ChristiansUnite Forums

THE FOUNDATION

"The Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." --Alexander Hamilton

INSIGHT

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." --U.S. Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Obama keeps shredding the Constitution

LIBERTY

"Barack Obama's vision of America is one in which a President of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell banks how to bank, control the medical system and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor other politicians have any expertise or experience. The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate. Appointing judges to the federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

GOVERNMENT

"Given how congressional leaders have abdicated their responsibilities, perhaps it's not surprising that the secured creditors who challenged the Obama-imposed Chrysler merger deal were too polite to note that the president lacks statutory authority to intervene in the car industry. 'Even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors,' they said, it is neither fair nor legal to let unsecured creditors such as the United Auto Workers get more of their money back than creditors who by statute have a superior claim. But for a president who tramples on the Constitution in his rush to save companies from the consequences of their own bad decisions, the bankruptcy code is no obstacle." --columnist Jacob Sullum

RE: THE LEFT

"If you met a man who said he would like to 'transform' or 'remake' his wife, would you conclude that he: a) thought very highly of his wife and loved her? Or b) held his wife in rather low esteem and therefore found living her rather difficult? The answer is obvious: Those who wish to remake anything (or anyone) do not think highly of the person or thing they wish to remake. Little is as revealing of Barack Obama's and the left's view of America than their use of the words 'transform' and 'remake' when applied to what they most want to do to America. ... In light of those frequently made criticisms of America, I have often asked representatives of the left why they criticize America so much if they love it so much. 'Precisely because we love America, we criticize it. You criticize that which you love,' is the nearly universal response. But, of course, it isn't true. If you constantly criticize your spouse, for example, it is difficult to imagine that you really do love him or her. And perhaps more important, it is very unlikely that your spouse feels loved. That is why after being routinely described as racist, sexist, imperialist, etc., it is difficult to be able to tell that America is loved by the left. This is not written in order to indict the left, let alone the president, for not loving America. No one can measure another's feelings. Furthermore I do not question the sincerity of anyone who says he loves America. What I question are the actions and rhetoric of those who claim to love America yet want to transform and remake it." --columnist Dennis Prager

THE GIPPER

"Now, where do some of these attacks originate? They're coming from the very people whose past policies, all done in the name of compassion, brought us the current recession. Their policies drove up inflation and interest rates, and their policies stifled incentive, creativity and halted the movement of the poor up the economic ladder. Some of their criticism is perfectly sincere. But let's also understand that some of their criticism comes from those who have a vested interest in a permanent welfare constituency and in government programs that reinforce the dependency of our people. Well, I would suggest that no one should have a vested interest in poverty or dependency, that these tragedies must never be looked at as a source of votes for politicians or paychecks for bureaucrats. They are blights on our society that we must work to eliminate, not institutionalize." --Ronald Reagan

CULTURE

"Then there is the question of national debt. We are now projected to run a record $1.7 trillion deficit -- and may add $9 trillion to our existing $11 trillion in aggregate debt over the next eight years. The president, though, has outlined vast new entitlement programs in health care, education, environmental programs, and infrastructure. The problem, of course, is that we have not earned enough money to pay for any of these additional expenditures. Again, the glamorous ends get the attention, never the mundane means of how to obtain them. Americans became wealthy and strong through unique self-reliance, common sense, and delayed gratification. And we -- or our children -- will soon become poor precisely because we hold on to the romance that producing food and fuel and saving money are icky tasks to be ignored or left to others. Until we change that attitude, we'll keep borrowing and spending on ourselves what we have not yet earned -- all the way to bankruptcy." --Hoover Institution historian Victor Davis Hanson

POLITICAL FUTURES

"Listen. That sound of silence? That's what's known as the united Republican response to President Barack Obama's drive to socialize health care. The president has a plan, and he's laid it on the table. The industry groups that once helped Republicans beat HillaryCare are today sitting at that table. Unions are mobilized. A liberal umbrella group, Health Care for American Now, is spending $40 million to get a 'public option,' a new federal entitlement that would kill off private insurance. Democrats passed a budget blueprint that will allow them to cram through that 'public option' with just 51 votes. Republicans? They're trying to figure out what they think. Well, not all of them. [Last] week I ended up in the office of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, where the doctor was hosting North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr. The duo is, for the second time, crafting a comprehensive reform that would lower costs, cover the uninsured, and put Americans in control of their health care. And while the senators decline to talk GOP politics, their bill raises the multitrillion-dollar question: Will the party have the nerve or sense to coalesce behind some such conservative alternative to the Democratic product? They'd better, because the days of Republicans winning these battles solely by spooking Americans are over. Phil Gramm, Harry and Louise might have scored with that approach in the 1990s, but the intervening years have brought spiraling costs and public unrest. Americans want a fix. Democrats promise one. The GOP can't tank the public option simply by complaining it will kill private insurance. The party has to finally elucidate how it plans to allow the private market to work." --columnist Kimberley Strassel

FOR THE RECORD

"I want the government to get the hell out of our way and let us act like the free people our founding fathers wanted us to be, and not like subjects of an all-knowing, all-powerful federal government. The listening tour is nothing but Republican gimmickry. The reality is that had they been listening over the past four years of the Bush presidency they would have seen the disaster of 2006 coming and they would have seen the catastrophe of 2008 coming. Instead, they turned a deaf ear to the Republican conservatives not only on Capitol Hill, but to those out across America. They lost in 2006 and 2008 because they stopped listening to the 'nostalgia' for the conservative principles which guided my dad's administrations ...[and] made us the wealthiest and most-powerful nation in world history. The lesson they taught was that you don't win elections by saying 'me too,' and trying to substitute a Republican version of big-government, wild-spending quasi-socialist agenda for a Democrat big-government, wild-spending quasi-socialist agenda. ... If they start listening, what they'll hear is a demand that the Republican Party get back to the principles and beliefs embodied by Ronald Reagan." --radio talk-show host Michael Reagan

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(To submit reader comments visit our Letters to the Editor page.)

"Mark Alexander was right on to criticize the White House's stance on the National Day of Prayer. The attitude of these guys and their willingness to kowtow to godless liberal ideology is an affront and an insult to the core values upon which this nation was founded and stands for today. My cousin Daniel would have marked his 25th birthday this week. He died defending our freedom and way of life. If nothing else, the White House could have encouraged the American people to use the NDP to give thanks for the brave men and women who have sacrificed for our freedom. But of course, not even this could they muster." --Knoxville, Tennessee

"In Friday's Digest, The Patriot quoted Rep. Charlie Rangel saying, 'Closing these loopholes and investing the money in American jobs will help millions of American families regain some of the economic security they lost in recent years.' Closing these 'loopholes' will increase the taxes paid by these businesses, reduce their overall income, reduce the funds available for reinvestment, reduce the number of employees they can hire, especially under current economic conditions, place more families on the government 'handout' rolls and further destroy our economy and increase the time required for overall recovery. To those of Rangel's ilk, the only bad tax is one that hasn't be levied yet." --Clinton, North Carolina

"I haven't heard of any follow-up to the Tea Parties on April 15th and wanted to put an idea I had out there for an appropriate event. On the Fourth of July we should have locally organized events for everyone to add their name to the Declaration of Independence. We need to send a message to Washington that this document is as relevant now as it was then, and that we will NOT tolerate ANY tyrant whether he's across the ocean or in our back yard!" --Kingman, Arizona

OPINION IN BRIEF

"Judicial dispassion -- the ability to decide cases without being influenced by personal feelings or political preferences -- is indispensable to the rule of law. So indispensable, in fact, that the one-sentence judicial oath required of every federal judge and justice contains no fewer than three expressions of it: 'I ... do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.' ... Judges may not bend the law, not even to help the underprivileged. Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under 'a government of laws and not of men' only so long as judges stick to neutrally resolving the disputes before them, applying the law, and upholding the Constitution even when doing so leads to results they personally dislike. That is why the judicial oath is so adamant about impartiality. That is why Lady Justice is so frequently depicted -- as on the sculpted lampposts outside the US Supreme Court -- wearing a blindfold and carrying balanced scales. And that is why President Obama's 'empathy' standard is so disturbing, and has generated so much comment." --columnist Jeff Jacoby

THE LAST WORD

"What a fabulous time to be alive! With Justice Souter's retirement and our delightful new President Obama ready to appoint the replacement, aren't you just giddy at the possibilities? We are going to have a new lawgiver! ... Now some say the job of the justice is to merely interpret the law based on the Constitution, but luckily, Obama isn't one of those narrow-minded Neanderthals who want a law-interpreting robot. ...He wants someone who understands us, cares for us, loves us. Someone who isn't going to worry if what some old text says is true when he (or, preferably, she) knows what's best to make us feel good about ourselves! Know who this made me think of? Mary Poppins -- a magical nanny sent to fulfill all the needs of two deserving children. And aren't we a nation of deserving children looking for someone to take care of us? ... Now, I don't know if that person is really out there and whether she'll just come floating from the sky on her umbrella. But if she does exist, I'm sure Obama will find her. And think of it: Justice Mary Poppins. Someone who doesn't look at a law and see just the strict meaning of its words, but instead sees infinite possibilities. Maybe in a law on tort reform she can find a secret guarantee of laptops for poor kids! Maybe we won't even need to pass legislation for universal health care, because she'll find it within the laws we have, hidden with many clues like in a Dan Brown novel. Who knows what magical wonderment Justice Poppins will find next? And she won't be so narrow-minded as to make decisions based on what she finds only in American law. No, instead she'll borrow law from magical cartoon lands and France. ... Or maybe she will take something from her imagination and make it our reality. ... Now some say the perfect justice should be familiar with the Constitution. That's ridiculous. The job of the Supreme Court is to judge the Constitution and whether it's still relevant to us today. Now, you would get a mistrial if a judge were very familiar with the defendant in a case, which is why the perfect justice -- the Justice Poppins -- should have never seen the Constitution, so as to be unbiased when it's on trial. In fact, maybe she should never read it. Through her empathy and compassion she should know what laws we need. Why would such a magical person let a silly piece of paper stand in the way of that?" --columnist Frank J. Fleming

*****

Veritas vos Liberabit -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for The Patriot's editors and staff.

(Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)