Sunday, July 31, 2005

Multi Culturalism and Terrorism

When many of our ancestors came here they brought their cultures with them. However, they also "blended" into our culture and became Americans first and had their cultures as their heritage.

What they didn't do was to stay in their own little "camps" and be a culture within the American Culture. As I said, they became Americans and adopted the "Constitutional, Freedom loving, Republic Government" culture.

With that adoption many Japanese and Germans fought with us in WWII and were just as American as anybody else. The Italians, the French, the English, the Indians, etc, who became Americans were all with us against a common enemy.

In Europe we are seeing the Muslims and other cultures stay in different "camps" and are maintaining their customs and culture without trying to adopt the "European" culture. This is a big problem in as much as it fosters “self imposed segregation” and in turn all of the friction that goes along with it.

The political correct societies will even anger these “segregated camps” more with their policies of trying to make everything “plain vanilla” like no Muslims can wear religious garb, or no Christians can wear “crosses.”

Let us help promote assimilation of our “melting pot” heritage of welcoming the different ethnic groups and continue to encourage them to become Americans first while retaining their proud heritage as part of their history and not as a way to divide.

We should also do a better job of showing other cultures that we love and respect them. While it is human nature for “birds of a feather, to flock together”, we need to work to not allow Political Correctness to cause problems with our pluralistic society.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The Downing Street Memo

Back when Clinton was still in office his Administration developed a “Policy Statement” of “Regime Change.” This was based upon the dangers of Iraq turning over Nuclear Material to the terrorists.

Saddam was a known sympathizer with the most notorious terrorist prior to Ben Laden. Abu Abbas was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking and was welcomed by Saddam and given official Iraq sanctuary. So much for no connection with terrorists groups and Saddam.

In order for the U.S. to be pro-active on trying to prevent the destruction of millions of Americans by Saddam giving Nuclear Materials to the terrorists, the Strategic Plan to insure that goal was developed.

Once Bush became President, he too signed on to the same Policy Statement and the same Strategic Plan.

While in London President Bush and Tony Blair were told of some new information that would not affect the Policy Statement but would slightly change the Strategic Plan. In order to fit, (fix), the new intelligence to the plan, a few adjustments were needed.

This now famous statement “But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around policy” has become the rallying cry of the left and their frenzied hatred of the Bush Administration and the Policy and Plan. It means the facts were being aligned or fitted with the policy and plan.

They will twist the words, but the statement does not mean “Invent Intelligence” as some on the left are asserting. It also doesn’t mean that Bush had already made up his mind to use military action. What it meant was that military action seemed to be pointed to from the new intelligence. And the policy was being changed to take into account that possibility.

Boy, they are left to grasp at straws. Too bad, they lost and they can’t stand it.

I guess it is all right to ask, “It all depends upon what your definition of is is”, and expect us to believe their understanding of what “fixed” means.

Here is an article in the Chicago Tribune, (not your garden variety conservative MSM), about the memo where they agree “It's hard to find a smoking gun in the Downing Street memo.”

It’s just amazing that the libs are having parties all over the world in celebration of the Memo. Wake up Libs, you lost! There is no smoking gun, just ask the Chicago Tribune.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

The Origin of Money.


There are three subjects that impact us more than any other subjects. Those three are Politics, Religion, and Economics.

Notice that somehow we are told that two of them should not be part of normal discourse from the time we venture out into the public school system. “Never talk about Politics or Religion!” Ever hear that statement when you were growing up? Also Economics is usually not taught to most people and it is vital to understanding what makes the value of money so important, and who it is that continues to devalue it.

All three are closely related. If you understand the Macro View of the world, you will see that all three affect freedom.

Throughout the Bible are examples of man’s inhumanity to man, and governments inhumanity to man. Allowing people to be free to practice their own religion is inseparably connected with freedom from interference from others, which includes governments.

The Bible has stories of conflicts between Kings and man, Pharaohs and man, and man versus man. The relationship between man and his government is closely related to Religion. The Golden Rule sums up the proper relationship for man’s non-inhumanity to man as well as governments proper relationship between the two.

Economics is also connected to freedom, because if you are not free to work where you want or to keep the fruits of your labor, except for a small amount that is needed for the proper role of government, then you are also not free.

Economic freedom is essential. “He who controls a man’s purse strings, controls the man.” (Unknown)

“A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Federalist #79)

Governments can steal property from its citizens such that not one in 10,000 even really know it is being done. It is done through Inflation.

Governments can spend more than they take in through taxes in one of three ways; Decrease tax rates so as to stimulate the economy whereby the lesser tax rate will actually generate more revenue for government, (such as the Bush Tax Cut did), increase taxes during economic boom and gather new revenues before the effect of the new taxes causes a down turn in the economy, or lastly, increase the money supply, (inflation.)

It is inflation that is the most hideous tax because it is done underhanded, where most don't even know that the government did it. The dupes of the government will blame everyone but the government for inflation, big business, the price of gas, etc., these are all just mis-information that only the ignorant fall for. I have convinced more than one PHD of Economics that rising gas prices are a symptom of inflation not the cause. (Rising gas prices can cause other things to increase in price, but it doesn't cause the value of money to decrease.)

Also notice that the left's values are all about money. Welfare, Socialized Health Care, etc. Their march towards Socialism is all about redistribution of the wealth. So you can see why the understanding of money is so important.

Origin of Money:

Several Thousand years ago before we had money there was barter.

Suppose you were a shoemaker and I was a shepherd. You wanted goat’s milk and I wanted shoes. We would barter for how much milk you could get so I could have a pair of shoes.

Before long people realized that gold was the most commonly desired item. Gold did not die like a cow would or wear out like shoes, so it soon became apparent that people could trade gold for any other item.

Next came the idea that carrying around large sums of gold could become obvious and dangerous so someone decided to invent the first bank. You could store all of your gold in his warehouse and he would give you receipts for the amount of gold you deposited in his warehouse. Then the receipts, (money), could be traded for goods instead of the gold.

The Gold Smiths soon learned that most people never returned to collect their gold, so they would make false receipts saying that they had on deposit in their warehouse a certain amount of gold.

You see, the receipts, (paper money), did not have any real value, it merely represented the amount of gold that you owned. The Gold had value in and of itself. You could do things with the gold that were valuable.

If the Gold Smiths, (the bankers), would issue too many fake receipts, then people would soon get suspicious and then there would be a run on the bank of people demanding their gold back.

So the way the Gold Smiths were kept honest was to have auditors double check the value of the receipts issued versus the amount of gold on deposit.

This is why for many years we were tied to the Gold Standard. The Founding fathers knew that the Banks would “inflate” the money supply if they were not required to issue no more than $32.00 for every ounce of gold in the banks.

They opposed "Centralized Banks" in the hands of the government and are probably turning over in their graves over the existance of the "Federal Reserve Banking System." Private banks would be competetive and could be held in check. But if the government ran the banking system they could use it against the citizens.

Once we got off the Gold Standard, governments could easily issue additional receipts without having to explain why this was a bad thing, since it was the government doing it. This is called “Inflation.” It is a hidden tax on the citizens because it makes all of the dollars we hold “worth less” than they were worth before. It was stealing when the Gold Smiths issued fake receipts, and it is still stealing when the government does it!

Here is a short synopsis of a similar description. Money

And yet another more full-length description of the Origin that shows why you need to know what your government is doing to rob us of our wealth by way of this hidden tax. The Origin of Money.

Lastly see one of my earlier posts on Inflation. Here.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Honor the Flag, don't Dishonor It!

We have just recently honored the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, and most of us honored that signing by displaying the Flag. The Flag is a symbol of our Freedoms as expressed in that wonderful document along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

When we disagree with some of the current policies of the President, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, we should feel good that we have the right to do it.

But the Flag of this great country represents that right. So, paint all of the pictures of Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush in a toilet or being urinated on, but don’t include the Flag. The President is not the flag. The President and us get to express our views because of what the Flag represents.

Those Crazy Conspiracy theorists on both the right and the left, such as Michael Moore, and the Nazis Skin Heads can spew forth all of the hate for the current President all they want, what the flag represents allows them to do that, but when they dishonor the flag, they are saying that they would prefer to live under a different system.

It is clear that the Left in this country doesn’t like their fate to be in the hands of the voters. They view half of the voters as a bunch of Bible Toting Rednecks who are too stupid to know what they are doing. Only they, and their superior intellect really know what is best for us and our country.

They continue to be losers under this system of self-government, so they turn their eyes towards socialist countries like France, and do all they can to make it clear they hate what the flag stands for.

Conservative Schooler’s
blog site has a petition that all should sign where a person named Steve Pearcy who either appears to not understand the difference of what Bush stands for and what the Flag stands for, (or he hates America), has a picture of the Flag, (or more precisely, a methaphor of the U.S.A. with the Flags Colors), being flushed down a toilet on display at Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office.

Free speech is one thing, but to have the taxpayers supporting Hate America Speech is another? Please visit Conservative Schooler‘s
blog site and sign the petition.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Result of Liberalism is "The Acceptance of Evil"

Let's review life's great priorities. First there is nothing more worthy of fighting for than Good versus Evil. A micro view of that battle is Freedom versus Force.

The old quote "All Evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing" is never more noticeable than when the "good" people on the left and the right allow evil to progress while they say and do nothing.

For example, living together prior to marriage to "see if we are compatible" is a modern day problem that would be scorned just 30 or 40 years ago. Is it because the older generations were prudes? No, they had learned from their ancestors history lessons what the modern day liberals ignore.

It's all about the Law of Cause and Effect. Actions have consequences!

We protect our young athletes from consequences and then when they get older they don't understand why someone doesn't always "fix it" for them in the real world.

Also smaller things like allowing their young teenage daughters to wear thongs and low cut clothes can cause problems like other premarital sex activities. They don't realize that modesty is important. Trashy dressing causes young guys to see them as "easy" and sluts. Boys will become very agressive towards "easy" targets.

But today in the work place if you are rich and/or good looking then you are flirting, if you are poor and/or ugly it is "sexual harassment."

Creeping acceptance of modern day liberalism is allowing evil to progress.

When I was in high school there were still unwritten rules about using the "f" word in mixed company. Today it even happens at restaurants and other public places.

Has Liberalism made our world better? I think not.

Grades are lower because public schools are looked at as an entitled "baby sitting" service and Nanny service, where the government is supposed to take the responsibilities of "the birds and the bees", etc, from where it really belongs, which is in the home.

Second graders are learning to put condoms on cucumbers and other things they should not be taught until they become interested.

First we Tolerate evil, then we Accept it as not being evil, and then we Embrace it.

Downloading copyrighted material from the Internet is considered by about 66% of college students as O.K.

Thanks Liberalism, because of you we have situational ethics and relative morality.

Remember the saying, "what's right is what's right for me!" Without standards of what is right, then nothing is wrong and everything is right.

The statement "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement in and of itself!

What happened to the days when stealing was stealing?

We have rationalized it and now we call it Liberalism. No value statements are allowed, they say "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones." They forget that we are supposed to vigourisouly fight against evil actions, and not condem people. Condem sin not the sinner. Don't sit by and do nothing.

The left's morals are all about False Philanthropy called Entitlement programs. Where the government steals from those who have earned it, and gives it to those who have not earned it. Liberals want to give "other peoples money to the poor" as if taxpayers are some people who deserve to be plundered.

National Health Care, Welfare, Free this, Free that. Their "Values" or "morals" are all about government "plunder" which is another word for theft. See my link to the right on the book called "The Law."

The result of Liberalism is "The Acceptance of Evil."

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Rove a Traitor?

At one time in my College days I had thought about becoming a Lawyer and did some initial background study on the profession. Although I decided to go in another direction, one of the things I learned about our legal system was the basic premise of the whole legal system.

It is this…“Intent is the single most important concept in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant.” The difference between Murder in the first degree, second-degree murder, manslaughter, or accidental homicide is intent.

The same thing applies to being a traitor; you must have intentionally tried to harm your country. When Rove said, “it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip."
National Review Article “Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove”

Notice that Rove said “apparently” works at the agency. Just because Rove had access to Top Secret information, doesn’t mean that the information about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA didn’t come to Rove from other reporters, or other non-classifed sources and that he had no knowledge that she was anything more than just an administrator working at Langley. She drove to Langley everyday with no attempt to hide where she worked.

When I lived in Arizona, I had a neighbor who worked for the CIA as a bodyguard and he never made any suggestion that all CIA agents are not supposed to say where they work.

Finally, 36 major News organizations and reporters’ groups filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit, when trying to protect reporters "sources", that in effect said that who ever the person was that reveled the identity of the CIA agent had not committed a crime.

The brief further said, “Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington -- not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."

Friday, July 08, 2005

Understanding Terrorists

The cry of those who think that the terrorists are doing this because of some injustice or other logical reason that could be negotiated away, have not been listening to the terrorists or the experts on terrorism.

Let us understand them! Let us start with the goal that is shared by three major “ism’s”… Nazism, Communism, and Wahabism.

They all have one thing in common. They have a goal to “rule the world.”

The Terrorists/Wahabists have crafted a similar plan to the plan the Communists had in the decades leading up to the war in Vietnam. The Communists plan was to incite “Wars of Liberation” that would over throw the existing government through insurgents and guerrilla warfare. Those who opposed their goal also called this “The Domino Effect”.

The details of the plan was to gradually take over a country at a time until eventually the whole world would wake up and find that there were no longer any “free” nations.

The Terrorists/Wahabists had a similar plan. They would start with Saudi Arabia, which is their home country. They were helped to power by the Saudi Kings to be their “guard.” But once the terrorists were trained, they turned on the Kings as the Kings began to understand the monster they had created.

It appears evident that Saddam was told he could keep Iraq as long as he would help them with the rest of the Middle East.

Once Saudi Arabia was taken, then they would go after Iran, and Syria.

And then, after they had those countries in firm control, the rest of the world would be at their mercy if they did not give in to their terror. Each time installing an Imam or Islamic leader that would impose Sharia on the citizens.

It would appear that Bush saw that in order to reverse this “Domino Effect” he would do just the reverse. Install a Democratic run nation right in the heart of the Islamic plot. Bush would reason that once the non-terrorists got a taste of freedom they would help spread Democracy to the rest of the Islamic nations in a “Reverse Domino Effect.”

We shall see if this turns out to be the correct course, but one plan or the other is going to happen. Make no mistake that the terrorists only hope that ignorant people will cry for “peace” without realizing that they are playing right into the hands of the terrorists plot to rule the world.

Here again is a quote by one of their leaders who lays it out that they want to rule the world, and that they hate the Jews and Christians. They feel the only good Christian is a dead Christian.

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."
Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Supreme Court Mandate

The Founding Fathers were very intelligent people. They had a “blank slate” from which to draft a document that would allow us the most protection from tyrannical governments.

They knew that a King has too much power. Kings were known as the tyranny of the one.

They knew that a Democracy placed all of the power in the majority and therefore we would have a tyranny of the many.

They knew that a rule of “Judges” as in the Bible would once again place too much power in their hands and therefore we would have a tyranny of the few.

They were creating a government and granting the government powers. Notice the government was not granting rights to the citizens, the citizens always hold the power and the rights. They were just temporarily granting power to the new government.

They had seen first hand how "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton.

So, they decided that the best way to protect the individual was to separate the normal powers of the government into three different bodies. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of the Government. That way the power that normally goes to men's heads, would be shared and would have "checks and balances" to prevent tyranny.

They next would spell out the rights that the citizens have and that no government should be able to trample upon. Those are found in the Bill of Rights.

They also spelled out how each branch is limited in their powers in the Constitution.

The Legislative Branch is to make the Laws. The Executive Branch is to enforce the laws and to protect our freedom from foreign and domestic threats. And finally the Judicial is to determine if the Laws that are made by the Legislative branch are within the scope of their powers granted them in the Constitution.

All powers not granted to the Federal Legislative branch were specifically left for the States to determine.

So, when a case is brought before the Supreme Court, its job is to determine if the Constitutional protections granted therein have been violated. After looking for the exact circumstance in the Constitution, their job is to say one of two things, “There is no such violation” or to say, "There is a violation."

Either way it is up to the Legislators to precede one way or the other. The people on either side of the case should petition their lawmakers to make a law granting their wishes, as long as those wishes don’t in turn trample upon others protections.

Instead what happens as in the case just recently where the Constitution was clear and had always been clear about “Eminent Domain”, the Judges should have said, “There is a violation. The Constitution says if the property is taken it must be for public use”, but instead said, "There is no violation, because what the Constitution really means is public good." This changing of the meaning is issued in an "Opinion."

This opinion has the effect of making new law.

This means the Judges are fulfilling the duties of the Legislature.

Now there are only two ways to fix their misinterpretation. One is to push through a Constitutional Amendment that in effect says, "only for public use." And then to define what public use means, since for some it must not be clear enough!

The next way is to appoint more "strict intrepretationists" to the court and get another similar case brought before them so they can issure the correct ruling, in effect, cancelling the previous error.

Since the Judges are appointed and not elected, they are not accountable to the people. The reason they are appointed is so they can be “strict interpreters” of original intent without fear of being cast out at the next election, since the whole intent is to not be swayed by public opinion. Intrepreting a document should not be based upon politics, but upon intent to protect our freedoms. They are never to change the Constitution, that is only done by Amendments.

But by making new law without fear of accountability, they have become tyrants. The very thing the Founding Fathers were trying so hard to avoid so we can keep our freedoms.

Let us fight for our Legislators to back appointments made by all Presidents that are “strict interpreters” of the Constitution and not Judges who bring agendas with them to make new law.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Honoring the 4th of July

On this day we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It is therefore appropriate to discuss the reasons why our Founding Fathers gave of their time and fortunes to provide us with the Government we should have.

In the 19th Century most thinking people agreed that the nature of the individual was that he wanted to be able to attain his eternal salvation and they also realized that a free nation was the best vehicle to allow the religious freedom to accomplish that goal.

Politics at that time was seen as the best program to achieve the goal.

Today the programs have become the goals instead of the means. Some of our legislators and Judges see themselves as the “givers of good, and the pillars of justice.”

Government is by definition “force” and freedom is best served with the fewest amount of laws/force. But today we here the cry “There ought to be a law.” We cannot legislate morality, goodness, honor, honesty, peace and justice. Justice is only possible with the least amount of force.

Religions of force such as Communism and Wahabism have become the new religions that threaten the world, and Christianity still remains the best religion of freedom to choose whom you will follow. (Josh 24:15)

Many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and they made it clear that without Religion as part of the political landscape, we would suffer like all pagan countries have.

While the Founding Fathers knew that they did not want a National Religion, they also knew the pitfalls of a nation without the aspirations of religious goals.

The greatest slaughters in the history of the world have come at the hands of Godless societies. Stalin, and Mao have many tens of millions more than any religious crusade or inquisition can claim.

So today we will honor the signing with the thought of life’s greatest priorities, God, Family and Country, in that order.

First and foremost we need a relationship with our God.

Next, we need to hold the concept of Family above all else except our relationship with God.

Let us remember that our Family is where we teach our children about right and wrong. Right and Wrong never change with time. Stealing was wrong 6000 years ago when Adam and Eve were here, and it is just as wrong today. Moral Relativism only makes our children insecure and afraid, they need to be able to count on the “rules of life.”

There is a Right and Wrong answer to every moral and ethical question. For those who disagree, I say that there are only two reasons for doubt; either the question was phrased incorrectly or there is insufficient information to make the choice. Only those who wish to not be held accountable want everything to be grey. That way they can make what they call "mistakes" instead of wrong choices, i.e. sins, and they can still feel good about themselves. The only way an Alcoholic can be cured is if he first admits wrong doing.

And then the next priority is Country. We need to fight for the rights that our forefathers gave us. I am thankful that we live in such a great country that I still have many of the freedoms that my forefathers had. And I am hopeful that we, (at least *two of us), can return some of our lost freedoms to their rightful place in the near future.

*Two people can do anything as long as one of them is God.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Current Supreme Court Makeup

Roe V. Wade was a 7-2 Decision, but let's look at the Current Make up.
Roe V. Wade - Wikipedia

We now have 3 Conservatives on the Court, so O'Conners replacement could make it 4 unless Bush really screws it up with another Moderate.

This means if the next one to step down is Rehnquist, then the one after that, which should be the 85 year old Stevens, is the real key replacement.

The Current Make up of the Court is as Follows:
Moderates (2)
O' Conner - 75
Kennedy - 69

Liberals (4)
Ginsburg - 72 (Should be labeled Socialist)
Stevens - 85
Souter - 66
Breyer - 67

Conservatives (3)
Scalia - 69
Thomas - 57
Rehnquist - 81

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Iraq a Quagmire?

Is Iraq a Quagmire or are some in the Senate just wishing it was? Let us examine the definition of a Quagmire from Wikipedia first, and then examine what conditions Wikipedia says indicate it is not a Quagmire and is falsely being used to fool people.

First the definition:
Wikipedia - Quagmire

“A quagmire (from "quake" + "mire") is, literally, shaky, miry ground; as a
political term used to describe a foreign military campaign in which there is either no foreseeable possibility of victory or the objectives are unclearly defined, and at the same time no clear exit strategy has been formulated in the absence of victory. The military campaign is likened to a kind of swamp or marsh in which the warring nation is unable to remove itself.

Typically, a quagmire occurs when a major power attempts with little success to subdue a foreign
guerrilla insurgency. Often matters of national pride or belief in military invincibility are the cause of lack of an exit strategy. It is often humorously suggested that the best way to resolve the military impasse associated with a quagmire is to simply "declare victory and go home."”

Sounds like it could be a Quagmire, but only if you want it to be and don't read what follows in Wikipedia.

Now read what Wikipedia says is an indication of what is not a Quagmire: (My additions in Parentheses.)

“The term quagmire has often been misused to politicize a conflict, in an attempt to sway political support against, (the left wants us to lose so they can regain Congress and the Presidency), an overseas operation.

A key indicator that the term is being misused would be clear evidence of progress. Progress would then be measured by comparison to objectives, for example; overthrow a dictator, (Saddam - Regime Change a Bush Objective - done), form an interim government, (A Bush Objective - done), establish a home nation security force, (A Bush Objective - done), hold elections, (A Bush Objective - done).”

The Exit Strategy is also clear. Grow the home nation secutity force to where it is self sufficent, and then withdraw all but a token force as we have in France, Germany, South Korea, etc. In fact we should take all of our Forces we have in France and Germany and use them as the token force. (Then watch France and Germany say how much they like us and beg us to please come back.)

So Mr. Teddy Kennedy, tell us again how this is a Quagmire! Can you be a little more intellectually dishonest?

To those who didn't know, now you do. To those who know and just like to spout the rhetoric, the evidence that it is not a Quagmire is spelled out right here on this page. And finally to those who know and are blinded by hate, the ability to see the truth has disappeared even with this proof.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Supreme Court Associate Justice O'Conner Resigns.

The old "Devisive" word will surely be used by the left as if to say we should do it their way or we are being combatant. How about doing it the "right" way and let the cards fall where they may.

The key to the Supreme Court is always in the Middle. The "Moderate" vote, and O'Conner has certainty been that.

Let's hope that Bush nominates someone who understands that the Constitution and Freedom are the most important issues, and not try to "make new law" which is the job of Congress.

Read more