Torture? I’m so glad you brought up the subject. Mr. President and Attorney General Holder, Conservative African Americans have been waiting a lifetime to have this conversation. But before you and the sensitive members of the Democratic Party start with the Bush Administration, why don’t we review the torture tactic of the Democratic Party.

Read the entire article at Conservative Black Woman>>

“Florida Gov’t Cancels Tea Party Fearing ‘Too Many Attendees’”

On a side note: It’s pretty bad when Canadians start feeling sorry for us.

But I was shocked as one scholar declared there is no issue with any of five Constitutional Clauses that might be applied in this case. Now I have had to play this interview back several times to see if I should pick my jaw up off my desk and get on with my day or not. 

When asked if the Due Process Clause applied to the issue, Bruce Fein replied:

“Absolutely not. Remember there’s a rational relationship between the tax and the facts of the case that led to the bonus, mainly, the reason why your’re taking it back is because the government’s money was what created the ability of the companies to pay the bonus. It’s rational to say since we created the ability to pay, we’re entitled to get it back.”

Think about it. Did you hear what he said? He said quite literally:

“What the government giveth, the govenrment has the Constitutional right to taketh – and without due process!”

This is a man who was associate deputy attorney general under the Reagan Administration, but was very critical of George W. Bush for – in his opinion – trouncing on civil liberties when implementing the terror surveillance program in order to protect the U.S. I don’t know if this guy has ever been a judge, but I hope he never becomes one. He would, unfortunately, be the Obama ideal.

I don’t know. It is all very worrisome to me.

Click here to see the interview.

We all have the right not only to access niche markets, but to establish our own niche market. That is what makes our economy – and our lives – so rich and vibrant with diversity (remember that word?).

We go to hair salons to have our hair done, and nail salons to have our nails done. We go to golf courses to play golf and we go to the gym to work out. Yes, these are niches. Sometimes niches find enough commonality that they - of their own will – blend and become one. 

For example, I have seen hair and nail salons under one roof, but I don’t get offended if my salon does not provide both services. The point I am trying to make is that if there is a hair and nail salon, I don’t think a lawsuit forced these niches to co-habitate.

I also would not get worked up enough to file a lawsuit if my gym did not have a putting green, or if my local golf course did not provide a workout gym.

BTW – I also would not demand that the Size 5-7-9 Shop to carry plus-sizes to accommodate my generous proportions. This is not one of my civil rights!

I think that we can all agree that Walmart has brought many niches under one roof – electronics, clothing, automotive supplies, gardening, etc., etc. But they did that in building their business model, not because of threat of a civil rights lawsuit.

As Michelle Malkin states in her article:

“New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. “Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.”

In case you did not take the time to read Michelle’s article, you will be happy – or incensed – to know that eHarmony settled:

“The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.”

Imagine that. This law-abiding company had every right to be concerned about going to court when the sad fact is that liberalism is rampant in our court system. What’s next? Govmart?

The “Establishment” clause reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The current courts’ interpretation has twisted this clause in such a way that the clause is anathema to itself.  It’s like that commericial that is on TV… Guy walks into a dry cleaner with a shirt and tells the attendant “I want it starched and not starched.” The attendent asks, “what part do you want starched and what part do your want not starched?” The man replies “All of it.”

What are these people thinking? You can’t have it both ways and all of it at the same time!

One article on the subject of Separation describes it this way:

“During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.” ChristainAnswers.net

Establishment -

This word can be used as one of the following, depending on the context*:

1. the act or an instance of establishing. (literal)
2. the state or fact of being established. (literal)
3. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.

So that begs the question: Has government been ruled out of the business of legislating…

1. …the act or an instance of establishing a religion?
   I think as a literal phrase and in the context of the evacuation of England by our country’s first founders and citizen, this makes sense.
2. …the state or fact of religion being established?
   No, the founders were overwhelmingly religious. They were determined to have their churches. They would go on to excercise their religious freedom by establishing churches, having been unfettered by the tinkering of the government. This was the point of the clause. 
3. …the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
   The founders prayed in private, public, and yes, even government gatherings. The first community schools used the Bible as one of their primary subjects of study. These acts on the part of the founders and early citizens did not constitute recognition of a state church then. 

 Anathema. You can’t have it both ways.