Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law

The Supreme Court? THE Supreme Court? Is that a bit extreme, or am I the only one who sees it as overreaching? True, Arizona's new immigration law is essentially an insignificantly "tweaked" version of the unenforced USC, Title 8 (Chapters 6 and 12 inclusive) "Immigration and Nationality". However, it is not the legality of the federal law being challenged, nor is it the failure of the federal government to enforce the provisions of USC, Title 8 that's being challenged. What is under siege by the Obama administration's DOJ lackey, Eric Holder, Jr., is the right of the states to create their own laws. Here comes that pesky Constitution again...

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution gives the United States the power to make laws... it also charges them with the responsibility to enforce those laws! The logical questions seem to be; If the United States chooses to abdicate its responsibility to enforce certain laws, does the enforcement of those laws not fall to each of the respective states, to deal with as they see fit? Also, do the states not then have the responsibility - and the right - to create specific laws that are applicable within the geographical boundaries of those states to insure that persons within their borders are legally entitled to be there? If the protections of our national sovereignty and citizenry are not enthusiastically pursued by the federal government, is it not then incumbent upon the states to provide such protections?

Logic aside (which is always the federal government's position), the Obama administration wishes to pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The United States of America is being invaded by illegal aliens on a daily basis. Who are they? Indeed, some are hard-working, law-abiding people looking for a better way of life. Some are criminals of varying degrees (ALL illegal aliens are technically criminals, because they have violated USC Title 8 upon crossing our border without legal authorization). Some come here for the entitlement benefits, such as public assistance (welfare) and free medical care. Their reasoning makes no difference - if they are not legally entitled to be in this country, they are de facto criminals. But, for some strange reason, these non-citizens are permitted to vote, and those votes are what Obama and the Democrats want. Votes that will enable them to continue to lead this country into economic disaster and soon achieve what we now refer to as "Third World" status.

In the meantime, the Holder-controlled DOJ bypasses the Arizona State Supreme Court, which (again, logically) should decide cases relating to Arizona State law under the Arizona State Constitution. Why? Probably to insure the court hearing the case will be more inclined toward supporting the position of the Federal Government, under the precept of what I call "circumventional victory" (which basically says, "If you don't feel that you can beat them on the appointed field, move the game to your home town"). The feds rarely lose a case in front of the SCOTUS, but the good news is that they don't always win! Finally, there is "hope" - although not of the kind Obama promised, and "hopefully" the "change" will come in November 2012, when Obama is replaced... before he and his cronies completely destroy our Democratic Republic! Keeping the borders open, overwhelming our public assistance programs, borrowing money, and the endless printing of more dollars (thereby devaluing those few that we may have in our possession) is the key to bankrupting the USA.

For further information on the mechanics involved in destroying a nation, Google the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis".

Of course there is always the possibility that I could be wrong about all of the above. The odds of that are about the same as the odds against the rising of the Sun in the east tomorrow morning. I may not have all the answers, but I do know what questions need to be asked.

HOW TO BUILD A TRULY "SUPREME" COURT

It appears that the Obama administration believes that nominees for judgeship on the nation's highest court need not have prior experience as judges at any level. Okaaaaay...

Let me take that line of thought a couple of steps further. Inasmuch as there is so much stupidity in our laws, and lawyers are running amok within the system, let's put some common sense into the judiciary! Why should the SCOTUS be composed of people with law degrees?

Here's my design for the makeup of the new, improved Supreme Court of The United States of America:
1. The Supreme Court will be composed of nine American citizens who have no political affiliation.
2. All nominees must have an above average IQ as verified by the administration of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III).
3. All nominees must be capable of logical processing of information made available to them.
4. The membership of the Supreme Court will be:
a. One engineer or architect (good for linear thinking).
b. One archaeologist (puzzle solver).
c. One medical doctor.
d. One successful small business owner.
e. One law school graduate.
e. Four working-class/technical people all of differing backgrounds (mechanic, baker, law enforcement, teacher, plumber, driver, postal employee, homemaker, communications worker, roofer, gardener, computer programmer, etc) without duplication of skill sets.
f. Membership shall be one black, one Hispanic, one Native American, one Asian, one ethnic Jew, one naturalized citizen, one white male, and two females of different racial backgrounds.
5. Abstentions from voting are not permitted. You are a Supreme Court Justice - make a decision and DO THE JOB. In cases involving a conflict of interest a justice may recuse him/her self, but to avoid a deadlocked decision, one other justice must be excused from hearing that case before the court. The other justice excused will be selected by secret ballot among the justices.
6. Supreme Court appointments will be for 10 years only, with a possibility of reappointment at the end of term.

A Supreme Court composed of intelligent, aware, and rational people hearing the facts and rendering logical decisions may return balance and equity to the legal system, insuring that punishment is meted out when justified, and none when not justified.

I guess Obama rationalizes it this way - "I didn't need any real-life experience to become Emperor... ummmm, I mean President... why should the SCOTUS nominee?" Yeah... we can see how well that's working out.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE - AGAIN

Well, the lefties are at it again, and given the recent spate of mindless shootings I could have predicted as much. This is the "ammunition" they needed to launch another attack upon our Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". It seems to me that a similar challenge was dismissed by "the Supremes" earlier this year, but... that was a pre- anti-gun Sotomayor challenge. Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, and she is every bit as far to the left as he and the rest of his cadre of liberal loonies. The court is scheduled to hear opening arguments in early March of 2010, but no decision is expected until late June or early July of 2010. EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. The left has been fast-tracking our country's ruination since January 20th.


When will "We the People" tell this corrupt and incompetent administration that we have had enough? Keep in mind that without the 2nd Amendment all our other Constitutional guarantees are in jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment protects not only our right to keep and bear arms, but our entire Constitution!

Almost daily Obama moves us closer to the European model of liberal socialist government dependency that he so loves, and dependency in this case means control. It is so much easier to control an unarmed populus than it is to control those who have the means - and the motivation - to resist that control.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-emphasized their Constitutional sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I hope you don't live in one of the other 17 gutless states). Those actions should give Obama a clue that the people are not happy with bigger and more intrusive government.

As for me... I'm doing what I feel is necessary to cope with the potential events of the foreseeable future. Perhaps you should do the same... everybody should have a contingency plan.

The Buying of The Presidency by Big Money Interests

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court returns on Wednesday to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns -- a move critics say could give big money more influence over U.S. elections."

Why in the world would the SCOTUS even entertain the thought of such a plan, much less consider hearing a case proposing the existing law be stricken from the books?

Could it be that in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. elitists, with their personal security being provided by the United States Marshals Service, and their $200,000+ jobs, "The Supremes" have lost contact with John Q. Public. Money and power are attracted to one another, and when they combine into a single entity they frequently create a third entity - a revised, all-consuming, monstrous, political behemoth which devours any who dare stand in its way.

At what point does that which is best for "We the People" get taken into consideration? Do we desire, or deserve, "the best government that money can buy", or do we demand that government consider the rights and needs of the people first, and those of corporations and unions after the fact?

Personally, I believe that corporations, unions, or any entity with more than 10 people involved should be limited by law to contributions totaling no more than $5,000 for any single campaign at any level of government (city, county, state - and, at the Federal level, the House and Senate. Relatively insignificant sums would not place our elected officials in the hip pocket of corporate America, the unions, or other big money entities. It would tend to keep them in the service of "We the People" - which is exactly where our Constitution says they must be.

I suppose there's a slight chance I could be wrong about how I see this. With the sinister left-wing direction our current government is taking, it appears that we don't care if the desires of the moneyed few take precedence over the needs and desires of "We the People".

Court Rules For White Firefighters Over Promotions - Sotomayor Overturned AGAIN!

This is a followup to my posting "Rewarding Failure," 5/27/09 - MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer, today reported the following:

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities."

The sad part is, that Sotomayor appears to be the best Supreme Court nominee that Obama could come up with! Does he not know anybody with the correct talents for the jobs to which he desires them to be appointed?

Sotomayor successfully retains her title as the "most overturned Federal Appeals Court judge" in the country. Perhaps she should go back to law school... for a refresher course.

Here's what the left side of the SCOTUS had to say - "In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." But, justice actually triumphed over emotion and the improper and abusive application of law.

The majority opinion, rendered by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, declared "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

Those who put forth the legitimate effort in time, on-the-job experience, and study necessary to further their careers have been vindicated by the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, it never should have come to this point. Justice should be served at all levels of the court system - not just at the highest level. Justice is never served by punishing those who are successful!

I supposed that in some perverse parallel universe I could be wrong about the way I see this issue...

Why Is Obama Moving So Quickly To Implement His "Changes"?

There are many things changing under the Obama administration. A few may even be for the benefit of some of the people, but the majority of his changes aren't reported in the media. It may simply be because they are considered minor, or not particularly newsworthy.

Then again, it may be because, if they were made a matter of public record, they would not do anything to maintain Obama's popularity among the left-wing Marxist liberals and the left-wing media who elected him.

Why is Obama moving to implement Marxist controls so quickly? Because if he slows down long enough for people to get a sense for the direction in which he is moving our country, he could find himself looking at impeachment proceedings. What exactly has he done? If you can't tell, then perhaps you should ask the Russians - they can see exactly where he's taking our country (see my blog entry, "When The Russians Can See Where We Are Headed, Why Can't Most Of Us See it?", June 4th, 2009).

Obama has, in any practical sense of the word, nationalized our automotive industry, and our major financial institutions.
1. He has placed Edward Whitaker jr., the former CEO of AT&T, at the helm of GM. Whitaker is a man who is on record as having said, "I don't know anything about cars. I do know about business and I know about big business." Knowing about business - and especially big business - may not be of much help as the Chairman and CEO of General Motors. Trading at under $1 per share, Government Motors barely qualifies as in business!
2. Next we have the appointments to Obama's cabinet posts -
a. Janet Napolitano, the Director of "Homeland Security" is a proponent of open borders! So much for protecting the homeland.
b. Tim Geithner, the Director of the IRS is, himself, a tax dodger! There's not much else one needs to say about that fact.
c. Strangely enough, Leon Panetta, the newly appointed Director of the CIA, seems to be more capable than one might have expected, given that he lacks any background at all in the intelligence field. At least he appears to be (publicly) defending his operatives and their integrity.

Then there's Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who is on record with positions indicating she is not just sexist and racist ("I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."), but she apparently also believes that if a member of a minority group can't qualify for promotion, then you should promote nobody (see Ricci v. DeStefano), thereby punishing the successful candidate(s)! So much for "equal justice under the law".

And, where he can't get support from Congress for changes to the existing laws, he simply issues an Executive Order decreeing a change to be so. On June 10, I posted a blog noting that the administration had, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, reworded USC15, Chapter 29 (Sections 1241-1245, which defines "switchblade knives") to include in that definition any folding knife that could be opened using only one hand... which would include about 112 million thumb-operated, spring-assisted folding knives owned today throughout the USA. Add to that the fact that our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of firearms ammunition. Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, it's said that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP - among others. In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance (as of this posting I have been unable to confirm this as having become law... yet). This could be seen as a backdoor method by which the government can manipulate its way around the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) by controlling the availability of affordable practice ammunition.

You can now see how quickly the boots of tyranny can trample the rights of "free people"... and how little resistance there is to it. Not because we don't wish to resist, but because we are not informed that there is something which needs to be resisted.

"CONSTITUTION VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW"

As usual, I suppose I could be wrong about this... and I hope I am!

Being The First Choice Does Not Necessarily Make One The BEST Choice

"President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday." Thus read the headline... isn't that an oddly worded sentence from a "professional journalist". Will Sotomayor ultimately be appointed to the (apparently) newly-established "Hispanic Supreme Court"? And will this Hispanic Supreme Court only hear Hispanic cases? (History recorded the last Hispanic Supreme Court in the 1400's. It was led by a man named Tomas de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition.) Will the oral arguments before this court be presented in Hisp, instead of English?

Commenting upon her official nomination this morning, "My heart today is bursting with gratitude," Sotomayor said from the White House podium moments after being introduced by Obama.

Personally, I would have said something more like "My heart is bursting with pride." I checked Wal-Mart and Safeway to see what the per pound cost of Political Plums was today. Everlasting "gratitude" (and implied support) seemed to be the going price. The less competent the recipient of the Political Plum, the more gratitude was expected as payment. And we should certainly focus that political "blind eye" on the fact that Sotomayor is one of, if not the, most overturned federal judges by the Supreme Court.

As for the impartiality that one would expect from a justice of SCOTUS, here's what Sotomayor had to say about that a few years go: “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Sometimes it's a shame that we are a "nation of laws" instead of a nation of JUSTICE, as we once were... before the laws were made horrifically more complex by "learned and scholarly men". Men whose primary objective was to insure that, in time of legal difficulties, it would be necessary to retain the services of their associates!

Yeah... I could be wrong about this, but I seriously doubt it.

Monsanto Chemical: Buys Government, Scares Press, and Sells Out Public!

Where is the hue and cry from all the government agencies that "protect" us, or from the so-called independent press, that supposedly is "looking out" for us.  Monsanto (previously Monsanto Chemical) - the folks that brought us the unforgettable Agent Orange, among others - like the relatively innocuous Roundup weed killer.  However, what happens when you start manipulating the market to eliminate the competition?  How do they do that?

First you start by genetically modifying produce - like corn, soybeans, or wheat - to make them resistant to Roundup and similar products.  Next you back-engineer one of your other products - like fertilizer - to include Roundup in it.  Something like Monsanto's "Asgrow Roundup Ready" or "Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  From the Monsanto website: "This is a new proprietary seed treatment from Monsanto which will be commercialized in conjunction with the launch of Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  Monsanto offers "Simple, flexible and dependable weed control you expect from the Roundup Ready system.", and "Powerful genetic trait combinations created through our advanced breeding process deliver higher yield potential than other brands."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about is Frankenfood!  And it's not just soybeans ... Monsanto has genetically modified corn, wheat, and God only knows what else to resist Roundup.  Can you see where this is going?  Modify the seeds to resist a weed poison, then include the poison in either the pod or the fertilizer, to kill those pesky weeds.  So far, so good!

But, there's an unanswered question here too - How does the Roundup not get absorbed into the produce it's protecting from weeds?  It doesn't!  We are unknowingly and trustingly ingesting toxic materials with almost every item we are being sold as food!  Have you eaten a nice steak, or enjoyed a good hamburger recently?  If so, then you should familiarize yourself with the acronym BGH - Bovine Growth Hormone.  Have you wondered why your 10 year old daughter is sprouting breasts already?  There's your answer - BGH!  Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.  BST can be produced synthetically, using recombinant DNA technology. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. It is administered to the cow by injection and used to increase milk production. Currently Monsanto is the only company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the trade name Posilac.  According to Monsanto, approximately one-third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with Posilac; approximately 8,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top-selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.  Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is used in the United States (though not without reaction), it is banned in Canada, parts of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Is there a reason for this ban?  Are they perhaps more concerned with the welfare of their citizens, than our government is for OUR personal well-being?

Monsanto's lawyers scared Fox television affiliate, WTVT/Fox-13 in Tampa, Florida so badly, the station manager fired two staff members who had done an investigative reporting piece after they refused to modify the story to appease Monsanto.

Monsanto is running roughshod over our citizenry in their (thus-far successful) attempt to bribe, intimidate, threaten and otherwise leverage those who would question the negative human health factors of Monsanto-produced  Frankenfoods.  Our complacency as a nation will be our undoing.  I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

While I'm On The Subject of The Constitution ...

and the United States Supreme Court, the "Supremes" finally clarified a question that's been in dispute for decades. Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution give private citizens the right to keep and bear arms? And the answer was ... (drum roll, please) ... YES! (I know that somewhere out there is a dyslexic who now plans to keep and arm bears, but that's a whole different issue). Although it was a close call, the 5-4 vote was a long-overdue victory for those of us who believe in the Constitution as it was written. After the revolutionary war, we didn't have much of a standing, professional army, hence: "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." The "Militia" were volunteer citizens who would bear arms for the public defense. Following the line of thought in my preceding post, once again the importance of this Amendment is emphasized by its being placed in the second position of the Bill of Rights - which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

The Court, by majority opinion, ruled that the citizens of this country have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms, but stopped short of saying everybody has the right to "bear" them. One of the 19 definitions given for the word bear in the American Heritage Dictionary is "to carry from one place to another; transport". We are well aware that there are certain people who should not be allowed to even spell the word gun, much less own or carry one! Under what circumstances, and in what manner, should this 'right' be modified? I do not believe that convicted felons, or those persons adjudged mentally ill, or convicted of any crime of violence should be allowed to own or carry firearms. And that is, at present, the way the Federal law is written. I would add "gang members" to that list.

Federal requirements for registration of firearms ... I have mixed feelings about this one. I think the arms owning/bearing citizenry would feel more secure if the owner of firearms was registered, as opposed to registering by make, model, and serial number each weapon owned by the individual. The Feds could still require their $10 phone call, but only to verify that the applicant has been subjected to a background investigation by the FBI, and they could find nothing in that persons history that would disqualify him/her from purchasing an additional weapon. They do not need to know how many of what the law abiding citizen has in his/her possession. That would make a 'gun grab' by the government, or invaders, just too easy.

Those of us who hold a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon permit), issued by any state, should be permitted to carry concealed in all states, inasmuch as all CCW holders must have the same FBI background investigation, over and above the basic Federal authorization to purchase a firearm. As for variations from state-to-state for the qualifications (background investigation, training, and/or demonstration of proficiency, etc.) such requirements should remain within the purview of the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") provision for "States' rights". However, the Feds have a way of leveraging states into submitting to their collective will - the threat of withholding Federal tax monies that have been earmarked for things like schools, highway improvements, and various "pork" projects.

Before it becomes a perfect system, there will have to be many concepts proffered, many definitions clarified, and precise procedures established to ensure the Constitutional application of the Second Amendment, while State governments ensure that the general population is protected from those who have, through personal actions, and adjudication, proven themselves to be less- than-good risks around firearms. There has to be a provision for the application of common sense for the common good involved.

Separation of Church and State - What Is SO HARD To Understand?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says (in part), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .". There is absolutely no other reference in the Constitution to the so-called edict requiring separation of church and state. Simply that Congress will not establish a [understood as national] religion, nor will they interfere with the individual or organized group practice of religion. That's it. Period! End of discussion.

How do we get so bogged down in the issue of SOCAS? Notice the placement of this Amendment ... 1st! Not 6th, or 14th or 21st ... FIRST! That should tell us how much importance our founding fathers put upon this principle. It was the most important of all the considerations in the development of an embryonic Democratic Republic. The bottom line is that the Constitution restricts the government from meddling in the affairs of any church, supposedly protecting religious institutions from being dictated to by outside forces. Yet the government does so incessantly!

Where has the 'government of the people, for the people, and by the people' encroached upon our Constitution? Everything from -

1. 1. the removal of prayer (which was always voluntary during my years in school) in the public schools, to
   
2. 2. the display of manger scenes on public property at Christmas, to
   
3. 3. allowing suit for the removal of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (a person could just not say them if they didn't believe in God),
4. 4. the removal of the Ten Commandments and the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from that courthouse, and, most recently,
5. 5. upset over the state of South Carolina offering a "Christian" license plate to S.C. motorists

Perhaps I can understand the rationale behind 1. (above), because if we did one, we should, in fairness, do them all. (The atheists prayer would be undoubtedly the shortest.) From daily opening prayers we could then adjourn directly to the cafeteria for lunch. (Hopefully, nobody would want to have a public blessing over their lunches, or the school day would be over by the time that was finished. In such a case it would be better to have something non-specific - and practical - like: "Dear Lord, please let me survive this tainted meal.")

There is something else provided for in our Constitution, it is called "States rights." Here are the items I personally think should be States Rights issues:

• 2. (above) - Is there something I fail to comprehend about the term "public property"? Is that not property that is either owned by or, at least open to the PUBLIC? And, are not church members of any persuasion also members of the PUBLIC? The term 'public' is all-inclusive, thereby encompassing even the dreaded and feared "Christians". You can display the Crescent of Islam, and the Menorah and Star of David of Judaism, and probably the symbols of Taoists, Hindus, Rastafarian's, Shakers, Quakers, Mennonites, Rosacrucians, Russian Orthodoxy, and Dukhobors. But, God help you if you should show any Christian symbols during the recurring annual period known as ... oh, yeah - CHRISTMAS!
• 3. (above) - DUH! If you don't understand that one, get somebody who speaks English to read it to you.
• 4. (above) - The architrave above the main west entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States bears the inscription "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW" (some obviously more 'equal' than others), and both the Supreme Court and the United States Congress open each session with prayers! Am I the only one having a problem with their demonstrated logic (or lack thereof) here?
• 5. (above) - According to the Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina they offer well over 100 group-specific license plates, and will make specific plates available to any group or organization of appropriate size that requests them through the proper channels. Where is the problem there? If you don't want one, don't BUY one! They aren't FREE. You have to pay money and select the one you want! Sheeeesh ... dumb-ass.
  

States Rights, as well as individual rights, are slowly being eroded thanks to the efforts of idiots like Michael Newdow (3. above), who apparently sees himself as the 21st century reincarnation of atheist Madlyn Murray O'Hair (also O'Hare), and the conspiratorial, ultra left-wing ACLU (which was founded by a communist whose avowed purpose was to overthrow the government of the United States).

How can we make something so simply written, in our own native language, so complicated? It's called an agenda, and there are a lot of people with multiple agendas - each bringing us one step closer to the elimination of our Democratic Republic.