Palin and Prelutsky sitting in a tree ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

What an American president requires is noble character, an abundance of common sense and the sincere conviction that America, as created by our divinely inspired Founding Fathers, is, by any measure, the greatest nation ever conceived.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: February 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Because of Joe McCarthy's critics, we have been told time and again that guilt by association is a cardinal sin. But I contend it makes perfect sense to judge people by their friends, but also by their enemies. Who hasn't said, upon meeting another person, "Any friend of so-and-so is a friend of mine"? And who doesn't subscribe to the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I only wish that more people had paid closer attention to Barack Obama's circle of friends in Chicago before he got to move to Washington and form an even more vicious circle.

What brings this to mind is the unending vituperation directed at Sarah Palin. So far as I'm concerned, anyone who can give conniption fits to Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, Ellis Henican, Keith Olbermann and David Letterman the way Alaska's favorite daughter can is aces in my book.

One of the things that motivates their contempt for Mrs. Palin is her alleged lack of smarts. However, if she were as dumb as they claim, they wouldn't have to shove words she never spoke in her mouth. After all, when it comes to leftists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Alan Grayson, Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel and Barbara Boxer, we on the right merely have to quote them verbatim to make our case. I mean, I know Mrs. Palin didn't attend an Ivy League school, but does any reasonably rational person actually believe that she doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea?

READ FULL STORY >

Dred Scott and corporate personhood ~ By Ellis Washington

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily

The negro has no rights which the white man was bound to respect. – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

I can summarize in five words the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 landmark decision, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission":

Corporations are persons; money = speech

The First Amendment plainly states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." However, since the 1907 Tillman Act, American businesses and corporations, the lifeblood of our market-capitalist economy for more than 230 years, have had their political voices injustly restricted through limits on how much money they can contribute to political campaigns. Alex Barker, writing for the Financial Times gave the shameful historical background of the Tillman Act:

The 1907 Tillman Act – named after "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a vile racist senator who made his name rampaging through the South attacking blacks and Republicans with his "Red Shirt" band of paramilitary terrorists – was the first attempt by Congress to clean up politics. Tillman's motive – stopping funding to civil rights politicians – was pretty disgraceful. But the means he sought was supported by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, who were more interested in tackling dirty politics.

The decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" removed unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns. Regarding this case, the demagogue Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said, "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been U.S. citizens. READ FULL STORY >

Tidal wave of patriots washing over D.C. ~ By Henry Lamb

From WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: October 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Rep. John Shadegg has been trying to get a bill enacted for 15 years that would simply require legislators to cite the constitutional authority for any legislation that is proposed. His bill is called the Enumerated Powers Act (HR450). It now has 52 co-sponsors, but there is very little chance that it will ever get to the floor for a vote. Why? Because the Democrats in Congress will not allow it. This bill would not be necessary if the Democrats would simply follow their own rules. House Rule XIII (3)(d)(1) requires:

"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."

That's right. The rules of procedure in the House of Representatives already require that every bill or resolution cite the constitutional authority for the proposed legislation. This rule is routinely ignored. Why? Because Democrats control the Rules Committee and the entire House of Representatives, and they routinely "waive" or "suspend" this rule. Some people remember when Nancy Pelosi stood on her pedestal and proclaimed: "This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history" (November 16, 2006). Ignoring a House rule is a minor offense, compared to the corruption that Ms. Pelosi readily accepts when it affects her Democratic colleagues. How quickly did she and her colleagues invoke House rules to condemn Rep. Joe Wilson when he blurted out "you lie" during President Obama's sales pitch to Congress? But when Democrat Alan Grayson uses visual aids to claim that the Republican health-care plan calls on sick people to "Die Quickly," there's nothing at all offensive to Pelosi and her colleagues about the gross lie Grayson speaks. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]