"Barack Obama's elusive long-form birth certificate that would establish his eligibility to serve as president as a 'natural born citizen' is the hottest discussion topic at the Fox News Channel's website, reports WorldNetDaily.

"Under the heading, 'Should Obama release his birth certificate? Or is this old news?,' nearly 1,000 comments have been posted -- all of them since White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about the document earlier this week by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving."

Also in the mix: "The visibility of the Obama birth certificate issue has also been raised by a new national billboard campaign, initiated by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND," reports the news website. "Launched just over a week ago, the campaign has raised about $55,000 and begun erecting billboards that ask the question, 'Where's the birth certificate?'"  

More from WorldNetDaily . . .

Related:
Some $800,000, 3 Law Firms, 1 Birth Certificate . . . and Yet
This Obama's Birth Certificate?
Possible Worst-Case Scenario Over Obama Eligibility

Quin Hillyer on fighting the abomination nomination of Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court:

Judge Sotomayor's unfitness for the high court is abundantly manifest.

No non-ethnic white nominee, under any circumstances, could possibly be confirmed if she had uttered, in a formal speech, anything close to the converse of Sotomayor's statement that Latina judges by their very background and nature, including perhaps "physiological" differences, would be more likely to reach "correct" decisions than would a white male.

Especially since it was not a mere throwaway line, but instead amply defended throughout her speech, the statement is so racist in nature that it is utterly disqualifying.

Combine it with a whole adult lifetime spent in pursuit of such racialist (if not racist) aims -- approving blatant discrimination against white firefighters, opining that states have no right to bar imprisoned felons from voting if the prison populations are disproportionately non-white, and a whole host of other outrageous stances -- and the only conclusion is that all reasonable senators of both parties should oppose Sotomayor by every legitimate means.

More from Quin Hillyer at American Spectator . . .

Related:
Sotomayor? Obama Invites War
Rush: Sotomayor the "Antithesis of a Judge . . ."
To Obama and Sotomayor: Keep Your Tyranny Off Our Constitution
Why Judges Make Law: The Roots and Remedy of Judicial Activism

"Whenever I question the timidity of today's church in America," writes Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily, "I receive lectures accusing me of violating a biblical principle that supposedly provides a blanket condemnation of Christian resistance to tyranny. . . . 

"Perhaps there is no better time than now to revisit this issue -- as we approach America's Independence Day and our nation moves ever closer to tyranny, this time directed not from London but from our own nation's capital."

More from Farah on "Should Christians Resist Tyranny?" 

Related:
Tyranny Watch: When Government Attacks
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do

From the Washington Times:

Both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage said Tuesday's California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, the second defeat in a row for gay-marriage supporters, may have ended the legal battle on the ballot initiative but not the fight over the issue.

In a 6-1 decision, the court rejected arguments that the November ballot measure amending the state constitution to state that marriage is the union of one man and one woman violated the "inalienable" rights of same-sex couples to marry. The justices, however, did let stand the same-sex marriages performed before the initiative's passage.

Two comments:

1) The court is correct in rejecting the attempt to claim homosexual "marriage" as an inalienable right. Inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, are ontological derivatives rooted in the Creator, in whose image human beings are made. That same Creator makes clear, in historical and ethical information He communicates in the verifiable data of the Old and New Testaments, that marriage is a liberating circle of life-long fidelity and community for male and female.

2) The California court is incorrect to allow homosexist "marriages" performed before the passage of Prop 8 to stand, for those "marriages" are only social constructs that have no real moral or, ultimately, legal validity. Relying on high-sounding but hollow religious and public relations absolutes such as "equality" and "tolerance," monophysicalist unions violate the moral character of the ultimate Lawgiver, that self-same Creator whom the Founding Fathers recognized as the source of inalienable rights in the first place. 

See also:
Secularist Washington-Centrism Is Un-American

A war because, as Quin Hillyer writes, Sonia Sotomayor is:

The most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court, a woman whose speeches and writings are so obscenely racialist that no white male could possible get away with saying anything like those things and live, professionally, for even a single additional day.

Obama's emphasis today, in introducing Sotomayor, on biography over all else was absolutely sickening. And despicable.

To which all decent Americans ought to respond: No, it does NOT make a difference whether she grew up rich or poor, black or white or Hispanic, left-handed or right-handed, ill or healthy, Jew or gentile.

All that matters is whether or not she will uphold her oath to serve the Constitution and laws as written, including the explicit and tacit restrictions therein on judicial authority.

In America, judges are not supposed to be fonts of wisdom, not supposed to "feel" the right things and not supposed to be demigods purveying some sort of cosmic notion of fairness.

Instead, they are supposed to apply the laws as provided to them by the political branches within these United States. Period.

More from Hillyer on Sotomayor at American Spectator . . .

Related:
Rush: Sotomayor the "Antithesis of a Judge . . ."
To Obama and Sotomayor: Keep Your Tyranny Off Our Constitution
Why Judges Make Law: The Roots and Remedy of Judicial Activism

In response to Barack Obama's pick of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, this from Rush Limbaugh on today's radio program:

Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.

He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true, that she's a great constitutionalist; that she doesn't use personal opinion; that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice.  She has done just the opposite of that.  She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. (emphasis added)

See also:
To Obama and Sotomayor: Keep Your Tyranny Off Our Constitution
Why Judges Make Law: The Roots and Remedy of Judicial Imperialism

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters would like to know. He writes:

That's the only way to confirm her account and make sure that Dowd didn't simply plagiarize TPM. The media's Village is quite content that Dowd did nothing wrong. That it was just one innocent mistake. To date, the Times editors agree and are giving Dowd a complete pass.

See also:
Plagiarism: Pretend People, Fake Work
What Is a Plagiarist?
Oxford, Cambridge, Plagiarism, and Christian Worldview
Controversy Over "Michelangelo" Sculpture

Just as in knowing the true authorship of books, so in sculpture it matters much to know who did what.

Here's a report from Rome on a wooden sculpture of Christ, dated from ca. 1495.

See also:
Michelangelo, Schaeffer, and the Kingdom of Washington
Pizza With Michelangelo
Plagiarism: Pretend People, Fake Work
What Is a Plagiarist?
Oxford, Cambridge, Plagiarism, and Christian Worldview
I'll Take Sartre

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah offers a lesson in U.S. government and political freedom to "constitutional scholar" Barack Hussein Obama.

"Some see it as the universal symbol of sacrifice in World War I, others see it as the undisputed sign of Christianity, but it will be up to the Supreme Court to make a final determination as to whether a 7-foot cross remains standing in a California desert to memorialize war veterans," reports the Washington Times.

"The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.

"Veterans today say this war memorial and others like it across the country that use religious symbols are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."

More on "ACLU 'Dead Wrong' on Vet Cross" . . .

That's what Obama aide Melody Barnes told Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, at the White House.

It seems increasingly apparent that disrespect and hatred for life -- and by implication for the other unalienable rights endowed upon every human being by our Creator, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence -- reaches deeply into the Obama White House.

True enough, Barack Obama tries to present himself as upholding "our fundamental principles." But what does this really mean? His policies deny them, placing Americans at risk from Islamic terror abroad and inhumane government at home. 

On issue after issue, Barack Obama's "principles" and "values" conflict with the principles and real-world ethics of the Founders, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the historic Judeo-Christian worldview, all of which affirm the freedom and dignity of the individual as inviolable persons created in the image of God.

Here's the story from Wendy Wright at Human Events.

Related
Cheney, Obama, Schaeffer -- "Idolatry Cloaked in Righteousness"
Farah: Obama Wants Civil Dialogue Over Murder of Unborn Babies
Obama OKs Killing Unborn in Notre Dame Speech
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini

FoxNation offers a "Recklessness Cloaked in Righteousness" video of Dick Cheney's National Security speech delivered yesterday, May 21, at the American Enterprise Institute.

"Recklessness Cloaked in Righteousness" works well not just as a summary of Mr. Obama's national security policy, but also of his messianic political agenda in general.

"Godlessness Cloaked in Righteousness" may be an even more apt phrase, with the caveat that this thoroughly secular community organizer seems to want to Deify the Federal State.

Additional descriptions suggest themselves: "Idolatry Cloaked in Righteousness," and so on.

Then, branching out, try: "Tyranny Cloaked in Constitutionality." This includes the present, hard, and bloody tyranny of abortion on demand, the implications of which are clear from the recent European past.

For all of the man's Bible-thumping liberalism and isogesis, there's nothing vaguely "Christian" in Obama's approach -- or anything authentically related to the knowable and verifiable Christ of history.

Obama's "Jesus" is an empty, irrational religious symbol with no connection to history or truth or wholeness or human dignity.

But it serves him and his political agenda well as a tool for manipulating mass opinion to cloak an anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-constitutional program of radical, secular statism.  

It's the sort of thing the great Francis Schaeffer called "semantic mysticism."

Here's the text of the former Vice President's speech. 

A news release from Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel:

The U.S. Senate is preparing to vote any day on S. 909, a bill that would grant specially preferred government status to a select few citizens based on the behaviorally driven, fluid, and undefined concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"; this, to the express exclusion of other citizens.

While the House version of the bill was being considered, some lawmakers attempted to make it more inclusive and curtail its inherent discriminatory nature by offering an amendment that would include other identifiable groups such as veterans, the elderly and the homeless. The bill’s sponsors inexplicably rejected that request without explanation.

"This underscores the fact that all ‘hate crimes’ laws, both state and federal, inarguably advance ‘unequal’ protection of the laws," said Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. "This flies in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

"For this reason I am calling for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in Washington and around the country, to not only reject S. 909, but to begin working toward repeal of all state and federal ‘hate crimes’ laws. 

"All violent crimes are ‘hate crimes,’" continued Barber. "I’ve never known anyone cracked upside the head in love. There may have been a time when ‘hate crimes’ laws were temporarily necessary, but that time has come and gone. When the 1968 federal ‘hate crimes’ bill passed, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. This was the justification for the law in the first place.

"That’s simply not the case today, and FBI statistics bear out that reality. In today’s America every citizen, without fail, is both guaranteed and granted equal protection of the law -- in the absence of ‘hate crimes’ laws -- regardless of race, religion, gender, disability, ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ dominate hand, favorite color or American Idol pick. This renders all extraneous ‘hate crimes’ laws woefully obsolete and fatally discriminatory.

"S. 909 and existing ‘hate crimes’ laws create a two-tiered justice system with first-class victims and second-class victims. Second-class victims, such as the elderly, veterans, the homeless or children, are explicitly denied the same resources, attention and justice given to those who are arbitrarily deemed to be first-class victims. This is as un-American as it is unfair," said Barber. 

"Rather than continuing down the wrong path and creating new ‘hate crimes’ laws that unfairly favor whichever boutique special interest group screams the loudest, we should move toward inclusion and equality for all Americans. We should look to the future instead of the past. We should both reject S. 909 and repeal all demonstrably outdated and discriminatory ‘hate crimes’ laws.

"Both sides of the S. 909 debate can come together. Nothing is impossible. This is the perfect compromise. ‘Hate crimes’ laws are divisive and unnecessary. The debate over S. 909 is tearing us apart rather than bringing us together. Instead, let’s increase enforcement of existing criminal laws and enhance penalties for all violent criminals across the board, regardless of who the victim might be. Let’s promote inclusion, not exclusion. Let’s embrace diversity, not discrimination."    

Related
Admitted: "Hate Crimes" an "Invention"
"Patriot Pastors" Challenged to Crush "Hate Crimes" Bill
Clergy in the Crosshairs
Resisting the Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton

Author of Liberty and Tyranny Mark Levin mocks the pretended objectivity and, ahem, reliable newsworthiness of the New York Times by famously calling it the "New York Slimes."

Michelle Malkin offers free-thinking people a new round of evidence for this well-earned moniker of money-monkey reportage.

Related
Anderson Cooper and the Crisis of Journalism
Press Watch: Hyping Hysteria vs. Knowing Truth
Corrupt, Slobbering Media Still in Love
Last Straw: Statist Media Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

"America has become a morally bankrupt society that embraces intolerance against Christians, including a new push for 'hate crimes' legislation, according to one pastor who believes it's all because church leaders have failed to do their jobs," reports WorldNetDaily. 

"But this Memorial Day weekend he is calling ministers to fight for those freedoms -- from their pulpits." (emphasis added)

More on "Patriot Pastors" at WND . . . 

Related
Admitted: "Hate Crimes" an "Invention"
Clergy in the Crosshairs
Beauty and the Beast: Resisting the Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton

Former Reagan Administration official Herbert Meyer makes the case that America today is not in the midst of a "culture war" or a "second Civil War," but a revolution.

"We have lost our free-market economy as quickly as we have lost the rule of law," he writes at American Thinker. And if freedom-loving Americans don't launch a peaceful counteroffensive, he continues,  "the alternative . . . is horrific."

And, by the way, don't expect much help from Fat-Cat Republicans. "Because most of them are careerist hacks who've been playing footsie with the Democrats for too long; with very few exceptions they lack the intellectual firepower to articulate the present danger, and the political courage to stand up to this Administration and really fight."

More from Herbert Meyer on Revolution . . .

Related
Act Now: In Praise of Tea Parties
Pro-Existence: Pearcey at Amazon on Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
Customer Review by Rick Pearcey
O'Reilly, Letterman, and the Culture War

In case you missed it, WND recently linked (scroll down) to "Beauty and the Beast: Now This Is Extremism," with the following kicker: "Rick Pearcey: Miss California Has Upheld Founders' 'Humane and Liberating Worldview.'"

Here's the article at Pro-Existence.

Meditating on that long-awaited Day of Days, Herb London of the Hudson Institute writes at American Spectator:

On June 6, 1944, the United States and its allies launched the largest air and sea armada in world history. The purpose of this mission was clear: liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi despotism.

The landings on the Normandy beaches led to unprecedented death and destruction. American soldiers leaving their amphibious landing crafts measured their life expectancy in minutes. In the first hour of battle hundreds lost their lives and in succeeding waves thousands were killed as the beaches at Omaha and Utah were soaked with the blood of young men in their teens and early twenties. . . .

I don't think we should ever apologize for what the United States has done to extricate millions from the yoke of totalitarian control. It is not arrogance to recall the limbs that were shattered and the bodies broken to set history on the course of democracy, imperfect as it is.

Before President Obama stands supinely before the G-20 again and engages in a form of national self-flagellation, I would urge him to stand amid the crosses and stars in Normandy cemetery and recall the sacrifices made by those youngsters so that he could be president of the United States and breathe an unadorned version of freedom.

In the roll-up to WWII, the German nation had invested everything in big government led by a messiah who called individuals to shared sacrifice toward something greater than themselves.  He built roads, created new automobiles, loved nature, and put people to work. Finally, after years of struggle and despair, there was hope for those treated unfairly. Change meant the people could be proud of their nation again.

The result: tyranny. The price of freedom: blood. The tyranny was always there from the beginning, for those who had eyes to see. 

When it comes to protecting human freedom and dignity under God -- rejected by secularists and liberals but which goes to heart of the American experiment in liberty -- every day is June 6, 1944. And for that kind of effort, that kind of defense, that kind of hope, that kind of love, what is required is not apology, but thankfulness and praise. 

From FoxNation: "Open Minds" and "Fair-Minded Words"? You be the judge. Click here to view the entire speech at RealClearPolitics.

Related
Humane Resistance: Palin Hits Notre Dame for Recognizing Obama
Farah: Obama Wants Civil Dialogue Over Murder of Unborn Humans
Obama at Notre Dame: Text

In an email to columnist Holly Robichaud, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin writes: 

My favorite grandpa, Clem James Sheeran, was Catholic. Irish to the core, his favorite place (other than church) was Notre Dame.

I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda. As we learned today, our nation is more pro-life than ever before; it is a very important time to strengthen the message that every baby is created for good purpose and has the potential to make this world a better place.”

"While Palin understands this battle is about a fundamental value," comments Robichaud, "Obama supporters trivialize it by suggesting it is about opening a dialogue with people of opposing views. Despite their belittling, this outrage is well deserved. By bestowing the degree on President Pro-Choice, a message is conveyed that he is a role model, someone deserving of recognition in the eyes of the university. Jenkins even said he is an inspiring leader."

Well said. But note also that Obama is in conflict not just with a question of "value," even a fundamental one. For this man stands on the wrong side of fact, science, evidence, the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Founding Vision of the United States of America. Most of all, the president of the United States stands against the knowable, verifiable, and factual Creator, upon whom and from whom all human rights that have any adequate foundation are based.

The president's ideological alienation from the good, the true, the beautiful, and the humane is complete and total. No amount of oratory or dialogue or enablement from a lapdog, secularist press can cover up the stench of this cult of barbarism divorced from humanity and reason. By the measurement of the American experiment in liberty, his is an extremism rooted in inauthentic faith.

What remains is for albeit imperfect people of good will to listen -- as did our Founders -- to their Creator instead of to this mere mortal and his pretended wisdom but all-too-real vanity. What remains is to insist on human freedom and dignity under God in effective and principled resistance to overcome a kind of state control and cool barbarism that European dictators and totalitarians and orators from days not that long ago could only have dreamed of.

That kind of resistance would be progress. That would be humane. That is the way of dignity.

Related
Farah: Obama Wants Civil Dialogue Over Murder of Unborn Humans
Obama OKs Killing Unborn in Notre Dame Speech
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini

Go ahead. Make Nice. But Notre Dame party-spoiler Joseph Farah of WND chooses not to play by Obama's pathetic, inhumane, and bloody rules:

If I were presiding over a public policy that called for the murder of unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all, that provided mandatory public funding of those procedures both domestically and in foreign countries, that required doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they were conscientiously opposed, that permitted experimentations on living human embryos, that promoted even partial-birth abortions outside the womb and that called for the extermination of infants who somehow defied all the odds and managed to survive efforts to kill them before birth, I guess I would want to frame the debate in such a way as to diminish the hideous monstrousness of my morally indefensible position.

He doesn't really want people who recognize what abortion is to approach the debate with "open hearts." He wants us to harden our hearts.  

More on "The Blowback of Notre Dame," by Joseph Farah at WND . . .

Related
Obama OKs Killing Unborn in Notre Dame Speech
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini

"After receiving an honorary doctorate in law at the University of Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech to the school's graduating seniors that sought to legitimize his position in favor of the legal killing of unborn children," reports Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com.

"Obama told the graduates of the nation’s most well-known Catholic university that abortion 'has both moral and spiritual dimensions' -- although he did not explain why he had made this conclusion -- and made it quite clear that, even so, he has no intention of moving from his position that it ought to be legal for a pregnant mother to have a doctor kill her unborn child for literally any reason at any stage of pregnancy."

More on Obama at Notre Dame from CNSNews.com.

Related
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini

This ABC News interview is must listening.

Here's a report from The Note, a blog at ABCNews.com.

"The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch," reports OneNewsNow. "An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual 'gene' -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way."

More on "APA Revises" at OneNewsNow . . .

"The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that -- and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time," writes Andrew Sullivan at his "Daily Dish."

So what's the real reason for "hate crimes" law, according to Sullivan? "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes," he writes, "was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings."

Here's a report from WorldNetDaily.

From Peter Wehner at Commentary:

Andrew Sullivan has turned with indignant fury against Barack Obama. The triggering event for Andrew was President Obama’s decision to seek to block the release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by U.S. authorities. And it is not simply that Obama has done a grave moral wrong.

“Slowly but surely,” Sullivan writes, “Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors’ [sic] war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute [sic] them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt [sic] his successor.”

More from Wehner on Sullivan's "Daily" . . .

Ann Coulter writes:

Not even Dick Cheney can incite the blood-curdling rage of liberals at the sight of a sexy Evangelical Christian. Paula Jones, Katherine Harris, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and, most recently, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, have all come under a frenzy of attacks from liberals.
   
Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It's liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching "The West Wing" and all movies starring Julia Roberts.)
   
But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.

More . . .

Related
Seriously Hot: The Carrie Prejean Story
Shuster Asks, "Can I Vomit?"
Miss California on Liberty Live Radio
Centrist Miss California Told to Shut Up "About Your Faith"
Resisting the Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton
BBC: On Murdering Miss California
Wildmon: Carrie Prejean vs. Rick Warren
Rosie's Coat

In deciding Miss California Carrie Prejean could retain her crown, "proud heterosexualist" Donald Trump Jujitsued homosexual-"marriage" activists by "invoking Barack Obama's opposition to it," writes George Neumayr at American Spectator.

But, as Neumayr notes, there remains a subtle, magnificent difference between Obama and Prejean.

Meanwhile, "the sexual revolutionaries at MSNBC, who usually encourage off-the-rails carnality, want to 'vomit' over Prejean," Neumayr continues. 

What's really upsetting their collective stomachs? The "violent reaction . . . illustrates once again . . . the intrinsically violent character of homosexual activism" and "its deep fear of fertile heterosexual women." 

More at American Spectator . . .

Related
Shuster Asks, "Can I Vomit?"
Miss California on Liberty Live Radio
Centrist Miss California Told to Shut Up "About Your Faith"
Resisting the Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton
BBC: On Murdering Miss California
Wildmon: Carrie Prejean vs. Rick Warren
Rosie's Coat

"A movement to reclaim for states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution is exploding across the nation," reports WorldNetDaily, "with 35 states already acting or at least considering such proposals -- and one state lawmaker estimating the nation as a whole could save $11 trillion in coming years if it would succeed."

Reporting for WND, Bob Unruh also writes:

WND reported not long ago when the number of states with lawmakers considering such sovereignty efforts reached 20.

Now, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, such provisions have been launched in at least 35 states. They all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."

All of which suggests the following question: If Barack Obama (or whomever might hold power in Washington, D.C.) and the federal government reject the U.S. Constitution and the limits it places on federal authority, should not freedom-embracing Americans and State governments across the land reject Barack Obama and the overweening federal government?

Pamela Meister at American Thinker recasts The Declaration of Indepedence, offering up hope and change for global citizens via the spiritual secularism of Messiah Barack Hussein Obama.

"Of the dozens of reasons to be concerned about the ever-growing and unchecked power of the federal government under President Barack Obama," writes David Limbaugh, "the upcoming assault against conservative talk radio may surpass them all."

More from Limbaugh on "Fearing Our Government" . . .

Related:
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?

From Warner Todd Huston at RedState:

A new propaganda video created by an extreme environmental activist is making its way into America’s classrooms and The New York Times loves the whole idea. Enviro obsessive Annie Leonard, Greenpeace member and activist, has created a 20 minute video filled with anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda to encourage kids to eschew “stuff,” calling the presentation “The Story of Stuff.”

More here.

Related:
Czech Prez: What Climate Activists Really Want

"While the left has been indulging and fostering the 'Bush Is Hitler' meme, they have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House," writes Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker.

"There is an inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpretated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore."

More on Barack Obama: The Quintessential Liberal Fascist . . .

Related:
Can Obama Be an Economic Fascist?
Fascism Watch: Village Voice and Pro-Existence
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini
National Obama Socialism
Regarding "Change" -- Liberals Drink Deeply From Fascist Well
Fascism Is Back
The Evil Religious Presidents Do

From Brent Baker at Newsbusters:

To Bob Schieffer's astonishment, when he wrapped up his Sunday interview by asking former Vice President Dick Cheney where he comes down between Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell who both say the Republican Party would be “better off” without the other, Cheney declared: “I'd go with Rush Limbaugh.”  

More on Schwimpdaddled Schieffer at Newsbusters.

Forensic pyschologist Dr. Helen takes a look.

Hat Tip: Big Hollywood

Robin, last name withheld, writes at American Thinker:

Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother-in-law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.

These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is.

Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way.

Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progresssive" politics. . . . 

For more "Amends From a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley," go here.

That's the conclusion invited by an entry at the BET website.

The truth is, however, "Limbaugh has no problem following black conservatives," a fact "you’d never know . . . were you to read the Black Entertainment Television website," counters Mike Sargent at Newsbusters.

There is, of course, no foul per se in criticizing public figures such as Limbaugh. Fair-minded criticism is a practice every free-thinking person endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights ought to embrace.

But if BET wants to be seen as something more than a political race cult with a broadcast license, it ought to supply evidence to back up charges against those in whom they find fault. We know they can do better and look forward to them doing so.

"Why is it so hard for the failed leadership of the Republican Party to understand that the Party's present woes are directly related to the fact that they left Reagan behind years ago?," asks Alan Keyes at WND. 

"Part of the problem," as Keyes see it: The GOP thinks --

mainly about how to get and keep political power. What made Ronald Reagan the man he was had more to do with thinking about how to get and keep the moral fiber and liberty of the American people, the strength of our Constitution and the vitality of our private enterprise approach to economic life. He articulated this thinking even when politicians like Jeb Bush's father ridiculed him as a right-wing extremist, doomed to political failure and irrelevance. Reagan had true political conviction. In this respect he resembled the committed leftists of the Obama faction. Unlike Obama, however, he didn't lie about his convictions, but spoke them with courage and clarity despite efforts by his opposition to ridicule and marginalize them.

But what gave Reagan his strength? He practiced a politics of conviction. Keyes writes:

His conviction was true in the sense that he truly believed what he said, but it was also true in the more profound and important sense that it truly reflected the ideas and principles upon which the American republic is founded. He was a republican by purpose and conviction, not just by party label. His positions aimed to strengthen the republic, not just his own chances of victory at the polls. When anti-communism passed out of style in the late 1960s and '70s, he continued to sound the call to battle against its destruction of human liberty. He cared more about preserving the freedom and sovereignty of the American people than about winning their momentary applause with popular positions that endangered both. Unlike the Rockefeller/Bush Republicans, he was never intimidated by the leftist's phony posture of moral superiority. He never gave in to the temptation to oppose them for political purposes by offering a better-managed version of their government-dominated, elitist utopia.  

Is there an alternative to the "docile" acceptance of Obamaism? Keyes concludes:

As I listen to the Republican politicians who seem willing docilely to accept that future (as they are docilely accepting Obama's usurpations and extremist appointments), I learn to expect no good from them. This leads me to the certainty that the only hope for America lies in the leadership of the people themselves. But who among them remembers what that means? Things like the tea party events, the 912 project and http://aipnews.com suggest that there are some, but can they be brought together to see and fulfill their true vocation soon enough? One first step must be to turn decisively away from the [no longer] Republican distraction.

Related:
Mark Levin: Obama Vision of "Change" Is Destructive
Alan Keyes: Beyond the Steele-Specter Fiasco

In reality, No. In the liberal imagination, Yes.

Bruce Walker explains all in "The Notional Dangers of the Fictional Far Right," at American Thinker.

"The Rev. Katherine Ragsdale will soon become the first female president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts," writes Mark Tooley at American Spectator.  

In addition to a sermon in which the "openly lesbian" (what bravery!) Ms. Ragsdale exclaimed the "blessing" derived from one class of humanity being able to destroy another class of humanity, she has on occasion "boasted" before the congressional gods of the Federal Empire "of chauffeuring a 15-year-old girl to get an abortion and vowed to do so again, no matter the law, because the 'vows' of her ordination supposedly require it," says Tooley.

PR is key when advocating such inhumanity out of accord with real Christianity and the American founding. "However provocative Ragdale's pronouncements often are," Tooley writes, "she is in demeanor calm and polished and seemingly disciplined."

In short: No sudden moves, "seemingly." Unless, you're a "doctor" at work in an aborcentration center on a mission from god. That's where Ms. Ragsdale's "blessings" are "safe, rare, and legal" -- unless you happen to be on the wrong end of the safety. "No sudden moves" is absolutey vital here: Baring teeth too soon, or in public, may scare the horses.  

"New concerns are being aired about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the front-runners for the U.S. Supreme Court seat held by retiring Justice David H. Souter, and Exhibit A is likely to be a 2005 speech she made at Duke University," writes Debra Weiss at the ABA Journal.

More from Weiss:

In the taped speech, Sotomayor said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made." [emphasis added] Sotomayor then tried to backtrack, saying, "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know. Um, okay. I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it."

Here is video of Sotomayor's comments in favor of legal activism, her attempts to put the activist toothpaste back into the judicial toothpaste tube notwithstanding.

This episode confirms what fair-minded observers have long noted: Secularists and statists rely on courts to create law and impose private, subjective political agendas that contradict the Founding documents and the Founding vision of United States. It's a disaster.

The extremist and authoritarian views Sotomayor advances are a direct assault on the American experiment in liberty.

It should be clear that no president who respects our constitutional system of checks and balances, who respects the separation of powers, should even entertain the possible nomination of such a misguided -- and misguiding -- person for nomination to the High Court.

You can try to sugar-coat this, especially if a judge happens to "empathize" with your particular passion or your group's political passion currently before the court.

But judicial activism is: Legal Tyranny.

It's an offense to any freedom-minded person -- and not just to "conservatives," by the way, as the Weiss article might be read to suggest. And if judicial activism is what Sotomayor currently practices in her court, she's a tryant, not a judge.

Let Sonia Sotomayor withdraw her name from consideration for the High Court. If she wants to make law, the field is wide open: Run for office. If Obama can't wait for the American people to vet her and he wants the judge to make policy now, put her in the White House.

But not on the Court. Please, do you mind? Keep your tyranny off our Constitution.

On Radio America, former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said:

You have to admit, he is a cult leader and the cult will go with him anywhere he wants to go.

You just don't know about the size of the cult, how big it is, if it's shrinking or growing, but he is a cult leader and you have to realize that he's not just a political figure, he is truly a cult leader.

Much of politics today is divorced from a careful consideration of fact, logic, constitutional limits on power, and liberty as defined by the American founding. That we are left much of the time with recourse to cults of personality, hyped agendas, ideological passions, and raw power is hardly surprising. Or welcome.

As the American founders understood, a free-thinking people living in community with our true Creator will throw off this undignified nose-pulling that struts the world as some kind of "cool."

To understand how radically antithetical to the Founding Vision is the "change" program of Barack Obama is to understand that he can accomplish his goals only by destroying the Founders' Vision and the republic of liberty to which that vision gave birth.

In light of this stark, real-world, and philosophical antithesis, one can even say: To the degree that people such as Obama are self-consciously aware of their vision and program, to that degree they knowingly seek to destroy the republic bequeathed by the Founders of the American experiment to the children of liberty. View the news, events, and trends of the day from this perspecctive and much that seems chaotic or happenstance becomes all too clear.

He who would "transform" much first destroy. Crises, manufactured or otherwise, have their uses.

As Liberty and Tyranny author Mark Levin points out in a terrific interview with Terry Jeffrey of CNSNews.com, Republicans are very much part of the problem. For they had before them in Ronald Reagan an example (not perfect, but a substantial improvement) of how to win elections rooted in Declaration and constitutional principles. From there, the GOP could have built, but Republicans turned away instead.

As I told Terry Jeffrey while we were working together at Human Events, the GOP decided it would rather lose without Reagan than win with Reagan, revealing a profound and ongoing weakness in the intellectual and cultural intregity of the GOP. This particular moment of turning away -- beginning immediately with Bush the Elder, and then many moments and missed opportunities since then -- revealed that the GOP shares too many political presuppositions with the Democratic Party to be a principled, articulate, and winning voice of freedom for the people. In debilitating contrast to the Founders, the Democratic Party and elements within the GOP despise the concept and reality of applying information from the Creator across the ordinary affairs of life, including political life.

But as Levin points out, all is not lost, not by any means. As it has always been and always will be, it is up to ordinary Americans to reaquaint ourselves, our families, and our communities with the "DNA" of liberty -- that is, with those founding and humane principles expressed in the concept of a free society lived in community with our true Creator. This living, verifiable, and knowable Creator -- and not any human creation or political state -- is the giver and only adequate basis of unalienable rights and therefore is the ultimate check and balance over state tyranny, including the current runaway federal state occupying the land and headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Here is Mark Levin's interview with Terry Jeffrey.

Related:
Limbaugh vs. Obama
Secularist Washington-Centrism Is Un-American
O'Reilly, Letterman, and the Culture War

Jerry Doyle writes at Human Events:

It is dangerous in this day and age to use the word “fascism” lightly. Liberals sling around the term “fascism” without regard to its meeting -- for the left, “fascism” applies to everything from religious social perspectives to conservative tax cut prescriptions. But economic fascism has a precise, defined meaning. And Barack Obama’s economic policy fulfills that meaning in every conceivable way.

Economic fascism can be defined as government control over the four P’s: Product, Price, Profit Margin, and People. When the government controls the product created by the market, when it controls the price structure for product and company securities, when it controls how much profit particular companies can make, and when it controls the people who are hired and fired, economic freedom has been banished, and economic fascism reigns supreme.

And economic fascism reigns supreme in Barack Obama’s America. Just look at the recent government handling of Chrysler. In a series of press conferences this week announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy, Obama hit on all of the four P’s.

More on Can Obama Be Called an Economic Fascist?

Related:
Fascism Watch: Village Voice and Pro-Existence
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini
National Obama Socialism
Regarding "Change" -- Liberals Drink Deeply From Fascist Well
Fascism Is Back
The Evil Religious Presidents Do

Justice David Souter's decision to step down from the Supreme Court is an opportune time to ask basic questions that go to the heart of freedom in America: Does Barack Obama understand law and respect the Constitution? Answer: No.

Thomas Sowell writes:

That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.  

More from Thomas Sowell on "Empathy" vs. Rule of Law . . .

Related:
Obama Court Frontrunner Believes Constitution Grows "With the Times"
Obama, Souter, and the Problem of Tyranny
Obamalini's Coup D'etat

"The alliance between politicians, their supporters with agendas, and the news media is an unholy union," writes Michael J. Economides at American Thinker.

"Hysteria and alarmism in the news is a business-driven matrimony and, in spite of proclamations of safeguarding the public's right to know, it has little to do with knowing the truth."

More on "Hyping Hysteria" . . .

Related:
Corrupt, Slobbering Media Still in Love
Last Straw: Statist Media Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
Anderson Cooper and the Crisis of Journalism

It seems that accurately locating the affirmations of Miss California Carrie Prejean at the philosophic center of the American experiment in liberty was a bit much for Jim Galloway at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Over the top," said Galloway.

Galloway describes himself as a "writer and editor with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for 30 years," and he writes a blog called "Political Insider." He was responding to a column in RedState titled Beauty and the Beast: The Reactionary Extremism of Perez Hilton, also published at Pro-Existence, here. 

Note also this strange comment from a fellow who thinks I'm a "foreigner" who "would do well to draw from the actual well of Our Founders’ writing." He suggests I leave the country. 

Well, I think I've done well by the commenter and perhaps even Mr. Galloway. As a Christian, Miss Prejean affirms the existence of a Creator, as does the Declaration of Independence, which expresses the basic worldview and mission statement of the Founders of the United States. Both positions relate the Creator to questions of public life, including government and politics.

Miss California, therefore, is operating within the same philosophic universe as that shared by our Founders. She occupies the middle ground, the "center," as it were.

Those such as Perez Hilton who reject the application of verifiable information from the Creator to public life, including politics, operate in a totally different philosophic universe. In both outbursts and outlook, they are the extremists. 

With the retirement of David Souter from the U.S. Supreme Court, Barack Obama has an opportunity to begin stacking the Court with his kind of people. Unfortunately, these are likely to be activists who agree to impose private, intellectually suspect, arbitrary, and unconstitutional visions of social activism disguised as law.

Though shocking, this usurpation of juridical power should not surprise. As Jan LaRue notes in American Thinker, Obama already indicated his disdain for law in his book Audacity of Hope, where "Obama affirmed his belief that the Constitution 'is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.'"

Even if well-intentioned, what Obama offers is a sugar-coated attack on the concept of checks and balances and the division of powers, which are vital to maintaining human freedom in a world of imperfect people who seek and all too easily abuse government power. As history has shown, even the outwardly "nicest" guys in office can do horrible things to other people. Constitutional limitations on power are a good thing that wise people accept but that tyrants seek to circumvent.      

Despite the smiling language of Obama, what is really at work here is not a "living document" but a living tyranny. It is a statist "liberal" tyranny that emanates from a secular empire on the banks of the Potomac. It operates on the basis of a worldview utterly alien to the Mission Statement of America, as set forth by the Founding Fathers. 

In contrast to closed-down secular activists, Americans who understand America respect the fact that our Creator has endowed every human being with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We respect law and the rule of law, including the Supreme Court, not because an oppressive regime points a gun at us, but because we live in community with a Supreme Lawgiver ("nature's God") whose moral and transcendent character gives a basis for law that protects the little guy from relativistic tyranny, judicial activism, and oppressive Washingtonians.   

The way of the Creator is freedom and dignity under law, the way of judicial activism is enslavement and humiliation under tyranny. 

In the aftermath of Sen. Arlen Specter's switch from Republican to Democrat, here's the real lesson, as Alan Keyes sees it:

Arlen Specter has ended the charade of his association with the Republicans in a way that highlights the long charade of the GOP's association with conservative views and principles. Specter and the Steele Republicans have one thing in common -- their passion for power.

What if conservatives were as single-minded in their devotion to the Constitution and the moral principles that underlie America's liberty, strength and prosperity? I suspect that if conservatives ceased to hang their hopes on the false promises of a party obsessed with pleasing its opposite number, they would finally realize their true strength at the polls. . . . 

I attended several "tea party" events last month. Apart from the large turnouts, I noticed that the prevalent concern among the crowds wasn't with partisan victory, or even with their own economic situation. It was concern about the survival of the American Constitution and American liberty. Millions of Americans realize that socialist economics, pervasive government control and rampant greed and self-indulgence are inconsistent with our survival as a free people. . . .

Some conservatives think they can fix the Republican Party. However, the events of the past 20 years suggest that they are more likely to be manipulated by unprincipled Republican power addicts just looking for their next fix. . . .

Just as grass-roots Americans came together for the tea party events, we must now work together to create an ongoing vehicle for citizen action that puts the people back in charge of this nation's political affairs.

We must resolve to be the creators of representation whose only ambition is to serve and preserve American liberty. By so doing we will renew the effective foundations of the government of, by and for the people that we are duty bound to pass on to our offspring.

The intellectual and practical basis for freedom and dignity across the whole of life is laid out for us in the Declaration, the U.S. Constitution, the Founders' Vision, and the verifiable information we have from our true Creator in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

The Democatic Party is single-mindedly in the grip of a secularism that rejects the Founding Vision. And the Republicans -- not all of them, but generally as a party -- seem also to reject that Founding Vision but live with a guilty conscience that has a memory of the way things, including poltical and governmental things, ought to be. We may not have time to wait for these folks to shape up.

Whether inside or outside current political vehicles, the way forward is that of progress based on a clearly articulated and agreed-upon vision rooted in that Founding mission statement as set forth in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Founding Vision, and then the information we have from the Creator. That's the DNA of American Exceptionalism.

What is needed at this critical moment in history? A cultural movement combined with a political vehicle of authentic public servants willing to pledge their sacred honor in the articulate advance of freedom and dignity over against an increasingly inhumane Washington-centric tyranny.

The DNA is there. But freedom is not self-actualizing. It's up to human beings, empowered and then endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights," to act, to organize, to work, to pray, as whole and loving and liberated people, across the whole of life. The field is there. It's time to plow.