Arizona SB1070 – Real Change That Gives America Hope

April 25, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

On Friday, Governor Brewer, from Arizona, signed SB1070.  Instantly, the critics went ballistic.

President Obama used the swearing in ceremony of new citizens to criticize Arizona legislators saying, “Our failure to act responsibly, at the Federal level, will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, and that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

Brian Williams, on NBC Nightly News, said on Friday, “A central question in the news tonight, ‘is it legal, is it right, for a police officer to come up to you and ask you to produce I.D. if you’re suspected of entering the country illegally?  This is playing out tonight in the State of Arizona.”

Jose Diaz Balart of TeleMundo in Phoenix reports, “Late this afternoon, Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial Bill, the toughest State Law against illegal immigration in the country. With her signature, Arizona is in direct conflict with the White House…  The law makes illegal immigration a State crime and requires local police to check the status of anyone they believe is here illegally.”

Actually, if any of the critics had taken five minutes and read SB1070, instead of simply adopting liberal talking points, they would have found that, contrary to the ‘leftist’ talking points, Law Enforcement Officers may only inquire about an individual’s immigration status during “lawful contact”.  Additionally, any complaint of illegal immigration status, levied by one person against another and found to be frivolous, is punishable by monetary fines against the accuser.

Does potential questioning of an individual’s immigration status invite racial profiling?  It could, although the Bill contains specific language banning ‘racial profiling’.  Then again, most of those opposed to SB1070 support affirmative action which is based on racial profiling.  Why is it, that the practice is welcomed on one hand, and demonized on the other?

To solve for this, if Law Enforcement Officers adopts a ‘standard operating procedure’ of simply using the same line of questioning with every person, of whom they request identification, questioning legal immigration status becomes just another question.  No prejudice, no malice, no racial profiling.  Regardless, Governor Brewr is calling for additional training of Law Enforcement to ensure against racial profiling and to maintain respect of the peoples rights.

Of course, President Obama, who can never pass up on an opportunity for societal divisiveness, instructed the Justice Department to ‘closely monitor’ activities in Arizona for ‘Civil Rights Violations’.

Governor Brewer emphasized, “Racial Profiling is illegal.  It will not be tolerated in America, and it certainly will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

“This Bill,” Governor Brewer continued.  “The ‘Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act’, strengthens the laws of our State.  It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here, in our State lawfully, and it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional Rights of all, in Arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast.”

Nonetheless, cries of the Bill being unconstitutional rang out from almost every protest.  Is this the same Constitution they were willing to throw under the carpet, as if hiding dust and debris from visitors, when backing the passage of the Healthcare Reform, or bailing out the financial, housing, and auto industries?

Why is it, every time legislation to protect our country and our citizens is passed, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional, yet laws and programs that clearly are not in accordance with the Constitution receive accolades?

So the question arises, is Arizona SB1070 constitutional?

We all know Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, states, “Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

However, Section 13 of SB1070 refers to the Bill’s ‘Short Title’ as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.  There is no reference in the title, nor anywhere in the Bill, to “Rule of Naturalization”.  That makes SB1070 a “Public Safety Law”, not an “Immigration Law”.

Upon reading the Bill, the language of the Bill does not even allow the State’s Legislature, Law Enforcement, or any member of the State’s Judiciary the Authority to determine any individuals ‘immigration status’.  Rather, all questions, regarding immigration status, are immediately deferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The last time I checked, ICE is a Federal Agency.

Arizona SB1070 does not even give the State the Authority to deport anyone.  Any person found to be in the country illegally, is to be transported to Federal Custody, and if said transportation includes removing an individual to a location outside the boundaries of the State, the State must first receive a Court Order to do so.

Clause 15, of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, “Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

All enforcement activities in SB1070 defer to existing Federal laws.  One could argue that Law Enforcement is the ‘active duty branch’ of the ‘State Militia’, and that the constant flow of illegal immigrants could be considered a form of societal invasion.

Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 2, stipulates, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Law of the Land.”

Because SB1070 consistently defers to Federal Authorities, it should be deemed as being “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, where we have established Congress has a duty to create “Rules of Naturalization”.

Article VI, Clause 3, clarifies that, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

That means that, by passing SB1070 into law, the Arizona Legislature is actually executing their duties under the Constitution.  I am willing to bet you are wishing we could say that about Congress.  Instead, Congress is too busy taking over the financial industry, the auto industry, the housing industry, the healthcare industry, increasing taxes, passing laws that do not pass constitutional muster, and spending our way into oblivion, to actually perform the duties obligated to them by the Constitution.

In fact, we should applaud the Arizona Legislature.  Now residents, and those of us who are asked for our I.D. while visiting their great State, can announce with great pride,

I AM AN AMERICAN!

Advertisements

President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X – 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.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.


The 2010 Census – An Endorsement of Socialism

March 22, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

The 2010 Census is officially under way.  The ad campaign, costing millions of dollars, for television, cable, and radio ads, and thousands of billboards, paid for by your hard-earned tax money, tells us all to stand and be counted.

Help your community get a fair share.”  They proclaim, urging people to fill out the Census Data Form and return it to the Government.

Get their fair share of what?  I had my fair share until the Government confiscated it through taxation, now they want to pretend to give a portion of it back.

According to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health offices, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”

In all fairness, the members of the House and Senate are just doing their job.  The Constitution instructs Congress to collect a direct, heavy, progressive tax from every person in the country.  Then, they are to withhold a sizeable amount of the Gross National Product for financing the cost of running the Government.  Finally, Congress is to disperse the proportionately small amount of remaining money back to the people, disguised as ‘Investing in America’.  Any such investing in the ‘public good’ shall be at the sole discretion of Congress, based on the projected return value of those investments, as realized in the results of polls and elections.

Based on the questions contained in the 2010 Census Questionnaire, two out of ten deals with ethnicity, Congress seems quite concerned about ensuring proper funding of ethnic groups.  Rest assured then, so long as you are of the proper, favored ethnicity, Congress is doing their job and looking out for your best financial interest, in relation to ‘Public Investing’.

Pardon my sarcasm.  Actually, unlike most members of the House and Senate, I’ve read the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 2, later modified by Section 2, of the 14th amendment, calls for representation to be “apportioned among the several States”.  The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the first Meeting of Congress, and every ten years thereafter.

Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Census was intended to be used only for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House, and apportioning direct Taxation among the several States.  There is no mention of using the Census as a means to justify congressional spending.

Think about it.  For the purpose of “apportioned representation” based on the total populations of the several States, does not call for Congress to have any idea of the ethnicity of the populace; they do not need any demographic data as a means to cater to any particular groups.

This means that Congress does not need to know who owns the house I live in, what the genders of any residence are, the actual age of residents, or if a resident has a secondary residence.

Instead, Congress is using the Census to get the American People to endorse the Socialistic practice of ‘redistributing wealth’.  They took away Constitutional apportionment of direct taxation with the 16th amendment, and perverted the use of the Census.

Now, we have a scenario where the government taxes the groups determined by the Census, to be the “haves”, to provide benefits to groups determined as the “have not’s”.  This is known simply as Socialism.

For the record, there are only five questions the Census could ask under the authority of the Constitution.

  1. Verify your address.
  2. How many people live at your address?
  3. How many people, living at your address, are of legal voting age?
  4. How many people, living at your address, are American Indians?
  5. What is your status of residency in the United States?  (Circle one)   Natural Born Citizen   Naturalized Citizen   Legal Resident   Other

As to the cost of the Census, the entire questionnaire, as authorized under the Constitution, would fit on a post card, the cheapest form of U.S. Mail correspondence and would be easily administered by, and reported through, local governments.

It is at this point, I must ask the obvious question; if we, The People, are going to allow the elected members of Government to pervert the intentions of our Founders and the meaning of our Constitution, to what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says, why should we have a Constitution?

Are we truly a nation of Free and Independent People?  Or, are we, The People going to allow the endorsement of Socialism, and idly watch it take root and grow into an uncontrollable despotic dictatorship?


Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

December 9, 2009

They old adage says, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

In Senator Reid’s case, more media attention, for which he has shown a willingness to do anything, including the proposal, and intentional attempt, to force-feed socialist style, nationalized health care down the throat of a free nation.

For Senator Reid, the fact that the majority of Americans want nothing to do with what he has to offer has no merit.  The only thing that matters to this self-absorbed, wanna-be dictator is that some form of “health care reform” get passed before he gets ousted from the Senate.  A legacy, if you will.

So, what is he up to this time?

Senator Reid called a press conference to announce that he has a health care bill, but cannot divulge the details until after the CBO is finished analyzing it.

“We have something good.”  Squeaky said, of the bill he is concealing from the public, and anyone who differs from his opinion.  “But, I cannot give any details at this time.”

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

It spurs memories of the times my dear, sweet mother told me, “Here you go.  Eat up, Honey.  It’s good for you.”  As she served that piece of unseasoned shoe leather, she called “liver”, and tried to convince me it was a prime cut of meat.

Compared to nationalizing our health care, and allowing some self-promoting idiot, like Squeaky Harry, the authority to make all my medical decisions, I’d rather have the “shoe leather” and pretend it’s meat.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that like liver, then again, not 100% of Americans are against nationalizing health care either.  But, just because some would rather have liver, instead of steak, is not my problem.

The fact here, is that Senator Reid must be taught that he is not representing the United States of Obama, and that we, the People, have an absolute right to know that he is attempting to convince us that the mud covered rocks he is serving, is actually left-over stew.

What happened to “transparency in government”?  Or, was that only while he was still relishing the short-lived popularity of his Lord and Master, Big Barry?

After all, the motivating factor is the promise he made to get a bill on the President’s desk before New Years.   Looks to me like Squeaky his vying for a position in the Obama Administration after he gets ousted from the Senate, regardless of the cost to America.


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Part of the problem with the Proposed Health Care Reform Act is that we cannot expect to hear the truth of the issues in “honest debate”.  For instance, the “Death Panel” was adamantly denied, until it was removed from the proposal.

The proposal will allegedly cover the health care of illegal immigrants.  Supporters repudiate this, claiming the language forbids coverage of illegal immigrants.

However, there is nothing in the proposal to allow verification of any recipient’s legal status.  When Conservatives offer legislation to amend the discrepancy, Liberals reject the amendments.

Liberals forget there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration; yet they are here.  Because illegal immigrants ignore our federal immigration laws, it is logical to assume they will ignore any legislated restrictions to “nationalized” health care.

In his speech to the Joint Houses of Congress, President Obama claimed to promote “choice and competition” by officially announcing a “Public Option”.

The president declared, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.”

Ironically, that is similar to President Obama’s comments about not wanting control of General Motors, Chrysler, and companies affected by the “Financial Bail-Out”.  In the aftermath, we find that the opposite is true.  The president, and his administration, have asserted unprecedented control of “Private Industry”.  Why should we expect Health Care to be treated any differently?

The president went on to say, “… it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance…  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.”

Remember, I wrote to begin with, “we cannot expect to hear the truth”; you decide.

The president first cites to the falsely inflated number of 15% of Americans being uninsured at some point, and then exaggerates the number by doubling the time period, erringly assuming that doing so automatically doubles the number of people affected.

How so?  He claimed that one in three Americans goes without coverage at some point; that is more than 30%.   Then something closer to the truth slips out when he cited the CBO saying, “…only 5% will sign up”.

Mr. President, is it 15%, 30%, or 5%?  You referred to, or quoted all three percentages in the same speech.  With all due respect Sir, annoying little facts, known as the truth, will come back to bite you when they are misrepresented.

President Obama promised the following points in his “sales pitch” for the “Public Option;

1.  No tax subsidies for the “Public Option”.

2.  No additional deficit spending.

3.  Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the “Public Option”.

4.  Greater security for the middle-class, not higher taxes.

Ignoring the fact that President Obama contradicted every point in his speech, and assuming the president intends to abide by these four points.  Logically, to accommodate the “Public Option”, the president is proposing another Government Subsidized Entity, similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Who, along with GM and Chrysler, the newest GSE’s, are going bankrupt)

Think about it!  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and the financial industry staggering under the weight of the government…These are prime examples of what to expect for our health care system under a “Public Option”.

The only way for a “Public Option” to abide by the four points in his “sales pitch”, and maintain “choice and competition”, is to mandate that the ‘Public Provider” abide by the same laws enforced on “Private Providers”.  This means, among other things, the “Public Provider” would be required to establish “security holdings”, (typically 70 – 80% of their policy values) to ensure the financial ability to cover claims.

In order to stay in existence, insurers must guarantee the principles, which are the premiums paid by the people.  To do this, insurance companies invest the premiums they collect to cover claims that may exist on their policies and for their own business returns as well, including operating costs.

This means, the government, through the “Public Provider” would necessarily purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities to amass profits. (Not a far stretch after the Auto and Financial Bail-Outs)

Politicians engaged in such activities create obvious potential dangers.  In short, your tax dollars would be risked, or “invested”, in the stock market to cover the costs of the “Public Option”.

Keep in mind, during his speech, President Obama informed us that nationalizing health care through a “Public Option” is only a part of his plan; he reminded his “Progressive Friends” that, “The ‘Public Option’ is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goals.”

What are the “ultimate goals” of the presidents “Progressive Friends”?

Government “investing” tax dollars in “Private Industry” is a one-way ticket to corruption.  It will not be long before politicians assume massive control of the market through legislation, to “protect” the investments of the “tax payers”.

Considering the government prints money at will, this creates an environment in which private insurance companies cannot compete.  In relatively short time, financial pressures will force “Private Providers” to file for bankruptcy.

There is no better “investment” than to acquire failing competitors.  Therefore, through “free market capitalist investing, “private assets” would end up in the government’s possession.

DANGER! The president is proposing a “hostile takeover” of our nation.  He is simply using Health Care Reform as a vehicle to reach a more sinister destination.  The “Public Option” creates a potential “enemy from within”, using Capitalism, to accomplish Socialism.

Nationalized Health Care is, by its nature, another form of Socialism being introduced to a “free” society; another attempt to gain control of all major methods of production in an effort to confiscate wealth and dictate the lives of individuals through mandates and distribution of means.

Redistribution, or the practice of taking from one societal group to provide for another group, is Socialism.

The government dictating compliance by mandating involvement of private individuals in government run programs is Communism.

America was created, by design, as a Capitalist Society; a social system based on individual rights through the separation of the economy and the Government; with a limited government, relegated to the duties of protecting the rights of the People.  America is founded on the rights, of individuals, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Americans enjoy the right to possess private property, and maintain the right to individually contract to, and profit from our own labor.

The right to Life and Liberty guarantees us to freedom from oppression, freedom from burdensome government, and the right to freedom of actions in our individual Pursuit of Happiness, so long as no person or group infringes or violates the rights of another.

Previously, in “The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion”, I disputed the “facts” the president termed “undisputable”.

In “National Health Care and the Constitution”, I called the president out, defying him to present an argument, giving him or Congress the Constitutional Power or Authority to legislate “National Health Care Reform”.

Now, I am declaring the potential dangers of a sinister agenda.

I reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that could, so easily, be used as a means to anything as sinister as what I have described.

The Founders intended to create a nation of “free men”, fundamentally rooted in societal and economic capitalism, to preserve the natural rights of each individual.  Any attempt to vilify capitalism, or provide support of socialism is, in a word, un-American.

I maintain, that if America allows the nationalization of our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

So long as a single Patriot fights for Liberty, Freedom lives.  Never stop fighting.

Part 1 of 3:  The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution


President Obama’s Commencement Address to Notre Dame

June 5, 2009

It has been about a week now, and I have listened to the traditional media praise President Obama’s commencement speech to the graduating class of 2009, at Notre Dame.  There has also been scathing criticism from other sources in the alternative media.  Now I will offer my humble opinion of his comments.

President Obama held true to form, wasting no occasion to trumpet his ideology.  Instead of maintaining a congratulatory attitude and speaking to a future of great aspirations, the President seized the opportunity to attempt to reinforce his political agenda.

The President opened with a few bits of humor, and then used a congratulatory sentence to lead into those subjects nearest and dearest to his heart.  He began by espousing his belief that we are at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world.  He claimed we are at a rare point in history where the size and scope of the challenges require a remaking of our world.  He declared that we should align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age, citing it as a privilege and a responsibility afforded to only a few generations.

I’m thinking, “Not bad so far.  He is laying out the future challenges for this graduating class as he sees it.”  Not so fast.  Would the real President Obama please stand up?  Then suddenly he emerged.

President Obama comingled American Values with Global Citizenship, asserting that the global economy has left millions behind, that greed and short-term thinking are rewarded at the expense of fairness, diligence, and an honest day’s work.  He argued that the strong, too often dominate the weak, and that those with wealth and power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.

There he goes, denouncing success as something detestable.  I wonder if he and Michelle gained their wealth and power by the same of poverty and injustice as he accuses others.  Painting a picture of humanity with such a broad brush is a grave mistake as not all nations share the morals, values, and standards as that of America.

The President professed that we should seek peace, while admitting there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm.  He expressed a desire to find a way to reconcile an ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief; and to find a way to live together as one human family.

I know the President considers himself as a “citizen of the world”, but this is beginning to sound a lot like a desire of a “One World Order”.

He conceded that no one person, religion, or nation can meet the challenges of global recession, violent extremism, the spread of nuclear weapons, or pandemic disease alone. He claimed these societal negativities do not discriminate or recognize borders.  He went on to avow that our very survival requires greater cooperation and understanding among all people, from all places, than ever before in history.

I dread to think that I am the only one that sees the only item in his laundry list that is truly unyielding to borders or discrimination is pandemic diseases.

President Obama used an encounter during his Senate Campaign to fly in the face of the Catholic Church, which is staunchly anti-abortion.  The President referred to a letter from a doctor who claimed he would have trouble voting for, then Candidate Obama, because of the wording on his web site.  The doctor ended his letter with a call for “fair-minded words”.

The President then demonstrated his willingness to alter his rhetoric in attempts to appear as though he is seeking common ground with those that oppose him.

Through this presentment, the President introduced a desire to “honor those who disagree with abortion”, and “draft a sensible conscience clause”, “grounded in clear ethics and sound science”.

President Obama had the audacity to address a college steeped in Catholicism, traditionally in strict opposition to abortion, and consider them in need of ethical grounding.  His comment clearly asserted that opposition to abortion involves the lack of clear ethics or sound science. Furthermore, I find it amazing that the audience cheered so vigorously for anyone presenting an opinion so contradictory to their own.

Hang in there Notre Dame.  I got your back, even if you will not stand your ethical ground; there are those of us who will.  As to the drafting of a “conscience clause”, forgive my dissention, but I relish my personal liberty and freedom, and therefore do not wish for the government to dictate my conscientiousness.

The President’s arrogance was on full display when, in the same speech he attempted to equate the resolve of man to the power of God declaring, “We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.”

The assumption that we truly have the power to save the planet from climate change is ludicrous.  After all, if I am not mistaken, the Christian belief teaches that God created the climate too.  Not to mention, that a brief study of geology reveals that the world has a rich and constant history of climate change, which I personally attribute to something beyond our capabilities, namely a divine plan.

I have a news flash for you.  Compared to God, man is created in his image, not equal to his power and ability.  I understand that we owe it to our posterity to try to protect our natural resources, but saving the world from its own climate, people please.  When they figure out how to create a clump of clay from gas, cover seventy-five percent of it with water and the rest with loose rocks, have it spin a thousand miles per hour of its own volition and not lose any of its contents, then we can talk.  Our purpose here is to enjoy the ride and try to make life better for those who follow; not so complicated.

The President did finally deliver a commencement for the later part of his speech, which I must admit, was quite inspiring for the graduating class.  He briefly mentioned potential futures for the attendees.  He inspired them to meet challenges head on, and to never shy away from voicing their opinions and beliefs.  He urged the graduates to become part of the future, encouraged them to allow their faith to guide them in their journey, and cautioned them to remain humble and to temper their passions.

I must also admit that I appreciated his advice to the young audience that they should be part of their community, join the common effort toward the common good, and learn from one another, that in doing so, all things are possible.

I assumed it would be smooth sailing to the finale when the President had to end his speech by throwing another monkey wrench into the works by incorrectly referencing the Constitution regarding America’s “journey towards a more perfect union”.

The issuance of this statement from someone who taught Constitutional Law causes me more than a little concern.  The preamble of the Constitution states, “…in Order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  There is no reference of a “journey toward”, nor could there be.  The Founders accomplished their mission of creating a more perfect union through the ratification of the Constitution.

It is my opinion that referencing a “journey toward” a more perfect union relegates the Constitution to a “living, breathing document”, subject to whimsical change, depending on which way the societal, or political, winds are blowing.  The Constitution of the United States is not a weak, spineless opinion; it is the centerpiece of the law of the land, an affirmation of the power of the people, and a detailing of the limitations of authority for our government.

Finally, I congratulate all of the graduating classes of 2009.  Your accomplishments are commendable, and I concur with the President when he said, “Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved”.  You have obtained a solid foundation on which to go out into the world and begin building your life.  Always remember, you did not succeed alone.  Each of you required support and encouragement in you scholastic ventures.  You will eventually learn, the greatest gift to receive, is the personal gratification you will experience in supporting and encouraging others in their ventures.  Because, like you, nobody accomplishes greatness alone.   Salute.