The Hard Truth

Journal of Political News & Constitutionalism

Archive for October 2008

Obama’s Record Shows No Support for 2nd Amendment

with 2 comments

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama’s voting records in both the Illinois & United States Senate show that he does not support the right of individual citizens to own firearms, especially handguns.

It must be realized that our Founding Fathers knew that if future generations of Americans were to remain free citizens they must have the right to bear arms. As a result they inserted into the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment which says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Our courts have held, most recently in the now famous case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290, June 26, 2008, which declared the District’s total ban on handgun ownership unconstitutional, that “The People” referred to in the 2nd Amendment are individual citizens just the same as “the people” mentioned in the 4th Amendment that prevents unreasonable searches & seizures.

University of Maryland Research Scientist John R. Lott, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime, points out, in an article in the Philadelphia Enquirer of October 14, 2008, that while Obama said the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Heller case confirmed his own view of the 2nd Amendment, in November 2007 Obama’s campaign told the Chicago Tribune that Obama believed the DC law (banning the ownership of handguns) was constitutional.

Then, in February 2008, while being interviewed by Leon Harris, a reporter for an ABC News affiliate in DC, Obama said he supported the DC gun ban and that in his opinion it was completely constitutional.

Lott goes on to point out that the Associated Press reported that, in 2004, Obama voted in favor of a gun control bill that would not allow people who were charged with possessing firearms in violation of local gun ban laws to claim self defense after using guns in response to intrusions into their homes by criminals.The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man’s being found not guilty of possessing a gun in violation of a local gun ban ordinance after the jury found he had a right to defend himself & his home. The bill that Obama supported was designed to take away the “self defense” argument, as a matter of law, in cases where the only charge was illegally possessing a gun. The only thing a jury would be able to decide is whether or not the accused possessed a gun in violation of any given local laws.

Lott goes on to say that he first met Obama in the 1990’s while they were both law students at the University of Chicago. In a conversation they had about gun control Lott says that Obama said: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Obama quotes & votes pertaining to the 2nd Amendment:

“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry [of handguns].” Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

“…just because you have an individual right [to keep and bear arms] does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…” 2008 Democratic Candidate debate in Philadelphia, PA

“I think it is a scandal that this President [Bush} did not authorize a renewal of the “assault weapons” ban.” Illinois Senate Debate #3 Obama vs. Alan Keys, October 21, 2004

“I’ll continue to be in favor of handgun registration laws and licensing requirements for training.” Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001

Obama voted to allow state & local governments to sue gun manufacturers in an effort to blame them for the criminal conduct of individuals who used guns to commit crimes. July 29, 2005; Vote 219; Senate Bill 397

Obama voted to ban nearly all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. July 29, 2005; Vote 217; Senate Bill 397

Obama voted to allow the prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in their home. March 25, 2004; Illinois Senate Bill 2165

Obama supports increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%.   Chicago Defender December 13, 1999

Visit for more information!


Obama Supports Infanticide

with one comment

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that U.S. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be a supporter of infanticide, the practice of killing newborn infants.

The Senator’s voting record in the Illinois State Senate bears this out according to the Catholic News Agency (CNA).

On July 4, 2008, in an article on the CNA’s web site, Deal Hudson charges Obama with supporting infanticide due to his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act (BAIPA) which was introduced in the Illinois Legislature in 2001 after Nurse Jill Stanek testified that newborn babies who were born alive after abortion attempts at Christ Hospital were left to die without attention from medical personnel. The BAIPA,opposed by Obama, would have required that any baby that was expelled from his or her mother and showed any signs of life was to be regarded as a legal person whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.

Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate’s Judiciary Committee, on which then Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama sat. Obama voted against allowing the bill to go to the full Senate for a vote, but it passed out of the Committee and when the full Senate voted on the bill Obama voted “present”, not taking a stand one way or the other. The Bible, in Revelation 3:15-16 quotes Jesus as saying: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot, I would thou wert cold or hot. so then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

In 2002 the BAIPA was again introduced in the Illinois Legislature where Obama not only again voted no, but led the opposition to the bill and was the only Senator to actually speak out against it’s passage and the bill again failed to pass.

In 2003 the Senate Health & Human Services Committee was Chaired by Obama when the BAIPA was brought for a hearing. Chairman Obama refused to allow the bill to be brought up for a vote thus denying the BAIPA to reach the Senate floor for a vote.

It wasn’t until 2005, after Obama had moved on to the US Senate, that the Illinois Legislature passed the BAIPA.

The BAIPA that was adopted by the Illinois Legislature is identical to the Federal  BAIPA that was approved in 2002 with no opposition, from even the most liberal left-wingers. Yet Obama voted no on the bill on multiple  occasions. Yes, that ‘s right, even Ted Kennedy supported the BAIPA, but Obama did not.

Perhaps Obama should become more familiar with St. Matthew 18:6 wherein Jesus is quoted as saying “…whoso  shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Meet John Merryman, Victim of Martial Law in the USA

with one comment

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that most Americans have never heard of John Merryman, victim of martial law in the USA. But what happened to him means a great deal to all of us as it could happen again very soon.

John Merryman, a civilian, citizen of these United States of America, was a resident of Baltimore, MD. On May 25, 1861 he was in his home, asleep in his bed with his wife. His children were asleep in the next room. It was 2 A.M. when his home was forcibly entered by soldiers of the United States Army without any kind of warrant whatsoever. He was drug from his bed and taken against his will, basically kidnapped, to a United States Military installation, Fort McHenry, where he was imprisoned by the Fort’s Commanding Officer, George Cadwalader.

Merryman was not presented with a warrant of arrest of any kind. He was not accused of any crime in any court of law. He was not presented with any specific facts of what it is he had done causing his arrest. He was not presented with the names or statements of any witnesses who saw him do whatever it is he had done. He was simply arrested and imprisoned by the United States Army.

Merryman’s wife contacted an attorney on behalf of her husband and explained what had happened the night before. Mrs. Merryman did not know where her husband had been taken or even the names of those who had taken him. All she knew was that they were soldiers.

The attorney contacted local political officials, local law enforcement authorities, and even the Federal Marshal’s office in an effort to learn where Merryman had been taken, but everyone claimed ignorance. Finally through the attorney’s personal connections to a Congressman he learned that Merryman had been taken to Fort McHenry.

The attorney traveled to the Fort where the Commanding Officer confirmed that Merryman was there, but he would not permit the attorney to meet with Merryman nor would he provide any warrant or information as to what criminal offense Merryman was alleged to have committed.

The attorney then filed an application for a “Writ of Habeas Corpus”  to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney, under the 14th Section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Act allowed for each individual Justice of the Supreme Court the power to grant “Writs of Habeas Corpus” for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of a citizen’s imprisonment.

The “Writ of Habeas Corpus”  is commonly known as “The Great Writ”  and is considered to be one of the most basic tools of free people because it affords anyone that is taken hold of by government agents to question the legality of their arrest (see 488 F.2d 218, 221). Habeas Corpus, which means “you have the body” in Latin, was one of the biggest issues for our Founding Fathers in their decision to part form England and they described the citizens right to the “The Great Writ” as the determining factor as to whether individuals were citizens in a free country or subjects whose freedom could be taken at the whim of their rulers without just, legal cause.

The great Legal Scholar Justice Joseph Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States“, (see 3 Story’s Com. on the Constitution, Section 1336) had this to say about the Writ of Habeas Corpus: it is “A very just and wholesome restraint, which cuts down at a blow a fruitful means of oppression, capable of being abused in bad times to the worst of purposes”. In other words it is the thing that prevents a tyrannical dictatorship in which anyone can be arrested and locked up at the whim of those in power.

Upon receiving the application for the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Merryman, Justice Taney sent an inquiry to General Cadwalader, the Commanding Officer at Fort McHenry, to learn the reason(s) for Merryman’s confinement and instructed him to produce any warrant issued for his arrest and any and all charges facing Merryman as well as his (Cadwalader’s) authority to arrest a civilian who is in no way tied to the military.

In his return to Justice Taney, General Cadwalader could not specify any act committed by Merryman that constituted any offense against the laws of the United States or that any witness had given oath describing criminal conduct by Merryman, but that Merryman was arrested upon “General charges of treason and rebellion”  without specifying proof and without giving the names of witnesses or specifying the acts which Merryman supposedly committed  causing his arrest. Furthermore, Cadwalader stated Merryman was arrested by the authority of the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, and that “The President had suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus”  and as such he (Cadwalader) was not bound by, nor would he obey, instructions of the Court.

In response to General Cadwalader’sreturn to the Court, Chief Justice Taney issued his opinion in the matter with an official Court Order granting the Writ of Habeas Corpus to Merryman in which he instructed the President and General Cadwalader to release Merryman as his arrest and imprisonment were Unconstitutional & illegal because the President had not only exercised a power he does not possess (suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus), but that he claims to be able to delegate that power to others.

In his meticulous opinion Justice Taney wrote: “…The clause of the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus is in the 9th section of the first article…which is devoted to the Legislative Department (Congress) and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department (the President)…And even if the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by Act of Congress, and a party not subject to the Rules and Articles of war was afterwards arrested and imprisoned by regular Judicial Process, he could not be detained in prison or brought to trial before a military tribunal,…for the 6th Article (in the Constitution) provides that ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,…to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him;…to have the assistance of counsel for his defense'”.

” And that the only power the President possesses, where ‘life, liberty or property’ of a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the 3d Section of the 2d Article, which requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed…

No official notice has been given to the Courts of Justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the President claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of Constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the Writ of HabeasCorpus could not be suspended, except by Act of Congress…But being thus officially notified that the Writ has been suspended under the orders, and by the authority, of the President, and believing, as I do, that the President has exercised a power he does not possess under the Constitution…I can only say, that if the Judicial Department may thus, upon any circumstance be usurped by the military power at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of Laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the Army officer in whose Military District he may happen to be found…I have exercised all the power to which the Constitution and Laws confer upon me and order that all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland and direct the Clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States. It will then remain for him, in fulfillment of his Constitutional obligation, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed'”, to release Merryman.

A United States Marshal served the opinion and order of the Court that Merryman be released upon President Lincoln and General Cadwalader. President Lincoln upon being served with a copy of the opinion and order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a “Presidential Warrant of Arrest”for the Chief Justice, but the Marshal refused to serve it.

Why is what happened to Merryman in 1861 important to us today?

There is nothing preventing this from happening today as our Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, have all issued Executive Orders, in which they claim the authority to do just what Lincoln did, declaring that “emergencies” exist that require “extra-constitutional measures” to be dealt with.

However, as Chief Justice Taney pointed out so many years ago, these are powers Presidents do not possess, but that will not stop Bush, McCain, or Obama now, just as it did not stop Lincoln then.

Can Obama Legally Become President?

with 5 comments

By Brian K. Lutes

THE HARD TRUTH that many may not be able to acccept is that Obama may not legally be able to become President of these United States should he prevail over Republican  John McCain, Libertarian Bob Barr, & Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin this November.

Attorney Phil J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, PA has filed a legal action in Federal Court in PA questioning if Obama is a “natural born citizen” of these United States as required to be President by Article 2, Section 1 of our sacred Constitution.

Mr. Berg, an activist in the Democrat Party for many years in PA, is a former PA Deputy Attorney General and has run for political office as a Democrat. In short, Mr. Berg is not a “fringe” political wannabe or a Republican trying to get Obama off the ballot to benefit McCain.

In his court filing, viewable @, Berg asks the court to order Obama to produce: 1) “certified copy of his ‘vault’ (original long version) birth certificate”, 2) “certified copy of his ‘certificate of citizenship'”, 3) “certified copy of his ‘oath of allegiance’ taken at his age of majority”. to prove he is legally eligible to become President should he win election in November.

Should Obama fail or refuse to produce the requested items Berg asks the court to: 1) Issue a declaratory judgement that Obama is ineligible to become President, 2) Issue an injunction barring Obama from running for President, and 3) Issue an injunction barring the Democrat National Committee from nominating Obama as a candidate for President.

On his web-site Berg says that he is motivated by the threat Obama poses to our system of Constitutional government handed down to us by our founding fathers. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says: “…No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States…”.

In response to Berg’s action attorneys for Obama & the Democrat National Committee filed paperwork that does not answer the main question: Is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States as required to be President by the US Constitution? Instead the paperwork claims that 1) the court lacks “subject matter jurisdiction” which means that the court does not have the power to hear arguments on a given subject, 2) that Berg has not stated a “claim upon which relief can be granted” which means that Berg has not presented an issue to the court that the court can correct, and 3) that Berg does not have “standing” to bring the court action. “Standing” is defined in law as: “The legal right of a person to challenge, in a judicial forum, the conduct of another, especially with respect to governmental conduct….a taxpayer will have standing to challenge governmental conduct… if the taxpayer can establish how he may be harmed by the constitutional infringement alleged” which means that the taxpayer bringing the court action must explain how he will be harmed by the government doing something they are not allowed to do.

The attorneys for Obama, who is a lawyer himself, also say in the paperwork that Berg’s allegations that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States are “ridiculous & absurd” , but they did not supply a copy of Obama’s birth certificate to show he is in fact a natural born citizen of the USA as required by the Constitution to be President. WHY? Could it be that such a birth certificate does not exist?

In Berg’s response to the Obama Attorneys filings, Berg refutes the legal arguments about standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and granting of relief. Berg also points out that “All Obama has to do is produce his birth certificate to show that he is a natural born citizen and the legal case will go away”.

In addition to pointing out that Obama has not, or cannot, produce proof that he is legally qualified to become President, Berg exposes many other issues and asks many other questions about Obama including:

* Obama has collected $425,000,000 in campaign donations. If he is not eligible to become President has he perpetrated a fraud?

*Is Obama a “naturalized citizen” as is required to be a US Senator?

*Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side as well as his half brother & half sister have given statements that Obama was born in Kenya

*Obama’s school records in Indonesia list his citizenship as Indonesian

*Hawaii records show a “registry of birth” for Obama on or about 8-8-61

*Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya while pregnant with him, but was prevented from boarding a plane leaving Kenya due to her late stage of pregnancy due to restrictions in place at that time to prevent “in-flight” births causing her to stay in Kenya where she gave birth to Obama

in addition to the items above Berg’s web site asks many other questions about Obama’s eligibility to become President. Every American should visit the site and start asking questions immediately.

Why won’t Obama produce his birth certificate to show he is a natural born citizen if he is?

More Than 2 Choices For President of These United States?

with one comment

By Brian K. Lutes

 We have more than 2 choices for President of these United States, but it is THE HARD TRUTH that in reality we do not.

The Libertarian Party candidate for President is a former Congressman and US Attorney Bob Barr of Georgia. Barr was a stellar conservative in his time in Congress and was a leader in the fight to impeach Bill Clinton. He would be an excellent President as in every interview I have heard him give his first answer when asked what he would do in a given situation is “well, the CONSTITUTION says…” and he has immense respect for the 2nd Amendment. In addition he understands that the Federal government has tremendously overstepped its bounds and needs to be reigned in drastically as well as we must get out of the United Nations.

The Constitution Party’s candidate for President is Chuck Baldwin. I believe Mr. Baldwin would also be an excellent President as he understands that before the President can do anything he must first look to the Constitution for authority. He believes that the Federal government must be re-chained to the Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers.

However, in reality they won’t win and therein lies the horror of our situation.

I am sickened by both the Republican & Democratic candidates for President this year, but I am more sickened by the fact that I will probably be forced to cast my ballot not so much in favor of McCain, but against Obama.

It sickens me because I have never been a believer in picking the lesser of 2 evils, but come on, is there really a choice here? No! Obama is a straight up communist. He doesn’t even try to hide it.  I believe he will make short shrift of what little is left of our “limited constitutional republic” by installing Hillary Clinton & Chuck Schumer on the US Supreme Court which means we can all kiss our guns goodbye. And, he will quickly signing the Global Poverty Act that he introduced in the Senate and will be passed by the Democratically controlled Congress. This act will require billions of our tax dollars to be given to the United Nations automatically every year to combat “global poverty”. The man will simply be the final nail in all of our coffins.

As for McCain, he’s got Sarah Palin and not much else as far as I’m concerned. If not for the possibility of her taking over for him I just don’t think I could pull his lever. Think about it: McCain authored the McCain – Feingold Act that virtually eliminates political free speech in the days just before an election. President Bush, never a conservative himself, said the only reason he signed the bill was because he believed the Supreme Court would throw it out as unconstitutional. Well they didn’t you asshole! If he believed the bill was not in compliance with our Constitution he should have vetoed it on the spot, but I digress.

And, let’s not forget that McCain was a huge advocate for the illegal alien amnesty last summer and very distinctly said “we’re not going to build fences and barriers at the border”. Does anyone think that McCain won’t give amnesty to the illegals if he is elected? In addition McCain supported  what has come to be known as the “economic bailout” for which there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution. Then in the last debate he suggested that the Federal government buy up $300 billion worth of mortgages that are in default. In many respects he is Obama-lite.

Alas, I will be pulling the lever for McCain in just a few days with the hope that he will not sit long on the throne.

What Are Our Constitutions?

leave a comment »

By Brian K. Lutes

It is THE HARD TRUTH that most of the people I have met in my life, and especially most of our elected representatives at the local, state, and federal levels, do not truly understand what our constitutions are, why our founding fathers wrote them, or even what they say.

I was present for a conversation between a citizen and a Commissioner from Fayette County, PA several years ago. The citizen was attempting to convince the Commissioner to propose a resolution in support of the 2nd Amendment. The Commissioner responded: “oh, that’s that gun thing, that’s none of our business, call the NRA”. The Commissioner then walked away.

“That’s that gun thing, that’s none of our business…”? Are you kidding me? Unfortunately, it is not a joke and most people would be surprised to know just how often this is the case. Every elected official, and law enforcement officer, no matter the office, location, or political affiliation, prior to taking office, must put his hand on the bible and take an oath to “support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the USA and of the State of _____ from all enemies foreign, and domestic”. Yet, most of them have never read or truly tried to understand what our most sacred documents represent.

In my opinion prior to taking the oath, elected officials and prospective law enforcement officers should be asked if they have ever read the constitutions and then be required to recite the Bill of Rights. If they haven’t read the documents or can’t recite the rights protected by them, they should not be sworn into office until they can do so.

In short, our Constitutions are the supreme laws with which all other laws must comply.( 140 F. Supp. 925)  Our courts have defined our constitutions in these terms:”A constitution represents a mandate to the various branches of government directly from the people acting in their sovereign capacity; the organic law framing a governmental system (229 A.2d 388, 394). And, the US Supreme Court, in one of the earliest cases to deal with the question of what power was the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), said “If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply”.This cemented Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.


And, In American law, the word Constitution specifically refers to a written instrument which is the basic source from which government derives its power, but under which governmental powers are constrained. It is the emphasis on restrictions of governmental powers that distinguishes the American concept. (Schwartz, Constitutional Law, Ch. 1, p. 1 (1979))  It is the supreme law of the land and it cannot be abrogated even in part by statute. Like the federal constitution, a state constitution is the supreme law within the state. ( 140 F. Supp. 925, 928)

The Federal government that was created with the adoption of the Constitution was delegated ( delegation of power is not to be confused with surrender of power, which implies abandonment or a yielding of power to another ( 2 So. 2d 11, 16) and is from a superior to an inferior) very few and well defined powers laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Those that were in favor of adopting the Constitution and creating a more powerful Federal government thereby were called Federalists. They wrote a series of newspaper articles that have come to be known as The Federalist Papers stating the reasons they were in favor of adopting the proposed Constitution and the powers that the new government would have. The Federalists included, among many others, James Madison who is known as the Father of the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton.

The people that were opposed to adopting the proposed Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. They also wrote a series of newspaper articles that have come to be known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. They feared, rightly so, that the new government that would be created would eventually become tyrannical just like the King of England they had just escaped. They demanded that protections be written into the Constitution in an effort to guarantee that certain rights of the people could not be violated by the new government. The guarantees they demanded became known as The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the Constitution.One of the leading Anti-Federalsits was Patrick Henry.

When the the Anti-Federalsits insisted upon the Bill of Rights, the Federalists said it was not necessary to protect rights such as freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, etc. since the new government would not be delegated any power to interfere with those rights as the new government would only be able to exercise the few powers specifically delegated to it and none that were not specifically delegated to it. Thankfully, the Anti-Federalists still insisted on the protections and were successful in having them adopted.

Let us be clear; James Madison, the father of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist Papers that the new Federal government would only be able to exercise powers that were specifically delegated to it. And, as an added protection the 10th Amendment states: “ The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal gov.) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” 

The US Supreme Court has held that the Amendment expresses the original framers’ intent that the “central” government be a government of limited powers and was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from attempting to exercise powers that were not specifically delegated to it. (426 U.S. 833, 851) (Schwartz, Constitutional Law 2.2 (2d ed. 1979))

In short, this Amendment clearly shows that it was the intent of our Founding Fathers that the Federal government would not be able to do whatever it wanted. If the Congress wanted to carry out a particular task it would have to point to a specific clause in the Constitution that allowed it to carry out that task. If there were no authorizing clause in the Constitution, the task could not be undertaken by the Federal government.

It can’t be stressed too strongly that our Founding Fathers had just escaped a tyrannical King that as a supreme ruler was virtually unlimited in his power over their lives. They knew they had to have some form of government, but they were extremely fearful that the government they were creating might someday become just as tyrannical as the King was, so in an effort to prevent this new creation, the Federal gov., from ever becoming a threat to the liberty of the American people they delegated very few and well defined powers to it, and then added very specific denials of power (The Bill of Rights) to it.

After the framers of our Constitution came to agreement on the wording of the Constitution and the powers the new government would exercise, they submitted it to the individual States for their approval (ratification). The Constitution would apply to and bind together only those States that approved it. Any state that did not approve the Constitution would be bound to other non approving States by the old Articles of Confederation. If only one State refused to ratify the new Constitution that State would stand as an independent “nation”.

In fact, North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution for well over a year after the other States had ratified the document and joined the “union”. During the time that North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution it stood independently until it decided for itself whether or not it would join her sister States in the union. If North Carolina had never approved the Constitution it would still stand as an independent nation.

Basically, The Constitution of the United States is a voluntary compact, a contract if you will, between sovereign (self determining) States with each deciding for itself, to create a common agent, the Federal gov., in which each State would have representation, to carry out very few powers that were laid out in writing for their mutual benefit.

The best analogy I can think of to explain the way the  relationship between the States and Federal government is supposed to be is this: Think of the States as individual families that share a common problem, mostly they need a solution to security issues. Each family picks representatives that get together (the Continental Congress) to discuss possible solutions to the problem. The family representatives hammer out an agreement and take it back home to discuss it with the whole family. Each family raises questions & objections with the proposed solutions and orders their representatives to meet again and the process continues. Finally, the representatives decide that the solution is to get a very tough dog (Federal gov.) for all the families to share. However, some of the families have members that are afraid of dogs so the representatives craft a very strong collar & chain (the Constitution) to restrain the dog so it cannot harass or injure any innocent family members, but is loose enough so that the dog can patrol the perimeter and chew up trespassers. Each representative then takes the collar & chain home for every family member to inspect and after the families agree that the collar & chain are strong, yet loose, enough, they attach it to the dog and set him about his assigned duties.

In future articles I will explain what has happened to our dog and how he has slipped out of the collar & chain placed upon him as well as explain the only way we will ever successfully catch and re-chain him.


Obama Reincarnation of Roosevelt?

with 2 comments

By Brian K. Lutes

It is The Hard Truth that Barack Obama apparently fancies himself as the reincarnation of Franklin Roosevelt.

I watched Obama’s speech about our current “economic crisis” from the Senate yesterday recognizing that his whole presentation just dripped with socialism, but then he put the cherry on top and invoked the god of American socialism, Franklin Roosevelt.

The fact that so many people don’t seem to recognize the socialist bent that is Obama shows just how successful the people who set out back in the 1930s to remake our Constitutional Republic with a government of limited powers and individual responsibility into a social democracy where the “citizens” look to government for the very air they breathe have been.

Like most everyone that took to the microphone in the Senate, Obama stressed that if the “bailout” wasn’t approved it was likely that the sun wouldn’t come out. But then he went one step further and brought up Roosevelt, a move that will probably secure him 99% of the vote in Fayette County, PA, where I grew up.

The messiah that is Obama quoted FDR as saying in his first “fireside chat”: There are elements of our financial system that are more important than currency and even gold; Those elements are confidence & courage. Confidence & courage are “essential in carrying out our plan”. He then intimated that we, the people, must be made to have confidence & courage in this plan which is not much different than FDR’s plan which in many ways is why we are in this situation.

“Essential in carrying out our plan”? The plan was to begin the transformation of our capitalist economic system into a socialist system in which government would have it’s filthy fingers in every-body’s pies. It worked and is still working.

First, it must be noted that FDR himself said: “Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens, you can damn well bet it was meant to happen”. Probably the only truthful thing he ever said and yet nobody I’ve met has heard it.

Following the “great depression” which was intentionally created, FDR oversaw the creation of a multitude of new federal agencies and expanded the reach of government to unprecedented levels. Possibly the most famous Roosevelt agency was the “Works Progress Administration” (WPA). This agency gathered up the unemployed, gave them uniforms, and “paid” them to build roads, bridges, parks, dams, etc. The WPA also undertook a massive propaganda campaign to tell the American people how great the program was and that without it many of them wouldn’t have a job.

This propaganda campaign was wildly successful and completely fooled most people into never asking where the money for their jobs was coming from. They never realized that they were dogs chasing their own tails. In essence they were paying themselves and never getting ahead. It was socialism plain and simple and if you were listed as a Roosevelt opponent in political circles you were flat out of luck.

There were Americans who recognized what was going on and challenged the constitutionality of Roosevelt’s agencies in court and many of them were declared to be unconstitutional by the courts. This caused Roosevelt to try to change the makeup of the US Supreme Court by trying to get the Congress to give him the power to “pack the court”. By “packing the court” it is meant that FDR wanted the authority to appoint enough additional justices to the court that he would have enough votes on the court to outvote the justices that had declared his agencies to be illegal. The fact that his agencies were declared to be illegal and in violation of the constitution he swore to uphold didn’t faze him a bit or make him realize that what he was doing was wrong. It made him angry and wanted to circumvent the court and thereby the constitution.

Prior to invoking Roosevelt by name Obama invoked FDR in spirit with talk of “creating millions of jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges, and our electric grids”. An Obama Works Progress Administration?


We did not get into this mess by the natural progression of things. Capitalism is not responsible despite our handlers saying it is. Lax enforcement of regulations in the banking industry is not responsible. The very people coming to our rescue and yes, FDR, are responsible to a large extent. But the ultimate responsibility belongs to us, the people.

We are responsible because we stopped paying attention to what our employees in Washington were doing. We allowed ourselves to become ignorant of our Constitutions and the principles on which our founding fathers established these United States. We allowed ourselves to get comfortable with the idea that our government will always save us no matter what stupid things we do.

This current “crisis” was created by the socialist programs that Obama, following FDR’s guide, and his fellow Senators like Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, an open sodomite, pushed on banks to force them to give home loans to people who didn’t qualify for them through the language of the 1977 “Community Reinvestment Act”. The act basically forces banks and other lenders to loan money to people they normally would not or face being drug into court under the charge of racism and discrimination.

When the banks still hesitated the government, again in the spirit of FDR, created two government corporations, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, to “guarantee” the loans the same government insisted be made to people who were not qualified. This tells me that the government knew a large percentage of people were going to default on the loans and they did. Now, this has all come crashing down as socialism always does.

Obama is not the reincarnation of Roosevelt. He is much, much worse.