Category: Politics

The Trayvon Trial: Does Character Matter?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

Yesterday was a big day for America’s race-baiters, as the Trayvon Martin case made it’s way to court.  George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed the black teenager, was given a bond of $150,000, a move which fanned the flames of the race-baiters’ righteous indignation.

Breitbart.com’s Big Government reports:

With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie.”

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …

“I’ve had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It’s a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?”

Dershowitz added, “I’m not taking sides, but I’m insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules.”

Speaking of half-truths, I wonder if Zimmerman’s lawyer is going to bring up Trayvon’s school record.  I hate to speak ill of the dead, but this young man was not the innocent little angel he is being portrayed to have been.

The Miami Herald published the following on March 26th:

The Miami Gardens teen who has become a national symbol of racial injustice was suspended three times, and had a spotty school record that his family’s attorneys say is irrelevant to the facts that led up to his being gunned down on Feb. 26.

In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f—.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.

Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim.

Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.

Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend.

“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.

A lawyer for the dead teen’s family acknowledged Trayvon had been suspended for graffiti, but said the family knew nothing about the jewelry and the screwdriver.

I’ll bet they didn’t.

CiteHR.com, in a article titled “Why Does Character Matter?” states that

Character can be defined in a variety of ways. Mental images abound as to the true definition but perhaps they can be summed up as, the motivation to do what is right; or who you are when no one is watching. To be a person of character, one must posses certain character traits like patience, love, perseverance, self-control, humility, diligence, and so on.

…Personal character clarifies one’s value system and defines behavior in a most explicit manner. As we observe culture and human behavior, we can almost always trace backwards from behavior to find the meaning, values, and beliefs rooted in a person’s worldview that subsequently influences behavior. In other words, our behavior is often consistent with our values; the way we act has meaning based on what we believe about ourselves, other people, the world, and for many a higher power.

Potential evidence as to Zimmerman’s character comes from his attempt yesterday to meet with Trayvon’s parents, which they refused.  Of course, witnesses have come forth to testify on behalf of George Zimmerman, also.

The only evidence we have of Trayvon’s character are his spotty school record, and the bloody gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head, where Trayvon repeatedly slammed it into the sidewalk.

Did Trayvon, as a witness has related he said to Zimmerman, lay an a@@ whuppin’ on Zimmerman or did the 6’1″ teenager slam Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk because he was scared of the older, smaller, neighborhood watch volunteer?

An impartial jury will have to decide that….and if “content of character” matters.

I’m Back! What Did I Miss?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

After a week in exile, my long-suffering bride and I did our impression of the Clampetts, loaded up our ’92 LeSabre and 2009 Equinox, and headed back to our palatial estate in Southaven, Mississippi.

Tomorrow, I plan of sharing our experiences with you, but today, I just want to express a couple of personal opinions concerning two of the top stories of the last week:

Concerning the Secret Service getting serviced…

The Secret Service announced Wednesday evening that three agents connected to the incident were leaving the agency. One planned to retire, another stepped down and the third has been proposed for removal for cause – meaning the agent has the right to be represented by a lawyer. The other eight, for now, have been placed on administrative leave and their security clearances have been suspended.

The revelations that 11 Secret Service agents and at least five military personnel may have been involved with prostitutes have shocked Washington and triggered several congressional inquiries into the scandal.

And, if that wasn’t classless enough…

One of the Secret Service supervisors ousted from the agency this week for their involvement in the Colombia prostitution scandal made light of his official protective work on his Facebook page, joking about a picture of himself standing watch behind Sarah Palin.

David Randall Chaney, 48, posted several shots of himself on duty in a dark suit and sunglasses, including one that shows him behind the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee during that campaign.

“I was really checking her out, if you know what i mean?” Chaney wrote in the comments section after friends had marveled at the photo. He is married and has an adult son.

Chaney, who had been a supervisor in the Secret Service’s international programs division, retired under pressure Wednesday, according to people familiar with an internal agency investigation into the allegations that 11 agents and uniformed officers participated in a night of carousing April 11 ahead of President Obama’s visit to the Summit of the Americas.

Regarding this idiot, Sarah Palin herself made a good quip yesterday, when she remarked:

I hope his wife sends him to the doghouse. As long as he’s not eating the dog, along with his former boss,” Palin said. She went on to say “boys being boys” is not an excuse. “Whether it comes to a budget, to GSA overspends, to the Secret Service scandal, you know, I have had enough of these men being dogs and not being responsible.

Back to the details…

He was one of two senior supervisors who are accused in the scandal, which investigators believe included heavy drinking, visits to a strip club and payments to women working as prostitutes. Several people familiar with the matter have identified the other supervisor as Greg Stokes, who was assistant special agent in charge of the K-9 division. Stokes has been notified by agency officials that he will be fired, although he will be given an opportunity to contest the charges, those with knowledge of the case said.

…in keeping with the high moral and ethical standards of their CIC.

And then, there’s this, about “the other white meat”…

Proving that election fights can unleash the worst jokes, the White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that conservatives gleefully noting that President Barack Obama was fed dog meat as a child in Indonesia were just “trying to get out of the doghouse.”

“He keeps up with the news, he may know about it,” Carney said noncommittally when asked about the back-and-forth. “I think we’re talking to a reference in his book to a period when he was six or seven years old. Making a big deal out of it sounds like somebody who’s trying to get out of the doghouse.”

The resulting press corps groan conveyed a clear message: For Seamus, Jay.

“Just occurred to me to say that,” Carney said. Carney had been asked about an online spat pitting top aides to Obama and Mitt Romney–who, in a notorious tale from 1983, put the vacation-bound family’s Irish setter, Seamus, in a carrier strapped to the roof of the family station wagon. Seamus ultimately emptied his bowels, the liquid dripping onto the vehicle’s windows and forcing Romney to stop to rinse them off.

Democrats (and Gail Collins of the New York Times) delight in telling the story of the 1983 trip, apparently hoping pet-besotted Americans will recoil in horror. Romney’s former rival for the party’s nomination, Rick Santorum, also played off the story.

Conservatives struck back this week, pulling up an excerpt from Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” in which the future president talks about being fed dog meat as a boy in Indonesia. His take on the taste? “Tough.”

Conservative glee spilled over onto Twitter, virtual fur flying as top aides from each campaign barked at each other.

Well, doggone.  I believe the White House is barking up the wrong tree.  

However…the question on everyone’s lips remains:  

What sort of dog was young Scooter fed as a child in Indonesia?

Odds are…it was a weenie dog…Would that be considered cannibalism?

An Interruption in Programming

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

Dear Friends and “Family”:

I will be off the grid for about a week or so.  Wednesday night, the Generation XY kids above our apartment decided to cook fried chicken and neglected to watch it cook, resulting in a grease fire.  Our ground-floor apartment was flooded by their sprinkler system, resulting in us being relocated (by the grace of God) to live for a while in a Corporate Unit at another apartment complex, owned by the corporation who owns ours.

Your prayers are welcome and appreciated.  It could have been a lot worse. Until I return, here is a recent post, to remind you of what I’m about.

God is Good.  All the time.

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE?

I have been asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

Mitt and the GOP Don’t Need Conservatives, Evidently

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Yesterday afternoon, I was listening to Ben Ferguson, our local afternoon Conservative Talk-show host.  You may have seen Ben on the cable news networks, where he appears as a Conservative Pundit or listened to his nationally syndicated radio program on Sunday nights.

Ben was discussing Rick Santorum’s dropping out of the Republican Primary.  Ben, who has leaned toward supporting Romney during the primary, told how Mitt had visited Memphis twice so far during his campaign, both times, meeting with the local movers and shaker, while ignoring the GOP rank and file.

Will he pay attention to the Conservative Base now that Santorum is out of the picture?  Or will he continue to ignore them, with the presumption of both the Romney Campaign and the GOP Elite being that they will have to vote for him in November?

A casual glance at gallup.com, shows Romney at 42% ballot support among Republican voters.

Ummm…shouldn’t that be higher?  That means that 58 % of Republicans don’t support him.

Outside of the party, now that it’s basically Romney vs. Obama, realclearpolitics.com shows Romney losing to Obama 48.5% to 43.2%, a difference of 5.3%.

Those of you who are inclined to reach for your pocketbooks to send Romney a little sumpin’ sumpin’, hold on.

Foster Friess, the retired investor who spent nearly $1.7 million boosting Rick Santorum’s presidential run, is ready to help Mitt Romney.

“I’m obviously going to be of help in whatever way I can,” Friess told POLITICO Tuesday afternoon, hours after Santorum suspended his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, cementing Romney’s status as the party’s presumptive nominee.

Friess, who was in Washington to accept an award from the Horatio Alger Association, said he had yet to discuss his planned shift in allegiance with Romney’s campaign campaign or the Washington-based super PAC supporting it.

“I’ve got some plans as to how I might be able to be of help,” said Friess. “The bottom line is, I’m going to be very supportive and I’ll probably have plans to share with you a little later on.”

So, fellow Conservatives, just sit back and watch as the rest of the GOP movers and shakers line up to grease Mitt’s already money-lined palm.

As Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday,

There are no more excuses now. Well, there are. That’s why I guess I want to know what the excuses are gonna be if this doesn’t go the way they have it planned. If this doesn’t pan out to big-time electoral victory the way the establishment has it figured, then what will their excuse be? And I think I know. I think that if this campaign goes on and if it results in Obama winning, I think what the establishment is going to do is blame us. They’re gonna blame us conservatives for once again being too rigid and too demanding and too narrow and unrealistic and all this, and telling us that we’re the reason that Obama won.

“If we’d-a just got behind it,” and so forth… Which, of course, will be bogus.

…I will just say this: If the Republican establishment is not careful, they are going to destroy themselves in the process of this campaign. If they screw this up… We’ve never had a better chance to win than this. If they screw this up, folks…

The problem, Rush, is…they will.  The tone-deaf squishes of the GOP Establishment always do.

The last time they got it right was during a campaign that really came about through circumstances which they had nothing to do with:  The Reagan Revolution.

Per learnourhistory.com:

Through the 1970s, the United States struggled through a terrible recession and government became much more involved in Americans’ lives. Additionally, America showed significant weakness globally, as the Soviet Union flexed its muscles and smaller nations began to lose both fear and respect for the United States. It was clear the country needed a change.

Ronald Reagan was the right man for the job and was elected in a landslide. He swiftly changed the course of the nation, lowering taxes and reducing regulations to stimulate the economy and standing up for America’s principles and beliefs around the world. In addition to his changes to foreign and domestic policy, Reagan was an “American Exceptionalist”, meaning that he understood that there was something special and different about America that set it apart from all other nations. During his time in office, Reagan reduced the intrusive role of the government and helped the nation re-discover its greatness, power and economic growth.

So, why are we facing a Republican Campaign featuring a flip-floppin’ Moderate who has spent the last 6 years bragging about his own state-run healthcare system?

Why isn’t the Republican Party presenting a Reagan Conservative  to run against the socialist in the White House?

Because Sarah Palin refused to run, that’s why.  And who can blame her.

The GOP Power Brokers have been on a mission for years to rid the party of Reagan Conservatism. There is no way in Blazes they would have supported her of their own volition. They would have had to have been forced to do so by a populist groundswell, much like the original Reagan Revolution. That is why they have done their best to neuter the Tea Party Movement.

Like many Conservatives, it now looks like I will be forced to hold my nose and vote for Romney in November, because electing a flip-floppin’ Northeastern Moderate snob to the presidency is preferable to the Alinskyite Anti-American socialist we have as one now.

However, we Conservative Americans never should have allowed ourselves to be ignored by the Party we led to victory in the Midterms.

Wright/Obama: The Memories Remain

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The majority of Americans, since that fateful Inauguration Day of January 21, 2009, have been trying to figure out two things about President Barack Hussein Obama:

1)  What is he thinking?  2) Is he a Christian, a Muslim, or what?

The answer to question #2 may be “what”, considering the “theologian” he sat under for 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Check out this excerpt from theblaze.com:

Last week, Wright spoke at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of a week-long revival event. His controversial words took aim at Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the media and plenty of other targets.

“I’m not divisive, the media is divisive,” he said, going on to lament the soundbites he claims were unfairly used to disparage him during the 2008 campaign.

As could be expected, the three evening sermons he delivered during the revival often turned to themes and subjects much more controversial than alleged media bias.

“Believers beware,” Wright preached in one of his lessons. “There are some conversations you will find yourselves in in which there is no communication taking place.”

He went on to speak about Jesus and Pontius Pilate in John 18 in the Bible, saying that they were speaking “two different languages.“ This sermon quickly delved into his belief that ”the Italian army — Roman soldiers“ were ”occupying Palestinian territory.”

Then, Wright found himself discussing U.S. operations in the Middle East, while also taking aim at FOX News personalities Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

“I was in the military six years and neither Hannity or O’Reilly was in the military,” he proclaimed. “Let me tell you one thing they taught us in the United States Marine Corps…fighting for peace is like raping for virginity. Those are oxymorons, but that’s what we do in the name of regime change.”

The controversial preacher also showed no love for Justice Thomas, as he told his audience that, though Thomas “looks like” them, he is “worshipping some other God.” He also made an intriguing comparison about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the Lord depicted in the Quran.

“The god of racists is not the God of righteousness. The god of the greedy is not the God of grace. The god of Wall Street is not the God of Main Street,” Wright proclaimed. “Those are two different gods and I ain’t talking about Allah and Yahweh. Those are the same names for the same God.”

He continued, taking a jab at Thomas and his Christian faith.

“And I’m not talking about black and white…some of ya‘ll think I’m talking about white folk,” he said. “There’s a whole lot of folk who look like you who are worshipping some other God — somebody shout Clarence Thomas. Hallelujah!”

So, besides being the President of the United States’ former pastor, who is this lunatic?

Per discoverthenetworks.org:

The son of a Baptist minister, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. was born in Philadelphia on September 22, 1941. On March 1, 1972, he became the pastor of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a position he held until February 2008.

After a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, Wright went on to earn a master’s degree in English from Howard University in 1969. Six years later he earned an additional master’s degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and in 1990 he received a Doctor of Ministry Degree from United Theological Seminary.

The writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright reflect his conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

What is this Black Liberation Theology that Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches?

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

In the past, Obama has credited a sermon of Mr. Wright’s, “The Audacity of Hope,” with drawing him to what he identified back in 2008 as, “Christianity”. In fact, Wright had so influenced the young Illinois Senator that Obama made the phrase the title of his second book.

However, right before he announced his presidential campaign, Obama started to put distance between himself and his pastor of 20 years, cancelling plans for him to deliver the convocation prayer at the campaign’s formal announcement.

The president has been physically distancing himself from Rev. Wright ever since.

Still, given Obama’s words and actions over the last three years, is appears that he still “bitterly clings” to the 20 years worth of Sunday morning sermons preached by his “Pastor”.

Bill Cosby: The Gun Killed Trayvon

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

In the back of the storeroom that my bride and I are currently renting, in a box with my Frampton Comes Alive Double Album, is an album by Bill Cosby.  I believe the title is, “Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow…Right.”

And, while I still believe that he is, with the following commentary, he’s way off the mark.

Last Saturday, The Washington Times featured the following report by Deborah Simmons, in her op ed feature, “Can We Talk”:

“The gun.”

Those two simple words flowed easily from the mouth of social commentator Bill Cosby during an exclusive interview Friday regarding the Trayvon Martin case, arguably the most high-profile, citizen-on-citizen U.S. slaying facing the Obama administration.

Trayvon was killed Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who told police that a “confrontation” with the unarmed 17-year-old led him to shoot in self-defense.

Mr. Cosby, a Navy veteran, said “the gun” empowered Mr. Zimmerman, whose actions have stirred a firestorm of debate, protests and remarks from President Obama.

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” said Mr. Cosby, whose remarks were the first he has made publicly about the case.

“Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself,” Mr. Cosby explained. “The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations.

“When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” he said.

An award-winning actor and great American humorist, Mr. Cosby, 74, is best know for the ground-breaking NBC sit-com “The Cosby Show,” stand-up routines and recorded performances, all of which are infused with familial humor.

Scheduled to perform April 28 at the Kennedy Center, Mr. Cosby continues to grace multiple platforms, and is scheduled to tickle funny bones as co-emcee at the April 12 gala celebrating the reopening of the historic Howard Theatre in Northwest Washington.

But it was at another celebration, the NAACP marking of the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education school-desegregation decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, that saw Mr. Cosby take a spot on the forefront of controversial social commentary.

In his remarks at the 2004 event, Mr. Cosby pointed out to the audience that blacks had essentially created a new lower rung on the socioeconomic ladder by failing to police their children. Since then, he has traveled the nation and used social media to expound the virtues of personal accountability, responsible parenting and a sound education.

Did racial bias unintentionally assist Dr. Cosby in forming his opinion?  According to gallup.com, it’s a possibility.

These results are from an April 2-4 USA Today/Gallup poll of 3,006 Americans, including 242 blacks, conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking. Martin’s death has sparked national interest and, more recently, protests, because Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, was not arrested after he claimed self-defense under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. With many black leaders and others calling for Zimmerman’s arrest and charging racism against the Sanford police department, the case has clearly captured the attention of the large majority of black Americans across the country.

…Blacks are much more likely than nonblacks to have an opinion about Zimmerman’s guilt. Overall, 72% of blacks say Zimmerman is definitely or probably guilty of a crime; 1% say he is not. Nonblacks also say Zimmerman is guilty, by 32% to 7%, but well over half of nonblacks say Zimmerman’s guilt is unclear from the available information.

Blacks are more certain about their opinions than are nonblacks. Blacks who say Zimmerman is guilty of a crime are significantly more likely to say he is definitely guilty than probably guilty, while nonblacks tilt more toward the “probably guilty” choice.

Additionally, 72% of blacks say racial bias was a major factor in the events that led up to the shooting death of Martin, with another 13% saying it was a minor factor. Nonblacks, on the other hand, are significantly less certain, with 31% saying racial bias was a major factor, 26% saying it was a minor factor, and 25% saying it was not a factor at all.

That may have have been a part of the thought process, leading to Dr. Cosby’s pronouncement.  Unfortunately, also painfully weighing on his mind was the 1997 muder of his son, Ennis:

Ennis Cosby [born April 15, 1969], son of actor Bill Cosby, was killed on January 16 [1997] as he was changing a tire near a freeway in Los Angeles. An 18-year-old Ukranian immigrant, Mikail Markhasev, was arrested in mid-March and charged with the crime.

That would certainly explain Dr. Cosby’s hatred of guns.

However….on October 26, 2011, gallup.com reported that

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

Do all of these Americans who own guns, mean to harm someone, or are they simply trying to protect themselves from being harmed?

Second Question:  Why is Trayvon’s background being ignored?

Why is the fact that he was pounding Mr. Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk at the time not appropriate to bring up?

While I’m on a roll, here’s another question:  Why did it take one month after Trayvon’s death for The Justice Brothers, Jackson and Sharpton, and the rest of the Liberals and race-baiters (but, I repeat myself) to make this a national cause celebre?

Furthermore, regarding Dr. Cosby’s remarks from back in 2004, why has he arguably, noticeably backed off from them?  Did Obama, Oprah, and others scold him for being “misguided” in his forthrightness?

Meanwhile, less than five miles from where I live in the Northwest Coner of Mississippi, right across the state line:

According to the Memphis Police Department, four victims were hospitalized [last] Tuesday morning being treated for wounds they received in an early morning shooting.

All are currently listed in critical condition.

According to witnesses, a car with a number of people in it came around the corner and began shooting at a group of young men in front of 416 Washburn Drive. In the process, the gunmen shot up five cars, a house, and a mailbox.

So far no arrests have been made in the shooting.

Perhaps, it’s time that I looked in to joining that 47%.

Spinning Obama’s Supreme Court “Gaffe”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

You can take a president away from Chicago Politics, but you can’t take the practice of Chicago Politics away from a president.

Per foxnews.com:

Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he’s “confident” the law will be upheld, but cautioned the “unelected” court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a “fantasy” to think “every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

“Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law,” he said.

The president’s challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates’ next round of primaries — Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.

Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.

Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that “departs” from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.

“That will not be an activist court — that will be a court following the Constitution,” Romney said.

Now, the Obama Administration is spinning faster the turnstile at Disney World.

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Former Obama Law Student Thom Lambert wrote the following article, My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review, which was posted on foxnews.com:

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.

Okay.  So how do Obama’s Law Professors feel about his shorthand?  One of them seems to be spinning as hard as the Administration.

President Obama’s former law-school professor said yesterday the president “obviously misspoke” when he challenged the authority of the US Supreme Court to overturn his historic health-care law.

“He didn’t say what he meant. . . and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it,” Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe told The Wall Street Journal.

Tribe, who called Obama one of his best students, tried to downplay the president’s remarks by insisting everyone already knows he wants the law to survive.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done, except by public confusion,” Tribe said.

By the way…

Lawrence Tribe is an American constitutional scholar and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School. A longstanding proponent of liberal jurisprudence, in 2001 Tribe helped found the American Constitution Society a supposed liberal counterweight to the conservative Federalist Society and was long considered a possible Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic administration.

This situation has me singing an old Blood, Sweat, and Tears song:  Spinning wheel got to go ’round…The Attorney General is singing too:

“The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Methinks Justice Kagan has spilled the beans to her former boss and things aren’t going to go Obama’s way when the Supreme Court’s decision is given.

In the meantime…pray.

The Muslim Brotherhood Visits the White House

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

The Obama Administration’s Bizarro World Smart Power! Foreign Policy Minions are at it again…treating our friends like they’re our enemies and our enemies as our friends.

For example…

White House officials held talks with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington this week, as the Islamist group threw itself into the fray in Egypt’s presidential election.

The meeting on Tuesday with low-level National Security Council staff was part of a series of US efforts to broaden engagement with new and emerging political parties following Egypt’s revolution last year, a US official said.

The White House pointed out that Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and other US lawmakers and officials had also met with Brotherhood representatives in Egypt and elsewhere in recent months.

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

“In all our conversations with these groups, we emphasize the importance of respect for minority rights, the full inclusion of women, and our regional security concerns.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, said on Saturday it would nominate Khairat al-Shater, a professor of engineering and business tycoon, to contest Egypt’s first presidential election since a popular uprising ousted Hosni Mubarak last year.

The Islamists, who control parliament, had repeatedly said they would not put forward a member for the election in order to mitigate fears that they were trying to monopolize power.

So…just who are these welcomed representatives of the “religion of peace”?

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Consistent with the foregoing credo, MB since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad, against non-Muslim “infidels.” As al-Banna himself wrote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” Added al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

…

Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. Article II of the Hamas charter explicitly identifies Hamas as “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” In January 2006 Hamas defeated the rival Fatah party to win the Palestinian legislative elections, thereby becoming the first branch of MB to control an official government.

Outside of the Middle East, MB exercises a strong influence in Muslim communities throughout Europe. Among the more prominent Brotherhood organizations in the region are: the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).

…In early February 2011, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.” That objective was entirely consistent with former MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef’s 2007 assertion that his organization had never recognized Israel and never would: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine.”

And these are the people that President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration have chosen to support.

Schmucks.

The United States of America Vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

The man who swore to take an oath to protect American citizens seems more concerned with protecting those here illegally.

Reuters.com reports that

The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Where was the concern of the Obama Administration when a good, hard-working American was gunned down by an illegal in Arizona.  Remember this story?

Police say Robert Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning, March 27th, 2010, by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family’s 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

Reached by phone early Tuesday at his family’s ranch, Andy Krentz, Krentz’s oldest son, said his father was a churchgoing man who routinely went out of his way to help those in need.

“My father was a very good family man,” Krentz told FoxNews.com. “He supported his kids, supported his family. He went out of his way to help anybody we could without regarding to who they were. It didn’t matter who they were.”

Sue Krentz, Krentz’s wife, said she was “pretty overwhelmed” by her husband’s death, which coincided with her parents’ deteriorating health.

“This is icing on the cake,” Krentz said.

Yes, it was. The public outcry was deafening.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday, April 23rd, 2010, a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were “overreacting” and that she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Do you realize that there are parts of Arizona where Americans are not allowed to travel because of the danger of violence from Mexican Drug Lords?

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park — have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

“Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns,” the website reads.

On another page titled “Border Concerns,” the website warns that visitors should be aware that “drug smuggling routes” pass through the park.

“If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene,” the website reads. “Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States.”

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

Excuse me, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General…Before you attempt to embarrass and verbally crucify a fine public servant like Sheriff Joe, why don’t you take care of those in Arizona who are in violation of our country’s laws and endangering the lives of American citizens, first?

Your priorities seem to be just a wee bit out of order.

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

Obama Vs. the Supreme Court: Falls Count Anywhere

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

The day after Wrestlemania XXVIII, President Barack Hussein Obama did his impression of “The Rock”, as he called out the Supreme Court.

Does ol’ Scooter know something that we don’t?

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism” that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court’s deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.

Known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “Obamacare,” the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.

Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.

Obama’s advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president — who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law — made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

AFP reporting on yahoo.com continues the story:

Obama’s comments will be seen as a warning shot to the court, one of the three branches of the US government, and could draw complaints from critics that he is trying to influence the deliberations.

Gee, DiNozzo.  Ya think?

The health care case is the most closely watched Supreme Court deliberation since a divided bench handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, and could have far reaching political implications.

Obama also argued there was a “human element” to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

And, with additional taxes levied on the American people, in order to finance Obamacare, small companies will begin to fold, and an already bad economy will become worse.

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Without the mandate, they say, the costs of insuring an extra 32 million Americans would be prohibitive to the private health insurance industry.

The Affordable Care Act is highly polarizing in US politics as the election approaches and Obama is yet to get a political dividend for the huge expenditure of political capital required to pass the legislation.

If the court upholds the law, and he wins reelection in November, the legislation will likely stand for years, as it will be fully implemented by 2014, two years before his second term draws to a close.

But Republicans running to replace him in the November 6 election have all vowed to repeal ObamaCare.

“I think it’s important… to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,” Obama said.

“The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

“There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.”

Before you start breaking out the hankies over Scooter’s noble sentiments concerning his wonderful, heaven-sent Affordable Care Act, remember what the Congressional Budget Office reported recently:

President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare’s projected net worth is far off from its original estimate — in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

When the final CBO report was released before the law’s passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

I pray that the Supreme Court puts a stake in the heart of Obama’s vampiric National Healthcare Monster.

This nation’s health…and our pocketbooks…simply cannot afford it.