Highlights Or Low Lights From Obama's Q&A ON Facebook

• He said the Ryan Budget was radical, then called Ryan a patriot. Anybody else recall when he thought his mic was off in Chicago and bashed the Path to Prosperity?

• He said to two key areas we need to invest in our education and transportation. The two most unionized businesses in the United States

• He used Nancy Pelosi and leadership in a positive light in the same sentence. The one and the same who said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can see what's in it.” (In regard to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation we coined Obamacare)

• He said we need to be increasing oil production in a intelligent way. He lets Brazil and China drill in the gulf. His administration continues to put of deep water drilling permits. And our gas prices are nearly 4 dollars a gallon

• He said we need to emphasize math and science. I would say he wants to rewrite history

Share this with your friends. If you believe Obama should be a one term President!

If I Could Speak At A Tea Party Rally. I'd Say This

All around the United States We The People are gathered together to advocate the bedrock principles our country was founded upon. There will be no more sitting on our hands just watching Glenn Beck or simply shaking our heads in regard to the direction this country is headed. Today is a day for action. In order to restore the values our nation seems to have taken for granted. We have to be bold. We have to cut through the red tape of political correctness with a legion of sharpened Samurai swords. You see people wearing their pins that read, "The Silent Majority Will Be Silent No More." So ask yourself this question. Are you calling Congress? Are you sending more then letters? Are you helping shift the destructive political dynamic in our country right now? Are you warning your neighbor of what lies on the horizon, if the majority remains complacent and apathetic. Carelessness is a recipe for disaster.

Our President elect seems to think he is the Head Of State and the Head Of Free Agency as well. Are you going to let the government tell you what you can and can't do? Are you going to let them increase taxes and take more of your hard earned money to invest in green energy and in technology that will so called "Win the Future." Gas prices are nearly 5 dollars a gallon. Food prices are increasing too. How we doing at "Winning the Future?"

The government's job has never been to legislate your life. No where in the Constitution does it say, Congress shall have the power to govern your every move. Now if we are referring to the Obama Constitution. The one the says you have to purchase health insurance. The one that says teachers are nation builders and not parents. The one that says we have to not ever offend anyone, even if they have pledged the absolute total annihilation of our country.

Well then you need to put down the jug of Hope & Change Koolaid and start taking some responsibility and accountability. The fact is, not the speculation. The fact is our nation is headed down what FA Hayek called, "The Road To Serfdom." Spending won't get us out of debt. Relying on other countries for our energy will not work. And catering to secularism won't work either. Secularism conforms to the general consensus of the time. Wait five years it will change. Capitalism will not. The supreme law of the land "The Constitution will not. Why you ask? Because they are universal truths. And truth never changes it's colors. Ever.

So fight for liberty. Help wake up America. Your freedom depends on the decisions you make today. This is not something you can put off, because you just don't feel like it.

Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent

Leftist Senators Say The "Darndest Things"

This week it was Sen Diane Feinstein saying, that one of the ways to not put boots on the ground in Libya, is have the International Court go in and arrest Qadaffi. (You know - Libya - the country we shouldn't be in, in the first place)

If you are not familiar with the International Court, a fair definition would be "the politically correct judicial body of the United Nations". If they went in and arrested Qadaffi, it might as well be with handing him the handcuffs and saying please put these on, and then making sure he has a fluffed pillow and a warm blanket on his flight to the I.C.C. Detention Center.

And when the flight touched down and Qadaffi was escorted to his new cold, damp cell where former dictators and military generals' screams fill the hallways. If only! Truthfully, when the flight touched down and Qadaffi was escorted to his cell that looks a little less lavish then a studio apartment, he'll find out out he is afforded conjugal visits, and that there is even a class he can take to learn to build wooden ship models, he might decide he likes it there!

Let's take Charles Taylor, for example. As in, the genocidal maniac and 22nd President of Liberia whose policies left thousands dead or mutilated. He has been a tenant at the I.C.C. Detention Center since 2006 and his trial still awaits a final verdict. Yes, a man who has had countless voices testify against them that he is a brutal dictator and murderer, still needs to be treated "fairly" and told if he is guilty or not guilty.

If we were to abide by international law in the United States in the case of Jared Loughner and the horrible Tuscon tragedy, the UN probably would have looked at the case and declared he has gender identity issues, deciding a git punishment would be a token slap on the wrist such as community service, some anger management perhaps? Or maybe even prosecuted the community college officials where he was driven off of campus - because they failed to be an adequate agent of a "nanny state"?

Yes, Feinstein, lets go in and arrest Qadaffi. Lets focus on what's really important. We need to understand him. We need to apologize for persecuting him for being a bloodthirsty savage. The real victim here is Qadaffi - because we failed to exhibit the oh - so - famous multicultural understanding which liberals tout!

Praying for Japan, In God We Trust

So I woke up this morning to hearing about the devastating tsunami and earthquake that hit the northern coast of Japan. And my prayers go out to the Japanese people, for their welfare, safety and for their families.

I also noticed one trend in twitter was pray for Japan. And I thought that with all the anti God garbage on social networking sites, it is great, that pray for Japan is one of the top tweets right now.

However I think it is too bad that the whole feeling for whats in style right now is In God We Trust, but when a crisis has been tended to and is not front page news anymore. Well the style's outdated. And its time to be politically correct again. I think it just verifies that some people do not know where to turn during times of crisis, because they have no foundation or principals to adhere to, and that little divine spark in all of us says, there is a God.

The Hypocrisy Of Unions

Dear Anti Walker Protester,

You are standing on a real hypocritical platform pointing a finger at Walker and Koch Industries, considering the number one contributor to public policy Actblue contributes to Democrats. Not to mention that three out of the four richest men in the world endorse the Democratic party. Warren Buffet backed Hillary Clinton in her bid for Senator. Larry Ellison contributed to Howard Dean's campaign. Bill Gates has contributed more to Democrats then Republicans. But do you see us pointing a finger at you or at them saying that they are insidiously evil? I mean we could get on a high horse and rant all day about how certain union organizations remain at the top of the list of political contributors. But we don't.

Unions once served a purpose and were given the privilege to collectively bargain. They abused that privilege profusely. Can you honestly tell me that someone whose history went from helping to end child labor to associating itself with Jimmy Hoffa and the thugocracy called the Teamsters is not corrupt? Or that Unions have not hurt our country? Take a look at Detroit. How well did the unionized city do? Chrysler? GM? Ford? How well are they doing? How can you be okay working for a unionized business? A business that pays based on seniority rather than work ethic! All Walker did was what was best for the people of WI. The fact that they tried to interrupt the legislative process shows how much they really care about working together; not to mention those Senators who fled and are still AWOL.

Really think about it. You know your state is broke, so is the rest of the country. Trying to tell me otherwise would be ignorant.

Ranting On The Situation In Madison WI

Sunday. Divine Intervention: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow in Madison, Wisconsin. Today, the teachers unions are at it again, giving a prime example of how to be irresponsible and uncivil. They adhere to the words of the AFL-CIO mob boss, Richard Trumka like he was God himself. I mean, come on: We the People know, there is no place for God in the classroom. What better way to replace an all-knowning, all-powerful being, who teaches morality and loving your neighbor, than by being led by a thugocrat who supports citizens who compare their own governor, whom they elected, to murderous villians like Hosni Mubarak and Adolf Hitler. The Union's moral compass must be pointing magnetic north.

Their defenders are pulling quotes out of context saying things such as, "Lincoln would support us" and "Hitler started with the unions, and then the Jews. Its like pre-Nazi Germany." Well, I don't think Lincoln would consider a mob a more perfect Union. I completely agree with you though: Socialists are doing something on a national scale. The fact that you are influencing your children to play follow-the-leader and tote signs that describe your benefits as human rights, shows the lack of "nation building" you are doing in your homes.

You're in a losing battle. Your senators are playing "Where's Waldo," and showing us the real meaning of politics with no spine. Give up, go home, get back to work, and please throw the Saul Alinsky playbook in the fireplace.

Letter Three

Dear Citizen,

I am writing you with a deep concern for our country's Constitution. One of our founding fathers, Samuel Adams, stated, "The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation—enlightened as it is—if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."

In our day some people have the idea that the Constitution is outdated and that its application should not apply in a traditional sense due to the ever-changing world around us. In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama sides with Supreme Court Justice Breyer, saying, "Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document,[s1] and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. He points out further that, "Finally, anyone looking to resolve our modern constitutional dispute through strict construction has one more problem: The Founders and ratifiers themselves disagreed profoundly, vehemently, on the meaning of their masterpiece.[s2] Let’s examine what a few Founders thought about the Constitution.

James Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution, said, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

John Adams, the second president of the United States and an ardent contributor to the cause of freedom and to the American Revolution, expressed, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone,[s3] which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People [s4] in a greater Measure[s5] than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

Now let’s think about a few hot issues in politics today: morals and religion. Do you know that John Adams’ statement was somewhat prophetic? I have compiled a short list of some of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made that have supported John Adams' words. (If you don't know, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States, and its rulings become the official interpretation of the Constitution.[s6] ) Here's The List.

1962- Prayers in school are ruled unconstitutional

1963- Reading Bibles in school s ruled unconstitutional

1968- Teaching evolution n school[s7] is ruled unconstitutional

1973- Abortions are ruled in favor of women's choice

1980- [s8] Posting the Ten Commandments n school is ruled unconstitutional

The funny thing is that all those laws but one still stands concrete. The teaching of evolution in schools is a different matter. For example, a Federal Court in California stated, “The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not." Most people either believe in God or they believe in science and some believe in nothing. However let’s focus on the fact that the battle between religion and science in the classroom should have stopped in 1968 when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to teach evolution. My reasoning behind that statement is that nowadays most people either believe in God or in scientific theory as to how they were created. So how is science not a religion? I would argue that that is exactly what it has become.

The sole responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice is to decipher laws and guarantee that the United States remains a land guided and governed by its most fundamental body of law—the Constitution. Yet one of our Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan, has stated, "What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter."

I know 2+2=4; shouldn't Supreme Court Justice = Defender of the Constitution?

I would like to end with a statement from J. Reuben Clark, a former ambassador to Mexico In regards to the Constitution and our duty to uphold it, he declared,

"God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States,[s9] runs to our inspired Constitution which God Himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe, just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this ‘land of liberty’ from other countries. Thus God added to His priceless blessings to us."

Let us uphold the Constitution even if it is not popular. If you haven't read it, I challenge you to do so.

Best wishes in the fight for freedom and virtue,

Justen Daniel