The Barber Shoppe Gazette

Monday, November 06, 2006

Vote Your Disgust: Write-In "Donald Duck"

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: VOTE YOUR DISGUST - VOTE THIRD PARTY OR WRITE-IN "DONALD DUCK"

Etherzone

Smiley Flag Waver

This election, I’m voting for every third party candidate on the ballot. I don’t care who they are and it doesn’t bother me a bit that I don’t know much about any of them. They didn’t bother me with flyers, advertising braggadocio, and they certainly haven’t sworn allegiance to either of our malicious republican or democratic parties. We would be better off picking representatives by lottery, but that isn’t going to happen and this is the next best thing.

Wherever there is no third party candidate, I’m going to write in Donald Duck.

DONALD DUCK
WRITE-IN FOR DISGUST

~ By: Ed Henry

Wherever there is no third party candidate, I’m going to write in Donald Duck. He’s got the name recognition it takes to be a candidate, he’s honest, seventy-two years old, a sailor who wouldn’t “stay the course” when headed for a reef, and unlike Mickey and Minnie, he and Daisy are at least engaged to be married. They also have three nephews, Huey, Louie, and Dewey, which is more than you can say for the mouse, plus Uncle Scrooge who would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury.

Most importantly, Donald doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t. He’s a cartoon character that confronts things head-on with integrity. He can be amusing and serious at the same time. And he can’t tell a lie. His blue, white, and yellow colors do not change with every shift of the wind. When he swears to uphold the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, he’ll do it.

That’s more than you can say for any of the incumbents that have sold us down the drain, gave tax cuts to the wealthy while doing nothing about excessive payroll taxes, and are knowingly spending our supplemental Social Security retirement money. In my opinion, we ought to be sending the entire 109th Congress to Guantanamo where they could enjoy the treatment they’ve condoned for others.

I’m serious. Vote for Donald. Of course, he’s just a symbol -- that’s the point. Register your disgust with the present liars, crooks, armchair war mongers, and parasites in both parties. It’s better than not even showing up at the poles.

Just think about it. Donald doesn’t need money to campaign. He’s already a household figure. He’s never been seen with lobbyists or influence peddlers. He doesn’t depend on spinach like Popeye and, in fact, he doesn’t chew cocoa leaves or seem to ingest anything for sustenance. He has no need for thousand-dollar-a-plate fund raising dinners or ranch barbeques. If Donald had a ranch, you’d see ponds full of ducks and geese, positive growth in herds of cattle, horses, and there would be green things growing everywhere, not just sand and sagebrush. And he wouldn’t be sitting back watching others do the work or showing foreigners around.

Do you think Donald would put up with millions of sombrero ducks crossing our border five years after 9/11? Do you think he’d be invading hapless countries in order to drink their oil? Do you think Daisy would put up with him if he ran around molesting interns and pages? Do you think he’d build highways and bridges to nowhere? Do you think he’d sell our ports, roads, parks and forests to the Arabs?

Let’s get our priorities and responsibilities straight. I’m not the one who made a mockery of Congress, our legislative body. I’m not the one who conceded the constitutional responsibility to declare war and invade countries that did us no harm. I’m not the one who passed the Patriot Act and then after all the complaints about it passed Patriot Act II that went even further taking away liberties and putting us on the road to a police state. I’m not the one who authorized wire tapping, torture, and passed the Military Commissions Act that abandoned Habeas Corpus, the basis of being innocent until proven guilty. I’m not the one who allowed big corporate mergers and monopolies or gave away no-bid contracts and exported corruption to Iraq and New Orleans. I haven’t broken any promises, oaths, or made any "signing statements," and I certainly have not stolen any retirement money from America’s workers.

But I am the one who can show my contempt and disgust with our representatives in both the House and Senate and from both republican and democrat parties, not by staying away from the voting booth, but by giving my vote to a fictional character from the world of cartoon comedy. Writing in Donald Duck on the ballot expresses my frustration like nothing else. Fight Bizarro World with something bizar.

Donald can represent America the way it once was in its heyday when progress was measurable and the dollar meant something. Even the most sheltered and out of touch politician should understand that. And it will be emphatically driven home if the duck appears anywhere at any level in the election results.

If George W. Bush can grow into the job -- so can Donald Duck.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com :

Republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Political Sellout Of U.S. Property Rights

POLITICS / INTERNATIONALISM: POLITICAL EROSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Jim Kouri

Smiley Flag Waver Both major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In a speech recently delivered at the Tenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights of the Property Rights Foundation of America, international trade and regulatory law expert Lawrence Kogan discussed how misguided American internationalists are actually helping foreign governments and environmental and health extremists to weaken the US Constitution and the exclusive private property rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

INT'L. LAW EXPERT: US INTERNATIONALISTS SELLING OUT US PROPERTY RIGHTS

~ Jim Kouri, CPP
November 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

As the November elections approach, the overwhelming majority of Americans are totally unaware that their homeland as they know is being dramatically changed -- and not for the better. Both major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In today's world, Internationalism is most commonly expressed as an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace. People who express this view take pride in not only being a citizen of their respective countries, but of being a "citizen of the world."

Internationalists feel obliged to assist the world through leadership and charity. Internationalists advocate the presence of a United Nations-style organization, and often support a stronger version of a world government.

Contributors to this vision of Internationalism believe in a world government, and express contempt for the US. For instance, Albert Einstein, a supporter of One World Government, warned of what he called "the follies of patriotism" being "an infantile sickness."

These US politicians are promoting the adoption of strict regulatory laws and flexible compulsory licensing mechanisms used in other countries within Europe and Latin America that are "known for their socialist solutions to 'deemed' market failures, populist wealth redistribution policies, significantly higher regulatory burdens, ideological aversion to scientific and economic protocols and the deployment of novel technologies, and slower economic growth rates."

According to Mr. Kogan, these mechanisms are being used to "indirectly take [away] private property for ... public use which also benefits new private owners. They constitute a new genre of 'takings' based on the 'public trust doctrine' that are specially designed to dispense with the need to pay 'just compensation,' and thus, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights ... And, such rules are being systematically imported into and/or reactivated within the US under our very noses."

"Perhaps the simplest way to appreciate the enormity of the problem before us," says Kogan, "is to conceive of the new genre of private property 'takings' theories now being promoted both here and abroad using the letter 'C' ... The 7 'C's stand for convergence of regulatory systems, centralized and state planned economies, communal property, control by government, circumvention of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, compulsory licensing of intellectual property which is the eminent domain of real property, and competition, as in the need for disguised protectionism to level the global economic playing field."

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not not for sale or re-sale.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Replacing Neo-Conservatives With Neo-Communists

POLITICS / ELECTION 2006: REPLACING NEO-CONSERVATIVES WITH NEO-COMMUNISTS

Smiley Flag Waver Will middle class Americans continue leaning toward liberal Democrats in the thinking that the latter better understand their plight? After all, liberals' seeming disdain for private property rights and love of homosexual causes belies this notion and illuminates the reality. Liberals claim to be for the common man. In truth, they're only for the uncommon man.

Make no mistake, the liberal Democrats whose ascendancy seems imminent, led by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, have plans for you. Oh, they're not plans proclaimed loudly from mountaintops because this might give the peons second thoughts. Nor are they plans whose design will serve us. But there are some other things to expect if liberals take the helm.

IT'S YOUR PARTY, AND YOU'LL CRY IF YOU WANT TO?

~ By Selwyn Duke
November 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

To still the siren of the heart and defer to the head is to seldom be wrongly led.
So many wrong things feel so right. "You know, I really told my mother-in-law off the other day and, boy, did it feel good." Of course, what has changed? Your mother-in-law is still the nag she always was. One change, though, is that now your family politics has descended into the abyss.
This occurs to me when I hear my political soul mates talk of sitting on their hands this election cycle. I hear pundits and plebeians both make pronouncements about how we have to "clean house" and teach the straying Republican Party a lesson. "Why, we'll show 'em! Take us for granted, will you!"
Now, perhaps my grasp of the principles of hygiene is flawed, but my understanding is that you can't clean a house by replacing the dust with toxic waste. So, let's see if we can learn a lesson here today.
I'm as disappointed in the liberal tendencies of the neo-con lot as you are. Personally, I'd like to be coronated king and have the Weimar Republicans perform menial labor around the palace. And maybe Lindsey Graham could be my court jester. But you know what is even more amusing about this fantasy than the scenario itself? It's just slightly more fanciful than the notion that replacing neo-cons with neo-communists will, in a political galaxy not so far, far away, yield better government.
Every election presents us with a real opportunity to clean house and House - and Senate. It's called the "primaries." This is when true conservatives, be they major party players or the rarest of breeds - a viable third-party candidate - can be chosen over inside-the-beltway retreads. And understand that when we complain about some of the Republicans running in the general election, we are complaining about Republican voters' primary choices. And the time to address that was before the primaries - not now.
And don't tell me we don't have the opportunities. Sure, such individuals may not always capture the backing of the intermittently feckless Republican leadership, but they run. And when the voters run away from them, it sends the wrong message. If we want to teach liberal Republicans a lesson, we need to nominate conservative ones.
One such opportunity materialized during the Illinois gubernatorial primaries. Conservative dairy magnate Jim Oberweis sought the Republican nomination, hoping to unseat leftist governor Rod Blagojevich, who I not so affectionately call Blago the Terrible. Instead of choosing fresh milk, however, the Republicans of Illinois opted for old cheese. They nominated Judy Baar Topinka, a political hack whose liberal views are largely indistinguishable from Blago's. Anyway, how it shakes out is that slim just left town for Topinka, and the Blago the Terrible infection will continue to metastasize, making it a very Ill-inois indeed. Hey, people get the government they deserve.
Some will respond to my point about limiting corrective action to the primaries by pointing out that the power of incumbency needs to be broken. But this is a self-defeating argument. After all, once leftists take the reins, they will enjoy the power of incumbency. And why should we think that two years hence conservatives will be able to rise from the ashes of our immolation and break a liberal stranglehold on government?
Now, if you're still sitting there with a red face, pursed lips and folded arms, thinking there is virtue in jumping from the frying pan into the fire, let's gain some perspective.
Things can always be worse. Much, much worse. It's easy to forget this, though, if you listen to the talking bobbleheads in the media and cast your vote based on vague notions about Republican mishandling of Iraq and the fanciful one that Democrats (a majority of Senate Democrats also voted for the war) hold a never revealed panacea. But, while the Democrats offer no magic bullet for the pacification of Iraq, they most certainly are the poisoned pill for something of even greater import: the Supreme Court.
If the Court hasn't occupied the upper tiers of your priority list, tear it up. Remember that courts can effect social engineering by judicial fiat, reshaping America for generations to come. And this practice, involving contravention of the Constitution and known as judicial activism, has been practiced incessantly by leftist judges for decades now.
The best illustration is a real life example. You may remember the Kelo eminent domain decision. This was the outrage wherein, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court ruled that localities could seize property from one private entity (usually a citizen of modest means) for the purposes of giving it to another private entity (usually a big business that would use it to make money).
Quite fittingly, this un-American decision was assailed from all sides, left, right and center. Despite this, however, most people fail to see the association between their electoral choices and such judicial abuse. So let's identify the culprits.
The five justices who voted to abrogate private property rights were the more liberal ones: Steven Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Those standing up for the little guy were William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor. The late Rehnquist was a rock solid conservative, as are Thomas and Scalia. O'Connor was a moderate who often cast the swing vote.
Now, bear in mind that President Bush has nominated and the Republican Congress confirmed two more good justices to the bench, bringing the total to four - one short of a majority. And with Stevens being eighty-six years old, there's a fair chance that Bush will have the opportunity to nominate that crucial fifth justice. Who do you want this individual to be? Another in the mold of Ginsberg, who once said, "We [judges, when making decisions] must look for inspiration beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations"? Or do you want a justice who respects the rule of law and adheres to our constitution, thereby protecting our rights? A Democrat controlled legislature would "Bork" any truly good justice.
A more recent example of leftist judicial activism, albeit on a state level, is the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in favor of anti-marriage. Unbelievably, after admitting that no right to civil unions or anti-marriage exists in the New Jersey Constitution, the justices simply decided they would trump the will of the people and become a de facto oligarchy.
As critical as understanding what happened, however, is understanding how it happened. The people of NJ voted for liberal politicians (even the Republicans in NJ are quite liberal) who appointed and confirmed bad judges who, in turn, issued bad rulings. It's easy to understand if you can connect the dots and follow A to B to C. The problem is that people simply complain about the C, forget all about the B, and then re-elect the A. Yes, people get the government they deserve. And if we don't deserve the C, we'll remember the A.
In the same vein, this past July the Democrats actually admitted that they formulated a "five-point plan for fighting state ballot measures calling for banning same-sex marriage." Please read the linked article. The frankness about their desire to thwart the will of the people and destroy marriage is stunning.
In light of the aforementioned, will middle class Americans continue leaning toward liberal Democrats in the thinking that the latter better understand their plight? After all, liberals' seeming disdain for private property rights and love of homosexual causes belies this notion and illuminates the reality. Liberals claim to be for the common man. In truth, they're only for the uncommon man.
Make no mistake, the liberal Democrats whose ascendancy seems imminent, led by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, have plans for you. Oh, they're not plans proclaimed loudly from mountaintops because this might give the peons second thoughts. Nor are they plans whose design will serve us. But here are some other things to expect if liberals take the helm.
1. The border fence will never be built. Remember that it still has to be funded (there's some question as to whether it will be funded anyway), and San Francisco Pelosi and her ilk will never let that happen.
2. Expect an effort to repeal the partial-birth abortion ban, the law that prohibits what is nothing less than infanticide.
3. There will be efforts to raise taxes and institute wasteful, inane programs and politically correct policies.
4. We will be subjected to an endless barrage of witch hunts, investigations of the Bush administration animated by vindictiveness and designed to cripple traditionalist initiatives.
5. There will probably be an effort to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine," a mislabeled piece of legislation that would force talk radio to give liberals equal time. However, it would target only conservative dominated talk radio, while ignoring the left's hegemony in the more influential mainstream media.
This is just a sampling of the socialist agenda elements that will be pushed by the liberal Democrats, should they seize control of the houses. And this brings me to my next point.

Some say they don't trust Bush, as he has betrayed conservative principles. Okay, fair enough. But then, why in the world would you trust him to stand firm against an aggressive, relentless Democrat legislative branch bent on effecting leftist policies? Are you sure that he won't be cowed into signing even more liberal legislation? You must think he is quite the man.
We would do well to remember that the Republicans may be a disappointment, but they're our disappointment.

So, voting Republican this November isn't about being a party animal who imbibes ideology-spiked Kool-Aid. It's about quieting that siren and not mistaking perturbation for perspicacity. And it's about understanding that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. It is said that while Ronald Reagan adhered to certain immutable conservative principles, he understood politics well enough to realize that sometimes you have to settle for half a loaf.
This sounds a lot better to me than stale crumbs and impending starvation. And I'd expect nothing else from the let-them-eat-cake liberals in the party of the uncommon man.

© 2006 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New York. He's a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur and writer whose works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual Conservative, nenewamerica.us (Alan Keyes) and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco and Algeria and quite a number of other countries while playing the international tennis circuit.

E-Mail: SD@SelwynDuke.com

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Restore Values To America's Self-Government

AMERICA - POLITICS AND RELIGION / RESTORING FAMILY, HERITAGE, MORALITY, TRADITION, TRUTH AND VALUES

Coach Dave Daubenmire

Smiley Flag Waver Over the past forty years the American public has silently and steadily lost touch with the past. In this Age of Information, we are embarrassingly ignorant of our roots. As a wise man once said, “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” As America spins in circles am I the only one who feels dizzy? Our children will be the one’s to pay the price.

Unless we are willing to build bridges across racial and denominational walls, the Church in America will continue to appear powerless to stem the tide of debauchery sweeping across this land. If we love our country, our children, and our Lord, we must lay down our swords against each other and focus on a unified effort to restore Biblical values to this great experiment in self-government.

REBUILDING THE WALLS

Coach Dave Daubenmire
November 2, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

There is a great deal of talk these days about tearing down the walls that divide the Church. Unless we are willing to build bridges across racial and denominational walls, the Church in America will continue to appear powerless to stem the tide of debauchery sweeping across this land. If we love our country, our children, and our Lord, we must lay down our swords against each other and focus on a unified effort to restore Biblical values to this great experiment in self-government.

Just as important as tearing down walls is the need to rebuild some that we have allowed to crumble. Isaiah 58:12 “And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.”

A friend of mine who works in the construction business once told me that reconstruction is harder than new-construction because of the tearing-down process that has to take place before the old foundation upon which you have to re-build can be exposed. The average American citizen no longer has any idea about the old foundations of this country. Most Christians are so heavenly minded, that they are no longer any earthly good. We have become savorless salt, filling our shakers with “seasoning” from the world.

Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

Over the past forty years the American public has silently and steadily lost touch with the past. In this Age of Information, we are embarrassingly ignorant of our roots. As a wise man once said, “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” As America spins in circles am I the only one who feels dizzy? Our children will be the one’s to pay the price.

Since I have been writing and absorbing the regular feedback from those who read my commentaries, I have been becoming more and more aware of the dearth of understanding amongst Christians as to what is really happening to our nation. The post-WWII assault on Truth, our Constitution, and our Faith, especially in our public education system, has left the foundations of America cracked and crumbling. Too long content with sticking my thumb in the dike every time a tyrannical court makes an abdominal ruling, I have come to the realization that America has far more ignorance than I have thumbs. I have decided to make better use of my hands by grabbing a hammer, some nails, and begin to rebuild the wall.

For over 6 years I have been visiting churches, men's groups, youth groups, and schools, trying my best to make the argument that Christians must engage the culture. It is only during the last few months that I have come to the conclusion that men and women will not stand and fight simply because of "a lack of knowledge.” Part of the unwillingness to speak up comes from a woeful ignorance of the past. We don’t know enough to defend our position.

Over the past couple of years I have dedicated myself to a study of the American history that I deemed irrelevant during my high school daze. When I was sued by the ACLU for praying I knew in my heart that I had a right to pray with our team, but I had no legal basis for my belief. How could praying be against the law? Didn’t the First Amendment, the one bit of the Constitution I remembered, guarantee me freedom of religion?

I dove headlong into history and was amazed at what I found.

At a recent presentation I was making in Illinois, I made the comment that one of my attorney friends had told me that he had never read the Constitution. He explained that all he'd studied in law school were court decisions…what judges had said about the Constitution. In all of his law school classes, not one was a study of the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders.

After my presentation was over that morning, both a local practicing attorney (who was a former prosecutor), as well as a currently-seated judge who was running for re-election, confirmed that they too had NEVER READ THE CONSTITUTION! Is it any wonder our legal system is a mess? Our law schools teach lawyers to study the unconstitutional opinions of other misinformed judges! Instead of stare decisis that is Scary Decisis!

No matter how hard I tried to convince Christians that we had been duped by the courts, most had become convinced that the “separation of church and state” was in the Constitution--and most assumed it was written in the Bill of Rights. I have been working diligently to spread the truth every time I had the opportunity to speak. I have recently come to the realization that I don’t have the time, nor the invitation, to speak in every church in America. But I am driven to get the word out.

I have created a Powerpoint presentation that I use when I teach. Taped in a church, the one hour sessions are powerful and truthful and open the eyes of people every where I carry the message. My high-energy presentation, supported by documentation, is equipping with the facts those who are willing to learn about the coup that has taken place in America. We must re-educate ourselves or we will never be able to save the Republic. I am not an attorney, but I can read! What part of Congress shall make no law don’t you understand? Do we need a misinformed attorney or judge to explain those five words to us?

I am making these presentations available online to those who would like to help spread the Truth. I have done all of the work, gathered the information together, and presented it in a way that is sure to inspire you. Each packet includes a one-hour CD, and a small 10-page manual that provides follow-along documentation for easy self-study. It is nothing fancy, just plain talk, laced with Scripture, but the Truth will set you free!

Three different teachings are currently available and more will follow. The studies include:

Exposing the Lie: Separation of Church and State

This CD and documentation will open your eyes to how far America has fallen from the intentions of the Framers of this nation. This lesson covers The Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance, preambles of the 50 States, an overview of the Declaration of Independence, a brief overview of the Constitution, the Danbury Baptists' letter to Jefferson, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the wall Hugo Black built, an explanation of the First Amendment, quotes from the Founding Fathers, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision Holy Trinity vs U.S.

Secular Humanism vs. Christianity: The Battle of the Worldviews

We have been told that our schools are supposed to be "religion free" zones. This lesson exposes the indoctrination of America's school children in the religion of Secular Humanism. Guaranteed to change the way you see government schools. Learn about what determines a Biblical worldview, does your pastor have a Biblical worldview, what is Secular Humanism, quotes from famous Humanists, and evolution is their tool. Moral Relativism, situational ethics, when our courts declared that Humanism is a religion, John Dewey's influence, how the religion of Secular Humanism is being taught in our schools, the 15 planks of the Humanist Manifesto, and a Questions and Answers session.

Judicial Tyranny: How the Courts are Controlling America

We hear a lot these days about tyranny, but few understand the tyranny of the courts. None of the major cultural issues of our day have been decided by a vote of the People, but rather by the edict of judges. Judges’ decisions are not laws....they are opinions. Only the legislative branch can make law. The power of the People has been taken away. Topics covered include What is Tyranny, America is a republic not a democracy, what is an oligarchy, what our Founders said about democracy, God's four levels of government, Biblical basis for our three branches of government, powers of each branch, separation of powers, how the courts have usurped power, bogus "Right to Privacy," what is a Penumbra, Krytocracy, how the 13, 14, 15 Amendments voided State’s Rights, and seven Supreme Court decisions that changed America.

I am convinced that these powerful teachings will make a difference with you and your friends. They can be used in Bible studies, Sunday School, as a lesson for home educators, and would be great to use to open the eyes of your pastor!

Normally we will ask a donation of $12 for each class, but as an introductory offer we would like to make all three available for a donation of $25, plus shipping and handling.

But here is the great thing … you can make as many copies as you like … give them to all of your friends ... no copyright restrictions. I’m not interested in building a ministry. I’m trying to help build the kingdom!

Consider this. Imagine if you held a Bible study with 10 people in your home. These one-hour classes will be valuable in helping develop a Biblical worldview. Now imagine if the host of the Bible study gave a copy of the teaching to all 10 people, and each of them shared it with ten. We could exponentially impact this nation.

Order yours today. Only the Truth can save America. Together we can begin to rebuild the walls.

I’m no David Barton or Bill Federer but the information and presentation are invaluable.

My people perish for a lack of knowledge . . . it is time we rescued the perishing!

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Hey … check out my new CD…Why Should God Bless America?…it's better than listening to O'Rush, O'Hannity, or O'Reilly. Pass some salt to your friends!

Coach Dave Daubenmire, founder and President of Pass The Salt Ministries www.ptsalt.com and Minutemen United www.minutemenunited.org, is host of the high octane Pass The Salt radio show heard in Columbus, Ohio.

In 1999 Coach Daubenmire was sued by the ACLU for praying with his teams while coaching high school in Ohio. He now spends his energy fighting for Christian principles in the public domain.

E-Mail: coach@ptsalt.com

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

American People Are Tough On Activist Judges

U.S. JUDICIARY / WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TOUGH ON ACTIVIST JUDGES

Judicial Watch Mast Head

Smiley Flag Waver One former Suprene Court Justice says "Yes!" Sandra Day O'Connor wrote an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal recently, complaining that the anger the American people have expressed towards our nation's judges is excessive and threatens the proper functioning of the judicial system. Specifically, Justice O'Connor writes" "the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history -- using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat ti the independent judiciary."

Can any of you think of reasons why the American people might have a problem with some judges? I can think of more than a few.

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Are The American People Too Hard On Activist Judges?

One former Supreme Court Justice says "Yes!" Sandra Day O'Connor wrote an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal recently, complaining that the anger the American people have expressed towards our nation's judges is excessive and threatens the proper functioning of the judicial system. Specifically, Justice O'Connor writes: "the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history -- using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat to the independent judiciary."

Can any of you think of reasons why the American people might have a problem with some judges? I can think of more than a few.

Just one month ago, Judicial Watch uncovered the fact that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who ruled the government's anti-terrorism wiretapping program unconstitutional, had a potential conflict of interest she failed to disclose. (She served on the board of a foundation that gave money to the ACLU, the lead plaintiff in the suit challenging the eavesdropping program.)

Then, there are also instances where judges seem to take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. For example, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles which is paying judges cash benefits that are prohibited by state law. Overall, the county wastes $20 million each year in taxpayer funds. When people hear that judges are enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers, they ought to be upset.

And then there are the decisions -- the horrible instances of judicial activism where the U.S. Constitution is scrapped in favor of the personal whims of liberal judges (more often than not acting at the behest of the ultra-leftist ACLU.) Case in point: The ruling, since overturned, by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that school children cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase, "Under God." That is the type of judicial activist decision -- and there are many -- that undermines faith in the judiciary.

According to Judge William Pryor, who offered a rebuttal op-ed to the O'Connor piece, the American people have a right to express their distaste at such dreadful and damaging decisions. "The judiciary has rendered some unjust decisions that deserved harsh rebuke," he wrote. Judge Pryor continued, "Many who complain about criticisms of the judiciary concede that some criticism of judicial decisions is fair. That assessment is too mild. Occasionally criticism of judicial decisions is essential to the progress of our constitutional republic."