Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Sarah Palin's Stand Against Egyptian Self-Determination

While taking jabs at the Obama Administration's handling of the Egyptian uprising over the weekend, Sarah Palin once again showed why she is unfit to lead this or any country.

In a weekend interview, the former Alaskan governor was critical of the White House for "not doing enough" regarding Egypt.While any true conservative or libertarian should be critical of the administration's handling of the situation (Likewise, they should also have been critical of US policies leading up to this crisis.), Palin argues for a position that is perhaps even more flawed than that of the White House.

Politico reports:

Palin said the administration must get more information and find out who "fills now the void in the government." She said the U.S. "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

She did not offer specifics for how she would handle the crisis, saying only: "We need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with."
In speaking out about the administration's handling of Egypt, Palin joins at least two other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.

Palin has indeed firmly joined with the neoconservatives on this issue as she often does. Likewise, her comments show an alarming disdain for State sovereignty. To say that the United States "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood is truly outrageous.

Egypt is a sovereign nation, and the people of Egypt--not the US--should and must decide who will lead their country forward. I must admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite limited, but many credible sources claim that the group would not necessarily be bad for the country. However, even if they would be, the Egyptians have the right to self-determination. They must forge their own path into the future, and the United States must stop interfering with the affairs of Egypt--whether we are propping up dictators or trying to "spread democracy."

Of course, calling on the United States to return to a foreign policy envisioned by the Founders, leaving the Egyptians to move forward and govern themselves according to their own desires, is anathema to Palin and her neo-con cronies. For Palin, anything less than the US choosing and propping up a hand-picked puppet is unacceptable. 

In typical Palin style, her comments feature a partisan attack, offer no solution, and lacks any clear understanding of the issue. Palin would have us further entangle ourselves in a situation we have already had too much of a hand in. Her position is all-around flawed. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it runs counter to the American Founding vision.

As for me, unlike Sarah Palin, I stand with the Egyptian people against overbearing government--whether that government is in Cairo or DC.

A Dangerous Republic of Fools

This quotation has been making its rounds and is attributed to someone in the Czech Republic. Regardless of who it belongs to, I believe it is spot on and can be applied to our electoral decisions overall. 

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitudeof fools such as those who made him their president." 

Sestak and the Obama Administration...The Proper Move

ABC News reports:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."

Though it may appear to be an act of political opportunism, the actions of the GOP committeemen are quite proper and should be encouraged. Sadly, we are dealing with a possible high-profile political crime carried out by the White House. If the Mr Sestak's claim--that he was offered a position in the administration to bow out of the PA Democratic primary--is true, there's been a major breach of the law that must be prosecuted.

Treating federal jobs like thank you cards is bad enough, but using them to intervene in electoral politics is even worse. Not only does it allow for political manipulation and the ability of the executive branch to pick the legislative players, it is illegal. If we are to be a nation of laws, we cannot have the White House leading the pack in the violation of those laws.

All that said, we should be careful to let the eveidence speak for itself.

No one should be too quick to call the president a liar, side with Sestak, and cry foul. The jury is still, out and I will not pass judgment until more evidence is available. Until the facts are in we should give the chief executive the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, even though I despise the president's policies, I hope he is innocent. The ramifications of the White House manipulating elections by offering jobs on this level would be a huge step back in a time that we don't need more trouble. If the allegations are true, however, I hope those responsible will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. None should be spared.

Laura Bush's Support of Elena Kagan

Former First Lady Laura Bush voiced her support for President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, on Sunday noting:

"I think it's great. I'm really glad that there will be three [women] if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court."

Bush added: "I think it does make a difference. And you know, I just like women to be represented in all parts of American political and civic life."

Mrs. Bush's statements are ridiculous on two major fronts. One one hand, to support someone based on gender rather than principle is plain foolish. On the other hand, it is a massive double standard that would not be toloerated if the tables where turned.

There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Bush supporting Kagan for the right reasons. Being the wife of a Republican president does not prohibit her from liking Obama's nominee, but being thrilled merely because of the nominee's gender is just plain stupid. Decisions like this should be supported based on factors like judicial philosophy, not mere physical characteristics.


I could care less if the Court was made up of 2 women, 3 women, or 9 women. In fact, I'd rather have 9 constitutionalist women over any assortment of men or women who do not respect the rule of law. Sadly, Laura Bush's preference finds shallower support.


What is really shocking about the former First Lady's statement is the double standard it presents. Imagine if a man said he was thrilled with a male nominee because of gender; the fallout would be huge. Of course, people are free to their opinions, but we should hold each to a uniform standard.


If Mrs. Bush likes Kagan, she should do so based on judicial merit. Sadly, that is not the case. Hopefully, the Senate will show support or opposition for reasons that transcend gender.


(Watch the video here.)

Opponents Should Be Careful About New SC Nominee Kagan's Lack of Judicial Experience

With famed liberal Justice John Paul Stevens stepping down from the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has been looking far and wide to find what it deems a suitable replacement. For now, the search seems to be over.

The Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON – Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be nominated Monday to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, pushing the former law school dean toward the pinnacle of her profession and positioning the United States to have three women justices for the first time in its history.

Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. in the East Room of the White House alongside Vice President Joe Biden. Kagan will also speak. The room will be filled with Kagan's Justice Department colleagues and other guests invited to soak in one of a presidency's biggest moments.

Unknown to most, Kagan is already being closely investigated before her Senate hearing even begins. One major item that is already receiving much attention is Kagan's lack of judicial experience, having never served as judge. Opponents of the nominee would be wise to not make this a major point of contention.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice have previous experience as a judge prior to joining the Court, and a number of justices throughout our history have lacked said judicial experice. Even in the modern age we have seen similar circumstances.

William Rehnquist, who served as our last chief justice, lacked experience as judge before joining the Court, but he was obviously able to excel at the position. Agree with him or not, he performed the technical aspects of the job quite well and was well respected.

Knowing these things, those who find contention with Kagan as a choice should look to her views of the Constitution, judicial authority, and the like when making their decision, rather than hamper on her lack of judicial experience. If they fail to do so, they show their own ignorance of history and unwillingness to do the heavy lifting in vetting the candidate.

Sanctions Will Not Stop a Nuclear Iran...It's Bad Policy

Continuing down a path of poor policy, President Obama has made it clear that he supports tough sanctions on Iran to prevent nuclear arms development. The policy is misguided not because Iran cannot prove to be a threat; it very well could, and its leadership is less than trustworthy--to put it lightly. Rather, sanctions are never good policy!

If the goal of the Obama administration is to defend the United States, then sanctions against Iran will do little to provide for it. Contrarily, Iranian sanctions will merely provide for innocent people suffering and the emboldening of Iran's leadership.

If history has taught us anything about sanctions, it is this: The innocents of a sanctioned country suffer while the corrupt leaders thrive, and the goals of the sanctioning country are never truly met. Likewise, the so-called "targeted sanctions," which have gained popularity in the past few decades, have proven both ineffective in meeting security goals and in shielding the populace from suffering.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul rightly noted on the House floor back in December:

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. 

Dr. Paul could not be anymore right. The harm in sanctions go beyond the pain inflicted upon the populations of targeted nations; our national defense is put in jeopardy as well. 

Osama Bin Laden, himself, noted US sanctions as one of three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. In his evil response, one thing is evident: Nations remember when a hegemonic power causes suffering. Misguided policy will breed ordeals in the future which we will be forced to face, and the scars of the past are hard to overcome. 

It is clear that sanctions do harm. The evidence cannot be hidden, and even the government itself has defied its own policy and confirmed that sanctions don't work.

Jacob Hornberger notes:

Recall the brutal sanctions that the U.S. government enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years. Every year, they were causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children from infectious illnesses, malnutrition, etc. Those deaths didn't cause Saddam Hussein to leave office, which is what the U.S. government wanted. Equally important, U.S. officials were indifferent to the deaths of all those Iraqi children. In fact, the official U.S. position was that those deaths were "worth it," the term used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright when asked about the deaths by "Sixty Minutes."

 Because we know the track record of sanctions as one of failure and harm to civilian populations, those who value liberty and a strong national defense should be the first to come out against them. No conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist can consistently support these brutal and ineffective measures.

If Iran poses a true threat, sanctions will only heighten that threat. The Obama Administration would be wise to consider a vastly different policy.

A Reflection on J. Stevens and the Future

On Friday news broke that Justice John Paul Stevens, leader of the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, is retiring. Despite President Obama's claim, Stevens has been far from an "impartial guardian of the law."

The CATO Instiutite rightly notes:

While a friend of liberty in certain limited circumstances, he ultimately hangs his hat on supporting government action over the rights of individuals in contexts ranging from property rights (Kelo v. New London) to the Second Amendment (D.C. v. Heller) to free speech (Citizens United and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning case) to executive agency power (Chevron).  And even on those issues where friends of liberty can disagree in good faith as a matter of policy, such as abortion and the death penalty, Stevens admittedly and unabashedly asserted his own policy preferences instead of following the law.

I could not agree more with this assessment. Justice Stevens, consistently a friend to liberal policy, did much harm to the Constitution during his time on the bench--the second longest in the Court's history. Even though I most often, though not always, found myself an opponent of Steven's jurisprudence, he was a good natured fellow. But this good personal constitution is no excuse for his neglect of the US Constitution.

Of course, President Obama's intent will be to fill the vacancy with another reliable liberal vote. So not much should change in the Court's ideological composition. Hopefully, Stevens' replacement will not forsake the sound positions held by his predecessor. While Stevens may have been wrong 97% of the time, that is much better than 100%. May his successor not fail in the other 3 percent!

One valuable thing each modern judicial nomination process brings is a reevaluation of proper jurisprudence. Questions will be asked to determine judicial philosophy, and the proper guiding philosophy will be considered.

As an originalist I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution, interpreted according to its original meaning. I could care less about intent, outcome, or pragmatism. But I realize that no one who President Obama nominates will share my Jeffersonian views. So what is the job of the Senate in this nomination process?

As legislators who have sworn to defend the Constitution, each senator has a responsibility to oppose any candidate who does not adhere strictly to the Constitution--regardless of their party allegiance. Of course, most will neglect this duty, and those who do attempt to defeat poor nominations may ultimately prove unsuccessful. But bad appointments still should be opposed, and a fight should still be put up. Likewise, if the president nominates a good candidate, both parties should offer support.

Regardless of who is appointed, the next justice will have a major impact on our nation as we continue forward. Whether the result will be good or bad, the nomination process will truly show that it matter who governs and elections have consequences.

What to Look for at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference

This weekend Republicans from across the country will flock to New Orleans for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The likes of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, and a host of other top Republicans will be giving speeches in order to garner support for themselves and their causes. Moreover, for those GOPers looking at a presidential run in 2012, a SRLC straw poll victory would be a great thing to take away from their time in The Big Easy.

Here are five things to look for during and right after this weekend's festivities in Louisiana.

1. Look for each speaker to try to out-conservative the other. Obviously, this will be quiet hilarious for a number of reasons. Sadly, Dr. Ron Paul will be the only consistently true conservative in attendance; the others will merely be putting on a show. Evidence of such will come in speakers mistakenly flexing their war muscles, believing such is traditional conservatism; it isn't!

2. Look for very little mention of George W. Bush. This will be the complete opposite of the 2006 SRLC when John McCain urged his supporters to write in the former presidents name to show their support and Lindsey Graham called Bush "the Churchill of our time." Don't worry, The GOP establishment still loves W. They just know that real conservatives do not.

3. Look for more calls for war. Iran needs some bombing and many at the SRLC will be happy to give it to them. Look for talk of Obama being soft on defense, soft on the War on Terror, and soft on Iran. Of course, the president is almost identical to Bush, so don't believe it for a minute.

4. Look for a condemnation of Obama policies across the board. I am in agreement with most of this. Obama has failed pretty much in every area. He is an enemy to constitutional government, does everything bad that Bush did, and has lied time after time by not keeping his promises to the American people. The problem is that the same things can and should be said of most of his GOP opponents. Hypocrisy will be the true theme of the SRLC. The GOP will call Obama out on policies of which they themselves are guilty.

5. Finally, if Ron Paul wins the straw poll, look for it to be downplayed. If he losses, look for a big deal to be made of the winner.The establishment does not look favorably on Dr. Paul's success; CPAC showed that. Therefore, I am looking forward to Paul supporters ticking them off.

Though their will be a lot of hypocrisy and neoconary going on in New Orleans this weekend, the liberty movement will be there as well. So keep an eye out, point out wrongs, and celebrate victories!

April Fools from the NRSC

Now, this is funny!

Hat Tip: Matthew Hurtt

Did the Dems Know What They Were Doing?

In light of the passage of the Democratic healthcare reform package, many on the Right are sitting back smugly thinking Pelosi and company naively delivered the House right into the Republican's hands. While it may be true that the House will possibly lose many of its Democratic members come November, I doubt the Democratic leadership was oblivious to this before it took the healthcare vote.

What we are dealing with here is a movement that disregards public opinion no matter the opposition. If they were merely taking principled stands, defying what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority," this would be something to admired. Unfortunately, the passage of Obamacare has less to do with principle and more to do with a tyrannical power grab by the federal government and the Democratic leadership. If principle is involved at all, it manifests itself only in the belief that the state is king and liberty is a disposable commodity.

What I see here is a group of individuals intent on reshaping the face of America according to their own agenda. Yes, elections are important to their cause. Elections are what got them into power, but elections will come and go. Seats will be won, and seats will be lost. What is harder to do is to create a lasting government program that will forever effect the power of the federal government over the lives of individuals. The moment was at hand, and the objective had to be met. Besides, the creation of more government dependents is far more valuable to a statist agenda than control of Congress. 

As George Bernard Shaw noted, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul." With a whole new slate of dependents--and the return of many frequent offenders--Pelosi and her comrades may have created for themselves electoral support down the line. That is, unless we combat the prevalence of nanny state acceptance.

If we do not start properly understanding the Constitution and the tools it affords us to fight back, much of what is going on in DC cannot be undone. Rather, we will continue marching down the road to serfdom without a bit of protest.

It is time we step up and realize that one election does not matter, if we don't capitalize on the opportunities before us and advance our liberty principles. The Democrats have already wised up to this. That is why the scar of their leadership will last well beyond this Fall.

Nullify Obamacare by the Southern Avenger

Five Positives from Obamacare's Passage

Understandably so, many of those who consider themselves to be conservative or libertarian in philosophy have felt disheartened by the passage of Obamacare. Even though I saw it coming for some time, I share in everyone's being upset with our leaders and their actions. But I am here to tell you that not all that the passage of Obamacare offers is bad. There is a silver lining  for those of us committed to the cause of limited government and individual liberty.

Of course, on its face Obamacare offers nothing of worth to limited government and individual liberty activists. The legislation tramples upon the liberty of individuals, neglects our constitutional compact, and increases the size and scope of government to alarming levels. However, we must look beyond the codified effects and see what this bill's passage will offer to our movement.

Sure, some will feel disgusted and hopeless, but that is based on a misguided placement of hope in a single legislative battle. Such is both naive and foolish. We cannot be "Sunshine Patriots." For, our fight for freedom must be waged in both success and failure.

Here are five positives I see from Obamacare's passage.

1. We now know exactly who our enemies are. To be frank, most of the crooks in Washington are enemies to liberty, whether or not the voted for the health reform bill. But as far as coalitions go, there are those who may at times be our allies on key issues. For many, Bart Stupak and other "pro-life" Democrats were key allies in the battle to protect the rights of the unborn. Even though his previous comments should have alerted everyone to Stupak's true convictions, his vote Sunday let any doubters know where he and his commrads stand on the issue of life.

2. This already has and will continue to drive the GOP toward a more conservative direction. When the GOP is power, it does the exact things it is railing against at the moment. Remember when the GOP was passing the prescription drug legislation a few years back? I don't care about sincerity at this point as much as I care about action. If Lindsey Graham is opposed government run healthcare, it is not because he is philosophically committed to conservative governance. Rather, he opposed the bill because of public pressure and the frustration of being in the minority. That being said, I don't care why as long as he opposes it when it comes time to act.

3. It has forced us to consider the issue of healthcare reform on a national stage once again. Regrettably, the solution offered by the Obama administration will only make the problem worse, but healthcare reform is something that needs to be discussed. We need to head towards a no-government, market-based solution. Perhaps, this fight back against Obamacare will lead to a proper solution. But even if it does not succeed, it has already led to a discussion of the proper role of government in healthcare. And that is a good thing.

4. This could prove a valuable political tool in the midterm elections. I say this not in hopes for a mere GOP sweep; RINOs would prove no value to the cause of freedom. Rather, I am hoping for true liberty candidates to have a shot at office (or at least be able to shake things up) because of the neglect of freedom carried out by our current representatives--now truly displayed by the healthcare reform debacle. 

5. There will be a renewed emphasis on nullification and states' rights. This may be the most important of all. Our government has been out of control for well over a century. Rights have been trampled and the Constitution has been completely disregarded for far too long. It is a shame that talk of nullification and states' rights has gone unspoken for all this time, but it is good to see it now. States should resist this legislation, and nullification is the constitutional and proper answer. 

Make no mistake the passage of Obamacare is troubling, but there may be good things to come. People thought I was crazy when I said Obama would be good for the conservative movement, though I have never seen it so robust and vocal. The same effect may come about because of this despicable legislation and the public's reaction to it.

Shame on Everyone for Obamacare by the Southern Avenger

Obamacare: Unconstitutional Legislation Passed on Unconstiutional Grounds

It comes as no surprise that Obamacare was passed yesterday by the House. From the start this bill has had the odds in its favor, backed by a majority whose dissenting members always find a way to cave into the administration's demands. If you are shocked by Obamacare's passage, you still have a lot to learn when it comes to the political process. (I advise you start educating yourselves about the concept of nullification, for it is our greatest hope to bring our nation back to its constitutional confines.)

One thing that should not shock, though it should disgust, is the deal cut between President Obama and so-called "pro-life" Democrats represented by Rep. Bart Stupack. Stupack and his associates agreed to support the legislation even though it doesn't prohibit federal abortion funding in exchange for President Obama signing an executive order addressing the issue. That is the true outrage of the entire healthcare fiasco. Not only is the whole of the legislation unconstitutional, the deal struck for its passage is founded on unconstitutional ground.

Democrats where right to criticize President Bush for his excessive use of executive orders; now their tune has changed. Only the legislature can make law. Any attempt by the other branches--be it executive or judicial--is a violation of the Constitution and an affront to our liberty.

Though it is de facto used as such, an executive order is not legally binding. It is nothing more than a operation memo for the executive branch. It is sort of like your boss sending out a memo saying, "I know shorts are against company policy, but we're gonna let Rob keep wearing them because he has a cast."

If the law is applied according to the books, executive orders are nothing but ink on  a paper. What Stupack and others have done is placed all their confidence in the Obama administration's claim that they will not use funds for abortion. Even if general funds were able to be separated and applied to non-abortion areas, which it can't, Stupack has betray all reason. Even if the Obama administration refuses to allow payment for abortions, what if our next president decides to consistently apply the legislation and allow for abortion funding?

Moreover, because executive orders have no legal weight, courts would be compelled to uphold abortion funding if ruling on the legislation--that is if they upheld the legislation itself as legitimate. Stupack's trust was put in application of the law, rather than the law itself.  And he may pay down the road for it.

The healthcare fight has been about neglecting constitutional authority from the start. The bill itself flies in the face of the Constitution. What makes things worse is the passage of the bill hinged on unconstitutional means. Until we start revering liberty and the Constitution which seeks to secure that liberty, we will continue to see this disturbing behavior and our liberties crumble.

State of the State of the Union: Uneventful

If you missed the President's State of the Union Address last night, you did not miss much. It was "surprisingly unsurprising," if I may borrow an analysis from a Cato scholar's live blogging during the event. I couldn't agree more.

President Obama started doing what he does best--painting word pictures, presenting broad platitudes, and offering no real policy meat. But unlike his success in the past two years, these words seemed to fall flat. I don't think anyone across the political spectrum was truly please with the speech. There was no "game changing" statements, no signal to the left that he was going to be the liberal they want, and no signal to the right that he would become the moderate they can tolerate.

There were some new policy directions announced. For example, President Obama announced his intent to overturn "Don't ask. Don't tell." For this he should be commended. Whether or not you are pro gays in the military. "Don't ask. Don't tell." has been a ridiculous and failed policy that needs to be done away with. Morover, in his speech, Obama announced a few other new policies such as new bank taxes, his "spending freeze" which is nothing more than an attempt to save face and preserve current entitlement spending (Anyone against runaway government spending should be against this "spending freeze."), and a host of other "new" economic policies. The truth is that these "new" policies are not really that new. They are merely different ways to continue government interventionism into the economy. Do not be fooled.

Moreover, the President's speech had a number of highlights for policy wonks, if you knew where to look. When speaking on trade, Obama seemed to endorse the practice of mercantilism in his call for balanced import substitution. Mercantilism is dangerous and misguided as it has always been. We need to produce more. We need to export more. But we do not need artificial trade barriers which will end in ruin. Likewise, the President's emphasis on the economy in general was misguided as it placed the government at the center of all. The policies laid out by the President such as his "small business tax credit," his call for equal pay for equal work, and his continued call for government spending on unnecessary projects to create short-term and unnecessary work programs, are misguided and will only worsen the current economic climate. These policies at their heart are nothing more than the continuation of the interventionist policies that have gotten us into this mess.

Perhaps most striking from the speech was President Obama's attacks on Republicans and the Supreme Court. Though the partisan attack can be written off as mere tackiness, the attack on the Court flies in the face of proper behavior when considering our nations system of separation of powers. First, the President went out of his way to attack a non-legislative branch of government at a questionable time. Secondly, his statement was completely false, not grounded in one bit of truth. A disagreement with a ruling is one thing. An false attack for one's own populist gain is another.

As I have already said, not much earth shattering came out of the President's speech, but maybe that is because we have heard much of it before. Just look at how Obama's SOTU measures up with those of Bush.

Sadly, in a speech clearly playing to populist emotions, the populace was unable to find hope for the State of the Union.

Obama Has Crossed the Line!

President Obama you have crossed the line.

When you trampled upon our civil liberties and continued the Bush Administration's Fifth Amendment violations, I was upset--but maybe you were just misguided by a false sense of fear.

When you pushed the massive, unconstitutional spending of the federal government into overdrive, I was outraged--but I knew you were blinded by Keynesian economists who are foreign to the truth.

When you escalated the wars in the Middle East, I was worried--but you and I both know we should get back to policy of true national defense rather than massive interventionism.

When you I saw one irresponsible and unconstitutional act after another from you and your administration, I was perturbed--but I hoped you would pull your wits about you eventually.

But now I am afraid you have crossed the line.

How can you openly support the New Orleans Saints to win the Super Bowl? That is ridiculous.

I am a huge Colts fan, and I will not stand for this. In two weeks the Colts will triumph and crumble your Saints like we in the liberty movement will crumble your statist policies.

(One more thing: God forbid, even if the Colts somehow lose, we in the liberty movement will still defeat the statist policies of you and others. That's a guarantee.)

Is BET Obama Approval Only Skin Deep?

What alarms me about this video is not really the overwhelming support of Obama by those who attended the BET (Black Entertainment Television) Awards. Rather, the total lack of substance to the support is quite telling. Why has he done so well? Can you point to a single policy issue that distinguishes him as a good leader?

Moreover, many of those interviewed allude to the failure of Bush. I don't blame them. I am no fan of Bush. In fact, my dislike for Obama stems from the fact that his actions are a continuation of Bush era policies. The Obama administration merely took the faults of the Bush administration and put them into overdrive.

For these celebrities to claim the success of Obama while holding to the failure of Bush, they are being grossly unfair and inconsistent. This could be a result of racial prejudice, but I hope that is not true as such a claim would assume that Obama is given a free pass for the same policies for which Bush is held rightly accountable merely because of each man's skin color.

This is not only true of BET celebs, however, as even many white Americans hold this same inconsistent view. That does not mean that whites could not be giving Obama a free pass based on racial considerations as well, but let's assume neither party is responsible for such a dastardly position.

What's clear is this: Both men have been failures, and we need to be consistent in our criticism of both. If we do not, we let racial prejudices guide us rather that reason. Let's call a spade a spade, and let's make sure that our opinions are based on substance rather than criteria that goes no more than skin deep.