We, who are elected to represent, seek to represent, or who are appointed to represent, the People in the Federal government do hereby affirm:

Our first and most important duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.[1]

Our responsibility is to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.[2]

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.[3]

The powers granted to Congress and thus the Federal government is clearly limited by Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Certain specific limitations are placed on Congress and thus the Federal government and are clearly stated by Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

While Congress and thus the Federal government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, it also shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[4] Further that Constitution clearly acknowledges faith in God in the postamble with the words “in the Year of our Lord”.

The world doesn’t like US.

Europe doesn’t like us. Well, that was Bush’s fault, but they don’t like us much more now.

Muslims don’t like us, I guess because we have freedom of religion, etc.

China doesn’t like us because we have too large a deficit, a lot of which was spent buying cheap Chinese goods.

Africa doesn’t like us because we don’t provide enough foreign aid, which goes for graft.

South America doesn’t like us because it is easier to dislike the Yankees than to fix your problems.

Near as I can tell the whole world doesn’t like us.

Maybe we should just build a wall around the country. Oh no we can’t, that would keep out all the people who want to live here, even though they don’t like US.

My response: WHO CARES?

The left-wing liberal conspiracy probably asked 18% of Americans to say they believed this so the media would spend time covering it rather than the economy, unemployment, debt, deficits, Iran’s nuclear program, illegal immigration, and other critical issues.

My guess is that you could find 18% of Americans who believe in almost anything. This data is somewhat outdated, but…

Americans believe in:

• ghosts 34%
• UFOs 34%
• astrology 29%
• reincarnation 25%
• witches 24%

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in:

• reincarnation by 14%
• astrology by 14%
• ghosts by 8%
• UFOs by 5%

Every year at this time the issue comes up: Should the USA have used the atomic bombs on Japan? It is an absurd discussion usually began by people who have no concept of the topic. First, one cannot apply early 21^st century ideals to a mid-20^th century situation. Beyond that, does anyone doubt that during World War II, if Japan had the atomic bomb, they would have used it on US forces? Okay, so that does not “make it right”.

Consider this: On the night of March 9-10, 1945, US B-29s firebombed Tokyo. Approximately 16 square miles of the city were destroyed it is estimated 100,000 were killed, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed, by the end of 1945, from 90,000 to 166,000 people.

So if dropping the atomic bombs had not caused Japan’s surrender, firebombing could easily have killed more Japanese than the two atomic bombs.

Before the dropping of the atomic bombs it was believed that Japan could only be forced to surrender after all the Japanese major islands had been invaded and conquered. How many Japanese civilians and military would have been killed prior to the invasion is anyone’s guess.

Operation Olympic was the name of the US plan for invasion of Kyushu (the southern-most main Japanese island) scheduled for November 1945. This was to be followed up by Operation Coronet the invasion near Tokyo, scheduled for spring 1946.

Approximately 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the invasion.

The invasions and fighting would have caused an inestimable number of people killed and wounded: US military, Japanese military, and Japanese civilians. Estimates for the US soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who would be killed conquering the Japanese home islands range from 400,000 to 1,000,000, with 1,300,000 to 3,200,000 wounded. Estimates of the total Japanese killed range from five to ten million.

It could be suggested that killing 200,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over five million Japanese lives.

In 1945 that was irrelavent, no one in America, certainly not the President or the Chiefs of Staff, much less the soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines cared about saving Japanese lives.

It was a simple equation, killing 200,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over a million American lives.

On a personal note, after participating in the invasion and conquest of Okinawa, my father was schedule to part of the invasion of Japan. But for the dropping of the atomic bombs most likely I would not be here. How many millions of Americans and Japanese have lived because of those bombs?

NAACP head Ben Jealous’ current spin on the yet unreleased Tea Party resolution; “The unanimously passed resolution demanded that the leadership of the Tea Party repudiate its racist elements and make it clear that there is no space in the organization for bigotry.”

If the main point of the resolution is truly asking the Tea Party to repudiate its racist elements the spin/discussion on the resolution has not been this, but rather that the Tea Party is racist. If that is the main point, why won’t the NAACP release the “unanimously passed resolution”. We know the NAACP Directors need to vote on it, but if you are going to shout racism, you at least have a responsibility to release your resolution. If that is the main point, why not just say it; pass a resolution calling on the Tea Party, the NAACP, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the New Black Panther Party, various unions, etc. to repudiate their racist elements.

BP and associated companies responsible? Yes. Clean air? Yes. Energy independence? Yes. Stop drilling, reduce domestic oil production, increase oil imports, increase dependence on foreign oil, increase trade deficit, increase cost of gas? I don’t think so.

The answer is rather simple.

Make companies meet standards to try to prevent similar disasters to BP’s.

Oil spills (accidents) are easier to clean up on land than on water and have less of an ecological impact. Allow and promote domestic drilling including in the Arctic national wildlife refuge.

Fast-track new smaller nuclear power plants. (Re-authorize the Yacca Flats nuclear storage facility, which the Obama administration is closing.)

Stop bashing coal and promote technology to make coal more ecologically compatible.

Promote government-private corporation partnerships to develop alternative fuels.

Lift the ban on deep-sea drilling.

Matt Lauer: Have you spoken directly with the CEO of BP?

Barack Obama: I have not spoken to him directly and here’s the reason, because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like the BP CEO, he’s going to say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions…

Matt Lauer: In all due respect that seems strange to me.

The Supreme Court has ruled a white cross, erected as a war memorial and placed on national parkland in the California desert, does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. At issue before the justices was whether the display fundamentally violates the first ten words of the Bill of Right.

Putting a religious symbol on public property (not quite the case just decided) does not establish an official state religion (unless all other religious symbols are prohibited). Not allowing a religious symbol on public property does prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Almost every state included in its Constitution radification document either “Anno Domini” or “in the year of our Lord”.

Clearly the overwhelming number of the founding fathers, those drafting the Constitution, and those ratifying it, believed in God, faith, and religion. Not just any religion, “Year of our Lord” and “Anno Domini” can only refer to one religion, Christianity.

But what about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Having seen and suffered under a state religion, the founders wanted to prohibit an official state religion, which they understood could cause the state to surpress those who did not believe in that religion.

The founders also understood that it was not enough to stop the government from establishing a religion, as men of faith they knew it was necessary to stop the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

In simple terms the government cannot make an official religion, nor can it prohibit the practice of any religion.

President Obama said, “We know that organizations like al Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure a nuclear weapon -- a weapon of mass destruction that they have no compunction at using.”

No kidding.

The real question for Mr. Obama is: What are you willing to do about it?

The whole world knew that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had WMDs and had already used them. Most western intelligent services, as well as most Democrats and Republicans in Congress thought Saddam had and would use WMDs and was developing nuclear weapons. Given that record, and post 9-11, President Bush was concerned that Saddam would provide al Qaeda with WMDs and if he developed them, nuclear weapons.

While he had used WMDs, in hindsight, it was just the world’s all-time worst bluff by Saddam. He wanted everyone to think he had WMDs and was developing nuclear weapons. He never thought President Bush would call his bluff by invading Iraq.

So now President Obama states that terrorist organizations are trying to get their hands on WMDs including nuclear weapons, and further that they would use them.

Let me state this again, one child being abused is one too many. The priests who committed child abuse and the officials of the Church who cover it up are both criminals and sinners.

However, over and over again, Catholic bashing liberals and the media (I’m being redundant), state that the cause and thus the solution to the abuse of children by priests is to let priests marry.

NONSENSE.

Married Roman Catholic priests may be a discussion worth having, but it is not the marital status which caused the abuse.

Some FACTS:

75% of male offenders are married or have consenting sexual relationships.

96% of the perpetrators are heterosexual.

Up to 25% of American children are incest victims.

Child Advocacy Center, Springfield, MO, 2010

The priests who committed child abuse and the officials of the Church who cover it up are both criminals and sinners. But, their martial status did not cause the abuse.