For Christian Public School Students

You have every right to expect and demand your religious rights as a Christian on a public school campus.  Any public school what discriminates against your Christianity in ANY form or fashion is in violation of the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.  You do NOT give up any right, liberties or freedoms when you take a step on a public school campus.

You have every right to meet, organize, pray, carry your Bible, read your Bible discuss your Bible and write papers about the Bible on any public school campus.  You have the right to hand out Christian pamphlets and information at your school if any other group has had such rights in the past.  You have every right to demand your Constitutionally protected rights from your public school.  If your public school principle refused to grant you your rights as a Christian, then you and your parents have every right to contact a nationally known Christian legal defense firm to assist you with receiving your rights as a Christian on a public school campus.

It is up to you to protect your rights and the rights of other Christian students to come up behind you by demanding your rights as a Christian.  The government does not have the right to disallow you the right to practice your Christian faith on the public school campus.  Stand up for your Constitutionally guaranteed rights and demand your rights from your government school.

Patriot Parties @ State Capitols

After examining the Constitution to determine where real power lies, it becomes obvious after the third or fourth reading that the power lies in the hands of the people in their individual states.  It is the 9th and 10th Amendments that limit the power of the Federal.  Constitutionally, the ultimate power in this country resides in the hands of the people at the state level.

With this being so obviously outlined by the Founders and thus guaranteed within our Founding Documents, we must never forget power rests in our hands.  It is with this power that we must directly impact our power-base, our state governments.  Our state governments ultimately provide us our power over the Federal.  We directly vote for our state leadership and our power ultimately rests in our power over these elected officials.

The call to arms for reformation of the Federal must be a call to arms to take our power back in our own states.  Our states ultimately do have the power to transform the Federal in that our states when joined together CAN re-claim every power and authority usurped by the Federal and refuse to follow law which was illegally imposed against our states by the Federal.  When our states join together to refuse to have our power usurped, we take back our power entrusted to us in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

It is therefore essential to capture the legislative and executive branches of 34 or more states with men and women staunchly committed to reclaiming states rights over and against the Federal.  We must take serious the call for states to re-establish their authority over the Federal and thus allowing We the People to re-assert our power over the Federal.  It is with this in mind that I propose the following items for like minded patriots of the Constitution:

• Hold statewide Patriot Parties at each state capitol on Saturday February 7th at Noon
• Nominate and Elect only persons willing to vote to re-claim authority for the state
• Bring Home-made signs promoting States Rights and not a political party.

From a Conservatives’ View

In my town, growing up on the far North side said all that needed to be said.  When I told someone where I lived, the snickers and sneers were all that were necessary to understand that I grew up on the wrong side of town.  No matter how much pride we took in our neighborhood and no matter how nice our neighborhood looked, we were the very poor.  Yes, we were poor, but growing up that way I never knew I was poor because everyone I knew was poor too.  I know we were at and below the poverty line many years because we received reduced or free lunches at school.  The crazy thing is that both of my parents worked in professional jobs.

Why the big intro, because it is what formed me into me?  I was bored in school and just enjoyed being the goofy, skinny, shy kid hiding from the world.  I hated to read and seldom did because I did not find it as satisfying as being in the great outdoors enjoying God’s creation.  I played every sport I could because I was relatively athletic.  I was better in baseball than the other sports and put my mind in to becoming the best player I could be.  Knowing me know you would never think I was athletic at all.

Until 1980 I never really cared about politics, and never read the newspaper.  I grew up in Arkansas and the politics in Arkansas was Democrat first and foremost.  I was raised with the principles from the 1930’s and 1940’s that taught self-reliance and self-determination.  Almost all of my friends were raised by parents following Dr. Spock and his elitist views of child rearing.  I grew up with strict rules and strict limits.  This is what made the Democrat Party incapable of keeping me in the family fold.  I was not them and never would be.

I grew up in Arkansas in the glorious times of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  I was very unimpressed with him as a human and even less impressed with her.  From the earliest years I knew what Bill was and it was relatively self evident if you cared to look.  Bill and Hillary overstepped their welcome and that is what drove me into the love of politics.  I had been in a class in 7^th or 8^th grade where we read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and I was hooked.  The ideas and principles laid out in those two documents caught me and grasped me and made me a lover of their philosophy.

Then it happened.  The second and third terms of Jimmy Carter are what permanently convinced me that the socialistic policies of the Democrat Party were not consistent with the principles of the Founding Fathers or the documents, which set forth this nation.  Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and 21% interest rates proved that liberal economics were not compatible with a capitalist society.

It was this background that laid the groundwork for my baptism into electoral politics.  God sent a great man into the life of these United States and he sat tall in the saddle.  He was a great philosopher and statesman, a true conservative for all times, my hero, Ronald Reagan.  Never have I been so enthralled or enraptured with a single human being.  He was everything I was raised to be, he was everything the Declaration and Constitution taught me about this country, he was a conservative.

I loved his political philosophy of privatizing the public sector and still think it is the most conservative philosophy I hold dear.  It is true private business can and does a better job than lazy government employees who are paid even if their work is horrible.  I have never found one single government entity that can function better than private business.

Now for the hard work at hand, what I would change as a politician.  First and foremost, I would hold weekly news conferences and drive home the point that there are only 17 – 18 items in the Constitution of the United States that are granted to the congress of the United States to legislate.  If an item in not listed in these 18 items, then according to the 9^th and 10^th Amendments to the Constitution, those rights are reserved for the people and the states.  After 10 days in office, I would file suit against the Congress of the United States and charge them with violations of the Constitution based on the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

I would charge the Congress before the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional and therefore dismantle all social programs undertaken by the federal government as violations of States Rights.  Further, I would demand from congress a constitutional to repeal of the 16^th Amendment and replace it with the Fair Tax with a taxable rate of 23% or less and demand a ¾ supermajority to raise the rate and a simple majority to lower the rate.  I would also demand that the Congress strip away the authority of the Supreme Court and all lower courts to enact legislation or demand legislation from the bench because it is a violation of the Constitution for the courts to provide legislation.

By returning the Federal Government to performing its limited role in the 18 enumerated rights, the states and the people retain their exclusive rights granted them in the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.  The Federal government will return to the states their rights and privileges guaranteed to the states and the people.  The Federal Government will be almost out of business and limited to its transient role of providing for national defense and the postal service.

The people should therefore privatize as many functions as possible and do away with federal regulations placed on it in an unconstitutional manner.  The states would therefore be able to appropriately limit the social programs that they will have placed in their jurisdiction and eliminate as many programs that they deem unnecessary.  It is the prerogative of the states to have and implement programs not enumerated to the Federal Government and it is their choice to eliminate or continue services and programs and whether to privatize those services and programs.

Journalism Is Dead

Journalism died years ago, not during the last election cycle. The internet did not kill journalism, the economy did not kill journalism, but agendaists killed journalism. These agendaists (they are not journalists because they promote a philosophical agenda) actually think they are journalists. They are no longer the watchdogs given freedom in the First Amendment; they are lazy lapdogs slobbering over any progressive idea or politician available. Their philosophical agenda drives them to disdain intellectual honesty and integrity.

Years ago, these agendaists stopped reporting two sides to a story; they chose intellectual dishonesty and editorializing instead of actual facts. They stopped providing in-depth coverage of an issue to provoke intellectual interest. Instead, they chose to promote their philosophical agenda and expected readership and viewership to continue. Even basic local news reporting is chock full of personal opinion, editorialization and half-truth.

How can the general public trust agendaists to provide intellectually honest reporting of news when every story has a skewed, progressive, philosophical slant? It appears that the public in general have had enough bias from these agendaists. They are not going to spend their money to support a media that is diametrically opposed to their own personal philosophy of life.

Since agendaists no longer provide a substantive reason for existing within the role of the First Amendment, it is time to stop calling them members of the press. It is more than evident that the agendaists have a specific philosophical bias that has bred an alliance with political progressives. The First Amendment protection of the press was to provide the people with a watchdog to inform them about the government and politicians. How can an agendaist provide the people with trustworthy, factual reporting when they are fornicating with one of the political parties?

Marriage and Societal Interests

In this discussion concerning homosexual marriage toss away any religious arguments and refuse to use them in this discussion.  Now, contemplate your answers carefully and with purpose and meaning.  Let us say, you will be judged solely upon your ability to give a concise and logical answer concerning your position in this debate.

 

First, what are the social benefits to the society in whole to allow for the acceptance of homosexual marriage?  First and foremost what societal benefits are there in any marriage?  Simply from a societal standing, marriage serves the purpose of providing a defining structure upon which the society is founded.  The argument some may say is that society needs building blocks upon which to build a safe and secure standard for normalcy.  Others have argued that society determines marriage to be a social safety net upon which governments can build a structured social society.  Still others argue that there is no societal need for the structure of marriage other than to provide social benefits to direct societal morays in a singular direction.

 

In all actuality, marriage is a basic societal building block that is encouraged by the government to provide a stable foundation for the continuation of the society.  Marriage has the backing of government to the expressed purpose of providing a safe and secure foundation upon which the general welfare of the society is structured.  This structure in itself has purpose and meaning based upon the societal needs of the foundation in needs of structure, continuation and safety.  It is in providing a structured safety for the longevity of the society that marriage has its truest societal good.  Providing a societal good has always been a defining factor in the necessity of granting a social purpose to marriage.

 

It is in the self preservation interests of a society to define marriage in a set way.  Society must first and foremost positively reward practices which are in its long-term self interest while providing no reward or even punishing practices which are not in the long-term best interests of the society.  Take into consideration law as it deals with marriage.  What is law other than a societal set of morays codified to provide for the safety and longevity of the society?  Are some laws restrictive and not always in the best interest of individuals, but best for the long-term interest of the society?  The answer is a resounding yes.  That is what law is for all intents and purpose, the limiting of individual rights for the long-term interest of the society.

 

What are the societal benefits of heterosexual marriage?  It provides a social safety structure promoting the birth of a next generation of citizens for the society.  It provides a social stability to the raising of children in a fashion that is in the long-term interest of the society.  Socially and financially, a heterosexual household provides a more well rounded integration into the society in terms of its interests.  When examining the defined purpose of a homogeneous society it becomes self evident that safety, security, and long-term preservation are always the central purposes driving any society forward toward greatness.

 

What are the societal benefits of homosexual marriage?  There are no discernable societal benefits from homosexual marriage.  The only persons benefiting from homosexual marriage are the homosexuals involved.  They provide no long-term societal benefits and therefore provide no reason for existence within a society.  This is not a judgment about the behavior involved or the persons involved, it is a societal examination of the implicit and explicit facts of the long-term best interest of a society.

 

From a societal view of marriage, heterosexual marriage provides the most social benefits to the society and therefore is to be granted favored or rewarded status and favored.  It is not a matter of rights to the societal recognition of homosexual marriage that should be considered, because rights are limited in every aspect of society by laws intended to provide for the long-term best interest of the society.

 

Societies which grant rights to individuals which are in contrast with the defined best interests of the society are providing for incompatible outcomes for the society and are condemning the society to a fissure which cannot be overcome by other strong aspects of the society.  These incompatible fissures will expand and cause societal division that will lead to the shortening of the life span of the society and its ultimate dissolution due to the fact that it provided for morays contrary to its desired self-interests.

Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins before Barack Obama raises tax

Sell Before Dems Take Total Control Mr. Huizenga, I am a founding member of CastMaster Ministries Inc. a 501(c)3 non profit.  We will be glad to accept your offer to give us the Miami Dolphins.  You can write off your donation, because you are going to need it with Obama.  I will even offer you the job of running our newly acquired team.  That way, you can screw Obama and the tax code, and I can be of assistance all at the same time.

I suspect this is going to be a theme of many businessmen around the country.  If this country elects Barack Obama, every businessman and businesswoman knows we are headed for the largest redistribution of wealth that the world has ever seen and they do not want their money to be part of it.  The smart business plan would be to sell or give to charity all major assests before Obama and his socialist ilk in the house and senate take over in January.  We all know that they will make tax hikes retroactive.

The smart thing is to sell and hold onto your liquid wealth and wait for a new administration in 4 years once the economy looks like a Jimmy Carter remix of double digit inflation and 21% interest rates all over again.  Wealth will be able to be reborn after this socialist experiment is over in 4 years.  Sell, hold your cash and do not buy and do not work is the best option.  As capitalists we can show our disdain by witholding income to those who voted for thes socialists.

If you own a business, sell now or better yet, close your doors and fire all of your employees on Dec 31, 2008 if Obama wins.  Then take out adds telling the community why you are no longer going to take a risk with your long term financial well being.  Then take all of your assests and move them offshore, the Grand Caymens is a nice place to visit in January.

BARACK’S (opps) – Karl’s 10 Planks

Barack’s Karl’s 10 Planks

By far and away, it is apparent that Barack Obama and his friends and ilk are Marxsist Socialists.

Once A Socialist, Always a Socialist

I have called him a socialist for months now.  Finally, PROOF in his own words and membership to the NEW Party in Chicago, a socialist political party.  How many have been fooled?  How many bought his socialist lies?  How many are going to swarm away from the socialist now?

Landslide for the Repubs?  Goodbye Harry Reid?  Goodbye Nancy Pelosi?

 

May your socialist buddies, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Chuckie Shumar also rot with your politically dying corpse!  Would you now go rot the rest of you socialist life away somewhere but here in the USA.

Ties go to the Out Party

McCain only drew a tie again tonight.  McCain did not pull away from Obama.  McCain may only have scored a 53%-47% victory, but that is a tie in a debate.  McCain needed a 65% win tonight and he did not get it.  It is my opinion at this point in time that this election is over.  Though it may pain me, I may have to begin saying President Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin – Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher Rolled Into One

I was shaking and scared of what I thought was going to happen tonight during the debate.  I sat down and thought that the ABC and CBS interviews were going to be the beginning of the end and tonight was going to be the end of the McCain/Palin campaign.  After tonight, I am more convinced than ever that this ticket should be the Palin/McCain ticket.  Sarah Palin had the strength, passion, direction and ability to stand her own with a U.S. Senator who had been serving for more than 25 years.

 

Sarah Palin was more in touch with the people watching the debate than her counterpart.  She is not the oaf or buffoon that the press has made her out to be.  Sarah put Biden on the defensive all night long.  She was respectful and willing to take it too the Obama/Biden team all night long.

 

There was not a deer in the headlights moment that was expected from the press and she demonstrated that she has the gravitas to be the Vice President of the United States.

 

Sarah Palin demonstrated tonight why I hope and pray for at least 8 years of a Palin Presidency.  Michael Reagan has said that Sarah is a reincarnation of his father, but one that wears a dress.  I think it is even possible to go one step further, I would say that she is a true combination of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.  We should all begin calling her Lady Palin!