A new commercial has been airing on dish network, it’s a commercial which shows several scenes in which Gods love supernaturally touches peoples hearts and they in like manner reach out with Gods love toward others. That’s it! the entire commercial encourages us to realize this slogan ” We need more of Gods Love”. The commercial ends with an email address www.interstatebatteries.com/godslove. I went to the web page and found the reason for the commercial as well as a Scripture based Salvation message. As i read this company’s gospel message it brought tears to my eyes, in a world where so much seems hopeless and lost it can be easy to lose sight of the simple message which Jesus Christ told us contained the entire law, “love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself”. It is so easy to lose sight of my savior and from time to time i find myself off course and then God reaches my heart often out of no where, and in the most simple and basic of ways, this commercial did this and I thank God for that, for His faithfulness. I also want to thank you Interstate batteries for being unashamed of Jesus Christ.

p.s. If ever I have been mean, little, or ungodly in any blogs or comments on this site or else where in my life please except my apologize I realize I too need more of “Gods Love”. Please forgive me if I have sinned against any of you. Lord I thank you for your Love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and redemption! Amen.

Since 1972 no Republican had been elected to the senate from Massachusetts, tonight that changed as Scott Brown won former senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in a landmark victory. This victory as Brown said tonight in his victory speech will mean “the people of Massachusetts now have a seat in the Senate”, this was responded to by the crowd in attendance by the resounding chant “PEOPLES SEAT”. He went on in what was a refreshingly real and straight forward speech to speak of a new political machine in Massachusetts, The People! 

The Democrats super majority is now gone and we can only hope this may be the beginnings of a new era in American politics an era where  special interest groups and party lines don’t own our Representatives but where the people they represent and their consciences do. As senator Brown said ” I am nobodies senator except yours”. Browns speech essentially hit every point of concern we conservatives, we citizens have with the direction that our country is currently headed under the aloof leadership which seems to be deaf to the cries of the people and far left of most Americans.

What does this victory mean for the country, the health care bill,the parties, and the conservative movement?  If nothing else this victory is a foot firmly placed in the mouths of those who mocked the “tea baggers” and glibly chided their earnest concerns. As Scott Brown said towards the conclusion of his speech  ”When there’s trouble in Massachusetts rest assured there’s trouble everywhere and they know it”

Few, if any Governing documents in the history of the world have been as celebrated as the United States Constitution. Hailed world wide as a document of democratic genius and time-tested wisdom the Constitution has been the foundational document to the world’s greatest civilization to date, both in size, riches, ingenuity, and freedom America is second to none, or so the story goes.   However  in 1787 after  the constitution was drafted at  the congressional convention in Philadelphia a fierce ten month debate broke out in American politics and political philosophy over whether this new constitution should be adopted. Rhode Island was so outraged they would not even hold a convention of ratification and New Hampshire rejected  ratification (of course after the nine states that were needed ratified the other states did eventually follow suit.) The adoption would  in effect bringing  the thirteen states under one centralized national government, before this the united states had been thirteen sovereign states that had bound themselves together in contract as a union, with a congress that had representatives from each nation state. The difference being each state conducted it’s affairs separately and each state passed its own laws and taxes, with some portion from each states revenue  going toward war funds. This agreement was titled the Articles of Confederation. The group in favor of ratifying the Constitution chose the name  the “Federalists” and they ardently defended the need of a new government as laid out in the afore mentioned constitution. The other group was dubbed the “anti federalists”,  though they  considered themselves to be the True Federalists, they did not so much disagree with the constitution, but rather with certain consequences that might arise from it (Storing). The debate ended in 1788 when the nine of the thirteen states needed voted to adopt the constitution. History often portrays the victors of any battle as the protagonist and so was and is the case in this piece of American History. The losers are rarely remembered and often maligned ,but why did  the Anti federalists oppose one of the world’s most beloved government systems? (Borden)

One of the major concerns of the Antifedralists was the lack of a bill of rights in the constitution. Though at the time of its conception states had their own bill of rights the constitution did not. Some had argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary or even dangerous because it would inevitably leave out some rights. However the Antifedralists  contended that unless there was a bill of rights incorporated into the constitution it would lead to abuses of those rights. Just as had happened under British rule.

“This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security, of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than, that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the constitutions of our own states; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high and when an appeal was made to the people to form constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is therefore the more astonishing, that this grand security, to the rights of the people, is not to be found in this constitution..”    Brutus II  November 1, 1787 (Lloyd)

Massachusetts became the battle ground for the most important skirmish on the issue. At this point in the ratifying process five other states had already ratified the proposed constitution but at the convention for ratification in Massachusetts  opposition by Antifedralists was strong and it looked as though the state would be the first not to ratify. During the last week of the convention the two sides came to an agreement, led by James Madison and Sam Adams, known as the Massachusetts compromise, which basically said that Massachusetts would ratify the constitution on the terms that a bill of rights be included once the constitution was put in place. This then became the model for which the remaining states ratified. Had it not been for the efforts of Antifedralists to include a bill of rights we may have never had one. As it turned out on the congress’ first official meeting it added ten amendments to the constitution, we know them as “the Bill of Rights”.  We have the Antifedralists to thank. (Lloyd)

Another concern was with the amount of power that would be vested in the president who could eventually usurp enough power to become a defecto king, one who could decide at the drop of a hat to engage in war.  It was also thought that because of the prestige of the position in time it would amount to a monarchy or atleast a continual rotation of aristocrats. This level of prestige had an inherent danger  one in the ability to control a standing army but even more frightful was the notion that eventually the congress itself would come under the influence of so central a power . This was of course how the British empire worked and for that reason alone it was not popular among Antifedralists. Again we find that in some case and to some level all these projections have turned out to true. Despite the framers efforts and in seeming opposition to the constitutions checks and balances the President has become more powerful than either of the other two branches. He sends us to war at his leisure and has arguably the most influence over the legislator and over the judiciary by way of party alignment on the one hand and judicial appointment on the other. (Lloyd)

Judges posed another problem to the Antifedralist mind, seeing as there was no check in the constitution  to their power and no ability for the people, congress or the president to remove them. The judiciary was the final bridge between the government and the people, it would directly interact with the people rendering decisions on their rights and how they would follow laws laid down by the congress and administered by the Executive. But unlike the other two branches which at least gave, if only in lip service, some representation and control to the people, the judiciary was not elected and could not be removed or punished by the people. No matter the number of errors or the lack of legal reason a supreme court justice could be removed only by God almighty (Lloyd). Brutus XI explains the danger involved in such a powerful court.

“The judicial are not only to decide questions arising upon the meaning of the constitution in law, but also in equity.

By this they are empowered, to explain the constitution according to the reasoning spirit of it, without being confined to the words or letter.

“From this method of interpreting laws (says Blackstone) by the reason of them, arises what we call equity;” which is thus defined by Grotius, “the correction of that, wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient["]; for since in laws all cases cannot be foreseen, or expressed, it is necessary, that when the decrees of the law cannot be applied to particular cases, there should somewhere be a power vested of defining those circumstances, which had they been foreseen the legislator would have expressed; and these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ["]lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittet.” Brutus XI  January 31, 1788 (Lloyd)

The danger here being that the Judge becomes not only he who rules over cases according to the law but can, as he sees fit, change the laws laid down by the constitution or laws as given by the legislature. In essence he becomes a law make unto himself with no power to remove him and no ability to check his decisions. We see this played out today in our midst by way of judicial activism.

Some Anifedralists argued against the set up of congress as laid out in the Constitution. The major concern being a lack of proper representation. First the house of representatives  was to be filled according to the population of each state, which at first sounds fair until you realize that every five slaves will be counted as a three freemen in terms of representation, which makes no sense since they are not being represented at all. Not to mention that a country that is claiming the equality of all men is treating some men as animals. (Lloyd) In addition this gives southern states the ability to ship more and more slaves in to garner greater influence in the house. The representatives also are too small in number considering there is only one for every thirty thousand, certainly not enough to be a true representative government. Brutus III refers to such a lack

“No free people on earth, who have elected persons to legislate for them, ever reposed that confidence in so small a number. The British house of commons consists of five hundred and fifty-eight members; the number of inhabitants in Great-Britain, is computed at eight millions � this gives one member for a little more than fourteen thousand, which exceeds double the proportion this country can ever have: and yet we require a larger representation in proportion to our numbers, than Great-Britain, because this country is much more extensive, and differs more in its productions, interests, manners, and habits.” Brutus III November 15, 1787 (Lloyd)

Regarding the senate no true representation was in place, the members were elected by state legislature and numbered only two per state, a number which is completely incapable of truly representing the different views, characters, classes, concerns and regions of any state. Lastly they feared that with so few representatives in each house the rich and aristocratic would with their money and influence eventually become a ruling class. In each instance these fears have become our reality. The senate and house are full of the rich and self interested who through fortune and influence continually get elected. As the Antifedralists feared an aristocracy now rules over every extent of our lives. Not a representation of the constituents but rather a few ruling the many. And if by chance one through skill rises from the ranks of the common to become part of this group they get corrupted by the influence of this new found lifestyle and power.

The question was also raised as to the legality of the constitution, after all the delegates of the Philadelphia convention had been given authority to amend the Articles of confederation not abolish them. The original intent of the Philadelphia convention was to amend certain problems with the Articles of Confederation. The Continental Congress or ruling body under the Articles of Confederation had vested the delegates of the Philadelphia convention with power to amend not change the then current form of government. The continental congress sent an announcement to the states that read as follows  

“A Convention of delegates should meet “for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.“ (Lloyd)

Much debate has been made about whether or not those sentiments meant that the delegates could rewrite our system and do away with the old. The fact that many of the delegates refused to sign the constitution and that all the deliberations and discussions were done in secret behind closed doors and veiled windows only lends its self to speculation that it was indeed known to them that they had no such authority. (Lloyd)

The Federalists made the counter argument time and again in their writings that a well organized central government was essential to secure and defend an American nation and preserve our Union. A federal government  which could move more swiftly in war time and react quickly to both foreign and domestic problems which threatened our way of life (Lloyd). They decried the Articles of Confederation as a document that lacked the ability to govern and protect its nation. To that I would say they were right! That was the intent of the convention, to bring forth amendments that might critique and fix the problems that everyone agreed needed to be resolved. To argue that so vast an undertaking as usurping the entire government and replacing it with one so hastily put together  and with the input of only a few could hardly be considered a democratic way of resolving such issues. As to our ability to protect ourselves from foreign enemies I would reply on two fronts the first being a matter of fact. We had just repelled the greatest military force know to man when we defeated the British attempts to place us again under their yoke. Secondly would it not be much better to fight a tyrant or enemy under the deficient Articles of the Confederation than under the Constitution willingly subjugate ourselves to an overbearing Aristocracy here at home?

The great patch work of ideas that somehow has brought together so vast and diverse a nation as ours must acknowledge those who even in defeat served their country, and the antifedralist fall under such a distinguished banner (Storing). These men were not simpletons nor were they ignorant of government and politics, some are among our most notable leaders and founders such as, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Monroe. Nor should we forget their warnings, warnings which have more often than not become our reality. We have become a country whose once bright beacon of freedom is now tinted by so much corruption, one whose ringing bell of liberty has been quieted by a judicial presidency of law making from the bench, a country weighed down by a burdensome bureaucracy which now seems to know no end and has an unquenchable thirst for our money. It becomes our job, neigh our duty to look back and as some have said stand on the shoulders of giants and take a look at our former paths our present situation and decide what we desire our future as a country to be. How long till we as a people take back our government from an aristocratic few who use us to further their agendas. Government is a pervasive evil which seeks to devour all the power it can and the only thing that keeps it in check are the power of the governed and I fear  the Antifedralists were right ,we have been duped and now have a government which has become too powerful. Where does that leave us? We ought to be sober enough to hear the voice of the Antifedralists not as those who sought to stop progress but as those who sought to protect individual freedoms and limit government. In the final estimation it must be said that the Antifedralits concerned themselves with one thing, power. Restricting the power of the government and securing the power of the governed. Concerns that we ourselves must be occupied with if we seek the establishment and continuance of a more perfect union.

Works Cited

Borden, Morton. The Antifedralist Papers. Michigan State University: Michigan State University Press, 1965.

Lloyd, Gordon. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/fed-antifed. 15 November 2009.

Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Fedralists Were For. The University of Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.

In a horrible attack of cowardice a shooter at around 1:30 pm ct just outside of Austin at Fort Hood opened fire on soldiers. One Major Malik Nadal Hasan  killed 12 and wounded 31. Authorities are saying this is not a terrorist attack.( I personally have my doubts.)

Malik Nadal Hasan has been apprehended. Only time will tell if this was a random act of violence or if the motives of this individual was religious or otherwise. The gunman made oulandish commens about US foreign policy acording to man who worked with Dr. Hassan, watch the interview by connecting to the link below.

http://www.breitbart.tv/co-worker-ft-hood-gunman-made-outlandish-comments-condemning-us-foreign-policy/

Lately the ineptitude’s of our legal system to protect the innocent from “monsters” has become glaringly obvious. In particular children, recently several cases have come to the national stage, the Cleveland rapist (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571972,00.html), the seven month old missing in Florida(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571888,00.html), and the Jaycee Dugard discovery. ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571745,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r2:c0.000000:b0:z5)Ineach instance convicted criminals have gotten a second chance to be part of society. This trend is unacceptable, at what point do we as a culture begin to discuss this problem with candid pragmatism. The truth is we Americans spend billions of dollars to keep the largest number of criminals incarcerated in world history, it not only is a huge burden on our economy but this method has failed to provide for our general welfare. It is the goal to rehabilitate criminals in our system and man in all his arrogance suggests that rehabilitation is attainable for even the worst offenders, I disagree and in fact so does the overwhelming evidence. Don’t get me wrong i think some criminals should be given a second chance, but not violent offenders, serial abusers, sexual deviants, and those who commit meditated murder should either never see the outside of a prison wall or be vanquished from this life. The woman who’s house the seven month old baby girl, mentioned earlier ,was found in was convicted of beating a small girl of six in 1987  “with intent to kill” and was sentenced to ten years in prison of which she served 80 days. Additionally she is suspected in the dissappearence of a 3 year old boy that same year, that boy has never been found. Garrido the man who held Jaycee Dugard for 18 years as his sexual prisoner was convicted of rape and put in jail, but according to the prison phsycologist Garido was a good canidate for success “Prognosis for successful transition to the community is considered very good,” Kielbauch wrote. “The likelihood of further extralegal behaviors on Mr. Garrido’s part is seen as minimal.” The Clevland man was also a registered sex offender, and now they are unearthing bodies behind his house. The point is that none of these individuals should have ever been back in society, either give them life in prison of  give them the death penalty. Incentives are the motor by which society operates and unless we give these creeps an incentive great enough to restrain thier behavior or else when they do display such behavior dispathch them we a a society will always live only a house away from a monster i our midst and that is unacceptable. If you make the bed…

The Department of Homeland Security under the new Obama administration has come out with a new report entitled “Right Wing Extremism”. This only weeks after the Missouri information analysis center issued a report with help from the DHS that called for heightened suspicion against those with “radical” ideologies such as Christianity, anti abortion and third party affiliation, pointing out bumper stickers for Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as clues to whom these dangerous extremists might be.

This new report lumps the 2ND and 10Th Amendments of the constitution as ideologies that are akin to neo Nazism and terrorism. As well as claiming that those who support the right to bear arms, pro-life, and anti illegal immigration are “Potential terrorists”.

If this is Obama’s idea of being bi-partisan and bringing the nation together it must be in the same way the USSR brought it’s people together, by shackling the voices of dissent. It is irresponsible and dangerous to make such broad sweeping generalizations that seek to haphazardly connect Racists and Neo Nazis with Conservatives, especially when the document itself says “The DHS/office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence”

This new report is nothing more than Gestapo tactics aimed at shutting the mouth of us who disagree with slaughtering babies, who believe we have the right to bear arms not to hunt but to ensure a tyrannical dictator does not trample upon our rights, who believe in  Government at the Federal level is here to serve the States not vice versa, who believe in strong borders and fair employment. You may disagree with our beliefs but we have the right to hold them without fear of being harassed in the name of Homeland security.

Read it yourself here’s the link   http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

ABC,MSNBC,CNN,and CNBC are feeling the effects of the biased coverage during the last campaign and the presidents first 100 days. Looks like the Conservative leaning  FOX NEWS is wiping the floor with their more “progressive” counterparts. OUCH!

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for January 12, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,217,000 viewers
CNN – 633,000 viewers
MSNBC –482,000 viewers
CNBC – 265,000 viewers
HLN – 372,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,562,000 viewers
CNN—967,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,283,000 viewers
CNBC – 246,000 viewers
HLN – 900,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC –286,000 viewers
CNN –190,000 viewers
MSNBC –187,000 viewers
CNBC –81,000 viewers
HLN- 180,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 598,000 viewers
CNN –300,000 viewers
MSNBC –459,000 viewers
CNBC – 114,000 viewers
HLN – 387,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day
FNC –542,000 viewers
CNN –288,000 viewers
MSNBC –255,000 viewers
CNBC –146,000 viewers
HLN- 228,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time
FNC –1,060,000 viewers
CNN – 427,000 viewers
MSNBC –687,000 viewers
CNBC – 155,000 viewers
HLN –524,000 viewers

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –967,000 viewers (301,000) (566,000)
American Morning–492,000 viewers (206,000) (324,000)
Morning Joe-320,000 viewers (113,000) (171,000)
Squawk Box-199,000 viewers (69,000) (111,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 308,000 viewers (167,000) (219,000)

6PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report w/Bret Baier – 1,593,000 viewers (350,000) (650,000)
Situation Room—909,000 viewers (214,000) (316,000)
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue —613,000 viewers (236,000) (347,000)
Mad Money—242,000 viewers (69,000) (123,000)
Prime News–414,000 viewers (178,000) (246,000)

7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/Shepard Smith– 1,813,000 viewers (474,000) (874,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight –963,000 viewers (266,000) (358,000)
Hardball w/Chris Matthews —919,000 viewers (302,000) (440,000)
**CNBC Reports (7PM-9PM) —259,000 viewers (70,000) (147,000)
Issues– 627,000 viewers (286,000) (388,000)

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor —3,121,000 viewers (703,000) (1,293,000)
Campbell Brown—954,000 viewers (258,000) (354,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —1,475,000 viewers (514,000) (743,000)
Nancy Grace –1,439,000 viewers (583,000) (808,000)

9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity–2,835,000 viewers (703,000) (1,155,000)
Larry King Live—934,000 viewers (319,000) (468,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –1,341,000 viewers (441,000) (723,000)
Saving GM: Inside Crisis– 293,000 viewers (167,000) (183,000)
Lou Dobbs- 597,000 viewers (247,000) (339,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record w/Greta—1,688,000 viewers (388,000) (692,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—1,013,000 viewers (321,000) (458,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —1,033,000 viewers (421,000) (594,000)
On the Money—211,000 viewers (116,000) (148,000)
Nancy Grace –712,000 viewers (351,000) (456,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor —1,513,000 viewers (501,000) (819,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 —662,000 viewers (242,000) (363,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –599,000 viewers (302,000) (381,000)
Mad Money—200,000 viewers (119,000) (150,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 503,000 viewers (292,000) (343,000)

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show’s audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of March, 2008)

CNN/HLN:96.93 million HHs
CNBC: 95.13 million HHs
FNC: 94.55 million HHs
MSNBC: 91.59 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2008 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

This new poll shows the huge gap between Liberals and Conservatives. Follow the link… http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic

“In the end, you are exactly–what you are. Put on a wig with a million curls, put the highest heeled boots on your feet, yet you remain in the end just what you are.” Mephistopheles from Faust a Tragedy

“The General Motors Corporation, the world’s largest company, now sells more graphic sex films every year than does Larry Flynt, owner of the Hustler empire. The 8.7 million Americans who subscribe to DirecTV, a General Motors subsidiary, buy nearly $200 million a year in pay-per-view sex films from satellite, according to estimates provided by distributors of the films, estimates the company did not dispute.” In 2001 GM sold the rights to DirecTV for 25.8 Billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/technology/23PORN.html?ex=1214452800&en=6a4a8bd6fbec1199&ei=5070

As of right now GMC is on its way toward bankruptcy even after the Obama administration threw Billions of dollars at the auto giant. In addition GM’s CEO Wagoner has been fired by the Obama administration.

Oh how the mighty have fallen, after leading the US in auto sales for 77 consecutive years GMC will likely have to declare chapter 11 and restructure. It is sad to see a once proud American company die before our eyes. However the sickness that is now apparent to everybody had long been coursing through the veins of GMC. In the name of the all mighty dollar GM had sold it’s soul, and now the Devil has come to roost.

Kolan McConiughey challenges Obama

Last Thursday Obama made a tactless comment on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in regards to his bowleing game resembling  those of the Special Olympics. (one which he still hasn’t made a public apology for) However it may be too late, his uncouth words have reached the ears of one of the Special Olympics best. Kolan McConiughey,  a bowler from Michigan, who has a 212 average, has challenged the 44th President to a game. As it turns out Obama’s bowling looks nothing like a special Olympics competitor, apparently their awesome!  Kudos Kolan.

I can only hope the president first issues an apology to the entire nation and then accepts Kolan’s challenge.

Should the president accept the challenge?