Obama to God and America: You’re Wrong About Marriage

It’s a good thing Barack Obama is not in charge of defending the law of gravity, or we’d all be floating up to an airless death. Allow me to take off the gloves. As one who helped draft the first version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I regard Mr. Obama‘s order to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to abandon DOMA’s legal defense as lawless, reckless, arrogant and a violation of his oath of office. I think it is an impeachable offense.

I’m just warming up.

Mr. Obama, plus Hillary Rodham Clinton and countless other prominent Democrats – and some useful-idiot Republicans – have been pretending to support marriage while doing everything in their power to undermine it.

If you doubt what they intend, check out Brian Camenker‘s shocking expose “What same-sex ‘marriage’ has done to Massachusetts.” Mr. Camenker, who heads the group MassResistance, is warning the nation that there will be no quarter for those who think homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Putting Catholic Charities out of the adoption business was just the beginning, followed quickly by brainwashing children in government schools and denying people jobs.

Mr. Obama and his minions are counting on our being so shellshocked by the trillions in debt and the spectacle of public-employee union mobs that we won’t notice their ongoing effort to homosexualize America. As newly elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel would say, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.”

Of course, when you’re doing things that demand a powerful moral response to match the offense, it helps to face such rhetoric as House Speaker John A. Boehner‘s reaction:

“While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

How about: “This is wrong. This is tyrannical. And we will not allow it on our watch.”

Why do so many Republicans, when faced with brash evil, respond with concerns about timing or procedure? Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him?

Read more here.

Bob Ehrlich for Governor of Maryland on the Issues

ECONOMIC GROWTH:

Bob Ehrlich’s first priority is to strengthen Maryland’s economy and help the private sector create jobs. To reach that goal, he will treat small business owners as a source of new jobs – not a source of new tax revenue like the O’Malley Administration has the past four years.

Roughly 230,000 Marylanders are currently unable to find work, and the unemployment rate in Maryland has doubled since the O’Malley Administration took office. Approximately 3,000 small businesses have closed in Maryland in the last year alone. Maryland ranks 45th out of 50 states in CNBC’s 2009 “Cost of Doing Business” ranking of the states. Bob Ehrlich believes this status quo in unacceptable.

To help create jobs, he will lower the tax burden in Maryland and cut bureaucratic red tape that discourages entrepreneurs from starting new companies and hiring new employees. He believes we must get government off the backs of job-creating small business owners so they can flourish and invest in people, technology, and Maryland’s future.

When Bob Ehrlich served as governor from 2003 to 2007, more than 100,000 private sector jobs were created in Maryland. Unemployment consistently remained around 4 percent, and business confidence in Maryland reached an all-time high, according to surveys.
TAX RELIEF:

Bob Ehrlich will cut taxes in Maryland in order increase prosperity for everyday Marylanders and entrepreneurs. As governor from 2003 to 2007, Ehrlich defeated for vetoed $7.5 billion in tax hikes proposed by the Maryland General Assembly.

Bob Ehrlich opposed the O’Malley’s Administration’s enactment of the largest tax increase in Maryland history in 2007. He believes it had a crippling effect on Maryland families and small business owners who were already struggling under the weight of a national recession. The O’Malley Administration enacted a record $1.4 billion tax increase, including a 20% increase in the sales tax, which disproportionately punishes low and middle income Marylanders. The O’Malley Administration also raised the corporate income tax, making it harder for small businesses to grow and create jobs. Maryland has the 4th highest combined personal income tax in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation.

Bob Ehrlich firmly believes in lowering the tax burden to help Marylanders get back to work. As governor, he will repeal the O’Malley Administration’s 20 percent increase in Maryland’s sales tax, which disproportionately hurts small businesses and low and middle-income Marylanders.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY:

Bob Ehrlich believes Maryland must begin spending within its means. In the last three years, the O’Malley Administration has plunged Maryland into its largest budget deficits in history without offering any plan to balance the budget. In addition to this deficit, total state spending today is nearly $2 billion higher than it was when the O’Malley Administration took office. When the O’Malley Administration called a special legislative session in Annapolis to “reduce spending,” it actually approved $600 million in new spending just as the state was entering a recession.

As governor, Bob Ehrlich will immediately cut wasteful spending and make government more responsive to the taxpayers. When he served as governor from 2003 to 2007, Ehrlich turned $4 billion in inherited budget deficits into a budget surplus and nearly tripled the State’s Rainy Day Fund. He did so without increasing sales or income taxes. Under his leadership, Maryland was one of just six states with a coveted Triple A bond rating from all three major rating agencies.
CHESAPEAKE BAY:

Bob Ehrlich believes the environmental, cultural, and economic benefits of the Chesapeake Bay are priceless. He wants his two sons to inherit a Bay that is cleaner and healthier than the one his generation inherited, but the task will require uncommon political leadership.

He is proud to have authored the landmark Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act as governor in 2004. This innovative plan financed upgrades to faulty wastewater treatment plants that emitted millions of pounds of pollution into the Bay and its tributaries every year, harming wildlife and Maryland’s watermen community. As a result of his leadership, the Bay Restoration Act is currently preventing one million pounds of pollution from entering Maryland’s waterways every year.

As governor, Bob Ehrlich will continue to pursue innovative and nonpartisan solutions to restore the Bay and the wildlife that depends on it, and he has a record of delivering once-in-a-generation results for this great national treasure.
EDUCATION:

Maryland is blessed to have many school districts that have performed at consistently high levels for decades. Unfortunately, those blessings are not extended to tens of thousands of students trapped in failing schools across Maryland.

Bob Ehrlich believes every child in Maryland has a civil and constitutional right to a quality education. As governor, he will dramatically expand charter schools in Maryland to give children and parents stuck in failing schools a choice to move to a better and safer learning environment. Charter schools are publicly funded schools that operate with greater freedom to help students reach their full potential.

As governor in 2003, Bob Ehrlich authored Maryland’s first-ever charter schools law. As a result, more than 12,000 students in Maryland are currently learning and growing in 42 charter schools across the state. He also strengthened Maryland’s needs-based college scholarship program, helping 37,000 students go to college who could not otherwise afford it.

AUTHORITY: BOB EHRLICH FOR MARYLAND COMMITTEE, TREASURER: H. TERRY HANCOCK

Tarp Jr.

by Brian Darling

Remember all of those bold statements that the so called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, was a one time deal and our federal government should and will never do it again. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified in January of this year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Many Americans look at what happened with AIG, and the rest of the financial rescue, and simply ask: Why was it necessary? Why was it fair for the government to take taxpayer money and put it into an institution that had mismanaged itself to the edge of collapse? The answer is that it was not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do. But those Americans, those families and business owners who played by the rules and played no role in giving rise to this recession, should understand that if the government had failed to act, that failure would have unleashed substantially greater damage upon them.

If TARP “was not fair” and not “something our government should ever have to do,” then why is Congress trying to impose the TARP model on small business? Congress will consider legislation this week to establish TARP, Jr. for small businesses to be administered and run by none other than Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. The House is considering H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act that provides “temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments to eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses.”

The legislation creates a federally run new bureaucracy called the “Small Business Lending Fund. ” To qualify a financial institution has to have less than $10 billion in assets and the new creation would have up to $30 billion in new investment authority. This allegedly temporary program is set up “without further appropriation of fiscal year limitation,” i.e. not temporary, to purchase “preferred stock and other financial instruments” from small business as a means to infuse money into local banks with the condition that they lend to failing small business. Local banks will be lending in exchange for equity small business, therefore these banks will be using federal monies to buy equity in companies. This is an idea born from socialism and one that will harm the free market for small business, because failure will be rewarded by federal subsidies while success will be punished.

The bill also creates a “Small Business Credit Initiative” with $2 billion of your tax dollars to be given to states that have created programs to provide funds to banks to bailout small businesses in trouble. This would provide an incentive for states to adopt the crony capitalism programs of the federal government exemplified by the federal takeover of General Motors and the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Setting up a system with private profits, yet socialized losses, will diminish capitalism and the American free market system. This legislation, TARP, Jr., extends the failed and free market offensive TARP model to small business. Considering that the original TARP program was “not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do,” Congress might want to heed the advice of Secretary Geithner of January 2010 and pause before creeping a few more steps toward American socialism.

The Agitator-in-Chief

By Chad Stafko

After nearly eighteen months in office, the president of the United States has finally encountered his first unforeseen crisis. A gushing oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico combined with seething anger from residents, business owners, and politicians along the coastline has produced a toxic mix of political corrosion that is eroding the president’s political capital. The response to the disaster that we have seen from President Barack Obama should have been expected, as it is simply a byproduct of his experience, or lack thereof.

On Friday, May 28, the president finally managed to make his second trip to the oil-plagued area nearly forty days after the disaster occurred. The president spent only about three hours on site. Three hours! Where were the meetings with the families of those who were killed when the oil rig exploded? Could not a precious hour or two have been spent with those grieving and those who were angry over the explosion?

Why did the president not take a few hours and meet with Governor Jindal, Kevin Costner, and others who are attempting to limit the damage the existing oil may cause to the coastline through innovative means but whose efforts have been limited by the need for government approval? While Jindal has received recent approval for the makeshift sandbars that could help alleviate some damage, the president could be the ultimate red tape eliminator.

But President Obama passed on the opportunity.

Apparently, he was too busy, as he needed to make the trip back to his hometown of Chicago for the Memorial Day weekend. The president’s lack of interest and lack of concern, as evidenced by his lack of actions, is irritating even his fellow Democrats and, in some cases, some of his most ardent supporters. Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu said of the president’s lack of visibility on the oil disaster, “He’s going to pay a political price for it.”

Add to the fray Louisiana resident and longtime Democratic strategist and talking head James Carville, who said earlier in the week of Obama, “This President needs to tell BP: ‘I’m your Daddy, I’m in charge’ … We need some action here, and we need to get this thing moving quickly.”

If President Obama’s perceived and actual lack of action weren’t enough to stoke the anger of coastline residents among other Americans, Obama’s actions on the evening of Tuesday, May 25, at the height of the crisis, fanned the flame. The president of the United States could be found that evening in California at a fundraising dinner and reception for embattled Senator Barbara Boxer. The amount of time President Obama spent in California raising money for a career politician was nearly identical to the amount of time he spent on the frontlines of the worst oil disaster and possibly the worst ecological disaster this country has ever known.

Should we expect more out of our president? Yes. Should we expect more out of this president? No. This is exactly what we should expect from him based on his past behavior.

As you may recall, before ascending to the presidency, Barack Obama was a community organizer. He was not the president of a non-profit group, the leader of a civic organization, or head of a sanitation district, nor did he have any other leadership experience prior to his brief tenure as a senator from Illinois. He had never led an organization through the ups and downs of its existence or had any experience in crisis management. Instead, his experience — most of it in fact — was to gather a group of individuals together and get them irritated toward their city councils, regulatory board, or some other target. Now, he’s on the other side. He and his administration have agitated the people, and they are not happy.

What has been the president’s reaction to the outrage of the people? At times he has stated that the government is responsible and will fix the mess, while at the same time those within the government who are on the frontlines of the oil spill have acknowledged that the government does not have the skill, equipment, or expertise to clean up the spill or cap the leak.

Other times, President Obama simply says that those who are critical of the administration’s response are ignorant of the situation. That’s the mantra for a community organizer — talk first, think later.

This disaster indicates to us as to what we have: a community organizer with little leadership experience or skill as President of the United States.

House Votes to Repeal Military Gay Ban

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen take questions on the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy at a media briefing in Washington March 25. (Reuters Photo)

By Chad Pergram

The House of Representatives voted Thursday night to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces.

The vote repeals a 17-year-old law called “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The policy permitted gays and lesbians to serve in the military, so long as they did not declare their sexual orientation. In exchange
, the military brass would not inquire service members about their sexual preference.

“This is devastating to the war fighters and the combat infantrymen,” said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill.

But many Democrats, like Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., likened the policy to race discrimination.

“It didn’t make sense then and it doesn’t make sense now,” said Lewis, a civil rights figure. “It is an affront to human dignity.”

The military has discharged some 13,000 service members since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy went into effect.

Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Penn., the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress, authored the House proposal.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to eliminate the old rule. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal while Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., was the only Democrat to vote against the initiative that was attached to a $760 billion defense spending bill.

“I’m excited. I can now join the military,” mused Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., the first person to be openly gay and then elected to Congress.

The vote was 234 to 194.

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Ron Paul, R-Texas, Joseph Cao, R-La., and Charles Djou, R-Hawaii, were the only Republicans to vote in favor of scrapping the law.

The amendment was part of a broader bill to authorize Pentagon programs.

The House is expected to finish that measure Friday. Many House Republicans warned they’d vote against the entire bill if lawmakers repealed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly.

Congress Set for Landmark Vote on Lifting Military Gay Ban

Associated Press

Congress is headed toward landmark votes on whether to allow gays to serve openly in the military

The House of Representatives was expected to vote as early as Thursday on a proposal by Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who served in the Iraq war, that would repeal the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The legislation — a compromise struck with the White House and agreed to by the Defense Department — would give the military as much time as it wants before lifting the ban.

Under the bill, the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must first certify that the new policy won’t hurt the military’s ability to fight.

“We need to get this done, and we need to get it done now,” said Murphy.

Also as early as Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to take up an identical measure, proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, a Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, an Independent.

As in the House, the Senate provision would be tucked into a broader bill that is expected to win broad support authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars for the troops.

Supporters said this week the Senate panel had enough votes to pass the bill after key holdouts announced they would swing behind it.

Nelson said a provision in the billing giving the military the power to decide on the details of implementing the policy was key to his support because it “removes politics from the process” and ensures repeal is “consistent with military readiness and effectiveness.”

Advocates hoped the momentum in the Senate would carry over to the House, where several conservative Democrats threatened to oppose the massive defense spending bill if it included the repeal provision.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait to vote until he can talk to the troops and chart a path forward. A study he ordered is due on Dec. 1.

“With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment,” said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

The service chiefs this week urged the panel not to vote until the Pentagon could complete a survey of military personnel on the issue.

“The value of surveying the thoughts of Marines and their families is that it signals to my Marines that their opinions matter,” Marine Commandant James Conway wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the panel’s top Republican.

Chris Christie tells teacher she doesn’t have to teach, Classic!!

Feds Ask Va. Health Reform Lawsuit Be Dismissed

Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. — President Barack Obama’s administration on Monday asked a federal judge in Virginia to dismiss the state’s lawsuit alleging Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds with the new health care reform law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond less than eight hours after Congress enacted the law. It argues that requiring people to buy health coverage or pay a fee exceeds federal powers limited by the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.

More than a dozen state attorneys general have sued over the legislation on broadly similar grounds in cases that are likely be determined by the Supreme Court.

The conservative attorney general sued in defense of a Virginia law enacted this winter that exempts state residents from being required to have health coverage.

Sebelius argues in her dismissal motion, however, that Virginia lacks the standing to sue.

“A state cannot … manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it,” read the motion. “Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law.”

Sebelius also contends that the new law, passed solely by the ruling Democrats in Congress and signed by a Democratic president, is constitutional.

“Even if Virginia could surmount this jurisdictional barrier, its claim still would fail because Congress, in adopting the minimum coverage provision, acted well within its authority under the Commerce Clause,” the motion says.

The mandate for most U.S. residents to carry health insurance starting in 2014 is at the heart of the federal law’s goal of medical coverage for all. Without it, the Justice Department explains in the filing, the new law — and its efforts to contain costs — becomes moot.

“When accidents or illnesses inevitably occur, the uninsured still receive medical assistance, even if they cannot pay. As Congress documented, such uncompensated health care costs — $43 billion in 2008 — are passed on to the other participants in the health care market: the federal government, state and local governments, health care providers, insurers, and the insured population,” the motion says.

But the “minimum coverage provision,” more than any other act of Obama and the Democratic Congress, has stoked the angriest reactions, particularly by conservative tea party groups across the nation. For the federal government to tell individuals and families what they must purchase tramples a basic liberty, they argue.

Radical Islamic Terrorists and Immigration

by Marinka Peschmann

At a press conference last Wednesday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama said his administration was taking a “very close look” at Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, “for any implications, especially for civil rights.”

So while the Obama Administration looks at civil rights implications, the big question to ask is will they also look at the implications of the radical Islamic terrorists in America—including those who have taken advantage of the broken U.S. immigration system?

What? Radical Islamic terrorists are in America?

According to a previously disclosed 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment, the answer is a resounding yes, and among them are members of; Al-Qa’ida, Al-Shabaab, HAMAS, Hizballah, Jama’at al-Tabligh, Jama’at ul Fuqra, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Extremists, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad Union, and the Taliban.

This information you will not learn from the Obama Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who considers acts of terror to be man-made disasters. The same Secretary Napolitano, who quickly condemned the Arizona immigration law (intended to do the job the Federal government failed to do), even though she had not read it.

Nor would you know that Islamic radical terrorists have taken advantage of America’s immigration crisis by listening to Attorney General Eric Holder either. Instead, for instance, he obfuscated then refused to identify radical Islam as the motive behind the failed Times Square terrorist attack earlier this month, after Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen (via marriage) from Pakistan, who returned to the States after five months of terror training in Waziristan, was arrested. Holder is considering suing Arizona over their immigration law even though, as he admitted last week, he had not read it either.

For unknown reasons the Obama Administration has deliberately refused to publicly address the clear and present danger of radical Islamic terrorists and the immigration crisis. As previously reported here, Terrorists have applied for Green Cards, and as the 215-page 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment confirms, “The international terrorism threat to Virginia and the nation as a whole stems from several radical Islamic militant groups….”

Moreover, as the threat assessment documents, there is a connection with radical Islamic terrorists and immigration:

Marriage fraud is a common method of facilitating the extended stays of foreign
terrorists in the U.S….Known cases of sham marriages exist involving al-Qa’ida, Hizballah, and individuals with radical ties. Fraudulent marriages have enabled individuals affiliated with al-Qa’ida, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to remain in the U.S. One regional example is the Charlotte Hizballah cell, where a key figure “helped secure three fraudulent visas and three sham marriages for the purpose of ‘legally’ bringing in the United States his brother, his brother-in-law, and sister so that they might become legal permanent residents…

… one Virginia-linked case occurred in which a Norfolk police officer testified against an Ohio-based Jordanian man who had tried to recruit him online for a terrorist cause. Subsequent federal investigation showed this subject likely entered the U.S. through a fraudulent marriage to a Kansas City woman in 2001; the marriage was annulled five months later…

… Many individuals enter the U.S. on student visas and never enroll in school… [or] individuals may enroll and seem to be legitimate students but may still be working as operatives. The three categories of nonimmigrant student visas monitored and tracked by DHS are F visas for academic study, M visas for vocational study, and J visas for cultural exchange. Such visas can be exploited by terrorists not only as a method to legally penetrate the borders, but also present a legitimate opportunity to study technical fields which may be of use in future attacks.

One of the FBI’s most wanted subjects, Aafia Siddiqui, who has ties to al-Qa’ida, entered the U.S. on a student visa and lived in the country for over a decade while studying and teaching at Brandeis and MIT… she was found with handwritten notes referring to a ‘mass casualty attack’ at various prominent locations in the U.S., such as the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, and the Brooklyn Bridge… Separate FBI reporting advised that an individual in the U.S. had sponsored several individuals from Egypt to enter to the U.S. on F-1 student visas. This individual had an identified contact at Strayer University who prepared and filed the visa paperwork through the University… The sponsor and the university contact allegedly hold radical Muslim beliefs…

Borrowing from Secretary Napolitano, the immigration crisis is a federal government-made disaster that occurred under both Republican and Democratic leadership. The consequences of the unsecured borders and the broken, backlogged United States Citizenship & Immigration Services do not exclusively adversely and dangerously affect Arizona– but the nation. It’s time for the Obama Administration to stop deflecting reality and tell the truth about the threats facing America.

Cross-posted at marinkapeschmann.com

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.

History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.

They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.

The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn’t changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.

They read it in Plutarch’s Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.

You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.

The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.

The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia’s serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.

The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)

America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.

The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.

Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.

America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history — because they understood that human nature hasn’t changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama. It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.

The Left seems to believe that Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.

Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.

Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.

America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas — not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.

Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.

Russian president Medvedev said this last week – said it out loud, to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:

“President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights. He also condemned Joseph Stalin’s record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.

… “Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven.”…

Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.