vote NO on HR 1592/S 1105. I also wrote to President Bush to urge him to make good on his advisor’s counsel to him to veto this “hate crimes” measure. This veto is the last line of defense in this assault on the constitution and this affront to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. President Bush, I anticipate, will have to get his veto pen ready and use it a lot this next year and a half.