Reporter Alec McGillis stated in a recent "Washington Post Outlook" article that Barack Hussain Obama's vow to search for, and practice, ruthless pragmatism during his presidency sounds absolutely great. Well, if it does sound so great, why didn't Obama mention this provocative ideology, and announce his intent to pursue it, during his campaign for the presidency, and not wait until after the election for the first mention of it to the American electorate by his advisor, David Axelrod? In case you're wondering, the reason I employed the foregoing term "electorate," instead of "public," is that just a little more than a simple majority (54%) of the voting age population of American citizens (the electorate) elected Obama, not the American public; for also comprising the American public you have millions of illegal aliens and probably the same number of people who don't care at all about protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps the reason that Mr. Obama was loath to make any mention of pragmatism during his greatly overrated campaign oratory was that the word, itself, just doesn't set-right in the minds of Americans concerned with restoring constitutional governance to the Republic. In fact, the sickening notion that the end result of slick Machiavellian political endeavors justifies the means used to effect them sticks in the craw of most American citizens who sincerely believe in, and readily endorse, the practice of constitutional law. You see, the working philosophical opposite of pragmatism is idealism which, in and of itself, affirms that there is a right and a wrong in every civic issue, and that a person should not confuse one for the other in order to ultimately settle for a compromise of the two, where a particular option is more right than wrong, and a deal made with the devil for the benefit of a special interest.

Obama has obviously found, during his first 100 days, distinct pleasure in portraying himself in the likeness of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was clearly and undeniably a ruthless pragmatist, but never admitted being one. Yet, what actually distinguished FDR as a brazen pragmatist, and as much an opponent of constitutional government as he was a falsely reputed savior of the American economy, was his unwillingness to accept the fact that his New Deal, and his National Recovery Act, which was passed by a large majority of a Democratic Congress within a day's time without most of the representatives and senators reading the bill, was blatantly unconstitutional on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court said so three times in three different rulings during the 1930s. But that didn't keep Roosevelt and his appointed henchmen from deceitfully politicizing the Supreme Court to get his way. By severely maligning the elder justices who opposed his unconstitutional legislation, thereby intimidating them into retirement, he was able to appoint new justices whom he cajoled into voting for his New Deal legislation. Though true it was, that what was accepted then by millions of struggling unemployed Americans as financial salvation (FDR's behemoth expansion of the federal government) seemed too good to be true, dire expedient pragmatism proved to be the means to an unsavory governmental end, where the 'ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing' was hidden cleverly from public disclosure, much as an unsanitary band aid might hide an infected sore.

While billions of dollars of tax revenue, which were collected mainly from the citizens making less than $20,000 per year, were being used, from 1934 until 1941, to bail out the national banks which had apparently gone belly-up, and to finance an exorbitant federal work system, the 50 largest U.S. multi-national corporations were still making high profits. As a matter of record, that's how the system of corporate capitalism in the United States was enlarged and enhanced for the future. The Great Depression hurt only those middle-class American workers who had depended entirely on an illusory credit system, and imaginary money, to finance their lifestyles, and suddenly found themselves unemployed and penniless. The poverty-stricken segment of society at that time was actually left bereft of hope on a sea of despair. No popular historian cares to mention the awful fact that over 70,000 Americans around the nation died from exposure and starvation during that time.

As a planned economic maneuver, the Great Depression was directly created through the strategic money-handling processes of the national banking cartel which had been established through the 1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Contrary to popular belief, less than 3 percent of the multi-national corporations that employed more than 65 percent of American workers suffered during the Depression that began in 1929. The very wealthy capitalists, from 1929-41 (until the beginning of a war-time demand economy) were still reaping huge corporate profits, while the poor unemployed 24 percent of the population representing those individuals who had lost their jobs from small and medium-sized companies forced into bankruptcy by the federal banking cartel lost most of their possessions. These capitalists actually controlled 98 percent of the money in the country. Instead of the private sector bailing out the private sector, which was supposedly the guiding principle of free market capitalist economics, Roosevelt's government made the people, a virtual nation of sheep, believe in, and actually look forward to, their tax money being used to provide relief for the ongoing symptoms of a very diseased economic system under the control of the Federal Reserve Board.

Obama's, now public, assertion that pragmatism is his ideology of choice and heuristic philosophy of governance is extremely foreboding and troubling, in that his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution, may become essentially meaningless in the wake of his intent. His declaration to be ruthlessly pragmatic means that he'll have no qualms about shredding what's left of the principles of republican government established by the Framers, and written into the Constitution.

Just consider this. The U.S. Constitution has never authorized the the Executive Branch (the President) to issue executive orders. Executive orders have come about through congressionally unconstrained, and judicially sanctioned, tradition, not constitutional authority. For some inane reason, the President has been allowed by the other branches of the federal government to wield legislative, executive, and judicial authority within one tight fist, much like a divine-right king. Likewise, the Constitution does not state in Article 1, Section 8 that the Legislative Branch (Congress) has the authority to relinquish its power to coin money, and to determine its value, to the Executive Branch and to a private banking cartel such as the Federal Reserve Board. Further, the Constitution, in Article 2, gives no authority to the Executive Branch to authorize and send military troops to attack a foreign nation-state (police action). Regardless of how executive police action has been defined by Ivy-league universities, sending troops abroad (U.S. Marines, U.S. Special Forces, etc) by executive decree to attack foreign nation-states is tantamount to declaring war. For if the daunting military machine of the United States is the only intimidating means of keeping a nation-state from retaliating from such police action, a state of de jure war actually exists in such circumstances. If such action is to be taken, even if the United Nations recommends it, the Legislative Branch, the U.S. Congress, has the only constitutional authority to commit troops as a declaration of war. A declaration by the United Nations does not trump the letter of the U.S. Constitution.

By all that's holy, if the prevailing federal powers-that-be want to do things opposed to constitutional law, with impunity, let them change the U.S. Constitution through the prescribed amendment process, instead of pretending that they are following its dictates while secretly desecrating it. This is what pragmatism really means, the deceitful creation of enigmatic policies which provide, seemingly, short-term beneficial economic, social, and political ends while, at the same time, riding roughshod over the sacred principles upon which the governmental system is predicated. The great majority of American citizens cannot afford to let this happen if they want to preclude the utter disappearance of a constitutional republic of sovereign states.

By: Norton Nowlin
http://www.qualitywritingondemand.com/
Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin as attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

The day that Al Gore spoke at the Congressional Hearings on Global Warming in Washington DC this year, the weather was so very cold that one could not go outside for more than 10-minutes without a trench coat on. Many scientific reports now show the planet to be cooling from as early as 2,000 and that the average ambient temperature has actually decreased overall by 1.5 degrees F.

Apparently, although Al Gore had some support, most of the TV viewing audience on CSPAN probably laughed at the whole dog and pony show, I know I certainly did. The Global Warming Acceptors indeed probably thought his comments and testimony was worthy, but it looked like a bunch of hot air on a very cold day, and nothing more than advection fog really.

But do not count out these Warming Folks, they have mass appeal and plan on making an assault in the middle of summer, holding many pre-planned rallies in the heat of things. During hot summer days their message is much more accepted by the skeptical fence sitters who like nearly half of the climate scientists are.

Still, the climate doom and gloom crowd will be out in force trying to convince us that CO2 is the cause of eventual planetary annihilation and doom for the human race. And with a Solar Cycle coming and a potentially damaging Hurricane Season, they may have more ammo to purport their theories.

One thing for certain, this is a huge boom for the professional party organizers and event hosting industry and it provides a lot of PR jobs for so many that have been out of work ever since Barrack Obama's campaign, where they used their skills to force down our throats an image of a man who has so very little experience leading much of anything except community protests. Please consider all this in my Op Ed piece here.

By: Lance Winslow
Lance Winslow's Bio. Lance Winslow is also Founder of the Detail Guys, a cool little Franchise Company; http://www.detailguys.com/founder.shtml/

When I heard that ACORN was going to be helping out with the 2010 census, I wasn't overly concerned. Oh, I wasn't thrilled that they were going to get more taxpayer dollars, and as a genealogist, I wasn't excited that an organization with a fictional tendency would be putting this stuff down, but I wasn't exactly fired up. Then I came across a little piece of information that I'm sure I learned in seventh grade and forgot - the primary purpose of the US Census.

According to the Census' website, "the fundamental reason for conducting the decennial census of the United States is to apportion the members of the House of Representatives among the 50 states." That is, the number of people we have in Congress is determined by the census. The district lines are determined by the census. And now we are putting a group that has been charged with falsifying information in several states in charge of collecting information that will determine our representatives.

Perhaps, like me, you will tend to shrug this off. Perhaps you don't see the damage that can be done here. Let's take a visual. According to the census web page, each Congress person represents an average population of 646,952. Now, let's take a big city like Atlanta. The metro area of Atlanta has almost 6 million people, which means that throughout the area, there are approximately ten representatives. Now suppose that as they take the census, they submit several fictional families. We'll be conservative and say they only make up 1/3rd of the population - that's a lot less than their now-ex-employees managed to falsify when registering voters. Bam, suddenly Atlanta has almost 9 million people (what explosive growth!). If all of the fictional people are created in areas that vote primarily Democratic, then suddenly we have 4 or 5 more members of Congress serving in primarily Democratic areas. How does that affect the power?

I don't imagine that even ACORN can get away with creating three million people unnoticed - but just how many can they create to avoid causing a stir? Even one member of Congress serving due to fictional population counts - I don't care if they are Democratic or Republican - goes against our entire system of government. And ACORN is not only in the position to do so, they also have a history - I'm sorry, their employees have a history - of creating people out of thin air.

Please, contact the members of the Congressional subcommittee for the Census and urge them to take this position of power away from ACORN. Let your voice be heard. If you don't, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck may soon do all the talking.

By: Nola Redd
Nola Redd is an author on Writing.Com which is a site for Writers. She is a member of the Schuylkill County Conservative Group in Pennsylvania.

Recently, in addition to the nomination of self-described "transnationalist" Harold Koh, liberal constructionist and dean of Yale University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been making the rounds of local colleges, universities and law schools with also her transnationalist views.

A "transnationalist" is the politically correct equivalent of a "globalist," and political correctness is a religion the transnationalists subscribe to wholeheartedly. Except when it isn't in accordance with their upside-down logic and world and global view.

A recent example of this would be Janet Napolitano, a woefully misled and misguided fellow lawyer whose "right wing extremist" memorandum trashes the American Bill of Rights on every level.

Recently, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about the place and reverence the U.S. Supreme Court should have with international courts and decisions in their findings:

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law," Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation's highest court.

"There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent," Mrs. Ginsberg said. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?"

Now, with respect to the law in these United States, if you hold that there is a higher authority than the United States Constitution with respect to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice then, Ms. Ginsburg, you are not "in good behavior" with respect to your sworn oath of office. Its really quite simple. In fact, you hold your current lofty position due to the provision contained within that particular document. The Justice is further on record as stating:

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

"I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers' intent 'to create a more perfect Union,' I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings."

Really, Justice? The framers faced far greater threats and dangers than we can even imagine in this high tech, obtain a warrant within minutes, era. Far worse than global warming, Middle Eastern terrorists, or stock market variations. They defended an entire Eastern Seaboard with only canon and musket, as I recall.

And just in case you have forgotten or have not read it lately, there is a process within the Constitution in order to so amend it if need be to include any of those provisions they might have left out for 21st Century America. And the Justices actually are not a part of that amendment process.

But since those founders held with "unalienable" rights as God given, I don't think those have changed much since the Magna Carta, which preceded our Constitution by several hundred years.

And if you abridge them, or alter them, the consequences in the increase of inmates now in our jails, a nation with the highest prison population now in the world, is telling in how far afield both the state and federal government have gone in not recognizing those "natural rights."

Another former Justice and fellow transnationalist, Sandra Day O'Connor, also is on record with a few comments on the place of international law in the highest court in the land at an awards dinner at the end of her career on the bench:

"I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues," Mrs. O'Connor said, adding by doing so "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression."

I don't think the framers also were believers that making a good impression and impressing the rest of the world held much sway when it came to personal liberty, justice and freedom in this country. In fact, wasn't that what that first war was all about, severing this country's ties to the laws and practices they found intolerable in Britain under "sovereign" law and nothing more than tyranny?

I won't address in this article Justice Ginsburg dissenting opinion on the upholding by the Supreme Court of the partial birth abortion ban, except to state that she did seem to misunderstand that it is the procedure and timing of these "abortions" that is in dispute, and has nothing to do with a woman's right to privacy, but ban a barbaric practice that has resulted in many women's lives being compromised, or made sterile due to the actual procedure itself.

The majority of those groups which are fighting for the partial birth abortions bans at the state level are actually fighting for society, and womens' future health and life, not against it.

But you won't convince Justice Ginsburg of that, or the other "transnationalists," who believe abortion at any stage in any manner should be an option and is just another method of birth control. I wonder if the 19th century practices in that respect will be brought back into vogue by the medical community, as the partial birth method is quite similar undertaken now in this country, when they were totally banned due to just such practices due primarily to the health risks and mortality rates connected to it.

But "transnationalists" have a world view and perception of law, liberty and justice unlike those of the framers and a great many in this country when it comes to our country, its place in the world, the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the lines.

Ms. O'Connor retired shortly after making her statement, before she completely forgot just what her role in government actually was. Let's hope soon Justice Ginsburg will do likewise.

"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." James Madison

By: Betsy Ross
http://www.backupamerica.org
Former paralegal, constitutional scholar and history buff. Former 45 year resident of Phoenix, Arizona and an expert in the immigration situation and border security issues from a legal and personal standpoint. Moderator on Constitutional Conservative website, Back Up America and have written numerous articles for internet publications on Constitutional issues, property rights, and national security.