President Bobblehead

By Alan Caruba

As President Obama’s head moved robotically from left to right and back again while his eyes followed the scroll of text on the teleprompters, I began to think about this ever-present factor for all his speeches and why this man is president at all.

It’s not that he isn’t in a world of trouble two-and-a-half years into his first and mercifully last term in office. All presidents “inherit” a variety of problems from their predecessor, but not all presidents—none in fact—spend all their time blaming their predecessor. If there are problems, the presumption is that they were elected on their promises to solve them.

Ronald Reagan asked “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The voters said no and he served two memorable terms. The nation is now immeasurably worse off than just two-and-a-half years after Obama’s election.

Obama has exacerbated the problems he encountered that first day in the Oval Office and added several horrors, not the least of which is called Obamacare.

Behind the avalanche of words regarding Barack Obama is the central issue of whether he should be president. Anyone else would have been impeached by now. The news media of the 1970s that revealed the corruption of the Watergate scandal, with notable exceptions, now remain silent on this issue.

On July 22, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, writing in The Washington Times, bluntly said “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors…Mr. Obama should be impeached” and was met by wall-to-wall indifference. It wasn’t even a topic for the cable news 24/7 chattering class.

Earlier this year, after reading Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, I opined that Obama would likely be forced to resign based on the weight of evidence that he was not only ineligible to hold the office under the terms set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but that there was ample evidence that even the Social Security number he was using was fraudulent.

That’s how naïve I am, but I should have realized that the U.S. court system has systematically dismissed cases brought to expose his ineligibility, mostly on the basis that the complainant had no “standing” to do so. If a citizen, operating under the same Constitution as the President has no standing, who does?

Most certainly the Obama administration’s Department of Justice would not take any action. If it prefers to sue the State of Arizona for trying to defend its own border with Mexico, and wouldn’t prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped trying to intimidate white voters, the likelihood of the DOJ doing anything involving a constitutionally ineligible President is slim to none.

Corsi’s book, 392 pages of fact-piled-on-fact, begins by asserting that “no legal authority has ever verified Barack Obama’s legal eligibility to be president, that glaring inconsistencies and blackouts in his life narrative has caused widespread doubts among the American populace, and that, in fact, a compelling body of evidence exists that Obama is not a natural-born citizen as is required of all presidents by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.”

“No usurper of the office of the president of the United States can be tolerated if the Constitution is to have enduring authority,” said Corsi.

“The test in the upcoming presidential election of 2012,” said Corsi, “is whether or not President Obama will get a second pass on having to present his eligibility credentials to the American public.” Most certainly the birth certificates he has offered thus far either do not meet that test or are complete forgeries.

There is no greater peril to the nation than to have its guiding legal instrument casually ignored. This is written prior to the Republic candidate’s Iowa debate on Fox News Channel, but I would bet the subject of Obama’s ineligibility and usurpation of the office of the presidency will not be mentioned.

© Alan Caruba 2011

More about → President Bobblehead

Flash Mobs: Being Young, Black, and Male in America Today

By Alan Caruba

Those who follow my commentaries know that I rarely discuss race in America. I find it an unhappy topic at best and, from my readings in U.S. history, I feel safe in saying there was never a good time to be Black in America.

Slavery before, during and after the American Revolution was a stain on the nation and, though some were slave owners, the Founding Fathers knew it. To get the new Constitution ratified among the thirteen States, they had to trim their sails to the point where Article One, Section Two refers to “those bound to service” and, for the purpose of taxation of “free persons”, the slaves were counted as “three fifths of all other Persons.” Ugh.

It would, of course, take a Civil War to end slavery, though Lincoln’s preferred solution was to put the slaves on a ship back to Africa. That was not likely because by 1861 when the war began, there were 3,954,000 slaves, the majority of whom lived on plantations where, from Virginia to Texas, they often outnumbered whites by 13 to 1.

My awareness of Blacks was limited in my youth, growing up in an upscale New Jersey suburban community where they were quite scarce. You could count the number of Black students in my high school on one hand. When I was drafted in the Army most of my service in the early 1960s was on a base in the Deep South. It gave me a close up view of segregation. When I was discharged, I became a journalist on a weekly serving a small New Jersey city neighboring Newark. I was there when the city’s first Black mayor was elected.

It was the time of the Civil Rights movement, filled with marches and tumult. I met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1967 Newark erupted in rioting, the result of poverty, and of sense of being powerless and disenfranchised. The Italians who had run the city gave way to Black politicians and, five decades later, they still are in charge, but the social problems remain.

If anyone would have told me that America would elect a Black President, I would have said that was impossible. I was wrong and so were the many Blacks who rejoiced in the election of Barack Obama, confident that he would take the lead, representing them, paying particular attention to their issues. Obama proved to be more concerned with Islam.

I got to thinking about that when several commentators, referring to how he would be remembered, said that Obama would no longer be remembered as the first Black President, but rather as the first Downgrade President. When he addressed the nation on August 8, his cool detachment seemed alarmingly at odds with the tumult on Wall Street and around the world that had been triggered by Standard & Poor’s decision.

How do Blacks perceive Obama, I wondered.

A friend, Milton, a retired Black corporate executive, attorney, business owner who edits and writes for BlackQuillandInk.com, a website for Black conservatives, responded to my question noting that Black support for Obama’s candidacy was about 98%, but has slipped since to around 86%.

It was his view that the Blacks “have been poisoned to dislike non-Blacks” and to see themselves “as victims.” I understand the victim part, but was surprised by his observation regarding the animosity, if only because White America has gone to fairly extraordinary lengths to redress the ills of the past.

As America’s most famous minority, Blacks are now outnumbered by Hispanics and are being by-passed by virtually all other minority in America in terms of achievement and upward mobility. The chains may have been removed, but, as the syndicated columnist. Walter E. Williams, noted in July 2010, “The pathology seen among a large segment of the Black population is not likely to change because it is not seen for what it is. It has little to do with slavery, poverty and racial discrimination.”

“Today’s black illegitimacy rate is about 70%,” said Williams. “When I was a youngster, during the 1940s, illegitimacy was around 15%...Today, only 35% of black children are raised in two-parent households.”

And it gets worse. In an August 2010 Washington Post article by columnist George Will, he wrote that “By the early 2000s, more than a third of all young black non-college men were under the supervision of the corrections system. More than 60% of black high school dropouts born since the mid-1960s go to prison. Mass incarceration blights the prospects of black women.”

In recent weeks, from the Wisconsin State Fair to Philadelphia, from Milwaukee to Los Angeles, reports of flash mobs of young Blacks attacking whites are stirring racial fears. The most dangerous factor in Black cities and neighborhoods are the hordes of young males, raised by one parent, dropouts from school, no skills, no jobs, no prospects, and lots of angry energy that is too often diverted into crime and violence.

Barack Obama’s economic policies have failed the nation, but they have been especially adverse on Blacks. Black unemployment and foreclosures, for example, have skyrocketed under Obama and remain disproportionately high as compared to other communities. In short, Obama has done nothing for Blacks in America either on the macro and micro level to improve their opportunities or attitudes.

He has nothing in common with them; a half-white Columbia University graduate and Harvard educated lawyer, former instructor at the University of Chicago, married to a Princeton and Harvard graduate, herself an attorney. They have two girls that go to private school and their inner circle of friends, Black and white, are dedicated Marxists.

The editor of BlackQuillandInk.com says. “The Black community refuses to admit how wrong they were in voting for Obama.”

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → Flash Mobs: Being Young, Black, and Male in America Today

A Balanced Budget Amendment is No Panacea

By Alan Caruba

As this is being written, early Sunday evening, the House has passed Speaker Boehner’s legislation, rejected on arrival in the Senate, and the Senate has rejected Majority Leader Harry Reid’s!

While the details of how much spending is to be cut are being negotiated, the sticking point is the insistence by some on a “balanced budget” amendment to the Constitution and that is likely the cause of this pathetic spectacle.

J. R. Kearl is a professor of economics in Provo, Utah. He has good academic credentials and, more importantly, he possesses a fair amount of common sense. In a July 19 opinion that appeared in the Deseret News, Prof. Kearl warned that “the balanced budget amendment now being touted by proponents is silent on distinctions between operating and capital expenditures, silent on distinctions between on-budget and off-budget expenditures, and silent on mandated expenditures.”

Those of us who lack degrees in economics may not be familiar with these terms, but they are crucial to how states—even those with balanced budget requirements—conduct the business of governance.

“Many states and local government have balanced budget laws, but they apply only to ‘operating expenditures’ and not ‘capital expenditures’ used to fund, for example, infrastructure and buildings,” wrote Prof. Kearl. “A balanced budget amendment that does not make this distinction rules out this option at the federal level.”

To write such an amendment would require language nearly as long as whole sections of the Constitution. It is impractical and unwise, particularly in the event of a war. It is not needed.

What the U.S. needs is a realistic budget that constrains the way its seemingly endless departments and agencies throw public funds at politically-driven pet projects, the “earmarks” we have heard so much about, and the conduct of functions that would work better if privatized.

As the Constitution defines this, it is “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…” Towards this end, the Constitution empowers the Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes” among a number of enumerated duties of the federal government; read Article I, Section 8.

The United States does not need a balanced budget amendment. It needs to stop borrowing and spending money in stupid, wasteful ways. An amendment would only encourage a future Congress to create all manner of agencies and means to get around it and you can be very sure it would.

“In short,” says Prof. Kearl, “it is at best poorly written and incomplete, and at worst naïve and ill conceived.”

If a balanced budget amendment is the issue that is keeping the two houses of Congress from coming to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, it is a very bad idea that ignores the nation’s obligation to pay its bills.

Cutting spending is the real issue facing a Congress so divided in ideology that even getting an agreement on that will be a major achievement. It is unrealistic to suddenly decide the nation should not borrow what it needs to meet its obligations. All nations borrow all the time.

There would have been no America if the Continental Congress had not borrowed from France to conduct the Revolution.

And this is hardly the first financial crisis in the history of the United States. We have been through a lot of them and, to our credit, have striven mightily to regulate our banks and other financial institutions that have too often failed us.

The present crisis reflects the way that, from 2000 on, we have been poorly served by those regulatory agencies and even by the ratings organizations, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, who sanctioned all manner of hocus-pocus financial instruments.

We are in this mess because both the federal government and individual Americans went on a borrowing and spending binge over the past ten years or so believing that the value of housing in America would always increase.

As they say in New Orleans, laissez le bon temps roulez, let the good times roll. Well, the good times are over until we get our house in order. To do that, the federal government will need to borrow enough to pay its bills.

After that, we need to elect legislators like Paul Ryan and others who will take a chain saw to the present federal government to reduce its size and its role in the economic life of the nation.

Too many feckless decisions have been made for too long by people who frequently came from or benefited from the very source of the problems we have. There are many entities to blame, but let’s get beyond the blame game long enough to pay our bills.

Capitalism is messy and risky, but it is still the best economic system ever devised. Diluting it with a lot of “social justice” programs as the U.S. has been doing since the Great Depression of the 1930s, has brought us to this point.

The least we can expect from Congress is to act swiftly and pragmatically at this point. Those calling each other schoolyard names should not be invited back to govern.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → A Balanced Budget Amendment is No Panacea

There is No First Amendment Without a Second Amendment

By Alan Caruba

When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

Wherever authoritarian regimes were established in the last century, they took away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the state.

At this point in American history, the Obama administration constitutes a threat to the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

More than 80,000,000 Americans are gun owners.

Two of the organizations that have been fighting to protect these rights are the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), both led by Alan M. Gottlieb. Three quarters of the SAF budget is devoted to defending rights pertaining to the ownership of guns and to carry them for self-defense.

In March, the Huffington Post had an article titled “Obama Looking for Ways Around Congress on Gun Policy” by Sam Stein. “Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials, say.”

Since then we have learned of a U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms program, Fast and Furious, that actually facilitated the sale and transfer of guns to Mexico. How demented is that?

In May in my home state of New Jersey the SAF won a decision against officials for the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law when they had ruled that an applicant for a concealed carry permit had not demonstrated a “justifiable need” for it. In point of fact, the applicant, Philip Muller, had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who threatened to kill him. They had, however, grabbed the wrong man.

Despite support by local and state police, action on his application was delayed for six months. Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson issued a directive that a permit should be granted. The case is still on-going with other plaintiffs that include a part-time sheriff’s deputy, an applicant who carries large amounts of cash in his private business, and a civilian employee of the FBI with legitimate concerns of an attack from a radical Islamic group.

Currently nearly thirty such cases have either been brought or joined by SAF to stop abuses of this most fundamental right of American citizens ranging from bans on interstate handgun sales, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s imposition of a $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in one’s home, and a Chicago ban on gun ranges open to the public. These cases cost between $60,000 and $80,000 each!

The greatest single threat to gun ownership right now is a United Nations “Small Arms Treaty” falsely identified as an “international arms control treaty” allegedly to fight terrorism.”

“In reality,” says Gottlieb, it is “a massive, global gun control scheme. It’s a sham. It’s a fraud.” If the U.S., under the Obama administration and with the consent of the Senate, were to sign on to this treaty, it would nullify the Second Amendment.

Suffice to say that the Obama administration wants to have the power to increase federal fees on guns and ammunition, to ban guns that are imported, to extend the waiting periods for permits, to ban the use of guns on all government property, and even to make it illegal if you own a gun and smoke!

Americans do not have to “justify” gun ownership. It is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The reality is that enemies of this fundamental rights continue to wage an assault on it.

For information about SAF visit http://www.saf.org/ and CCRKBA at http://www.ccrkba.org/.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → There is No First Amendment Without a Second Amendment

Obama will Resign and for Good Reason

By Alan Caruba

I always thought it was creepy the way Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly referred to the likelihood of his being a one-term President. It is as if he knew, even as he campaigned in 2008, that all the loose ends and unanswered questions about his life would eventually disqualify him.

It is now widely acknowledged that the mainstream media ran interference for him, ignoring or disparaging those who questioned his eligibility. After two and a half years in office, however, his arrogance and incompetence is so manifest that even they can no longer cover for him.

Obama has single handedly generated a mass political movement called the Tea Party and election results for governors and members of Congress have put opposition candidates into office.

On March 31, 1968, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection, responding to the massive opposition to the war in Vietnam. On August 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon announced his resignation in the wake of the Watergate scandal to avoid impeachment.

I predict that Barack Hussein Obama will resign before the end of his first term. He may well do so prior to the September 2012 Democratic Party convention.

Obama was never eligible to run for the office. In his book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President”, Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, Phd, devotes 387 pages, complete with appendices and endnotes, to irrefutably make that case.

Anyone who reads Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution, however, can make that case in less than a minute. Only a “natural born” individual whose both parents were American citizens can be President. Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya. There is no dispute regarding what the Founders meant when they said “natural born.” Further clouding Obama’s eligibility is the time he spent in his youth in Indonesia as the adopted son of that nation’s nationality.

Corsi’s book explores all the other mysteries including a highly suspicious Social Security number, passports, and other documentation that any candidate for office would normally submit to public disclosure. A massive cover up that includes the national press corps, the Democratic Party, Congress and even the U.S. courts, permitted Obama to gain and hold the office.

Indeed, Corsi’s book is not the first to reveal the deceptions. At least three other books have meticulously examined the issue. They include “The Manchurian President” by Aaron Klein with Brenda J. Elliot, “The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency” by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, and “The Post-American Presidency” by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer.

Corsi, however, has the benefit of timing. As the nation enters the period following Obama’s announcement he is running for reelection and during the process of selecting a Republican opponent, the issue of his eligibility is gathering momentum.

The polling data is all against him. The failure of his policies, combined with the massive increase in the national debt, rising unemployment, the implosion of the housing market, and a growing perception of incompetence, are coalescing to give weight to the demand that he end his candidacy or resign.

“History has not been kind to U.S. Presidents that have attempted to hide behind a lie,” says Corsi.

When republics begin to ignore their founding documents, they are literally committing suicide and, in Obama’s case, it is an assisted suicide.

The recognized definition of a “natural born citizen”, a requirement to be President, does not require much more than common sense. In a May article published by Canada Free Press, Lawrence B. Solum, the John E. Cribbett Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, is quoted as having written in September 2008, “Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”

Ironically, in 2008, his political opponent, Sen. John McCain, whose both parents were Americans when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, was the subject of a Senate Resolution confirming his eligibility to run. The then-Democrat controlled Senate took up no such action regarding Obama. If they had, they would have had to hold a convention to pick a new candidate!

Lawrence Sellin, the author of the Canada Free Press article cited above, warned “Whether through cowardice or arrogance, both Republican and Democrats fail to appreciate the fact that ordinary Americans are reaching a tipping point. Imagine a Tea Party on steroids.”

“If the Constitutional crisis is not soon addressed, the present political polarization will inevitably lead to political fragmentation. Erosion of the Constitution will inevitably lead to the collapse of the rule of law.”

There is no documentation to support the myths about his life that Obama has carefully devised. Indeed, the President has reportedly spent millions to deny public access to his birth certificate and all other records.

If he resigns, he may be able to assert the legitimacy of every piece of legislation, every executive order, signed into law, but if he is found to have been ineligible, every one of them would become null and void.

The nation can be put right again as a Constitutional Republic. Obama has led an unlawful regime. America has been drunk on socialism since the 1930s. It’s time to sober up.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → Obama will Resign and for Good Reason

A Whiff of Secession and Nullification

By Alan Caruba

In May Rasmussen Reports took a survey of a thousand adults asking if they believed that States have the right to secede. “One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country, although a majority doesn’t believe it will actually happen.”

That a Tea Party movement sprang to life in the midst of the protests against Obamacare and then was instrumental in transferring political power in the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cannot be dismissed. People—lots of them—are increasingly wary of the central government, particularly one that has burdened them with more debt in the last three years than in the entire prior history of the nation.

In October, Pelican Publishing Company will publish “Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century” in which a number of scholars edited by Donald Livingston, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, examine the implications of secession, possibly by regional groupings of States, from the present federal government.

Prof. Livingston is a political philosopher and scholar, the author of two books on the British philosopher David Hume and may well be one of a handful of people who have given serious thought to the question of whether the present Union has either outlived its usefulness or, worse, become a sinkhole of power aggregating to itself total control over the States.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that “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.”

That is true, but I doubt there is a single Governor of any of the fifty States who cannot enumerate the ways the federal government has wrested power from them while imposing costs. When Arizona finds itself the object of a federal legal suit to prevent it from trying to control its border with Mexico, you know there’s a problem.

In an article, “Decentralization for Freedom”, by Prof. Livingston, he raises some issues that are increasingly troubling to a growing number of Americans. He addresses the measures States can take “to protect their citizens from usurpations by the central government.” Among these are the passing of resolutions. “A continuous flood of resolutions from the States about the constitutionality of this or that issue (and widely publicized) would serve to educate the public.”

Thereafter, Prof. Livingston recommends a resort to the Tenth Amendment by State legislators and governors in order to recover usurped authority. We are beginning to see another measure, the refusal to accept federal funding as regards its centralized control of education.

Resistance to Obamacare is based on the question whether the federal government can require individual citizens to purchase something they do not want. The House has passed a measure to repeal it, but it is stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Reverse the situation and you have a federal government telling Americans what they cannot buy, as in the case of the 100 watt incandescent light bulb in use since the days of Thomas Edison.

“Genuine federalism in America can be recovered only by political action in the name of the State’s own authority and not by Supreme Court legalism,” says Prof. Livingston.

“To all of this it is often said that State interposition, nullification, and succession were eliminated as policy options by the Civil War. Brute force, however, cannot settle moral and constitutional question.” While Lincoln did “save the Union”, he did so at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and the destruction of the South.

Clearly the central government has grown so large, so unwieldy, so wasteful, and so unresponsive to the problems and costs it has imposed that people are beginning to wonder why 435 Representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate should control the lives, the economy, and the education of more than 300 million people in fifty sovereign States.

The President virtually makes law with “executive orders” and the nine members of the Supreme Court exercises final authority of the constitutionality of laws. Congress is so divided by raw partisanship it is barely functioning.

“The only remedy,” says Prof. Livingston “is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units.”

“The current central government of the United States hates inequality, but it also fears the people,” says Prof. Livingston, noting that “There is no law an American State can pass that cannot be overturned by the arrogant social engineers of the Supreme Court who in the last fifty years have played with the inherited moral traditions and federative policy of the American people like a quack with a hapless patient.”

“Constitutionally, this means that the States must reassert their sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and recall those powers they have allowed to slip out of their hands to the central government.”

This is not a call for anarchy. It is the realization that the modern presidency has aggregated to itself powers it does not have or, in the case of Libya, is ignoring the War Powers Act that limits its ability to engage the nation in conflicts Congress does not ultimately authorize.

It is the realization that every United Nations treaty the United States signs deprives it of its sovereign rights.

It is a call for consideration that regional groups of States with common interests might provide better government within such groups, leaving to the central government the responsibility to protect the nation via a common military, conduct foreign affairs, and return to the gold standard that would protect the value of a common currency.

When one-in-five Americans give credence to the right of secession, it is clear that the problems being experienced in all fifty States, the massive regulation of all activities within those States, the imposition of a centralized “core” curriculum to be taught in all schools, is arousing a rediscovered sense of liberty among Americans.

What steps must be taken to retain that liberty and even to restructure the Union are as yet undetermined, but they are increasingly entering the public debate.

There is no debate that something is terribly wrong when a president is elected whose eligibility and legitimacy is in serious question while the courts do nothing to address this critical constitutional issue and the Congress does nothing while sending bills for his signature.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → A Whiff of Secession and Nullification

The Civil War Began 150 Years Ago - April 12, 1861

By Alan Caruba

The American Civil War began one hundred and fifty years ago on April 12, 1861.

Historians will tell you that the South never had a chance of winning it. Theirs was an agrarian society, heavily dependent on millions of slaves. How many millions? An 1860 census found that slaves constituted 13% of the population, numbering 3,950,528, most of whom were in the South.

Even the Founding Fathers knew that slavery was an issue that would one day create a terrible problem, but their priority was to come up with a Constitution that would rectify the problems that the Articles of Confederation posed.

Perhaps at no other time in the nation’s history did it have such an astonishing collection of brilliance gathered in one place. They needed the Southern States to secure ratification so the problem of slavery was pushed off to the future.

Depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you’re on, you will still get a dispute over why the Civil War was fought. The South says it was about state’s rights and, indeed, had expectations that they could secede lawfully. The North said it was about the issue of slavery and most agree it was.

Lincoln’s first inaugural speech on March 4, 1861 began with an assertion rarely noted.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln ended, saying, “I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

On April 12, 1861, Confederate Brig. General, P.G.T. Beauregard, an expert artilleryman, graduate of West Point, laid siege to Fort Sumpter in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., where federal troops had been withdrawn in anticipation of war.

The War of Independence that had concluded after eight years in 1783 had cost about 25,000 lives. The Revolution was still relatively fresh in the minds of Americans in that era. Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had both died on July 4, 1826,

The Constitution went into force in 1788. The Civil War began 73 years later. It is regarded as the first “modern” war for its use of locomotives, the telegraph, and the development of new weapons.

It was surely the first modern war in terms of its casualties. Between 1861 and 1865, they totaled 618,222. The slaughter in some battles was so vast one could walk across a field of battle on the bodies of the dead. The Civil War battle in The Wilderness killed 17,666, Spotsylvania killed 10,920, and Petersburg cost 16,569. Total battle deaths for the Union, including disease, numbered 360,222. For the South, it was 258,000.

By contrast, U.S. casualties in World War Two, 1941 to1945, numbered 407,316. The toll of the Iraq conflict, 2003-2011, was 4,430. Afghanistan has cost 4,430 lives.

It is not until one grapples with such numbers can one understand the price paid to keep the Union intact. Three Presidents played key roles. James Buchanan did little to avert the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln pursued it for the entirety of his two terms, the latter cut short by assassination. Andrew Johnson allowed Reconstruction to fall into corruption and resentment. It matters who is President.

It took another century into the 1960s for blacks in America to finally secure their civil rights. In that decade, Americans endured riots in their cities and the loss of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. along with a number of generally forgotten martyrs.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Civil War was the belief on both sides that it would be over quickly. All people in all times want wars to be short, but they rarely are. Their aftermath can last a very long time. A Cold War followed the end of World War Two and lasted for nearly a half century.

Within and beyond nation’s borders, wars have raged somewhere since what we call civilization began around 5,000 years ago. They have various causes for good or ill. They are, however, the way nations have settled their differences.

Anti-war protesters and those who disrespect our Armed Forces will never understand this, but they owe a debt called liberty to those who do.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

More about → The Civil War Began 150 Years Ago - April 12, 1861

Nullification in 2011!

By Alan Caruba

The great issue of our times is the same great issue of the 1830s. The question is whether Congress can pass legislation or the President issue executive orders that are not authorized by or consistent with the Constitution?

The federal government is a republic composed of separate and sovereign republics.

What recourse do the States have individually and in combination when the central government acts in a fashion that is contrary to the limits and enumerated powers of the Constitution?

The answer, other than an appeal to the courts, is nullification. This term is defined as the assertion that States can and should refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

This is no trifling matter.

In the past two years since the advent of the Obama administration, the federal government has seized control of one sixth of the nation’s economy, asserting control over the provision of healthcare.

It seized control of General Motors and Chrysler auto manufacturers, arbitrarily casting aside the rightful expectations of their bondholders and other creditors.

It has imposed absurd and invasive demands on air travelers.

It is considering a United Nations treaty that would render the Second Amendment null and void.

It has sued Arizona for enacting an immigration law that mirrors its own.

It is attempting through the FCC to assert control over the Internet.

In the 1860s the issue of state’s rights led to the Civil War.

One hundred and fifty years ago, on December 22, 1860, the State of South Carolina declared its independence and seceded from the Union. It did not arrive at this decision overnight. In fact, on December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to South Carolina disputing its right to nullify a federal law.

A South Carolina convention had declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 “are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State.”

Subsequent to Jackson’s proclamation, Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any State that resisted the tariff acts. A compromise engineered by Henry Clay resulted in the tariff of 1833, designed to reduce southern objections. South Carolina ended its nullification effort, but by 1861 it would no longer bend to the mandates of the federal government.

Contrary to some historical reinterpretation, the Civil War was all about State’s rights. Though President Lincoln opposed slavery, he did not introduce the issue into the conflict until after the awful slaughter on the battlefields that led to the Emancipation Proclamation. It came three years after the war had begun and was intended to introduce a moral dimension to the conflict. Slaves, however, were only freed in the Confederate southern States.

There are many issues worthy of nullification these days.

At the top of the current list is Obamacare and the fact that some twenty States have filed suit against its enforcement clearly demonstrates (1) an intense rejection of it and (2) the willingness of States to use the judicial system to seek relief.

Beyond that, we have entire federal agencies that have no legitimate basis in the Constitution.

The Department of Education should be abolished. The Constitution makes no mention of education as a federal concern. It was and should be up to the States and local communities to oversee general education. Part of the controversy raging these days concerns teacher’s union contracts that are contributing to the bankruptcy of many States.

The Department of Energy, created by executive order, should be abolished. States should have the right to determine how their natural resources should be either protected or utilized. Requiring states to use so-called alternative (wind and solar) energy is seriously wrong.

Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency, also created by executive order, has so exceeded its original mandate that it has become a lethal threat to the economy and the welfare of all Americans.

Nullification should be utilized to rid us of these and other federal entities that overstep their mission, threatening the Bill of Rights and other constitutional limitations and freedoms.

To learn more about the nullification movement, visit the Nullify Now website and the website of the Tenth Amendment Foundation.

This nation has been heading toward nullification since the 1930s when many of the Constitution’s restrictions of federal power were cast aside. This has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse. To save it, nullification may be required.

Editor’s note: To learn more about this topic, Tom Woods has written “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 2lst Century.”

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → Nullification in 2011!

Any Fool Can Understand the Commerce Clause

By Alan Caruba

I am not a lawyer. I never wanted to be a lawyer. I have some friends who are lawyers and I forgive them and occasionally have to employ them. America, at the federal, state, and local level generates so many laws that the system requires a legion of lawyers to deal with them. The result is a general lack of respect for all laws short of the Ten Commandments.

The U.S. Constitution, in effect since June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it, is a remarkable document, not the least for being the oldest functioning constitution of any nation at this point in time. What I like best about it is that anyone can read and understand it.

Until the progressive era in the U.S. that began in the 1900s and went bonkers in the 1930s, the Constitution underwent a number of judicial interpretations that largely affirmed the intentions of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. This was made easier by the existence of the Federalist Papers, letters and writings by the Framers, who clarified its various elements.

The Constitution was not foisted on Americans. It was, after the collapse of the Articles of Confederation, widely discussed and debated. With the addition of the Bill of Rights, all the original States signed onto it. There have been only 27 Amendments because, wisely the Framers contrived to make the process as difficult as possible. They also fashioned an instrument of governance intended to slow down the entire legislative process.

Americans understand that passing 2,000-plus page bills that have not been read or attempting to pass such bills hurriedly during the “lame duck” session of Congress, many of whose members have been voted out of office, is an obscenity, an offense to the intent of the Constitution.

Anyone reading Article One, Section 8, understands it enumerates a number of powers allocated solely to the Federal government such as the coining of money, declaring war, and such. It was always understood that the federal government is limited to the exercise of the Constitution's enumerated powers.

One of those powers is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…” That is the commerce clause.

The meaning of commerce was limited to “trade and exchange” of goods and transportation for this purpose. The purpose was to make “regular” such activity; to provide laws to ensure that business would be conducted properly between the States or with foreign nations to everyone’s mutual benefit.

What the commerce clause does not authorize is the right of the federal government to compel a citizen to involuntarily purchase anything.

The “linchpin” of Obamacare is the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or to suffer a financial penalty for failing to do so, but the federal government has restricted the free purchase of health insurance across State lines, thus inhibiting competition that would allow for lower rates. There is a touch of schizophrenia in this.

As Judge Henry Hudson recently ruled in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius, on December 13, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (the individual mandate) exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”

“The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter, nor the spirit of the Constitution.”

That should be the end of the issue and the end of Obamacare, but as the late Justice Rehnquist noted in one decision, “it is illuminating for purposes of reflections, if not for argument, to note that one of the greatest fictions of our federal system is that the Congress exercises only those powers delegated to it, while the remainder are reserved to the States or to the people.”

The growth of the powers Congress has arrogated to itself is the singular greatest threat to freedom and liberty in America. This is why so many individual States have joined in the several cases brought against Obamacare.

Failing a common sense ruling on this case by the Supreme Court, the States have but one option left and that is nullification. They can, individually and together, pass laws to restrict the implementation of Obamacare.

Meanwhile, the incoming 2011 Congress can and should do everything in its power to defund and otherwise thwart this assault on liberty.

In 2012, Americans can rid themselves of the current usurper of the office of the presidency, a man whose first executive order, #13489, issued on January 21, 2009, was directed at hiding all essential documentation of his legitimacy.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → Any Fool Can Understand the Commerce Clause

What Communism Feels Like

By Alan Caruba

Recently I received an email and requested permission to share it. It says a great deal about the danger of a government inclined to ignore the Constitution. December 15th is Bill of Rights Day; time to read them if you have not done so already.

The text below has been lightly edited for continuity and is published with the permission of its author..

Dear Mister Caruba,

I want to thank you for your Warning Signs blog. I want you to know that I am scared out of my wits with everything that is going on...

I was born, raised, and grew up in Communist Poland. I presently reside in the USA since June 1983. I love the country and love Americans. Every time the national anthem is played I tear up with happiness to be lucky enough to live in The Greatest Country on Earth!!

What I see happening all around us is very troubling, since Obama's election and the great number of people looking forward to change and hope to get us on track to build a better tomorrow. The light at the end of a tunnel, however, has turned out to be a TRAIN!!

Of course, as everyone, I have my opinion just about everything...

I am not the sharpest tool in a shed, but I call Obama "The Closer" just like the TV show I watched a few years ago. Over the years our society was brainwashed and socially conditioned

I've experienced it back in Poland when our party Leaders were feeding us utopia, talking about the greatness of our country, how proud we shall be, how lucky we are, how together we shall build it even stronger, work harder, save more, and as one we will overcome the BAD AMERICA!!!, the source of evil, racism and slaves!. All the time they kept us with no freedom and communist propaganda in the newspapers and on TV.

I remember as a young child---maybe 9 or 10---my Father and I would wake up at 2:00 AM to listen to 'Free Europe" (BBC station) a one-hour broadcast on the radio. The transmission was very much interrupted with static, but religiously we were finding out some truths. Our window was covered with a heavy blanket (we did not want to take any chance with neighbors or passing police patrol noticing any activities.)

Even when we talked about it later and I had some questions it was always done in such way that my 6-years younger sister couldn't be near for fear of her saying something to someone.

I remember when Russians invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. The whole school was gathered by the main road, we were given Russian paper flags and were told to wave at the moving tanks and heavy military trucks and yell "hello" and clap and be happy that we have such good help in the Soviet Union to protect us from the 'evil movement' that had spread over Czechoslovakia that they said put us all in danger.

My late Father always told me "Keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut and if you ever have an opportunity to escape safely don't even take a second to think about it. Just go for it and make a better life for yourself in a free world where you can talk without blankets in a window"

Sadly I see my country, the country that gave me the opportunity to enjoy freedom in all aspects slowly becoming a closed-door agenda, anti-American bills and policies not upholding the values on which it was established and for which thousands died to keep it true.

I am offended when Obama is not holding his hand over his heart when the anthem is played.

I am offended when he called me an enemy.

I am offended when he bowed to the Saudi Arabian king!

I am offended with his lies so obvious and bold that a deaf person could hear it!

As far as I am concerned he is not my president.

--End--

I am concerned we increasingly live in a society where everything we say or write can be fodder for those who think the Bill of Rights was written for a different age or people and no longer applicable.

On Bill of Rights Day it is useful to recall that several of the original States refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution unless the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, was included.

If America is not about personal, individual, political, and spiritual freedom, than it is not America. It is about the rights reserved to the States and the People. Without them, life in America will be no different than the Communist Poland from which my correspondent escaped.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → What Communism Feels Like

Our Stealth Congress

By Alan Caruba

We are living in an era in which our Congress and much of our government operates like a stealth bomber, destroying rights we assume to be protected by the U.S. Constitution and otherwise encumbering an ailing economy in ways known to make it worse.

Take, for example, the House passage yesterday of the Dream Act, an end-run around the widespread opposition to any form of amnesty for the problem of illegal immigration. While 38 Democrats joined Republicans to vote no on the measure, eight Republicans “crossed the aisle” to support Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The Senate is scheduled to take up the measure on December 9 and it is widely predicted it will fail in that chamber.

Even a massive rejection by the voters appears to have made no impact on the Democrat Party which gives every indication of not giving a damn about We the People even when a million showed up in Washington to protest Obamacare. One is reminded of Speaker Pelosi’s now classic statement that we would have to wait to find out what is in the Obamacare legislation until after the vote was taken.

The result is an increasing number of waivers from aspects of this noxious law for unions, fast food chains, and others to ensure their members and employees do not lose health insurance. This from a bill we were told would extend health insurance to thirty million more Americans.

So the Democrat majority, most of whom did not even bother to read the 2,000-plus monstrosity, voted to have the government take over one-sixth of the nation’s economy and destroy the patient-doctor relationship and just about everything else that made our health system the best in the world.

While Americans were making plans for Christmas and beginning to feel the sting of winter as far south as Florida, Congress voted to approve the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a government created entity that will impose huge tax increases on companies in the northeast in the name of preventing a “global warming” that is not happening.

RGGI is the nation’s first mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) cap and trade regulating entity even though the Cap-and-Trade Act is all but dead in the Senate. Everyone living in ten northeastern states will see their electricity bills soar due to caps on how much GHG their utilities and other major manufacturing facilities emit. This is, I would remind you, is occurring in the midst of the worst recessionary period since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

This is equivalent to the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government entities that created the housing bubble that led to the 2008 financial crisis.


The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) is concluding its latest and hopefully last conference in Cancun, Mexico, desperately trying to save the Kyoto Protocols. Widely seen as the end of the “global warming” hoax, the UN is far from finished trying to impose its will on the United States and other nations.

As this is written, the Obama administration is trying to get the U.S. to ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty. This is a major goal before it folds its tent in 2012. If the Senate were to ratify the treaty, some 90 million Americans would be required to turn in any banned firearms to local government “collection and destruction” centers. It would prohibit firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling their products to Americans. In short, it would negate the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

This is yet another stealth effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution, along with all the talk about putting government limits on Internet use and dangerous babble coming out of the FCC to impose a “value” system to determine what radio and television stations can report as news.

As this is written, Americans are still waiting to learn whether their taxes will rise or whether tax rates that have been in place for a decade will be extended. Even so, the President claimed that it was the GOP that was holding Americans “hostage.”

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” is not a cliché. It has never been more true than our present times.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → Our Stealth Congress

Whatever Happened to the Fourth Amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon propable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

More about → Whatever Happened to the Fourth Amendment?

It's Muslim Terrorists, Stupid, Not Americans!

By Alan Caruba

When was the last time an American terrorist got on a commercial airliner and attempted to blow it up mid-flight?

The answer is never.

The 19 hijackers of the 9/11 airplanes were all foreign-born Arab Muslims. They passed through airport screening despite having box cutters on their persons. My suspenders have set off that machine. Now you can’t even carry on nail clippers. Who has ever attempted to seize an airplane with nail clippers?

The infamous “shoebomber”, Richard Reid, was a British citizen, the son of a career criminal who followed in his father’s footsteps. After his release from prison in 1996, the year in which Osama bin Laden announced a holy war against America, he joined the Brixton Mosque, later attending the Finsbury Park Mosque. From 1999 through 2000 he was in Pakistan and trained at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan according to informants.

After being turned away from boarding a Paris to Miami flight on December 21, 2001, the French National Police allowed Reid to be re-issued a ticket for a flight the next day. On December 22, 2001, he boarded American Airlines Flight 63 to Miami wearing shoes packed with plastic explosives. The bomb malfunctioned and it took several passengers to subdue him.

On Christmas Day 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam on route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana. His bomb, sown into his underwear, also malfunctioned. It contained plastic explosive, the same used by Richard Reid. After being taken into custody, he admitted to having obtained the device in Yemen. Earlier, his father had gone to the American embassy to warn against his son’s affiliation with al Qaeda.

The underwear bomber was a classic case of information being available and entered into the U.S. intelligence data base, but not coordinated effectively enough to have been acted upon. Suffice it to say, the U.S. receives and must evaluate vast quantities of such data. Despite Abdulmutallab’s lack of a passport, he was still passed through.

Ever since Reid’s attempt, Americans seeking to board a flight originating here have had to take off their shoes. One shoebomber from abroad versus hundreds of thousands of Americans inconvenienced ever since.

The confluence of having spent time in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen should be enough to deny most people access to a commercial flight for any reason. Issuing such people visas to enter the United States for any reason should be a far more vigorous process.

On the grounds that the lives of those on flights are at risk, a far greater risk exists for all Americans because the Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated…”

There have been no arrests of any American getting on a flight in the United States to commit an act of terrorism.

There is little reason to believe that most of the things that the Transportation Security Administration is doing is of much use. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was repeatedly detained because his name was on a no-fly list. The singer, Diana Ross, slapped an agent whose groping was offensive. And every day we hear of people who fit no terrorist profile encountering absurd and often humiliating searches.

Now the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, wants special procedures for screening Muslim women so they can avoid pat-downs and reportedly Homeland Security is considering letting them pat themselves down!

At $30 million each the machines that technologically strip everyone naked are in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment as are the idiotic body searches. Both represent an authority the government has asserted for itself and both are a threat to a constitutional freedom guaranteed every American.

Two isolated cases, eight years apart, are slim justification for imposing measures negated both times by the fact that the flights were boarded in other nations and, fortunately, both bombs failed.

The worst terrorist incident in the United States since 9/11 was committed by an Arab-American Muslim, a U.S. Army Major, Nidal Hasan, at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. Despite donning Arab garb when off-duty and expressing opinions that troubled his fellow officers, nothing was done to flag Hasan before he walked into an infirmary and killed thirteen soldiers and wounded others while yelling “Allahu Akbar.”

The Transportation Security Administration has become yet another federal agency with too many people doing too many things of no value to its mission and to the great annoyance of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → It's Muslim Terrorists, Stupid, Not Americans!

Just Because You're Paranoid

By Alan Caruba

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t watching you,” goes the adage and in America where there’s a television camera just about everywhere, as well as folks with phones that can record live action and transmit the video, it’s probably more true today than ever.

My paranoia tends to focus on politicians and, in particular, those of the liberal stripe. The reason for this is simple enough. They promise not to raise taxes and then they raise taxes.

They promise to reduce the national debt and then increase it by $3 trillion in under two years.

They promise to “reform” Medicare and then they destroy it.

They promise to create and “save” jobs, and the unemployment rate just keeps climbing.

The lies are endless and highly destructive of my beloved nation.

My levels of paranoia have been off the meter since Obama was elected and on their way to the Moon ever since he took the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Even though Obama briefly taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, he does not give much evidence of liking the Constitution. In an early interview he said that the Constitution “is a charter of negative liberties. (It) says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your account.”

Well, the government, for example, can’t search your home or office without a warrant, must provide a speedy trail, and importantly cannot restrain your right to free speech, deny a free press, or the right to peacefully assemble to protest. It cannot “establish” a national religion, but it cannot forbid the practice of religion even though cities and towns across America are afflicted with demented people who would deny you the right to celebrate Christmas in any fashion.

No where in the Constitution is there a provision for the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and much of the rest of the alphabet zoo that comprises our present government.

It surely does not say you have to buy something you don’t want!

The whole object of the Constitution is to limit the size of government, make the process of passing legislation difficult, and to distribute political power via its “checks and balances” to ensure no one branch can do too much damage.

As we close in on the November 2nd midterm elections, I am again impressed with the way the Founding Fathers created a document that allows Americans to engage in corrective measures by ridding themselves of truly bad politicians and replacing them with those who promise to do a better job.

We do this every two and four years, weeding out Senators, Representatives, and Presidents who are too stupid or criminal to be allowed the power we grant them.

If it were not for paranoia the Tea Party movement would not exist. The power of the Constitution has permitted this leaderless movement to coalesce around the single idea of ridding the Republic of people whom we deem dangerous to its future.

The current U.S. President is rapidly approaching levels of disapproval not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter.

It’s hard not to feel paranoid about a President who wrote to the Secretary of State asking that 80,000 more Muslim “refugees” be allowed into the United States where we have already witnessed 9/11, the Fort Hood murder spree by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and the trial of Faisal Shashad, a Pakistani granted citizenship who demonstrated his appreciation by trying to kill Americans in Times Square.

Do we really need 80,000 more potential jihadists? And why does Obama want to encourage this?

In the interest of brevity, let me add a distinct sense of paranoia about Bill Clinton traveling all over to endorse Democrat candidates. It is testimony to the short attention span of Democrats that they do not recall Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Hillary’s abortive healthcare reforms, Monica Lewinsky, his lies under oath, his impeachment trial, nor that the things he gets credit for occurred after Republicans gained control of Congress.

I am just paranoid enough to think that Bill is collecting political favors Hillary may use if she decides to run for president. One President Clinton was more than enough. One President Obama is one too many.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

More about → Just Because You're Paranoid