Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat, nicknamed Bearack Acorn Obearma.
It is believed that he was not actually born in Montana but he illegally immigrated here from Canada with the help of a pack of "coyotes", never-the-less, he is apparently registered to vote in Montana as "Mickey Mouse" records show.
It is believed that he has become a campground organizer who is rousing all the other animals up and demanding that the government take care of all their needs from cradle to grave and have formed the FWAU (Federation of Wild Animals Union).
There is a proposition on Montana's ballot to add a state constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for anyone to "feed and care for wild animals to the point that they can no longer fend for themselves in their natural habitat."
I strongly urge all citizens of Montana to vote "YES" on this proposition. Hopefully someone in Washington is watching and will introduce the same type of proposition for our US Constitution...
It is an often overlooked fact that Columbus' voyage was inspired in part by the fall of the Christian city of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453.
After this disaster, the European powers were in search of new trade routes to the Far East which would by-pass the now dangerous Muslim-controlled land routes through the Middle East and Asia Minor. So they commissioned the likes Columbus to embark on voyages of discovery.
It is one of those ironic twists of history that the age of European exploration and world-dominance was made possible by the Muslim conquest of the crown jewel of Christendom.
But for about a hundred years now, school children have been taught that Columbus discovered America because he was looking for a shorter route to the West Indies. In some text books it is even taught that he “left a legacy of genocide and slavery that endures in some degree to this day.” However, have you been taught that the indigenous people slaughtered the dozens of men he left behind in the New World? Put in liberal progressive terms, in 1493 the natives conducted genocide on every European in the Americas. But you won’t see that in a school text book, I’ll bet!
Upon returning to Spain, Christopher Columbus wrote of his discovery that “Christendom ought to feel delight and make feasts and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity.”
What isn’t taught anymore is that Columbus also believed he was led by God to undertake his voyage and that he "felt called to bear the light of Christ to undiscovered lands." In his personal journal Columbus said he was determined, shrewd, and intensely religious. He believed himself to be divinely called to “carry the true faith into the uttermost parts of the earth.” Inspired by this thought, no discouragement could drive him to despair. It was eighteen years from the conception to the accomplishment of his planned voyage.
Isn't it about time for Christianity and other real truths to be restored to public school curriculums and abolish the progressive academic agenda that has poisoned our school system for almost a hundred years? Isn’t it worth celebrating that the pope’s mariner, rather than, say, the henchmen of Muslim sultans or khans, discovered the Americas? How do you think that history would have turned out for the natives? This is not to whitewash Columbus’s crimes, which have not aged well. The explorer kidnapped natives for show in Spain on his first voyage, enslaved several hundred bellicose Indians on his second visit, and after his third trip faced charges back home of governing as a tyrant. At sea, the admiral and his crew also ate a dolphin—another act that offends 21st-Century tastes.
But shouldn’t he be more plausibly viewed as the catalyst for ensuing greatness?
America first sending men into flight, over the Atlantic, and to the moon; thwarting tuberculosis, yellow fever, and polio; fighting Nazism, Communism, and al Qaeda; serving as a welcome mat to humanity’s “wretched refuse;” inventing the light bulb, the telephone, the computer, and the Internet; and standing as a beacon of freedom, that “shining city on a hill” in an oppressed world all happened in the wake of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.
Most people will say that they know what “Freedom” is. But what exactly is “Freedom”? Our Founding Father’s definition of it is not the same as we apparently perceive it today. Here is an example of our “Freedoms” being regulated and at the same time being called Constitutional: Using the Commerce Clause as the basis, in 1990 Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act. How so? Because, legislators said, possessing a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce. Huh? Well, you see, because violent crime raises insurance costs, and those costs are spread throughout the population, and across state lines, so there you have it… interstate commerce. And if that explanation isn’t satisfying, Congress also determined that crime threatens the learning environment, thereby reducing national productivity, therefore affecting interstate commerce. These interpretations stretch Constitutional plausibility to the breaking point. Political agenda driven legislation at its finest.
This is how idiotic our congress is when trying to pass laws! They always try and use the Constitutions “Commerce Clause” to justify that their legislation is Constitutional. Here is another example of such a law. Because it couldn’t pass the litmus test as a stand-on-it’s-own-merit law, they slid it into a “must pass” piece of legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in order for it to become law…through the back-door if you will pardon the pun. Enter…”The Hate crimes Bill.”
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 H. R. 2647, Section 4700 This division may be cited as the ‘‘Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act’’.
(apparent Constitutional justification…)
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
So, what exactly is the Commerce Clause of the Constitution intended to actually regulate?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
Absolutely nothing in the “hate crimes bill” has anything thing to do with the actual commerce between nations, states or Indian tribes! Is the Constitutionality of this law REALLY based on the commerce clause?
What if a person picked up a rock in let’s say, Iowa, walked through the woods to another house, found a homosexual at his house, said in front of witnesses that he hated homosexuals and then killed that person with a blow to the head with the rock. Is it still a “hate crime”? Does it meet the Constitutionality of the of the commerce clause for it to be deemed a “hate crime”? No, because it doesn’t meet the constitutionality of the commerce clause.
A. The murderer did not cross state lines.
B. The homosexual wasn’t prevented from buying anything, denied employment, or stopped from any other activity by the murderer prior to the actual murder.
C. The perpetrator did not cross state lines to commit the murder. D. No roads, buildings or waterways used in commerce were used.
D. No purchased instrument was used to kill the person.
As heinous as this crime would be, and as apparently blatantly anti-homosexual as it is, the original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange, not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes. It has nothing to do with means and mode of crimes.
Through liberal interpretation of the words “to regulate commerce … among the several states,” Congress has justified things that this nation’s Founders never intended, and in fact, things just like the government oppression that the colonists revolted against only several years earlier.
Given that the colonists had endured circumstances bad enough that they took up arms against King George, how can anyone seriously believe that the Founders ever intended for those few words to be used for the government to gain so much control over the citizens?
Finally, there is America's image in the world. In President Obama's utopia, he is fine with the idea of "American Exceptionalism" being challenged or even turned upside down. Yet in reality no country has suffered more loss of its own, for the welfare of others, in history. To Obama, an America that stands tall in contrast to others seems arrogant. To our enemies, an America that seems ashamed of herself seems weak.
Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, Obama believes that it's his mission to promote 'equality of outcome' over 'equality of opportunity' even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen. That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today. Socialism is in direct violation of the Constitution and what our founding fathers stood for. Most of our founding fathers abhorred a strong central government.
Many thought the Constitution was too vague on what it allowed the federal government to do and was afraid it would be deliberately misconstrued to give the feds more power than was intended. Seems they were right.
Does anyone among us really believe that government knows what is best for our lives? Does anyone among us really believe that paying more taxes will solve what is wrong with the poorest and least among us? Does anyone among us really believe that handing more and more control over our daily lives to bureaucracies of Washington DC is good for America as a freedom loving nation? This nation used to be the beacon of freedom for all the other oppressed nations of the world to follow and emulate… we are fast becoming one of the masses instead of the leader.
Thomas Jefferson warned: "Every generation needs a new revolution." I believe there is one brewing now and it shall restore America from the “fundamental transformation of America” that is underway by this anti-American administration to her rightful place as the "shining city on the hill". May God bless America. Hopefully He hasn’t abandoned us like we have Him. Its time to Re-found America as it was intended to be!
