'Hope and Change'

Schumer Stumps for One Party Rule...

2010 Election Calendar included with letter.

"It's going to take more than two years to undo the damage of the Bush administration," a letter to Democrats from Senator Charles E. Schumer dated July 31, 2009 direly begins. The letter urges Democrats to deliver President Obama a "filibuster proof" majority to "...overcome Republicans' repeated efforts to stand in the way of 'change' and 'progress.'"

Wow! Sound's like one party rule to me. Like it or not, these people seek to push unread legislation that would create massive changes in the way we live. All this from the people who promised to make government more open and accountable. How is nuking opposition 'reaching across the aisle?'

The letter goes on to explain how filibusters are 'negative.' "Because of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney are on the radio and TV day after day, taking nasty swipes at the Democratic Party and President Obama. They have no interest in bridging divides. They just want us to fail."

Amen! I sure don't want Canadian style Nationalized Healthcare. Nor do I want 'Cap and Trade' laws that will tax energy we need into unaffordble and destroy American competitive ability. A Democrat majority; would it have spared us Freddie Mac under Franklin Raines? I think not. Our founding fathers were wise to acknowledge human depravity by setting up a system of checks and balances. We dare not disarm them now.

To understand why many Americans are understandably skeptical of overreaching government control in their lives, one simply has to look at the flap surrounding The Death Book for Veterans [click to read] as mentioned in the WSJ by Jim Towey. Towey begins:

"If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Without checks and balances, what other 'choices' are we likely to lose control of?

Now add to this SWAC Girl's thoughts on The Ruling Class in America [click to read]! See you in Washington on the 12th!!!

Update: Other Voices:

The Ad ABC TV Banned [click to view].

Erika Lassen [click to read].

"During his acceptance speech, President Barack Obama said, "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."

"The disconnect between President Obama's acceptance speech and his current tone is remarkable. However, it is what I most assuredly can identify as "change." -- Erika Lassen

Michelle Malkin on 'One Party Rule' [click to read].

The 'Mob' Pelosi Loved [click to read].

The First Amendmend Does Not Apply to You! [click to read].

Stacking the Deck at Dean/Moran Town Hall [click to read].

We can't have those pesky rabble standing in the way of 'hope and change,' can we?

Time to Stop Blaming Bush? [click to read].

The Meaning of Sonia Sotomayor...

Redefining Our Society by Judicial Overreach


'Blind Justice' atop the Augusta County Courthouse.

Victoria Cobb, President of The Family Foundation writes:

It is always a relief, and usually a surprise, when courts do the right thing, but it is never a sure thing. The California court this week surprised nearly everyone when it simply upheld the important right of that state’s citizens to recognize the traditional definition of marriage, and the sanctity of the vote. It is ironic, however, to watch those who claim ‘every vote counts’ are decrying a decision that validates the voters of California.

At nearly the same moment, President Barack Obama announced his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Almost immediately forces on both sides of the Supreme Court debate staked out their positions – many without having any idea what she actually stands for – and the battle over her nomination began.

What is striking to me is just how far we have come from the system of government our Founders envisioned. The news media, pundits, elected officials, public interest groups and scores of Americans have their entire focus on the make up and actions of the judiciary – the third branch of government the Founders intended to be the least powerful.

So here we are today with our freedoms hanging in the balance, with the future definition of terms like marriage and family awaiting validation or reversal by a handful of men and women whom, for the most part, we did not elect. Such is not the Republic we were meant to be, and frankly such is a Republic that cannot sustain itself for long.

Regardless of the outcome of the nomination proceedings for Judge Sotomayor, our system of government – a Constitutional Republic – loses a cornerstone when the voice and will of the people as expressed through our Constitution is subject to the whims of an elite few.

The people of Virginia in 2006 voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote a handful of judges should not be able to toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children.

And yet, we know it is very likely that at some point our marriage amendment, or another state’s marriage amendment, will face scrutiny by nine people in black robes whom are accountable to no one – some of whom are no longer accountable to the document they swore an oath to uphold.

That is not the America our Founders envisioned.