President Obama is a liar, or really stupid

My son sat down with me and I so happened to be watching a program on MSNBC where the topic was Obama's speech to Republican representatives. On the screen was a clip from the question and answer session that followed.

"When you were running for President," the rep said, "you said you were going to be open. You said you were going to be transparent. You said you were going to have the health care debate on C-SPAN. You also said you weren't going to sign onto any pork. You signed the stimulus package that was filled with earmarks. Now that you're president, you failed on both of these promises. Do you plan on changing?

The president said, "Yes, you are right we failed on the transparency part. That is not all my fault, as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge of the House and Senate. However, as far as pork is concerned, we never signed onto any earmarks."

This is where I let slip: "You LIE!"

My son looked at me awkwardly. "Well," I said, "you heard right, Jordan. Even the president of the United States lies from time to time. Lord knows he's signed on to so many earmarks you'll be paying for them when you're my age. The good news is, with all the facts on the table, a President rarely gets away with it."

To view some of the earmarks (also referred to as pork), click here. Earmarks are things that are added to a bill to get politicians to sign onto it, and usually these "earmarks" are things that only benefit one region.

However, as you can see by observing the post linked to above, most of the "pork" are to pay for needless projects. It's your money, and my money, wasted.

Either Obama lied, or he's oblivious to sound economics. His idea of of stimulus is the antithesis of sound economics. Man, I hate saying this about a President. I hate it.

Yet, it's a sad truth. It's a sad truth.

My final plea to vote for John Sidney McCain

One final plea to vote for McCain and then I'm finished. I just wanted to say that the #1 reason -- the most important -- reason to vote for McCain is......... (drum roll please).....

....Judges.

There is little more important than judges stick to what the Constitution states their role is, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and NOT TO MAKE LAWS FROM THE BENCH.

One of the most important job of the president is to appoint judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges. It really shouldn't be this way, as no matter what judge is appointed to this post should make rulings according to the constitution. But, as we all know, many make decisions based on their own opinions and viewpoints and ignore higher authority.

Yes, one judge might like abortion. He might think it is the choice of the individual lady to make. But, according to the Constitution, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. Thus, the Supreme Court should have recused itself from ruling on Abortion in 1972.

Accordingly, it should be up to each state to decide if abortion is legal or not. In this way, if the Rowe-V-Wade decision were not made, abortion rulings would return to the pre 1972 state laws, some of which allow abortion , some of which do not allow it.

Now, you would have pro-life and pro-choice people still battling it out, but that's fine. That's the way it should be. If you do not support abortion, you can live in a state that does not support abortion.

Education is not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore -- per the 10th amendment -- any decision regarding education should be left to the states to decide. The same is true with gay marriage.

Are you a judge who supports gay marriage. Well, so what. It's not up to you to decide that gay marriage is legal or not. Neither gay nor marriage is defined in the Constitution, and therefore it is up to the states to decide.

In essence, what I am describing is federalism. It's how the founders of this great nation thought was the fairest way of settling disputes. They did not envision a judicial system that trumped the Constitution, but that is what has happened by Activist judges (mostly liberal but a few conservative) who don't simply rule from the bench but create laws from the bench.

Yes, you hear all the time that abortion is legal in the U.S., yet no legislative law has ever been signed approving abortion in the Senate or the House.

This is why it is so important that we elect a president who will only nominate originalist judges to the Supreme Court. By definition, an originalist judge is one who rules by the Constitution, or the laws that supersede his jurisdiction -- and not by his own opinion and viewpoints.

This is so important to to maintain appropriate checks and balances between the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial systems. If the judicial has the right to make laws, then it has more power than the legislative -- it defeats the checks and balance system our founders thought was so important.

I don't care if you are a libertarian, conservative, liberal, peanut butter fairy, saint, Catholic, dipshit, smarty pants, brainy, high IQ person, business man, African American, Mexican, Illegal Alien, Alien, Martian, deadbeat, felon, dead person, cat, cow, dog, whiner, loquacious person, reticent person, Caucasian, Polish, or whatever.

We must continue to fight for the Constitution. We must elect a president who has vowed to only nominate originalist judges, and whos party has a history of doing so. We MUST vote for John McCain.

Here are more reasons to vote for John McCain:

Why it's important who you vote for

Bad week for America

Obama will make U.S. Constitution irrelevant

Obama is a socialist

Obama may be Hoover reincarnate

The truth about Obama's tax plan

Obama thinks you are selfish for wanting to decide for yourself what to do with your well earned money

Obama is a socialist

Obama is friends with known terrorists

Obama not a proud American

Obama has no clue about the importance of the War in Iraq

He wants to meet with terrorist thugs without preconditions

Obama wants defeat in Iraq

OBAMA PUTS REST OF WORLD AHEAD OF HIS OWN COUNTRY

Obama has no clue what victory is

The media afraid to scrutinize Obama

Polls show democrats are not proud to be American -- do you want a president who is not proud of his own country

Obama can't be trusted on National Defense

Obama's defense plan leaves us vulnerable

Obama is a National Security Neophyte

Do you want a man who has no clue about National Defence to be tested on the National Stage. McCain has military experience, Obama is naive on National Defense.

Obama is wrong: YOU ARE NOT SELFISH

A few weeks ago we heard Obama saying that the American people need to "spread the wealth around." He said that we all need to do our duty to help the poor.

It seems to me though that the American dream is freedom. Thus, it should be up to each individual American to decide what to do with his or her well earned money, and not the government.

And there you have the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that people are smart and will make good decisions with their money. Liberals think people are stupid, and therefore will not make good decisions with their money.

Which is all the more reason I was appalled when I read the following quote by Obama, who basically said that anyone who doesn't approve of sharing their money with people who are poor selfish.

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to Restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

You are not selfish if you do not trust the government to dole out your money. Besides, you worked hard for it, there is no reason that YOU shouldn't be the one to decide what to do with it.
Allow me to provide an example. Say I want to donate $5,000 to a charitable organization. I will give it to an organization that is my neighborhood, and to an organization I know and trust.

That way that organization gets the entire $5,000, and all of that $5,000 can be doled out by that organization to the people who need it most.

Now, say I HAVE to give that same $5,000 to the Fed. First of all, I will not give to any charity, because that $5,000 was all I had. After all, I don't make millions of dollars like the top 1% of earners. What I make is $150,000 year, which is not rich.

I have a small business, so I only have so much money to dole around. If the Fed takes more of my money, I am forced to NOT give to charity. Likewise, if the Fed takes even more of my money in taxes, there are two new people I wanted to hire AND WON'T. So, there are two poor people who will be without jobs.

So the fed has my $5,000. It gives it to a middle person, who takes a cut of that money. Then another middle person gets the money, and yet another, all of whom take a cut. Then a person sitting at a desk in Washington has to decide who needs that money.

Chances are, that person will have never met any of the people who will receive the money. So, chances are, some of that money will go to people who don't deserve it. This is called government waste. Some of the money is going to go to people who have been on the government dole for 20 years because they are afraid to get a job for fear they will lose their government check. Thus, because of the government, some people are trapped in poverty.

And, likewise, some of the people will be poor only because they didn't get hired by me because I couldn't afford to hire that person because my taxes went up.

So, finally a recipient gets my money, but by that time it's dwindled down to $500 or $1,000. A recipient gets this money, and there really isn't much he can do with it.

He would have been better off with the $5,000 I initially doled out. Besides, the charitable organization I would have selected would have made sure the money wasn't wasted, nor go to undeserving people.

Plus it's harder to steal money from the poor when you see the poor. It's easy to steal money from the Fed because most people never see those folks. They are mainly people sitting in an office thousands of miles away.

I can give an even better example. I grew up with five brothers. When we were 18 we all moved out of the home. With my older brother Bobby my mom gave him nothing. She decided he was on his own. Sure it was hard for Bobby, but it was for his own good.

Me, on the other hand, when I became 18, my mom developed a conscience. She thought I could use a helping hand. So she gave me some of her and dad's well earned money. In essence, she taxed herself. Not only did she give me money for gas and food, but she let me move back into her house when I failed to find a job.

My brother Bobby, while it was hard, he found a well paying job within a year. My mom no longer had to worry about him. Yet, it was hard to watch him struggle, but it was for his own good.

Me, on the other hand, I had no incentive to find a job. I sucked as much milk out of my mom as I could. I was a loser. I depended on her charity.

Conservative Republicans believe in the philosophy my mom had with my brother Bobby. Liberal Democrats (like Obama 2008) have the philosophy of my mom with me.

Now, eventually, my dad intervened and told me I had to get a job. He intervened, and told my mom to quit giving me money. He cut the cord so to speak. He removed the nipple from my mouth so I couldn't get any more milk.

Yes, it was hard for me at first. It was hard for my mom to watch me struggle. But she was proud when I found a good job. And I felt good and developed confidence as I succeeded for the first time on my own.

So, you tell me, was my mom selfish not to tax herself force her kids to become dependent on her, or was dad selfish to cut the cord.

My dad was not selfish. He was doing what was best for me. And that is something the government cannot do. Conservatism is all about helping people, but helping people in a way far more powerful than any charity the government can provide.

The best help, sometimes, is no help at all. The best help is to show people that they can make it on their own if they try. And, sometimes, the best way to show people that they can succeed on their own is to cut the cord.

By cutting the cord you are showing confidence in people. You are deciding that people are smart. That is the conservative believe, that people are smart. Conservatives believe (as McCain believes) that if you get the government out of the way people will prosper.

Liberals (like Obama) have little confidence in the people. They believe people will not succeed without the help of the government. They think people are stupid, incapable dunces, and have overconfidence in the ability of government.

And it's people of this liberal mindset who say things like, "It's my money. The government owes it to me." No, it's not your money. It's not your money because I am the one who worked my butt off to make that money. It's my money, and now you get it.

Look, taxes are needed. We need roads, we need government offices, we SHOULD try to take care of the needy and the poor who truly need assistance. But there is nothing SELFISH about wanting people to get off their butts and work. There is nothing selfish about forcing people to suffer a little and to provide for themselves.

I donate to charities as often as I can, and -- when government is out of the way, most kind hearted Americans donate their money too. But if the government is sucking money from them, they charitable donations decline.

Here's one other thing to note. During the 1980s -- when Ronald Reagan was president income taxes were at their lowest since the Fed started collecting in 1913 -- charitable donations were at an all time high.

As taxes have gone up, charitable donations have gone down. What this shows is that people are not stupid, as you increase their taxes, people stop donating money. Likewise, they stop spending money.

And what do you want most when you are in an economic slowdown -- YOU WANT PEOPLE TO SPEND MONEY. That's why taxes should be low, not high. The lower the taxes, the better off the economy.

Thus, Obama is wrong: YOU ARE NOT SELFISH WHEN YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOUR WELL EARNED MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Besides, who is this Obama anyway to decide for me that I'm selfish.

Biden Grilled by reporter

Obama said he is not happy with the questions this reporter asked Biden, but it's only fair that the world know the answers. It's about time a reporter had the nerve to ask: "Is Obama a Marxist?"

Well, he did say he wants to spread the wealth. Check out this video and see for yourself. Next I'd like to hear Obama himself get some real questions like this from the media.

But, as we all know, the media is failing America by not asking questions like this Gallant reporter. She ought to be given a raise in my book.

Obama cut off the TV station after the tough interview where Biden was asked some real questions. What a whah whah.

Where is your signature, Mr. Obama

I found this over at According to Nikki, and I decided to plug it in here too.

Where, Mr. Obama, is your signature on this. And why didn't you urge your fellow democratic Senators to make significant changes to Fannie and Freddie that would have prevented this current economic fiasco?

Or is the fact that you received the third most CASH from those banks have something to do with your inaction?

Obama's friend Chris Dodd benefitted the most from these failed banks. He was told point blank these were going to fail, and he said, "Oh, they are just fine. We don't need to do anything."

Mr. Johnson, who chaired Obama's VP search, is also high on this list.

Now Obama says he saw this coming. So, if he did, where is his signature on this letter? Where?

(Click image for larger view.)

Obama lets slip his Robin Hood plan

I've written before on this blog that the goal of liberalism is to create a socialistic government in the United States and end capitalism as we know it. There are liberal culprits not just in the democratic party, but on the republican side too.

But republicans at least try to be fair to the people who earned their money. Most democrats, on the other hand, make no secret of the fact that people who earn their money "owe it to the rest of the country to share the wealth."

Obama even went as far to say to one man that "It is your God-given duty to share your wealth."

He said it again the other day to an Ohio Plumber:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard ... I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

You see, when Obama is caught off guard, his true beliefs slip out. When he is debating McCain, and when he is giving his prepared speeches, he sticks to his memorized talking points. But when he is caught off guard, his true liberal feelings are revealed

It's no secret that Obama wants to take the money of those who earned it and give it to the poor, who didn't earn it. That, if I am not mistaken from my many economics classes, is what we call Socialsim.

Robin Hood Economics is socialism. It does not work. It fails. It does not stimulate the economy. It traps the poor in poverty. It provides no incentive for the poor to work.

Heck, when you punish the achievers, the people who are winning in this country, you punish the poor. That's what conservatives have been saying all along and nobody listens until a liberal (remember Jimmy Carter) comes in and destroys the economy with Robin Hood policies.

Note: You cannot take from the rich and give to the poor and expect the economy to prosper. It has never happened and will never happen.

It's funny, because Obama said the other day that we are right now in the worst economic disaster since the Great depression.

John Rassmussen said earlier today that this is not the worst economic disaster since the Great depression. It is the worst economic disaster since Jimmy Carter.

And, as I wrote before, if Obama gets elected, the economy will only get worse, as Jimmy Carter's liberal policies made the economy worse.

No vote on oil drilling only hurts all Americans

I think republicans did a good thing and made a great political move in pressing democrats to keep Congress in session until an agreement was made on what to do about high oil prices, or to at least have a vote on offshore drilling -- of which Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi refused to even allow a vote on.

All the republicans wanted was JUST A VOTE. A vote is no guarantee of passage. It simply would have provided Congressmen and women an opportunity to show the voters where they stand on the issue.

I'm saying this because McCain has been pressing Obama on Obama's desire not to change his position on offshore drilling, and this has done wonders for McCain in the polls. In the past week alone, McCain gained 8 points in Gallup in 4 days.

Yesterday, despite the democrats turning off the lights and the microphones, republicans stayed in session and continued to debate amongst themselves.

McCain was originally against offshore drilling, but changed his mind when he determined that this would be the best "short-term" means of lowering the price at the pump.

He has been mulling over other ideas too, such as providing an incentive in cash for the first person to invent a more powerful battery for cars, building nuclear power plants, and seeking other alternative fuels that might power cars and make electricity.

Obama has been steadfastly against slant drilling, drilling in ANWAR, nuclear power and does not want to provide an incentive to make a more powerful battery. He is for windmill power, so long as those windmills don't get in the way of scenery (which will be hard, because we'll need billions of them to meet our needs).

Democrats --including Pelosi and Obama -- say offshore drilling would take 10 years to do any good, and the consequences may be severe for the environment.

However, it was Bill Clinton who refused to sign a bill handed to him that would have allowed off shore drilling and drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago. If that bill had been signed, we'd be reaping the rewards right now.

And scientists say technological advancements have all but eliminated the environmental threat created in the past by oil drilling.

And while offshore drilling, according to McCain, would be only a temporary solution to the energy crisis, he -- if elected president -- says he would continue to encourage companies to seek out alternative fuels -- which is really the idea solution here.

Obama had been steadfastly opposed to slant oil drilling. But, after he lost 8 points in the polls in four days, he all of a sudden today decided that he "might" support it if that's what it took to get a decision passed through Congress and put on the president's desk.

Sure, McCain changed his mind too, but he did so on his own time. Yet, any time a candidate changes his mind he risks it being seen as politically motivated -- or a flip flopper.

Still, I think Obama is going to appear to voters to have changed his mind here only when his hand was forced. McCain changed his mind earlier on in the campaign, and not when he was pressed to do so (however, even that may be debated, as he wanted to appeal more to his Conservative base.)

I personally see changing your mind good. Even I, your humble reporter, change my mind sometimes as I do my research; as I learn more.

Yet I think Obama waited until the polls showed it was an unpopular position before changing his mind. However, it does show that he -- not unlike McCain -- might be willing to find a COMMON GROUND approach to solving America's problems.

Obama said, "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

McCain does still oppose drilling in ANWAR.

Obama has also said he'd rather that we make sure our tires are fully inflated, and democrats have also supported the idea of lowering the speed limit that Americans have to drive, all in an attempt to lower prices. I have no problem with conserving, but not at the expense of progress.

As the Khaki elephant writes, and I have written in past posts, Obama would rather us give up our economic mite, and go back to early 1900s style living, rather than drill for more oil. Which doesn't make much sense, because they support OTHER NATIONS drilling for oil.

Drilling for oil is going to have just as much of an environmental impact if it's done on the other side of the world as it would here. So, if it's going to be done, why not do it right here where we can reap the benefits, become energy independent, be safer in the process because we would no longer rely on foreign dictators for our oil, and have a lower cost of oil and gas.

Pelosi: man she is steadfastly against new oil drilling no matter who might benefit. She says she will not allow a vote on the senate floor. She would rather have nothing at all -- to the disadvantage of all Americans -- than have something she does not politically support. This is the kind of partisanship we do not need.

Some bloggers, and some republicans, think that democrats want to keep prices high, which is a great incentive for people NOT to drive, and thus keep pollution down.

Obama has said (paraphrasing), "I wanted prices of oil to be high, I just didn't want them to go up this fast."

To be fair here, I have written how some republicans have written about how higher gas prices make alternative fuels competitive. So this idea of keeping gas prices high is not just a democrat idea, and not just a liberal idea either.

Which is all the more reason to continue the debate in an attempt to find a COMMON GROUND solution, and to at least allow a vote.

By doing nothing, we are only hurting all Americans.

This, my friends, is just my humble opinion.

Hillary/ Obama will make the Constitution irrelevent

I wrote before that I think it would be a mistake for Conservatives to run from Guliani if he is eventually nominated as the republican nominee. Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that Conservatives vote for a third party candidate. Hillary will become President.

In other words, a vote against Guliani will ultimately be a vote for Hillary, who in return will make a gallant attempt to force her views on the people (i.e. Hillaryscare) and, thus, further diminish the value of the greatest constitution in the history of the world.

If, for example, one party can force it’s viewpoint on the people, as was the case with the pro-choice movement, then some day the pro-life movement might attempt to do the same by making abortion illegal for everyone. To do this would be equally preposterous and unconstitutional.

If Roe-v-Wade is Constitutional, then some day someone in the Federal government might be able to make a law stating you have to buy health insurance whether you want to or not. The Fed will also be allowed to punish you if you do not buy health insurance.

I bring up Health insurance here only because Mrs. Clinton proposed it, and because it makes for a good example of the point I’m trying to make.

Fast forward to 2010 with Hillary as President.

“But I don’t want to buy health insurance,” a young, dark haired lawyer retorted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. “By what grounds can this be Constitutional. I see nowhere in the Constitution that says anything about requiring people to buy something, let alone that the Fed can punish you if you do not buy it.”

“Roe-v-Wade makes it possible,” an elderly gray haired male justice states calmly. “Since the Supreme Court declared Roe-v-Wade the law of the land, and there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion, then why do we need to go by the Constitution on other matters, i.e. health care?”

“If you give the Fed the power to force you to buy something, and the power to punish you if you do not,” he looks the justice square in the eyes, “then you also given the Fed the power to tell you that you have to be healthy. ‘Hey, since we are paying for your health care, we have the right to force you to be healthy.’”

“That is correct. Congress can make such a law.” A smirk slides out alongside a thin, crooked lip.

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to eat trans fat.”

“Correct.”

“Congress can make a law making it illegal to smoke.”

“Correct”

“The folly of that is this: I have a Constitutional right to be wrong.“ He stomped his foot. “I have a constitutional right to not be healthy. I have a constitutional right to be stupid.”

“Not if we don’t go by the Constitution.”

“That’s exactly how liberals want it. If we rule by the Constitution, nobody can force anything on anyone. If we disregard the Constitution, anything goes.”

“You are talking about the slippery slope.”

“Yes!” He stomped his foot again. “Now the Fed passes a law that your kids cannot say the Pledge, nor pray in class, even though this is a right protected by the Constitution. They will make a law that you cannot go shirtless on the beach; you cannot drink alcohol; you cannot preach conservatism; you have to buy red cars.”

“Red cars?” he laughed, and laughter ensues from two or three other justices, followed by a delayed laughter from the crowd. Several justices seem to glare at the crowd, which quickly grows silent.

“Why not.”

“If the laws we are making are for your own good, then they are fine. If you do not smoke you stay healthy longer and cost the government less money.”

“I have a right to smoke.”

“Not if Congress says otherwise.”

“Congress cannot say that.” He stomped his foot.

“Roe-v-Wade says it can.”

“The truth is, as the founding fathers well knew, I have a God-given right to make my own decision. I even have a right to be wrong. But I do not have a right to force my views on other people. This not only goes for the pro-choice movement, but the pro-life movement as well.”

“Reiterate.” The questioning justice slouches back in his chair and pulled a cigar out from under his robe.

“In fact, the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights states this: ‘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.’”

“Go on.” The justice is now chewing on the cigar, his expression smug.

“The authors of the Bill of Rights were wise in writing this, for if the liberal movement can succeed in forcing abortion on the people, some day pro-life movement can use the same Constitutional claim by making abortion illegal.”

The justices stir, but remain silent.

“I profess,” the lawyer continues. “Neither to make it legal nor illegal. My point is that the issue of abortion should never even have been taken up by this court. According to the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, the matter should have been left up to the states.”

“How so?” This time lady’s voice. At first our lawyer doesn’t know the source of the voice, then he sees a chubby lady lean forward onto the table. She looked giddy.

“Prior to the 1972 ruling, some states made abortion legal and others did not. This is called Federalism.” A moment of silence ensued. The lawyer continued a stern glare at the lady justice, who‘s countenance did not provide any hints as to what she might be thinking. “My point is to leave the matter to the states, as per the 10th Amendment.”

“This is called Federalism.” It was the elderly justice again. He continued chomping on the stub of the cigar.

“In his closing arguments to his fellow American’s in the 2nd Continental Congress, Ben Franklin gave a speech in which he stated that his initial gut feeling was to not sign the newly created Constitution.”

The members of the court continued to stare. After several moments of silence, the lawyer continued.

“Then, by basing his decision on a gut feeling, he decided that since every man has a different opinion on every issue, and that, I quote, “most men indeed as well as most sects of religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whatever others differ from them it is so far error.’”

He waited for the justices to respond. When none spoke, he continued once more:

“Therefore he decided that ‘I agree to this Constitution with all its faults.’”

The elderly justice slowly stood. He removed the cigar stub from his mouth, and a smile crept onto his face. “That Constitution was made for a people of long ago. It is null and void as is the Declaration of Independence.” The audience stirred.

The young lawyers heart skipped a beat, a shiver crept up his spine. A tear formed in the corner of his eye. Looking at the floor, he said, “That is what I was afraid of.”