Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Getting A Pro-Constitution Court

July 13, 2012 by  

Getting A Pro-Constitution Court
If you want to change the Supreme Court, you’d better begin by changing the guy in the White House.

A neighbor and I were discussing the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare a few days ago when he made the comment, “That was a really black day for America. Maybe the worst in many years.”

His remark got me thinking. Which was the more momentous date? When the Court issued its verdict on June 28? When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted into law and signed by the President in March 2010? Or was the most critical date November 2008, when a lot of gullible Americans accepted Barack Obama’s promises for “hope and change” and elected him President?

Of course, they are all important dates in history. But it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it, that the first and second would never have happened if it weren’t for the third? Elections have consequences. One of the biggest consequences of the next one is that whoever wins the Presidency will probably get to appoint two or three new members to our Nation’s highest court.

Think about it. Three current members of the Court — conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia, liberal dependable Ruth Bader Ginsburg and occasional swing vote Anthony Kennedy — will all reach their 80s during the next Presidential Administration. Assuming some or all of them retire sometime over the next four years, whoever is nominated to succeed them could change the Court’s complexion for decades to come.

As you know, a Federal judgeship is a lifetime gig. The average length of service on the Supreme Court is currently 25 years. But with nominees getting younger and younger and with longevity increasing, new appointees could serve for 30 or 40 years.

If you think Chief Justice Roberts had to turn logic on its head to find that Obamacare was Constitutional, just wait until you see what an even more liberal Court will allow. It’s hard to imagine that such a court would find any expansion of Federal power unConstitutional.

While I’m certainly willing to agree that June 28 was a bad day for liberty in this country, I can think of many others that were worse. In fact, in my humble opinion, it wasn’t even the worst Supreme Court decision I can remember. For that dishonor, we have to go back almost 40 years, when the Court voided the anti-abortion laws of 46 States in Roe vs. Wade. That decision (which came on a 7-2 vote), caused more death, destruction and controversy than any other ruling in my lifetime.

Another damaging day in judicial history was way back in May 1954, when the Court ruled (unanimously, by the way) in Brown vs. Board of Education that “separate but equal” educational facilities would no longer be allowed in this country.

Today, most of us would probably agree that separate facilities could never be equal. And that trying to use the police power of the State to keep races separate was a huge mistake. Segregation created some monstrous injustices at the time and a legacy of bitterness and resentment that has lasted to this day.

But in its decision the Supreme Court did much more than simply declare that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. The ruling paved the way for a massive Federal takeover of education in the United States. It led directly to such insanity as cross-town busing, to achieve some dubious level of integration that was dictated by a Federal judge.

Until that time, it was generally understood that a Supreme Court decision was “the law of the case.” But with the Brown decision, it became “the law of the land.” The judicial branch of government had usurped the power of the legislative branch. The Court was issuing dictates that would never have been approved by Congress or the individual States.

At the time, there was an enormous amount of opposition to the Federal courts assuming these vast new powers. I remember helping distribute a powerful little book called Nine Men Against America. There were even calls for Congress to rein in the Court by limiting its authority or trying to remove some of its members.

One of the things that makes our system of government so remarkable is all of the ways that our Founding Fathers tried to limit the power of the central government. In school we were taught that the Constitution would not even have been adopted were it not for the addition of those first 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. It’s been a long time, however, since any justice (or most politicians, for that matter) paid more than lip service to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Remember hearing about all of the “checks and balances” the framers put in place between the three branches of the Federal government: executive, legislative and judicial? We know that the first, the executive, gets to appoint nominees to the Supreme Court (and other Federal courts). And that the second, the legislative, gets to approve or deny those nominations.

But Congress’ power over the judiciary doesn’t end there. Our Founding Fathers were determined to give the people’s representatives, the Legislature, additional ways to check the other two branches of government. One was the ability to declare some issues “off limits” to the courts, by voting to remove their “appellate jurisdiction.”

The other check that Congress was given over the other two branches of government was the power of impeachment — that is, the ability to present charges against members of the courts and even the President.

In the 1960s, when the John Birch Society launched a nationwide movement under the slogan “Impeach Early Warren,” many people weren’t even aware that the Constitution gave Congress such a power — or, for that matter, what it meant or how it would be exercised.

I don’t think Congress has ever voted to impeach a member of the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton was the first President since Andrew Johnson to even have impeachment charges leveled against him.

At the time, I questioned whether lying about a tryst with an intern approached the level of misconduct that our Founding Fathers envisioned before a sitting President would be impeached. A majority of members of the House must have agreed, because Smilin’ Bill wasn’t charged. (What he no doubt heard from Hillary when she got him alone is another matter entirely.)

What are the chances that Congress will use either of these Constitutional remedies to rein in the Supreme Court? Pretty darned close to zero, I’m afraid.

That means if you want to see more pro-Constitution decisions from the Supreme Court, you’d better make sure the next appointees share your appreciation for our founding document. Otherwise, we’ll just get more justices whose oath to uphold the Constitution means as little to them as the one Barack Obama took obviously means to him.

In other words, if you want to change the Court, you’d better begin by changing the guy in the White House.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood


Corrected: Original stated Andrew Jackson, not Andrew Johnson, had impeachment charges brought against him.

Chip Wood

is the geopolitical editor of He is the founder of Soundview Publications, in Atlanta, where he was also the host of an award-winning radio talk show for many years. He was the publisher of several bestselling books, including Crisis Investing by Doug Casey, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham and The War on Gold by Anthony Sutton. Chip is well known on the investment conference circuit where he has served as Master of Ceremonies for FreedomFest, The New Orleans Investment Conference, Sovereign Society, and The Atlanta Investment Conference.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Getting A Pro-Constitution Court”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • bruceb64

    EVERY One of US Need to go to the polls in Nov!!! Contact your Friends, Families, Even your enemies and tell them to VOTE!!! Lets Take our Country BACK!!! To Quote Mama “O”. “You Need to Multiply Yourselves”. I guess that means to Vote……OFTEN? LOL. Seriously. We need to get everyone we can to go and vote. Only Once though ;>)

    • mark

      Why bother voting? Don’t you know that all elections in this country are fixed. Haven’t you been reading this webpage lately?

      • Capitalist at Birth

        All of the Libertarian Loons who will vote for anybody but Romney or Obama and throw the election to Obama?

        • Bob Livingston

          Dear Capitalist at Birth,

          You write: “All of the Libertarian Loons who will vote for anybody but Romney or Obama and throw the election to Obama?” You carp about this often. Candidate Romney is not entitled to anyone’s vote. It is his job to earn it. If he fails to earn enough votes to win, the fault is his, not voters who voted their conscience and whose reasons for voting the way to do are as valid as yours. The only person with the ability to “throw the election to Obama” is Romney.

          Best wishes,

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I’d like to know why romney isn’t TRYING to win! No candidate has ever had such true and honest ammunition as he has, yet you hardly hear a peep out of him! Why isn’t he screaming about the atrocities being committed? Why isn’t he speaking about the attempted communist takeover? Why isn’t he speaking about righting the wrongs? Why do we hear not a word from him on the LOST treaty or the small arms treaty? Why isn’t he pounding obummer on the TRUE state of the economy? Why isn’t he speaking out about the corruption in the attorney general’s office? I could go on and on and on. But the point is, WHY ISN’T HE TRYING TO WIN???

      • DaveH

        Speaking of Loons, we have a reader who calls himself Capitalist, yet urges people to vote for Republicans like Romney who are anything but.
        You are not a Capitalist, At Birth, you are a Crony Capitalist who, like the Liberals, think you know what’s best for others and are willing to force them through Big Government to do things your way.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You cannot do anything but lie.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Bob L., unless Ron Paul stops acting like the human vegetable marrow that he has been the election will go to O.Why do good people behave as if being defeated is how God wants them?
        Romney does not intend to win the election. He has been clever enough to run businesses and become wealthy. He must have some leadership abilities. If he doesn’t get some decent advisors soon the election is lost. Don’t his advisors realize that they are dealing with Leftist/Democrat wolves with sharp claws and bloody fangs.

      • Jon

        I vote to have the right to complain. By not voting, a person publicly states that he willingly accepts anything the government does to him.

      • Matrix


        You state

        ” Candidate Romney is not entitled to anyone’s vote. It is his job to earn it.
        If he fails to earn enough votes to win, the fault is his, not voters who voted their conscience and whose reasons for voting the way to do are as valid as yours.
        The only person with the ability to “throw the election to Obama” is Romney.”

        The only people with the ability to “throw the election to Obama” is you and the entire corrupt media complex!

        With our extremely biased liberal media in control, the majority of uneducated “voters” only see a one sided opinion of both candidates and the grand majority of favoritism goes to the liberal in command!

        It is up to educated people like you to help persuade the uneducated that we are being herded for total disaster and that a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for the end of America.

        I agree that both parties have caused the coming economic disaster but you must realize that when the SHTF, we as Americans will be much better off with a decent American in office, then the current communist fraud!

        I believe that our country will go through a horrible period for many years before or if ever we are healed, but I do know that with this current disaster of a man controlling our future, America will fail within the next two years!

        If Romney is elected, the destruction process will be much slower and will give us true American’s time to organize our cause for Liberty & Freedom and the upcoming economic Holocaust!
        If you believe that another four years of this administration will open the future for Ron Paul, you are gravely mistaken, as America will have no future.

        Please consider the consequence to our great nation every time you denounce Romney for Paul, you end up scoring points for the proven anti-American!

        The enemy of our enemy is our friend!

        God save America!

        • Bob Livingston

          Dear Matrix,

          You write: “The only people with the ability to “throw the election to Obama” is you and the entire corrupt media complex!” I am not part of any “corrupt media complex!” or any other complex.

          You write: “It is up to educated people like you to help persuade the uneducated that we are being herded for total disaster and that a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for the end of America.” It is up to me to persuade the uneducated that our system is a one-party fascist totalitarianism and to help them prepare for the storm that is coming regardless of whether the next President is Obama or Romney. Both are merely puppets and placeholders for the elite.

          You write: “If Romney is elected, the destruction process will be much slower and will give us true American’s time to organize our cause for Liberty & Freedom and the upcoming economic Holocaust!” HA! What policy, beyond his pledge to repeal Obamacare, has Romney advocated that is significantly different from Obama?

          Best wishes,

      • ChristyK

        Nancy, you ask why Romney isn’t harping on all of Obamas bad actions. The reason is that Romney will do the same thing if he is elected. He is also a big government, control the people, globalist puppet. He can’t criticize what he also wants to do.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        matrix, you said: “The only people with the ability to “throw the election to Obama” is you and the entire corrupt media complex.

        WOW! I can’t believe you said that!!! Are you insinuating that Bob would throw the election if he could? Are placing Bob in the same category as the corrupt media complex? You obviously don’t read what he writes. He would never tell anyone who to vote for. He will give you facts that you won’t find elsewhere. He will tell you what he thinks. He will spur discussions but he won’t tell you what to think or who to vote for. And I certainly don’t think that he would tell anyone to vote for obummer OR romney! Frankly, anyone who would vote for someone just because somebody told them to, doesn’t deserve to vote!!! You are definitely one of the sheeple if you do exactly what “they” want you to!

      • Matrix



        I did not mean to place your good name with the “corrupt media”, my bad!

        I have been reading you and your incredibly talented and insightful staff for many years and know you are not part of the empire.

        We should all be extremely afraid for our country and our freedom, and know we have to make decisions as a people very soon or our children’s future will be a living hell if they survive what’s about to happen here.

        I stand by my statement that the destruction process will be much slower and will give us true American’s time to organize our cause for Liberty & Freedom and the upcoming economic Holocaust!

        The only choice we have as American’s is a bad or terrible one, but bad is looking good right now and this is how the banking savages have destroyed many nations before us.

        The Daily Bell can explain nothing I don’t already know, and you Bob have a very good understanding of what is to come. We are prepared, but there are multi millions out there that will be like the “walking dead” trying to take the life out of those of us who have knowledge.

        Please accept my apology for my miss wording for I truly know what an incredible selfless man you are and thank you for the knowledge you have provided those of us willing to learn with!

        Knowledge is power and you are an energy and power behind many good Americans!

        Thank you Bob and God bless you and America!

      • Matrix

        But enough with ron Paul!

      • Average Joe


        You write:

        “But enough with ron Paul!”

        Those of us who support Ron Paul, know why we are supporting him…”The Message”.
        We also realize that what we have been doing as a nation, quite frankly…hasn’t been working out so well for us, the people. Einstein was correct….doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result…IS insanity. It is time for a new path.

        While it is fine for you to say enough of Ron Paul, many of us feel the same way about Willard Romney…the “Great White Hoax”. Telling us that our destruction under Romney will be “slower” is not something to brag about and certainly not a reason to break from princple and conviction to vote for a man…who will achieve the same result as the current occupant of the Oval Office…. only….”slower”.

        Instead of telling us not to vote Ron Paul, tell us why Romney is the man to run the nation.
        Tell us what are his qualities, his virtues, his values, tell us about his voting record, laws he’s signed into law and please don’t give us MSM talking points, we aren’t buying the BS. Bring real verifiable facts to the table…your opinion doesn’t count as fact.

        In the mean time, I will be casting my vote vor America.
        I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul.
        In the event that Obama is re-elected, it won’t be because I voted for Ron Paul, it will be because folks like you didn’t vote for Ron Paul and you will get the government that you deserve.
        May God have mercy on us all!

        Best Wishes,

      • Harold Olsen

        I saw something on TV a few months back in which some Democrat joked and laughed and admitted that the 2008 election was rigged and there was voter fraud. He justified it by saying “It’s done all the time.” That is the only way Obama can get elected or reelected. This year, though, it really won’t matter much since the choices we have are vote for Obama or his clone! America loses no matter who gets elected!

      • nc

        Mark, I came to this site as a wide eyed liberal believing that I lived in the best country in the world but after reading the posts of the wizards who post here I am thoughly convinced that there will be NO elections in November 2012; that Obama will be a total dictator by Jan. 2013; that the FEMA camps will have no vacancies by Easter: that there will be NO Easter under Muslim rule by Easter;that whatever was decided in 1913 will be the law by July 4th: that Jesus will have returned by Labor Day and said “What the H*ll” ??and went back to where ever and Ron Paul will still be “our only chance” 10 years after he is dead! What an education this site has been!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • slapjack

      Well said Bruce. We need to hammer this home to everyone we meet. This will be a crucial election in our lives for many years to come.

    • restorefreedom

      Neither the dems or reps look out for us or follow the constitution so who is their to vote for? No one I guess.

      • Delroy Brown

        Romney needs to articulate a vision and a direction in he wants to take the country. He needs to come up with new ideas instead of failed retreading failed policy. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result. We have tried tax cut for the the rich under George Bush and all it led to was greed , outsourcing and a total collapse of our economy. Obama has stabilized the economy , and with a little cooperation from congress we can start to see real job growth. Romney need to stop telling us how badly Obama has done and tell us how he would govern differently’ Only then can we compare , otherwise Obama is the man.

    • http://none Jude

      You are so right bruceb. We need to get rid of those ruining our country.. If you are not registered please do so asap and make your votes count.

      • truesoy

        Jude and bruceb;

        So you agree we need to take our country back. But back to where? back to pre-civil rights bill? or maybe even farther back to a time where women were not allowed to vote, and conservatives of all ranks fought tooth and nail against it?.
        Please, enlighten us by telling us how far would you like to take us back.


  • revnowwhilewecan

    “Democracy” is dead now. That’s why the people are taking to the streets as well as the polls. In the 60′s they took to the streets, last decade they took to the polls and now the world realizes that, as in everything, it will take both to have a real change because we know it doesn’t come from the top down. The MSM keep blacking out the millions in the streets of the world daily yet they are again, as plain as day. Nothing can stop the will of the people. Real change is afoot. The question is not if or when it will happen but how will you ride.

  • Vigilant

    Mr. Wood, it was Andrew Johnson, not Andrew Jackson, who was impeached.

    Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached but escaped conviction in the Senate.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Vigilant,

      You are correct. The article has been corrected. Thanks.

      Best wishes,

  • Vigilant

    “Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland… and was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions. Chase was acquitted by the Senate.”

    • MAP

      If memory serves me, Chase’s impeachment was part of Jefferson’s attempt to clean-sweep all Federalists from the government and reverse the damage, he believed, Adam’s had done. It proved the difficulty of removing Supreme Court Justices from the bench, at a very early date. This was a very interesting period of our history.

      • restorefreedom

        Nice to see so many people know their history too bad the text books don’t reflect the truth to our students now. Truth is getting harder to find these days not to mention ethics and integrity.

  • Vigilant

    Mr. Wood says, “At the time, I questioned whether lying about a tryst with an intern approached the level of misconduct that our Founding Fathers envisioned before a sitting President would be impeached. A majority of members of the House must have agreed, because Smilin’ Bill wasn’t charged.”

    Please get your historical facts together in a better fashion. Clinton WAS impeached by a simple majority vote of the House on Articles 1 and 3, pertaining to perjury and obstruction of justice. He was not convicted by the Senate.

    It was a heck of a lot more than just “lying about a tryst with an intern.” It was was about PERJURY, i.e. lying under oath after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Wouldn’t have mattered whether it was murder or jaywalking. Perjury is most definitely a “high crime or misdemeanor.”

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Perjury committed by a politician isn’t considered a crime anymore. Its just expected. Don’t expect anyone in government to enforce the laws on each other. They think they are above the law!

      • DaveH

        I asked a lawyer once how could she expect the justice system to be “just” if people weren’t rigorously prosecuted for lying. She replied — “David, the justice system isn’t just”.
        Pretty damning coming from a member of the gang.

      • Vigilant

        Nancy. please understand the difference between lying and perjury. You said, “perjury committed by a politician isn’t considered a crime anymore.” That is incorrect.

        There are no laws against lying, as far as I know. When it’s done under oath, however, it’s a felony Two of the counts for which Scooter Libby was convicted were perjury charges, and he served time for it.

  • Vigilant

    Neither removal of their “appellate jurisdiction” nor impeachment will be used by the Congress against the SCOTUS, nor should they be used in this case.

    Regardless of Chief Justice Roberts’ convoluted path to the decision, he has given the Constitutionalists a gift in disguise, as follows:

    (1) He obtained the liberal justices’ endorsement of a decision that clearly inhibits the Congress from abusing its power through the Commerce and “Necessary and Proper” clauses of the Constitution. This will have ramifications for years to come.

    (2) It forces (though kicking and screaming) the Obama administration into admitting that the ACA is a tax law. Whether the administration admits it or not, the American public considers it to be a tax. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll indicates that 55 percent of registered voters said they consider the law indeed to be a tax increase, while 36 percent said otherwise.

    (3) It clearly throws the responsibility back on the Legislative Branch to deal with the tax. What Roberts could not do can now be done by the Congress. While current anti-Obamacare votes are merely symbolic in the House, a 2012 swing of the senate to a filibuster-proof majority could very well ring the death nell for the more objectionable parts of Obamacare.

    (4) It puts the health care fiasco back on the front burner for the 2012 election. It was health care as the centerpiece of the 2010 elections that swept record numbers of Democrats out of office at state and federal levels. This catalyzing effect may re-energize Republican voters to come out in record numbers to defeat the statist Democrats.

    (5) Lastly, it opens the door to the fact that the very legitimacy of congressional passage of the bill is called into question. Taxes are levied through appropriations bills for which the dubious procedure of “reconciliation” can not be used, by the Congress’ own rules. ACA was “passed” using reconciliation procedures in the House by “deeming” the Senate’s revisions proper through simple majority vote. Since the SCOTUS majority says it’s a tax, the law itself was never legally passed by the Congress.

    • MAP

      As the healthcare bill illustrates the radical and fanatical Left, a minority, will stoop to any depths to cram their radical agenda down the throats of the majority. Lies, distortions, deceptions, coercion – all are standard operating procedures for the radical Left. They are devoid of any hint of honesty, honor or integrity. The key word to describe their movements is FORCE. Force is the one method by which this minority can impose its radical agenda upon an opposing majority. ALL Leftist regimes are totalitarian.

      • DaveH

        Don’t absolve the right-wing leaders, MAP. They are very complicit in destroying the voluntary association and trading of our society, and replacing it with rules forced on the people by Big Government. In fact the Republican party was born in Mercantilism, the very thing which turned the colonists against Great Britain.

      • MAP

        DaveH, I don’t believe there are any right-wing leaders. The Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is not, nor has it ever been, a conservative party. All are puppets of the ruling elites and the ruling elites are decidedly left-wing. What is happening here duplicates what is happening in Europe. Democracy is a false flag for tyranny: You force an agenda on a majority, then pound them with propaganda to convince them of the ‘rightness’ of it.

      • DaveH

        I was just talking to my son about that issue — how the meanings of words are distorted over time (I think purposely to confuse the people about the issues).
        I associate right-wingers with the military state and imperialism, and left-wingers with the welfare state. I’m not saying that’s correct, but it is how I use the words. Neither of them are Conservative in my book.
        Freedom, in my book, precludes our military from gallivanting all over the globe, thus forcing our way on other countries. For a more detailed view of the clash of Freedom and Imperialism, read this book:

      • MAP

        DaveH, conservatives were rooted out ot the Republican Party and parties in general long ago. At LewRockwell, read some of the posts by Prof. Gottfried (I may have his name spelled incorrectly and I’m in too much hurry right not to look it up). He explains the entire situation. Conservatives have no party. Your definition is more akin to ‘Republiican’.

  • revnowwhilewecan

    “The More Corruptible the State the More Numerous the Laws.” ~ Tacitus

  • JimH

    It’s not just the judicial appointments. The cabinet too.
    The list goes on.

  • Rasta

    Here we go again. The “Chicken Little Society” complaining about the sky falling. Our system works.. The justices ruled. It could have gone either way You lost get on with it!

    • JimH

      Rasta, We ALL (including you) lost.
      When the threat we are trying to warn you about is real, it isn’t Chicken Little.

    • DaveH

      We’re in the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression and you are talking about our society working, Rasta? Sure it does — If you’re in the Leadership or one of their Pals. It is failing everybody else.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Where do you believe the ruling will take the country? Your puny mind tells you that O will create Paradise on Earth. O may create paradise for himself but there is no guarantee that you will get to share in it. That is why you are so snarly and fearful.

  • dan

    A clean sweep of ALL unconstitutional laws….one can dream. With a corrupt and egalitarian good old boys / business as usual Senate the Peoples House is continually thwarted…but then I guess that was the general idea,sigh. It just doesn’t make reform
    a viable pursuit. things are getting desperate when a military junta begins to look like a better option than the bankers/corporate oligarchy.

    • DaveH

      Leaders always have, and always will, pushed for more power. It’s the nature of the beast. Jefferson knew that. Most of us do not.
      It’s up to the people to become educated and stop that inevitable encroachment on our Liberty.

  • TIME

    What ever, The facts are really quite clear, – that is when you really open your eyes. I mean all the way OPEN – not in that slight sleep state.

    Only then will you get it, the SCOTUS has been dead for over 150 years. They as well all courts within the 50 states only review “CASE LAW,” and thats not the same as “COMMON LAW.”
    Even the dead should be able to understand that.
    The SCOTUS will never base any judgment on the Constitution nor the bill of rights as they are “NOT CASE LAW.”

    If you refuse to see your true enemy – you can never win let alone change a damm thing.
    why they will win, as they have Divided all of us in to small groups, – thus they Conquer, They WIN – YOU Loose.

    Peace and Love

    • DaveH

      The Supreme Court was not meant by the founders to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality. They just took that power, like Leaders usually do if left unrestrained by the people. For people to believe that a member of the Federal Gang is going to work against the rest of their Gang is just plain naive.
      We need to resurrect the concept of State Sovereignty and nullify unjust Federal Laws.

      • MAP

        Pure truth, DaveH! John C. Calhoun had it right. Only the states, as creators of the general government, can determine the limits of power of the Federal Government. Reliance on the SC has gone exactly as he, Jefferson and the rest of the states’ rights advocates said it would.

  • Norman F.

    Most of you will be glad to know this is the last time I will comment on this subject. No matter how many times the truth is printed, people will still cling to the earliest fabrication. Al gore didn’t lose the election in Florida, he lost it in Tennessee! His home state seems to have known him well enough to refuse him the election. (That decision was later confirmed by his actions; can you imagine him as President?) He lost Tennessee by several hundred votes. If he had won Tennessee by one vote he could have lost Florida by ten thousand votes, and still been elected. Look it up! Here are some facts:
    1. The Democrat party sent hundreds of lawyers and aides to Florida to contest the vote, BEFORE the count was finished.
    2. ALL the contested County election supervisors were Democrats.
    3. Florida extended the time for the vote to be finished 3 times.
    4. The final decision of the US Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court couldn’t order another extension when the Legislature was in session and could do it themselves if they wished.

  • Ron

    Well, at least we’ve created a pro-Confederate, pro-Corporate court, for sure. Let’s elect Mitt Romney to make sure we support our “Corporations as People”–or maybe “Super-People”, since they have all the rights of citizens, none of the responsibilities, and none of the accountability.

    It’s time the American people stood up for their own destruction and threw the rest of us under to bus to protect our corporate elites (But don’t worry, they’re offshoring themselves by the thousands every year like rats deserting a Titanic that they helped sink, renouncing their American citizenship to pile up the cash they pilfrered overseas…the well-to-do are gonna come out of this without a scratch).

    And with Citizens United, passed by a Confederate majority on the court, we’ve rendered our elections meaningless, since America now belongs to the highest bidder. We only retain the illusion that corporate money can wrap it’s hiney in the flag, call itself “Citizens United” or “Crossroads America” or some such nonsense and hoodwink us that they somehow give a damn about a nation that they intend to fleece down to the bone while crowing “death to all government”.

    We’ve already been ruled. For generations. And we replaced hated “Big Government” with beloved “Big Corporate” years ago and now they’re coercing us into handing over our last nickels to them as they’re heading out the door.

    As Lord Nugent of the chickenhawky Confederate Aristocracy would no doubt lead in the cheer: “God Bless the Coming Confederate States of America. A few ruling white elites, a few dumb sharecroppers suckin’ up to ‘em for some trickle-down, and lots and lots of slaves. Uneducated and 100% Uppity-ness Free…and ready to go to war with anyone the arms manufacturers tell us to, as long as the elites don’t do any of the dyin’. It’s time to kill off some future “welfare queens” (former middle class).

    • MAP

      WOW! I’m scared! I better start voting communist!

      • nc

        Map, why don’t you vote “true conservative” next time! Oh! I forgot! They are not on the ticket and haven’t been since BEFORE we reached number one in the world! My bad!!
        We don’t have a Democracy! The constitution didn’t create one! BUt the 2000 election has proved that there are times a true Democracy would have served us well! A true Democracy would have made AL Gore President since over 500,000 more Americans voted for him than george w. bush>
        Read the 2012 Republican platform when it is published and tell me how much different it is from the ones that bush pledged to and did pursue! MORE bush 2012??????????????
        I hope that the 69 million+ Americans that showed up in 2008 to reject that platform do the same in 2012! We don’t need more Iraqs and 600,000 job loss months like we had before Obama became President! Remember???

      • DaveH

        The 2000 election proved only that there are a large contingent of people, like yourself NC, who continue to believe that Mob Rule is a desirable event. Our Founders were well-read enough to know that Democracies inevitably resulted in the tyranny of the minority by the majority. As often stated on this board — Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting What’s For Dinner. So our Founders tried to protect our Freedom by creating a Republic with protections for individuals from the inevitable Power-Seeking of Government Leaders. Unfortunately the bulk of people, as usually occurs, got fat and lazy (mentally) and ignored the encroachment over the decades by the would-be dictators.
        Will enough people awaken to reality to turn back the tide? Well, probably you won’t, NC, but who knows for sure? For you to awaken would require swallowing your pride, doing a lot of the suggested reading, and facing the fact that you have been yelling at people for many decades in an effort to convert them to an illogical Political frame of mind. I don’t see that happening.

    • Ted Crawford

      ” The best Government money can buy ” was actually begun under the administration of, what must be one of your favorite Presidents, Woodrow Wilson, our first real Socialist President, with the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment ! This sad excuse for an American, also gave us the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve Bank , and by proxy, IE- League of Nations, The much loved and respected UN ! Even FDR was unable to surpass that !

      • DaveH

        Don’t be so sure. FDR fought hard to institute the UN, even to the point of giving the victim countries of one Dictator (Hitler) over to another Dictator (Stalin) in order to secure Stalin’s vote for the creation of the UN. The UN is growing in power yearly, much like the Federal Government did over the last 160 years, and is basically unaccountable to the Electorate. Imagine the mess we will be in when they finally achieve their goals.

  • robert

    we the people who are the real government,we can,t trust or count on any of these do nothing treasonous politicians anymore,to the nra,aarp,amac,john birch society,tea party,all militas,time to talk/communicate/prepare/focus/plan/refine plan.all freedom loving,god fearing american veterans/citizens.lets come together under one giant umbrella.enough treason,is enough treason.god bless ron paul,sheriff joe and cold case posse,brian terry and family,chuck norris,and all ammerican veterans/ nation under god.a journey starts with a first step,lets take the giant freedom umbrella,and start walking

  • Nancy in Nebraska

    It is my belief that John Roberts was threatened or coerced. He is a conservative judge. He supported the dissenting decision and then all of a sudden changed his mind. He then tried desperately to change Kennedy’s mind. It doesn’t make sense. I believe that something happened to MAKE him change his mind. There were already veiled threats publicly made by obummer. I think “they” upped the ante. I’m not sure if it matters “who” we elect. It seems to me that the agenda goes forward whether we like it or not! The deck seems to be stacked against us!

    • Ted Crawford

      It seems to me that Justice Roberts is just one more entry to the long, and ever growing, list of bad decisions made by Bush ’43′ !

      • DaveH

        Bad decisions, or purposeful decisions? The blame can’t be pinned on any one President. The natural progression towards absolute power is resisted only by the most ethical Leaders (like Ron Paul). It is entirely up to the people to get educated and awaken to the fact that they are being played for fools by most of the self-interested Leaders.

    • mark

      Right, it doesn’ matter who we vote for. So why doesn’t everyone on this and all other Libertarian and conservative websites stay home on Tues. Nov. 6? I think that would be a great idea.

      • DaveH

        Better yet, Vote Libertarian!
        As the voter interest in Libertarian philosophy increases, there will be a snowball effect increasing the awareness of Libertarian Principles among the Mainstreet Americans. The surest way to defeat the would-be dictators is to increase peoples’ awareness of the Principles of Freedom.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Human predator, why are you on this site? To pick off the weak?

      • mark

        Hey DaveH, buddy, for once we agree on something! I also urge everyone on this site and beyond to vote Libertarian. It is my fervent hope that tens of thousands do – especially in the swing states!

  • http://internetexployer shirley darlene hancock

    like i said before, this so-called supreme court judges never should be put on the bench by president’s but by the american people via VOTE. this is exactly why we have so much corruption every where in wash dc. these pres. senate, and congress put them in for one reason and one reason only, so they can get their way, and these judges should never have a lifetime appt.

  • nc

    Chip, if Brown vs. Board had been “law of the case” it would only applied to the school systems who were a party to the case. THERE were hundreds or thousands of “separate but equal” situations that needed correcting under the decision! LAW OF THE LAND
    I lived in a southern town that had a “white” shool and a “black” school! Problem in my town, as in a lot of other towns. was the the white folks lived in one area and the black folks in another part that were too far apart for the children to walk to another school to end THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION! Therefore you bus them that don’t have a way or force them to walk for long periods of time and distance IN ALL KINDS OF WEATHER!
    Another thing was how “unequal” the schools were. I had many occassions to visit the “black” school and was appalled at just how unevenly the two schools were supplied and maintained by the ALL WHITE SCHOOL BOARDS of those days before BROWN ATTEMPTED to end the horrible gap!

    Americans, liberals vs. conservatives and even conservative vs. conservatives, have disagreed for years on the interpretation of the Constitution and the founding fathers knew this would happen and provied for it! If folks couldn’t agree on the Bible how would anyone expect them to always agreed on the Constitution.
    They knew someone was likely to to disagree with every decision but they didn’t provide for shooting ths losers! We live with it until we can change it but we shouldn’t advocate abandoning a system that has made us number one in the world and the envy of a large part of the world.I believe the intent was to “provide for a more perfect union ” not a perfect one! WAIT YOUR TURN AND STOP THE SILLY “I’ll take my gun and meet you in the street” cowboy s**t!! Gun powder in politics is the tool of an idiot!

    • momo

      So Washington and his army that fought in the revolution were idiots? I’m sure George III would agree with you.

    • DaveH

      What has Forcing White Children to attend Black Schools got to do with underfunded schools, NC? Wouldn’t it have been much more efficient to just fund the underfunded schools, instead of taking peoples’ Liberty away? Liberals just love to force their way on others, don’t they?

      • nc

        DaveH, do you think the driving force for segragation of the schools had anything to do with funding? They gladly funded the “separate but equal system” rather than have their youngin’s go to school with black kids! I lived here through it ! I know!
        I remember that the “black school” was allowed to play one football game >their homecoming game, under the “lights” at the white school BUT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE WHITE FIELDHOUSE TO DRESS AND TAKE THEIR SHOWERS! THEY HAD TO SIT IN THE GRASS AT HALF TIME. I WAS ON THE WHITE FOOTBALL TEAM and we were invited to the game! I cried at what i saw! It was America at its’ ugliest and if ever a SUPREME Court decision was needed to correct a wrong Brown was it! FREEDOM FOR ALL! WHERE HAVE I HEARD THAT BEFORE???

      • DaveH

        I cry at how little you understand free choice and Freedom, NC. What makes you think your actions of force are more noble than what has befallen those children due to voluntary actions of their parents? What next from your kind, NC — forced interracial marriages?
        You were the one who said — “I had many occassions to visit the “black” school and was appalled at just how unevenly the two schools were supplied and maintained”.
        The solution to that problem does not involve forcing people to go to school where they do not want to go to school. If the schools were underfunded, what kind of a person would think the solution was to subject other innocent white children to that environment where they not only would suffer from lesser education but also from the inevitable discrimination of black children who were different from themselves?
        You Liberals seem to have no qualms whatever when it comes to forcing your way on others, yet you are the first to decry “inequalities” or other such things that come about by voluntary choices. The voluntary choices in this case being the neighborhood they chose to live in. Sure, you’ll say they had no choice. Easy for you to say, but we always have choices. Star Parker had a choice, and she chose to better herself:

      • Vigilant

        nc, you need to learn a basic difference between liberals and Conservative Constitutionalists. It revolves around the concept of respect for the rule of law. For the true Conservative, this respect is paramount; for the liberal, it means they feel “fairness” trumps the law and that new laws, regulations and executive orders should be written to address unfairness, whether Constitutional or not.

        The Constitution is the Law of the Land. It contains the mechanism for its amendment in Article V. Legislated laws or court decisions that do not abide by the legal constraints of the Constitution are null and void and are prima facie unconstitutional.

        The Constitution is not a fairness doctrine in the liberal sense. It is a document which guarantees individual liberties to those who constituted the new Republic. It accomplished this through maximization of individual and states’ rights while severely restricting the reach of the central government into our lives.

        “Fairness” by modern standards does not describe some parts of the Constitution as originally written, but amendment to the document over time has redressed some ills (while creating others).

        The best example I can think of is the Dred Scott case regarding the Fugitive Slave Law. When Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made his decision in 1857 to uphold the law, i.e., that fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owners by the states to which they had fled, the decision was completely in accord with the Constitution.

        Article IV, Section 2 states: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

        By today’s standards, that was “unfair,” “immoral,” choose your word. But it was the Constitution and the law. It took until after the end of the Civil War (December 1865) before the Constitution was amended to render the above article null and void.

        Today’s liberals, transported back to 1857, would have tried to remedy the situation by executive order (Lincoln’s shaky and possibly unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation), by judicial fiat (unconstitutional de facto “amendment” by the SCOTUS), or by nullification (a principle lauded by the South until it was used against them by some Northern states).

        None of the above actions stood the test of Constitutionality until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Was the Fugitive Slave Law “unfair?” By today’s standards, yes. Did the president, SCOTUS, Congress or any state have the Constitutional authority to violate the law until the 13th Amendment was ratified? Most definitely NOT.

    • Vigilant

      nc says, “Americans, liberals vs. conservatives and even conservative vs. conservatives, have disagreed for years on the interpretation of the Constitution and the founding fathers knew this would happen and provied [sic] for it!”

      They most certainly did provide for the redressing of ills. It’s called Article V regarding amendments to the Constitution. They NEVER chartered or authorized the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, which is what happened in Brown vs. Board of Education.

      Kindly read Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      There is no matter of interpretation required here. From the ratification of the Constitution until 1954, education was clearly accepted as the domain of the states. The Constitution NEVER included control over education in the enumerated powers of the Feds. The Warren Court not only violated the Constitution by taking and rendering a decision on the case, it violated it by illegally writing a de facto amendment to the document, an action egregiously beyond its legal competence to do so.

      • nc

        Vigilant, you skipped over a bunch of amendments to get to 10? How about 1? The freedom of speech protected by the Constitution! How free is your speech when STATES subject you to a second class inferior education just because of the color of your skin? Do you know as much about YOUR RIGHTS with a STATE SUPPORTED inferior education? WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF A STATE GENERATED INFERIOR EDUCATION BASED ON THE COLOR OF ONE’S SKIN?? COMMON DECENCY OF THE CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES SHOULD HAVE CORRECTED THAT STUATION BUT BY 1952, AFTER ALMOST 90 YEARS, THEY HAD NOT AND SHOWED NO INTENTION OF DOING SO! REMEMBER THOSE GOVERNORS STANDING IN THE DOORS OF THE SCHOOLS??
        One even apologized to those people before his death for violating their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

      • Vigilant

        nc, NONE, repeat NONE of the amendments called the Bill of Rights overrides another. They are mutually exclusive (look it up if you don’t understand the term).

        You’ve fallen into the mental confusion which I explained to you. You PERSIST in shouting about moral and “fairness” issues, without comprehending ONE thing I’ve explained.

        You use a non sequitur with “The freedom of speech protected by the Constitution! How free is your speech when STATES subject you to a second class inferior education just because of the color of your skin?”

        Answer: your freedom of speech is IN NO WAY impacted by the quality of education you receive. Your thought processes are truly muddled if you believe a black person has less right to express himself because he attended an inferior school.


        And I say, yes, I agree, as far as moral judgments go, but what you fail to understand is that the states who did that were WITHIN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DO SO! Unless and until you develop a respect for the rule of law, you will NEVER understand that the proper avenue for asserting “common decency” is through amendment to the Constitution, NOT through the decision of a judicial body that HAS NO RIGHT to abridge states rights through fiat.

        Can you at least get off the high horse of morality and admit that what’s “fair” and what’s legal are two different things? And that there are Constitutionally acceptable methods of changing the law, and methods that are not acceptable?

  • Penny R. Freeman

    Bob, I would love to believe your response to Capital at birth. Unfortunately since I’ve been following politics very closely in the last few years I have learned MONEY is what decides election results. And the ultra-liberal media does everything to push voters to the liberal candidates other than outright demanding everyone vote liberal. And I just am not in favor of the electoral college. Each person’s vote should count, not the vote of a selected few. And while Obama and his minions want to cry discrimination at the thought of voter id and they minumize voter fraud, I have always wondered why my id has NEVER been checked when I vote. That has always made me feel that the way votes are cast is wide open to fraud. Also I don’t believe that any candidate’s ability to raise funds from donors should decide how much information reaches the public. For every ad in favor of one candidate I feel there should be one for the other candidate, and they should be broadcast one right after the other. I feel very certain that broadcast networks rake in enough money from all the other outrageous advertising they surely can broadcast short political ads without charge. It’s disgusting to know that elections are for sale to the highest bidder in this country, and the candidate who can afford the most advertising usually scores a win.

    • DaveH

      Our Founders were very wise in their construction of the Constitution. Unfortunately that wisdom didn’t translate to the later generations. If the general electorate voted to select the President, then the populous states would soon overrun the less populous states. The Founders tried hard to insulate our country from Democracy which they knew to be mob rule which usually ended with the majority trampling the rights of the minority. Obviously their efforts have failed to protect us, and that is because an uneducated populace just cannot be protected from determined despots:

  • DAK

    Nancy in Nebraska says:
    July 13, 2012 at 8:53 am
    I’d like to know why romney isn’t TRYING to win! No candidate has ever had such true and honest ammunition as he has, yet you hardly hear a peep out of him! Why isn’t he screaming about the atrocities being committed? Why isn’t he speaking about the attempted communist takeover? Why isn’t he speaking about righting the wrongs? Why do we hear not a word from him on the LOST treaty or the small arms treaty? Why isn’t he pounding obummer on the TRUE state of the economy? Why isn’t he speaking out about the corruption in the attorney general’s office? I could go on and on and on. But the point is, WHY ISN’T HE TRYING TO WIN???
    Perhaps he isn’t screaming from the rooftops is he has his own skeletons to hide and wants to coast into the Whitehouse before any of his secrets are known. Or perhaps Rick Santorum was right in saying Romney is the worst Republican to run… we all know Newt was right when he called Romney a liar but he’s still running… So if we knowingly elect a liar, a cheat, a thief, a man who keeps his money off-shore to avoid paying taxes that you and I must pay, then we have no complaint when we are governed by a liar, a cheat and a thief and the tax laws will only be more tipped to the wealthy’s side of the ledger which leave more for you and I to pay as taxes darn sure won’t go down unless “deficits don’t matter” when the GOP does it.

  • Don

    I wish all of you would quit feeding us this BS. A lot of good “our man” Bush did us in appointing Roberts. The American people are some of the most complacent and most gullible people of all time. If only we had the fire for freedom in our guts that those brave souls had in the 1700′s. Things would be different now.

    • chuckb

      don, roberts was referred to bush by karl rove, his chief of staff. rove is the perpetrator of libersl republican politics. i will vote for romney, another karl rove candidate (he seems to want a distance on that one, however, watching him thru the debates i believe he is instrunmental in gathering support for romney, now no doubt pushing condeliza rice for vp. rice in my estimation is as liberal as they come and we don’t need this in any new administration.
      if barry soetoro isn’t removed from office, our freddom will be lost and the government will be rum much like venezuela.

    • The Christian American

      Sad to say but Roberts vote on what today’s Constitution says today was correct. Todays Constitution is not what the Founders had in mind and we’ve changed it. Roberts opinion was based on the changes. Krushchev said: When it comes to hang you, you will line up to see who can sell us the rope. The changes in the constitution are the rope.
      At the signing of the Constitution a woman asked Ben Franklin: What kind government have you given us sir? He responded: A Constitutional Republic Madam, if you can keep it. Our amendments have made a shamble of the original document. Now we have to live with what we’ve done or restore it to the original.

    • The Christian American

      Remember, Patrick Henry said: Give me LIBERTY or give me death. Fthe word freedom merely denotes status like serfdom

  • Nadzieja Batki

    The assumption is that if you have acquired Money and/or run a Business you must have some smarts to reach this point. It also takes smarts to keep and grow the Money and Business.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The response was to Penny R. Freeman.

  • FreedomFighter

    Any way anyone looks at this


    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • Carl Manning

    Yeah, we need to get behind Romney, so he can nominate three more Justices just like John Roberts to screw us over 6 ways to Sunday?!? The record has been dismal for many nominees that Republican Presidents have nominated because most of the judicial profession is as corrupt as the day as long. How did Justice Souter turn out??? What about the pathetic Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor??? When over 130 or so court cases regarding Obama’s obvious ineligibility have been dismissed or miscarried in the most contorted illogical explanations that defy judicial precedent by not only Democrat judges but Republican judges as well like Judge Clay Land of Georgia, Judge Carter of California, and Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Criminals. You will never get good justices from two parties that couldn’t care one iota about the Bill of Rights or indeed all of the US Constitution. On the other hand, Ron Paul would nominate Judge Andrew Napolitano, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin, Virgil Goode, Darrell Castle, or James Traficant to fill the Supreme Court vacancies. Romney will appoint moderates who have no problem with gay marriage just as Obama will. Gay Marriage is the next slap in the face coming soon from the SCOTUS.

    • Carl Manning

      Correction: When over 130 or so court cases regarding Obama’s obvious ineligibility have been dismissed or miscarried in the most contorted illogical explanations that defy judicial precedent by not only Democrat judges but Republican judges as well like Judge Clay Land of Georgia, Judge Carter of California, and Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Criminals, you can pretty much count out any hope of nominating a Constitution-minded judge from the courts, no matter which party they belong to. The judicial system is beyond corrupt at ALL levels from Superior Courts to State Courts to Federal Courts. State legislatures just like the US Congress have abandoned their Constitutional duty to impeach corrupt judicial and executive officials. At this very moment, we have 50 Secretaries of State who all have given Obamination a free pass just as 4 years ago, those 50 Secretaries of State also gave him a free pass. The proper response of any State legislature would be to impeach those corrupt Secretaries of State for abandoning their oaths of office and to further impeach those judges who then also allowed Obama to walk free. We are dealing with systemic corruption at EVERY level of government on an unprecedented scale that can only be described as supernatural. Even Revolution is no Solution to the Political Pollution at this juncture. God has abandoned His protection on this nation. All we have left is a prayer that God will prepare us for the despicable evil that awaits a nation under His horrible Judgment. I am encouraged by the sharp increase in the number of Americans who are permanently leaving the country. If I were wealthy enough, I’d do it myself. It’s over here, folks. If you have the means, get out while you still can.


    We the People have a lot of work ahead of us, it’s educationg our future generations as to how precious their heritage is to them, this means getting Public Ed to get back to teaching the whys ans wherefores of Civics, US History and the US Constitution in addition to the three R’s. Our schools are at present a pitiful shadow of what they once were, thanks to unions and goonionism, pride and education have been traded for political ignorance and abandonment of morals and integrity, this is a pathetic statement for Americans who pride themselves on being all that you can be.

    The loonyism supported by the government and your taxes is a sad commentary that passes for a good education, those who hate the establishment and revile it for conformity also threw away the good parts, like belief, morality, loyalty, integrity and love of country all that corny stuff that seems to make America the Beautiful work far better than many other places in this world and having a country worth keeping and preserving for the future. Time to get back to basics folks and get rid of this insanity that has gripped a once vigorous nation….

    • The Christian American

      Our schools are like Hitler’s schools. There designed to produce a person lock step in line with what DC wants, and it’s working

  • Anne Porter

    How do you survive the collapse of western civilization? Sell a book. Funny. Someone needs to go back to history class.

    • The Christian American

      It’s been said: The only thing new is the history you haven’t read yet. The more I read the more I realize ignorance was bliss.

  • FreedomFighter

    Col. Craig Roberts Breaks Down Operation Blackstar

    Col. Craig Roberts, a Vietnam veteran, former police officer with the Tulsa Police Department, and author of many books, including: The Medusa File, Crosshairs on the Kill Zone, and Doorway to Hell: Disaster in Somalia. Col. Roberts talks with Alex about Operation Blackstar

    A storm is coming, time for getting organized.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • DaveH

      We’ve got our share of ostriches on this board.

  • The Christian American

    Before we can get a pro-Constitution Court we’ll have to get a pro-Constitution people. The only one running for president that even mentioned the Constitution was Ron Paul and he is an avid Constitutionalist. After that we have to start repealing the anti-constitution amendments like the 14th, 16th and 17th. Today people don’t think of treating the Constitution as law, they just do as they please based on their emotions. You know our troops shouln’t be fighting without a declaration of war. How many conservatives are all for it? Since we became a democracy, the one’s with the most power, rule, the constitution is a forgotten relic.

    • Thinking About

      How can you be a Pro-constitution and in the same post you want to repeal 3 articles of the constitution. If you start repealing the articles then you are going to infringe on the second amendment, do you want this also?

      • DaveH

        What 3 articles?

  • Old Henry


    The American voters were not gullible. They were stupid, ignorant, uneducated, unthinking bed wetters who should not be allowed anywhere within 5 miles of a voting booth.

    Wow, 30 or 40 years on the SC? If the last two communists that were approved by the senate serve that long they could still have their replacements nominated by Comrade Soetor!

    Justice Roberts had to turn logic on its head to either save his life, that of his family, or prevent the SC from being eliminated completely by Soetoro and his puppeteer Soros.

    Yes, January 1973 was the beginning of America’s personal holocaust that has made Hitler’s and FDR’s “Uncle Joe’s holocausts look like child’s play. At least they murdered people who, for the most part, could fight back, not squirm inside the small chamber known as their mother’s womb trying to avoid the knives as they are chopped to pieces.

    Ah yes, the Impeach Earl Warren campaign. I had forgotten about that one. Too bad it did not go anywhere.

    I vaguely remember ole dick-for-brains giving a news conference with what appeared to be a bruise on his face that had been touched up. Seems to me I heard ole Billary threw a lamp hat him in the White House residence.

    Changing out Soetoro with Romney will not get us more constitutionally-oriented justices. Romney will appoint whomever his owners tell him to appoint. They may be more palatable on the surface, but the results will be the same. The end game is fast approaching for TPTB. That is why the big push for Romney. Heads we loose. Tails we loose.

  • Steven

    Hopefully we will get a constitution respecting president,and senate,to go along with the house majority,and we can then get back to work!,..One thing on the agenda,should be to penalize those companies who refuse the offer to move all operations back home,..If they do?,they get BIG breaks,even nicer breaks,for hiring Legal American Workers who believe in the constitution!,then the rest,..

  • Excalibur14

    Worrying about conservatives or liberals in appointments is a dice shoot. Roberts shows that. So did Hugo Black, who became one of the most liberal justices we had yet began his political career (& generated opposition initially) as a Klan leader. Regardless, I see from some of the comments referring to those disenchanted with the Republicrat Wall St system controlled play pen as “loons,” there are still those who will stil indulge the illusion of the “lesser of two evil.s” tI has been said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing the same way while expecting different reslts. The choice between Obama & Romney, guessing the “lesser,” is like being asked to choose between two forms of terminal cancer. This yr I will vote for the Libertarians, in my state they had candidates for every office last time around instead of trotting out someone no one ever heard of beffore (& will never again), then disappearing for 4 yrs. In my state–Ohio–there are 6 parties on the ballot. I tell people, choose one. For my leftist friends, there are alternatives to Obama (once they get bass the “throw the election to Romeny” nonsense). For my more conservative friends, there are alternatives to Romney, get past the delusion of “throwing the election” to anyone. Let the third party vote totals increase. Which it can. Romney makes me sick, Obama makes me sick, both scare me. If you are like me & want a real choice, well,check the parties on the ballot in your state & choose one of the alternatives. The notion that we have to be limited to just two who are controlled by the same bunch is a scam & a delusion we should have dumped long ago.

  • Will Billiams

    Any moron voting for Romney or Obama are voting for the same thing…the difference,…none!
    We all need to get out there and vote for Ron Paul and/or Gary Johnson! Dont let stupid people tell you that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama….they’re either brainwashed or trolls! Since Romney has no chance at beating obama…or his own wood for that matter…A vote for Romney IS a vote for Obama… dont make such a foolish mistake!
    Vote with you conscience…vote with your brain and with your heart….and make the best choice possible for America….Vote for Ron Paul….if they block him on the ballot….Vote for Gary Johnson!
    If you fall for the “establishment” tricks as to being scared into voting for Romney….you’ve just been suckered into voting for the same crap for another 4 years.
    There is one guy who is different than Obama…..that is RON PAUL!!!!

    • Matrix

      Bill Williams

      After reading all these post over the past month, I have come to the conclusion that we as a nation are over!

      I have learned more on this site in the past couple of years, and thank Bob for everything he has taught, but the bottom line is we are too divided!

      I love Ron Paul, but he has as much chance of being elected as Gov Palin! (Who would make a great President)!

      Ron Paul is over, Rand still has a chance if Romney is elected, if not, America fails and so do you!

      As for Bob, I don’t know how many foreign properties he owns, but we are very secure.

      You can sit on your pc and fight the typical America arm chair warrior battle, or join us and fight the evil that has corrupted all of you pitiful fools!

      • Jay

        Clever sales pitch. Ex life-insurance salesman? Yummy bait, btw, patriotism-on-a-stick…hee haw hee haw…

  • Eric Jones

    Mr wood i find it very interesting and a tad confusing how you can accuse the judges of voting AGAINST liberty and then turn right around and ADMIT you would DENY women the RIGHT to CHOSE what to do with THER bodies after all you deny someone a chioce you deny them LIBERTY.

    • Jay

      Eric Jones: Mr wood i find it very interesting and a tad confusing how you can accuse the judges of voting AGAINST liberty and then turn right around and ADMIT you would DENY women the RIGHT to MURDER their UNBORN, after all, you deny someone a chioce you deny them LIBERTY. However, and i want to clear on this, i’m opposed to war, and the right for people to own firearms. Wait a minute….huh….

    • AZ-Ike

      Mr. Jones,

      According to the law, women DO have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. They DON’T have the right to force anyone else to pay for their choices.

    • GregS

      The unborn child is NOT part of a woman’s body. He/she is a SEPARATE living human organism with his/her own sex, blood type, genome, etc. Any medical textbook will tell you this.

      Taking the life of that unborn child interferes with the most basic right of all, which is explicitly in the Constitution: THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

      That whole “choice” thing is a marketing strategy that was dreamed up by NARAL in a marketing agency on Madison Avenue in New York, in the early 70′s, to get women to use abortion as a method of birth control, and it was NEVER in the Constitution.

      • Smilee

        A fetus cannot live separate from the mother until late in the pregnancy so it is not a separate person until then. The mother has by the Constitution the right to privacy concerning her pregnancy but you seem to think you and your kind should be able to dictate to her what her role is during pregnancy and thus subject to your rule over her. What gives you the right to interfere in her freedoms?

      • GregS

        Smilee says:

        “A fetus cannot live separate from the mother until late in the pregnancy so it is not a separate person until then.”

        The unborn child may not be considered a “person” (by some) until “late in the pregnancy,” but he/she IS a separate living human organism throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy. This is a well-known scientific fact, and as I said previously, any medical textbook will tell you this.

        The word “person” is merely a legal term, which was conjured up by a very pro-abortion Supreme Court in 1973. They tried desparately to come up with a “scientific” basis for the word, by defining it as being able to live outside the womb (viability), even though they had NO clue as to exactly when that really was. By the way, abortions are legal for any and all reasons, up until the time of birth, by virtue of Doe v. Bolton.

        Furthermore, technology has advanced since 1973, thereby enabling the unborn child to live outside the womb much earlier in the pregnancy. As a result, the definition of the term “person,” as it applies to the unborn child, has become even more vague over time through scientific advancement.

        Smilee says:

        “The mother has by the Constitution the right to privacy concerning her pregnancy…”

        As individuals, we ALL have the “right to privacy,” concerning a lot of things, but taking the life of an unborn child interferes with the most basic right of all, which is explicitly in the Constitution: THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

        If the “right to privacy” were all that mattered, then a woman could kill her baby, even after that baby was born, in the “privacy” of her own home. Furthermore, to take your logic even further, she could even say that the baby is not a “person,” because he/she can’t live on his/her own if placed on the street outside the home.

        • Smilee

          Just your interpretation, the court says you are wrong and your response is nothing more that your personal opinions that holds no weight and overlooks a lot of real facts and much of what you site as facts really are not. Your entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. The court interprets the Constitution you are just spinning their opinion to what you wish it to be and ignore what it really is. What you are asking of the court is to legislate from the bench and that is dangerous to our legal process.

      • GregS

        Smilee says:

        “Just your interpretation, the court says you are wrong…”

        Just MY interpretation??? Which Court are you talking about…the one which originated the Roe v. Wade decision, or the one which may eventually OVERTURN Roe v. Wade, because those Justices would have a DIFFERENT interpretation? If the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the question would then become: Would you admit that I am right, because the Court would then be saying that I am right?

        Smilee says:

        “…your response is nothing more that your personal opinions that holds no weight and overlooks a lot of real facts…”

        Which “real facts” am I overlooking, Smilee???

        Smilee says:

        “…much of what you site as facts really are not.”

        Which of my statements are you talking about, and how do you know that they are not facts?

        Smilee says:

        “What you are asking of the court is to legislate from the bench…”

        The Supreme Court of 1973 already did that with the Roe v. Wade decision. That’s why many in the legal profession, including some of the CURRENT Supreme Court Justices, want to overturn Roe v. Wade, in order to undo the damage that’s ALREADY been done to our legal process.

      • Smilee

        I live in the present, the court I talk about is in the present and yours is nothing more than a dream that may never come true. I was addressing everything you spun as facts, my facts are in the Constitution and the SC’s opinion that currently exists and that is currently factual, same goes for your opinions. You apparently have no respect for the SC or the US Constitution. Just because you wish they said something other than they did means nothing and carries no weight of law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the SC under it is charged for interpreting it. Jesus said, give on to Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and unto God what is Gods’s. We were admonished to respect the law of man even if we do not agree with it. Everything you’ve said is contrary to the current law and its current interpretations.

      • GregS

        Smilee says:

        “I live in the present, the court I talk about is in the present and yours is nothing more than a dream that may never come true.”

        Oh yeah??? Try telling that to your buddies at NARAL and Planned Parenthood! They’ll assure you that it’s YOU who’s dreaming, and that it’s their worst nightmare.

        With regard to the rest of your comments, it’s apparent that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can lecture down to others all you want with your rants about how we should all respect the decisions of the Supreme Court, but the problem with that logic is that it only applies to anyone who opposes you, if the Supreme Court rules in your favor. Otherwise, you would turn that logic off in a heartbeat, if the Supreme Court were to rule against you. It’s so typical of you lefties. The most glaring example of this was when Obama severely criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling, during his State of the Union address in 2010. Talk about having “no respect for the SC or the US Constitution,” or saying things “contrary to the current law and its current interpretations!!!” Your buddy, Obama, clearly showed his expertise in doing that.

        Admit it, Smilee. You clearly don’t know anything about the abortion issue, because, if you did, you would counter my comments with facts of your own, but the reality is that you have NONE to offer in defense of your point of view, other than lecturing down to me with generalities about how I should respect the Supreme Court and the Constitution, hypocritical as that is.

        That said, I’ll ask my first question to you one more time, since you avoided it the first time: If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you admit that I am right (and you are wrong), because the Court would then be saying that I am right (and you are wrong)? Regardless of whether or not it will acutally happen, if you truly believe what you said in your above comments, your answer should be “yes.” Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. If you respond with “it won’t happen,” or don’t respond at all, then I’ll know you’re avoiding the question once again.

  • FreedomFighter

    Obama at it again – Obama Gun Grabbin-In violation of the Constitution

    Proof: UN Plans To Ban American Guns

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • CJM2

    In the first place, appointment to ANY federal judicial position, including the US Supreme Court, is NOT a “lifetime gig.” You won’t find it anywhere in the Constitution, which states:” …The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices durng good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” Holding that position means only when they remain loyal to the US and/or are not committing criminal acts, and the ilk. It is the salary (compensation) that shall not diminish while in office. There have been justices who exhibited bad behavior–most notably, the two obama appointees who have continuously exhibited anti-American, unconstitutional behaviors and Congress has the right to oust them. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that says a sitting President cannot be arrested–malarky. The US Constitution says no one is above the law–including people in high positions. Yes they can be arrested (some congressional members have been arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and stripped of their standing in congress)…the DOJ, Congress and even the court can have the felons arrested. I am tired of so-called experts telling people “it can’t be done.” YES IT CAN….IT JUST HASN’T BEEN DONE YET AT HIGHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. Therefore, Chip, you are wrong on this one. If you think you are correct, then write your reference directly from the US Constitution where it states a federal judge is on the bench for life. I don’t want a reference from some ‘historian’ or ‘constitutional lawyer,’ I want the EXACT QUOTE from the Constitution itself.

    • Smilee

      The Constitution does not put a restriction on the length of their service but allows them be a judge so long as they maintain good behavior. That means they can serve as long as they are alive if they maintain good behavior. Your spin does not hold water as this does mean for life if they so choose and only you spinners of the Constitution interpret it in the manner you have.

  • AZ-Ike


    Constitution Article III, Section 1. …The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour….

    As I read this, Judges only have the right to hold Office during ‘good Behaviour’ (whether that is a lifetime or a partial term) and violating the Constitution ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘supreme Law of the Land’ does NOT constitute ‘good Behaviour.’


    Chip, I agree with everything you said except, perhaps, your conclusion.

    As a People, we have become too accustomed to the President having ‘ultimate power.’ It is Congress that is the most important and powerful body. Congress, the Representatives of the People and the Senators(supposedly for the States) have the greater power and authority under the Constitution.

    1. The Senate has to agree with the President’s appointments of Judges/Justices.
    2. Congress has the right to impeach and try both the President/Vice President and federal Judges/Justices, as well as remove Members of their own legislative body from elected Office. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary Branches has this power or authority.

    Unfortunately our current Congress has neither the desire nor the guts to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ and/or exercise the Authority granted to them.

    The more serious problem we have with our Government cannot be solved by electing a new President with the hope he will abide by the Constitution and appoint men and women of moral character to Judicial Office. (If we think it is fair that Obama must campaign on his record of constitutional abuses and economic failure, then shouldn’t Romney have to run on his decidedly left of center record, including abuses of the ‘supreme Law of the Land’?) The only possibility of restoring the Constitution and the Authority of the sovereign People is to re-seat the entire Congress—the Representatives of the People in the House and the Senate (representatives of the States and the People.)

    Our current Legislative Body of career politicians has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, they do NOT support the Constitution, the ‘supreme Law of the Land’ and they do NOT represent their constituencies—the sovereign citizens of the United States. Electing only a few new citizen representatives at a time, is not enough to change the view and actions of Congress. If we can elect men and women of good character who WILL support and defend the Rule of Law, and if we can accomplish it in an all-encompassing manner, with the replacement of significant majorities in both legislative bodies, we CAN retake our Government and reestablish true sovereign Authority by the People.

    Once the Authority of the People again resumes control of the legislative Authority, they can prevent the constitutional abuses in both the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government and they can prevent the appointment of activist Judges/Justices who believe they have the right to write and change the Law. It will always be helpful to have a President who also ‘supports and defends’ the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office, but it is less critical than electing a legislative body that supports the Rule of Law and the Authority of the sovereign People.

    Last night, I heard retiring AZ-R Sen. Jon Kyl throw his support to 6-term (12 years) Rep. Jeff Flake to assume Kyl’s Senate seat—because he is experienced and will be able to immediately be an effective legislator. Rep. Flake may be one of the most fiscally conservative Members of the House, but that isn’t enough when he doesn’t support the Constitution. (And how hard is that when you know that most of the other Members WILL vote to spend taxpayers’ dollars?) Why would we want to replace one Senator who doesn’t (and didn’t) support the Constitution with another who also hasn’t supported it? Remember, a Senator or Representative who doesn’t support the Constitution, does NOT support US—the People.

    Unless Obama declares martial law and prevents the 2012 Election, it is vital that ‘We, the People, in order to (restore) a more perfect union,’ replace as many ‘corrupt, incumbent career politicians as possible. That is the way to take back America!

    • The American Christian

      In Nuremberg Germany after the war, the Germans were tried using moral law the substance of the law which they were tried on. In America today, moral law is unheard of. If still had a place Robert’s could of voted differently. Immoral and amoral actions get the green light by our supreme court today, and we don’t do anything about it. We bow our heads to those nine people and treat them like gods. Transcendent Law, the higher law, God law is what they should judge their decisions on, not the moral character of the judges and us. But what are we doing? I shudder to think.

    • truesoy


      For the mentally infirmed and/or conservative one the only true constitutional court ruling and deserving of the Founding Fathers of this nation, is one that agrees with whatever nonsense the republican puppeteers sell you.
      Az, I suppose that you don’t remember nor heard how since the 1980′s republicans were pushing for this same healthcare reform, including the ‘mandate’ because of the need for which as you know personal responsibility is at the heart of the conservative mantra.
      Thereby, they (the conservative republican establishment) were either lying to us then, or they are lying to us now. But one thing for sure, they can’t have it both ways. But either way what is really relevant here is that by the manner in which they can sway you one or the other only proves how easily they can make you into a ‘puppet’.
      And that is the sad truth about you.


  • terris

    Hor arrogant, to belive that the only possible interprations of the US Constitution, are the ones you agree with. Have you ever thought that it’s YOUR interpretation that is wrong, not theirs?

    • GregS

      My bet is that you are on the opposite side of those issues, in which case it’s YOU who is arrogant!

    • The American Christian

      James Madison said: This Consitution is for the governance of a religious and moral people. It is UNFIT for the governance of anyother. That said, what are we? We’ve allowed our Constitution to be changed, not amended. With 14th the people became citizens of America, not their respreive States. With the 16th, which never ratified by the way, the money flow changed from the people to each level of government up, to the federal government, after the stole it, and then on the way down, with controls. The 17th stripped the States of their representation. Senators were appointed by their State legislatures and answerable to them. Now they’re nothing but an aristocracy answerable to their highest purchaser.

      Moral? The words not in our dictionary anymore. I understand Robert’s vote. He voted on how the changed Constitution says he should have

      • AZ-Ike

        There is nothing in the Constitution, changed or not, that supports Robert’s decision. First he says Obamacare is unconstitutional–which it is–then he says, ‘but it’s OK to make it law because we can call it a tax and Government has unlimited taxing authority.’

        As stated, if a law is unconstitutional, it can’t be resurrected by any other provision of the Constitution. Also as stated, the Constitution does NOT grant Government ‘unlimited taxing authority.’ It gives them taxing authority to support the ‘limited constitutional authority’ given to Government by the People, as stated in Article 1, Section 8. The 16th Amendment changes the sources of income that may be taxed (income) and changes the uniformity of taxation, but does not change the authority to tax only for constitutionally limited and authorized Powers.

        The Constitution gives NO Power to Government to force citizens to purchase a private-sector product or service. It can’t be supported from the ‘General Welfare’ or the ‘Commerce’ clauses.

        If Government enacted laws that simply increased the taxes every citizen must pay to the Government, it may have legal authority to do so–but would face the outrage and refusal by every citizen. With a direct and massive tax increase, every elected lawmaker knows he/she would be thrown out of office at the next election–if not sooner. And that is exactly what should happen to every elected legislator who voted for Obamacare–or who believes it should be repealed and REPLACED by new and different healthcare legislation. The Constitution gives Congress NO authority to involve itself in the individual healthcare of its citizens and residents.

        So basically, Roberts was wrong on two counts.

        My point is that just because a supreme Court Justice says something is constitutional, doesn’t make it any more correct that if either of the other two Branches of Government try to force ‘unconstitutional’ laws on American citizens. The final say always rests with the People (citizens.)

        And it is long past time that the People remind Government just who ‘consents to government and under what limited terms WE will allow.

      • Smilee

        AZ-Ike says:
        July 15, 2012 at 1:47 pm

        Your post makes it crystal clear you do not understand the Constitution, you want to interpret it to fit your biases rather that what it really means.

  • Llew Abd Gid

    Average Joe–you’re right on man! Anyone who does not vote on their rightful convictions–which should be on principle and substance and for someone who is NOT OWNED–anyone who would vote on the “lesser of 2 evils”, is only PART OF THE PROBLEM…and assuredly, it will be because of people like that that this nation will fall to it’s utter ruin… America–Bless God already! Before it is too late…

  • truesoy

    Chip Wood;

    Do you really think that ‘Affordable Care Act’ signed into law by Obama represent a ‘black day for The United States? Why?.
    Was it not, the healthcare reform, a ‘republican hatched idea’, that was enthusiastically promoted, even by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, as far back as the 1980′s?
    So, please tell us why, if it was not a ‘black day’ then, why is it now?
    Were conservatives Lying to use then(The Heritage Foundation can’t be accused of anything else but conservative), or are they lying to us now?
    I ask that question because if you tell me how bad and unconstitutional the healthcare reform is, and that it represents a ‘black day’ for us now, then, logically it must have been all a lie back in the days when conservatives wanted to do it, right? either that, or you are lying to us now.
    But one thing for sure though, you can not have it both ways.


    • Smilee

      truesoy says:
      July 16, 2012 at 7:08 am

      I agree with you on your above post

      truesoy says:
      July 29, 2012 at 4:18 am

      Not with this post, I believe this will lower the cost of health care over time, on group plans now they can only have a 15% overhead and pay at least 85% to providers that figure was 25-40%, That is cost cutting and there are more in the law, already insurance companies are making refunds to policyholders as this is now in effect in addition to other cost savings built into the plan and that is why it is called the Affordable health care act and it increases coverage’s to an additional 30 million of the population. The Mayo Clinic said of the new law “Its a good beginning” and I agree. Now, these are facts that support my earlier post that you claimed I had no facts, want to tell me what lack of facts you were talking about. The conservatives have done nothing but lie about this law, it certainly is not anywhere close to what they define it as and in time this will be clear to all and that is why they want to destroy it now rather than improve it so people will never find out it is a very good start. Your right this idea for health care reform was hatched by the Heritage Foundation and now they thrash their own ideas but that is common with the current republicans and that is why I quit the republican party at age 52. In In my opinion radical people have now taken over the control of the republican party to the country’s demise.

      • truesoy


        I hear you, for I too was republican once upon a time..


  • jopa

    Chip: Your neighbor must have a short memory when it comes to American tragedies.Some of the worst days in American history started with the election of W Bush who was sleeping on the job and we were attacked by some camel jocks.Then Bush does eight years of deregulating Wall Street that systematically robs the American public of trillions, they make some very bad bets and then Bush bails them out.The ACA that will eliminate so much pain suffering and bankruptcies that would otherwise be endured by Americans, is one of the greatest things to ever happen to America.Your neighbor sounds a little Anti-American, you should check his papers.

    • truesoy


      You have to keep in mind that conservatives are the people that love America and are the self-appointed dfenders of it’s virtue, but they detest the idea of approx. 30 million of their countrymen (other americans) having access to medical care.
      The conservative’s expressed loathing of the health care reform act makes me wonder whether they really love america as a country, or just as a piece of real estate.
      Apparently conservative republicans concept of country is not the people, but of a vast vacant land. Of course, this concept is only good as long, and for as long as they don’t become one of the uninsured for then,as it was the case of Mary Brown, the t-party activist and anti-Obama health care reform that filed for banlkrupcy, leaving thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills that others like you and I willend up paying in the form of higher insurance premiums and/or higher taxes.
      If anything, it should be us the ones to loath their expressed hypocrisy.


      • Attila


        Generally you will find that conservatives believe that extortion from one group to provide unearned benefits to another group, thereby earning the second group’s votes is unethical and reprehensible. What do you not understand?

      • Smilee

        Your confused! Your solution is very bad for the economy and inflicts financial hardships on all but a few, helping your fellow man in need helps everyone not just the greedy and conservatives hatred of this is what confuses their thinking. Hate never allow for rational thought

        • truesoy


          If you were to make your comment based on fact, it would be much different.


  • Steve

    Could someone tell me where in the US Constitution that states that FEDERAL JUDGES are a LIFETIME Appointment ?? Because I have read The US Constitution several times and I could not find anywhere that says that FEDERAL JUDGES are a LIFETIME Appointment

    • Smilee

      Constitution Article III, Section 1. …The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour….

      As long as they have good behavior they can remain on the court but we bury them when they die so they cannot serve after death. BETTER READ IT AGAIN!!

  • Attila

    Being a very old fart, I lived thru segregation in the South. We had friendly, mutually respectful relations with our neighbors even tho we went to different schools. Seems to the “separate but equal” was not such a big problem. Barriers to restaurants, hotels, etc were already falling, but Southerners dreaded the attempt to integrate two very different cultures in the schools. Seeing the current state of schools and the poor results of integration on each of our cultures it is difficult to see any benefit for either race. Statistics showed that income and educational gaps between the races were narrowing up until the 60s, but have been widening since. Where’s the beef?

  • Smilee

    I’m betting your white and your post is that of a white bigot.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.