Re-run.....The Day the Constitution Died.

Now that Obama has installed himself as the total board of directors of all businesses in America, the piece I wrote in early November may make more sense. If his statement referring to the Earl Warren Supreme Court was not prophetic and you thought was meaningless, what do you think now? Here is a re-run.

THE DAY THE CONSTITUTION DIED

FDR referred to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7th, 1941 as "a day that will live in infamy." I fear that same phrase can, and may, be used by future generations to describe November 4th, 2008. Lest this sound overly dramatic and hysterical, please reserve your judgment for the short time it takes you to finish this piece. We have never had a President before who has vowed to reinvent the Constitution in his ideological image.

Thomas Sowell, in his latest column, headlined, "Obama is all ego and mouth." states, "Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else." I can see why "con men" are call "confidence men" by law enforcement as they pursue them as they perpetrate their scams. Dr. Sowell further states, "The signs of Barrack Obama's self-center immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just wants the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents." He adds, "For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk abut taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries."

The greater danger than actions of Obama is the actions of the press in anointing him. In this campaign the media actually cast off all pretenses of objectivity and admitted they are going to promote only liberal causes and candidates! They take the Constitution's support of their rights to the letter, yet have no intention of applying those rights in any responsible way as the Founders had envisioned and hoped. The Founders well knew the vagaries of the language were such that no statement should be all encompassing and relied on the citizenry to evoke their rights in a responsible manner. With every right there is an implied collateral responsibility. That the mainstream media is overtly biased is statement of fact that can't not be gainsaid. There simply is not a cogent argument that can rebut the veracity of this statement. That being said, I can hardly imagine freedom being more precious that the freedom of the press. There are others, I aver, just as precious but none more.

One need not outline examples as anyone who is reasonable and of average intelligence must know of the power vested in leaders who control the press. All peoples beliefs and opinions are shaped by the press. When used by despots the phenomenon is call propaganda. I pray you look around you and the actions of the press in contemporary times and state with conviction what we are "fed" is not propaganda. Look at the lives of people during the reign of the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba and China to name a few. Consider then the oppression they are exposed to daily while their "press" tells them they are wonderful and would be much better save for some "devil" across the sea or some such place.

A few examples of "freedom of the press" of the last several weeks. First, the press has you convinced the current economic "mess" was due to "eight years of failed economic policies of George Bush." You, mainstream America, only know this because the media has told you it is so and they know people are easy to brain wash as they well know the principle that says any message heard often enough becomes fact in the mind of most "listeners." The real facts, in very brief detail for if you care enough, look it up. Then don't tell me, tell yourself. In 1977 Pres. Carter and Dem. Congress, both houses, authored and passed the Community Re-investment Act. This act was for the specific purpose of forcing lending institutions to mortgage houses for unqualified people. Their hopes were that by financing houses at 100% and more would not be a problem with housing prices climbing steadily year after year. No rational person could argue this would not last for ever. The housing industry is notoriously cyclical. The crash was destined, by any historical standard, to come. Well it hit in 2008. The original scheme was little more than a classic Ponzi scheme that had to fall. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd protected it like a mother crocodile protection her brood. These two gentlemen lowered Freddy and Fannie's capital requirements to 4% from 10% as other lending institutions are required to keep as a safety net. They fought Bush and McCain specifically and all others who sought to rein in Fannie and Freddy. Don't be mislead. All the economic problems of late have their genesis in the "sub-prime" mortgage industry. All the failed institutions either held such mortgages or derivatives of these instruments.

Another example of the raw power of the press. How many times did you hear McCain was tied umbilically to Bush. "Four more years of failed Bush policies." "Voted with Bush 90% of the time." "Supported Bush on war in Iraq." I know you heard all these and more seeking to drive home the notion McCain "has been around Bush" for so long he will be no different. In summation, fraternizing with the President of the United States is bad. Now we look at Mr. Obama. His associations, many of 20 years standing, with people like Rezko, Anchi, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, Farrakhan, Dorn et al. are of no consequence and hardly worthy of mention. The old adage, "We are known by the company we keep," like other bits of wisdom that have survived great spans of time, usually have some axiomatic affect. This is a principle we have all had our parents preach to us and we have preached to our kids. But now the press tells you it is not true universally. It only affects me, you and McCain and means nothing when analyzing the life and times of one Barrack Hussein Obama!

If you think Obama's intention to destroy the Constitution is untrue and is only the subjective rantings of a McCain supporter whose analytical machinations have deduced a totally incorrect conclusion, look at the exact words of Mr. Obama:

When referencing the Civil Rights Movement, he stated as he tried to opine on the Shortcomings "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."

There is simply no way anyone can interpret or spin these simple statement from his own mouth. The words mean what they say. No amount of "what he really meant was" can alter the fact, and I say fact that Obama sees the Constitution as an impediment to his grand vision and means to destroy it. If that day ever comes, and it will if good men do nothing, we will never be a great Country again for the Phoenix exists only in myth. Just listen to the words. He seeks, by his own omission to break free from the constraints placed by the Founders and the Constitution! How can any American not be alarmed, scared and outraged by that statement?

Equally scary is his statement re the Judiciary. Liberal judges and Obama believe the Constitution is available for unconstrained authority and the invention of new rights as they perceive them necessary in a changing world. No rights are proper and available unless so stated in the Constitution. To support a notion to the contrary divest the Constitution of any meaning and stature and renders it useless for how can it not be useless if it can be interpreted and altered at every ideological whim of an uncontrolled Judiciary.

Another cite from Dr. Sowell's piece, "After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for and encore. He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble." Further he states, "Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown." How can the press not inform us of the dangers outlined here? We have our answer and it is devastating.

Justice Louis Brandeis reckoned these times would come when in 1928 he ruled, "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Is not this rather prophetic? I think we have met Machiavelli and he is not clad in a dark cape and cowl, but a $2000 custom suit. The rights of the individual are at stake here and will soon be subservient to the state. This will happen if good men choose to accept it..

I think this subject could easily fill a book, but must seek brevity here. This results in a confluence of thought more erratic than laminar. For that I apologize. I hope all who read this will take upon themselves, free of political biases, an objective study of the points I raised. I didn't arrive at these conclusions quickly nor inanely. I sincerely believe them to be correct and it scares the hell out of me. Just remember the Roman Empire, the greatest world power prior to modern day America, did decline and fall and inflict upon citizens of the world a thousand years of misery.