Site logo

© 2007-2013 fiveboxes.com Email the Publisher
There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order.
by M. LaMorte | 2012-02-13 10:54 

Everything was going so well. He almost pulled it off.

Unemployment benefits were running out, dropping people from the unemployment rolls, making the unemployment figures begin to artificially dip. The liberal media did what they did best, and failed to report the fact that while the number of those on unemployment dropped, the number of people re-entering the workforce hadn’t risen. But you wouldn’t know this listening to the evening news.

Speaking of the liberal media, they also are doing a good job keeping mum about Operation Fast & Furious. Obama’s Department of Justice and BATFE had willingly allowed guns to be purchased from US gun shops by people known or suspected to be supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels. These are people who the gun shops or the instant background check would have typically denied. The stated purpose was to “follow the guns” to catch the drug lords. But there was no effort to actually follow the guns; instead, the Obama DoJ was setting the stage for an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment. Since taking office, Obama’s White House and its staff — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — have been talking about how the US is “an arms bazaar for drug lords and terrorists”. Operation Fast & Furious was engineered to create evidence where none existed, and the liberal media lap dogs have been doing an excellent job of not reporting the details of this scandal.

The Republican field was narrowed and Mitt Romney had become the front-runner. His past included passing RomneyCare as governor of Massachusetts, and a history with Wall Street venture capital firm Bain Capital. This was an ideal situation for Obama, because RomneyCare bears more than a passing resemblance to ObamaCare. And the Occupy Wall Street “movement” (and I use that term lightly because more than a little evidence shows that it was promoted and paid for by some of the people on Obama’s sideline) could be used to attack Romney’s Wall Street past. And of course, the media was doing an excellent job of already painting Romney as the “Wall Street” candidate, while at the same time calling the GOP presidential nominee race for Mitt before the race had even begun.

The bailouts of the auto industry and “stimulus” programs gave the Democrats an easy way to launder taxpayer dollars and turn them into campaign contributions. Taxpayer dollars flowed into GM and Chrysler, which means it went straight to the auto unions, which in turn donated massive amounts back to Democrat fundraising coffers. Similarly, the “stimulus” programs served to primarily “stimulate” government jobs and other union jobs, which again poured money straight back to the Democrat party and the Obama reelection campaign.

And ObamaCare was jammed down our throats, with its tyrannical shackles set to fully close around our wrists and ankles only after the 2012 election. The full damage of ObamaCare wouldn’t be realized until it was too late.

Everything was perfect. Obama was heading for a liberty-crushing second term.

Tie game. Just minutes left on the clock. Third down and long from midfield. The ball was snapped, Obama went downfield, gained separation from the defenders, a perfect pass was thrown to him. And, like happens every Sunday during football season, he turned upfield to run in the winning touchdown before he had full control of the ball. And he dropped the pass.

He thought everything was all sewn up. He thought he had had it. And, drunk on his own power, already seeing his face on the cover of Socialist Illustrated, he rushed to flex his self-appointed power rather than waiting until after the election. He decided push ahead with his pro-choice agenda, thinking that the Catholic Church — many of whom had come out and supported him in 2008 — would just sit idly by. And he thought that other religions (who weren’t so strict on contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacients) would just roll their eyes at the few Catholics who would make a fuss about the unconstitutional mandate he shoved through. He thought he had it. And he turned upfield before fully catching the ball.

Now there are some self-proclaimed Catholics who aren’t upset by his mandate. You know the ones… the “Chreasters”, the “Catholic Reservists”, the “CINOs”, or whatever you want to call the Nancy Pelosi-Joe Biden-Ted Kennedy sect of people who call themselves Catholics but who come to Church only on Christmas and Easter and who proudly display a “Pro Choice” bumper sticker on their car… they’re not upset at all. They don’t see what the big fuss is about. But they’re the only ones. Catholics everywhere who, for whatever reason, had turned a blind eye to Obama’s past where he said that a baby born alive after a botched late-term abortion should have no medical care and left to die, are finally realizing just who Obama really is. And it’s not just the Catholics. People of all faiths are standing with the Catholics because they are realizing that if Obama is willing to bulldoze the Catholic Church, he’s willing to bulldoze any faith. And any right. We Americans are finally realizing that if he’s so flippant about attacking an important tenant of someone’s faith and belief in God, something as deep and important as how someone chooses to worship God, what rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights won’t he attack?

But here’s the unintended consequence to Obama’s mis-timed turn upfield: Mitt Romney’s support is beginning to wane. The attack machine had set up Romney to be the candidate so that they could easily tear him down, and Obama’s dropped pass has actually generated a swell of support for Rick Santorum, the unlikely unknown staunch “I live what I say I believe” Catholic from a suburb of Pittsburgh. And Rick doesn’t have the RomneyCare and Wall Street baggage that Romney does. While I still have some reservations about Santorum, in light of Obama’s dropped pass, his ability to harness the recent anti-Obama furor and win the game is beginning to overshadow Romney.

So it’s fourth and long. And with his non-compromising “compromise”, Obama’s going for it. We need a strong defensive stand to turn the ball over on downs. And then we need to put the ball in the hands of someone who can put it in the end zone, even if his end zone dance involves a sweater vest.


Be Sociable, Share!
More articles in Featured Column  | 

Similar Posts:

    None Found

Sorry, comments are closed for this item.
by FiveBoxes Staff | 2012-02-11 14:09 

The recent battle between the Obama administration (and Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ presumptive power under unconstitutional Obamacare) is consuming the news in recent weeks. And rightly so. It is a battle between good and evil. Right and wrong. Constitutional versus unconstitutional. And it’s a battle that will ultimately be a good thing for the Republic.

There are many battles in this war. There’s the abortion battle. There’s the Constitutional powers battle. There’s the religious freedom battle. But everyone seems to be missing that all of this is part of the greater war over “Jefferson’s Wall”.

The so-called “wall of separation between Church and State” exists nowhere in the founding documents. It is not in the Declaration, the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment does not specify a “separation of Church and State”. It simply states in part that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And the dictionary definition of “establish” is:

1 set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis;2 achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for;

Now, nowhere is it possible to infer that displaying the 10 Commandments is an establishment of a religion as it is a recognition of religion. The same can be said of Christmas trees on government grounds, and Jesus statues and crosses erected in memory of fallen servicemen. (Of course, when have politicians, lawyers, and judges ever looked up the definitions of words? Like the difference between “provide” and “promote”? But we digress.)

 

So where did this “wall” come from? A letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, written in 1802 in response to a letter of theirs concerning problems they were having with the Connecticut state legislature. The Danbury Baptist Association was a minority religion in Connecticut, and they were complaining to Jefferson that “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”

Jefferson responded:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Read carefully: Jefferson was speaking about the federal government (“the whole American people which declared that their legislature”), thus freeing the state governments to do, well, pretty much whatever they wanted. And the fact remains that Jefferson’s statement is not law. No matter how much the liberal intelligencia in this country want it to be law, and have massaged it into the brains of the American people that it is in the Constitution, in fact no such “wall” exists in the law.

And that, dear readers, is what this war needs to be about. Not birth control and morning after pills. Not even religious liberty. But the fact that this “wall” doesn’t exist. Now, the Obamacare regulation does infringe upon the “free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment, but when the liberals say the government does have that power, then they are admitting that there is no wall of separation. And if the government can tell a Church what to do, then all of the “Freedom From Religion” lawsuits who want religion out of government have no basis either.

So let us take this war gladly. Let us once and for all demolish this fictional “wall of separation”. And when we’re done, when we’ve won, we’ll have also demolished Obamacare and all its unconstitutional tentacles around our freedoms, religious freedoms among them.


Be Sociable, Share!
More articles in Featured Column  | 

Similar Posts:

    None Found

Sorry, comments are closed for this item.
by M. LaMorte | 2012-01-13 10:37 

“I love you,” they say across the table. “These past few months have been great, and I feel we have something… something special. I’m ready to take our relationship to the next level.” I sit in silence and take a sip of my drink. “Well say something!” they plead. “Don’t you love me too?”

“Look,” I say. “Things started off okay. I told my friends that I liked you, and told them all about your qualities that I liked. But as time has gone on and I learned more about you, the more I’m not so sure about us.”

“What?! Just last night I heard you telling your neighbor how much you liked me!”

I sigh. “I was. But I was on the internet last night…”

“No. No! Lies! Distortion! You can’t trust what you read on the internet! Anyone can put anything up there.”

“Yeah, well, I was actually looking at other stuff. Things you said, things you did. But since you brought it up… there were some quite unflattering comments from other people who you were close with. One or two I could overlook, but there’s, like, a bunch. Honestly, I’m not sure things are working out.”

And so it goes with political candidates, courting your vote. Things start off swimmingly, and you get all excited about a candidate for a few reasons. But as time goes by, you learn more about them. More information comes out. And the more you realize this person isn’t really the person you thought they were. During this primary period, all the candidates are courting us for our votes. And it’s okay to change our support from one candidate to the other as we find more about them. We’re still dating, after all. As time goes by we find out more about them and maybe we realize that they have violated one of our personal non-negotiables.

I liked Herman Cain until he flubbed the Libya question. I liked Rick Santorum because of his pro-life stance, and agreed with his strong international policies; but then I looked into his voting record, read about how he treated Pennsylvania Republicans, and finally… some of his comments which I took to be out-and-out Communitarian. While Rick is an ardent Catholic, he follows a 50-year-old Communitarian-tinged strain of Catholicism — liberation theology — which has been denounced by the Pope (though its influence is still felt.)

If Ronald Reagan were alive and running for president today, would he be able to withstand the scrutiny we give candidates today? Thirty years ago, there wasn’t the internet, so digging into things about the candidates wasn’t as easy. We had to rely on what we read in newspapers and saw on the nightly news (on only three channels!) The fact is, right now we’re all looking for a knight in shining armor to come along on his white horse and save our nation from the throes of tyranny and socialism. In reality, none of the current crop of candidates comes close to that ideal, once you start digging. But some are less agreeable than others.

Barack Obama was able to win because he was a blank canvas of open expectations. I think we as a nation have learned from this mistake. And I think that in the absence of a true and genuine white knight in shining armor, we — as a nation — are inclined to choose the least dangerous, most vanilla candidate out there. That’s why Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee, and that’s why he will beat Barack Obama in the general election. Not because he’s good, not because we like him more, but because we realize Obama was a big mistake and that re-electing him would be a bigger mistake. (And if you doubt that Romney will win the primary, just look at New Hampshire where Santorum only captured 8% of the Catholic vote, while Romney captured 45% of the Catholic vote, despite being a Mormon.)

Is Mitt Romney the best thing for the nation? No. Not by a long shot. But he’s “acceptable“. And he’s not Barack Obama.


Be Sociable, Share!
More articles in Featured Column  | 

Similar Posts:

    None Found

Sorry, comments are closed for this item.