This is what Obama's approach to illegals and healthcare will result in. Just thought I would show what the effect on the hospitals illegal aliens really take.

Supreme Court Protects Our Rights

FoxNews.com-

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Thank God they have some sense. After that blooper on Gitmo detainees, this is a relief to see that the Supreme Court can follow the Constitution and protect America and it's citizens rights instead of constantly trying to legislate from the bench.

What is the Role of Religion in America?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…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 and State…." This is a quote, taken from Thomas Jefferson, that many today use to strike down Christianity. They say that this quote proves that our Founding Fathers did not want God in American government.

It’s true that our country’s founders did not want church-run government, the kind of government they left behind in Europe. They knew the atrocities that had been committed in the name of “God’s Will” and did not want that type of rule in America. At the same time, “Separation of Church and State” has been taken to far and has interfered with our First Amendment right that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This amendment prevents the government from establishing a church, but it also gives Americans the right to exercise their religion.

Thomas Jefferson was right when he proposed this language for the Virginia constitution, “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” No person should be required or forced to believe in, or not believe in any certain religion or be restricted from practicing their faith. Neither the First Amendment nor the words of Thomas Jefferson allow our government to stop public prayer or prevent politicians from practicing their faith publicly. They don’t give individuals, or groups (such as the ACLU), the right to sue the government for showing the Ten Commandments or sue others for praying where they can hear. If that was the case then I could sue anyone for playing their music a little too loudly or for saying they don’t believe in Christ or God.

The Treaty of Tripoli has language in it that some use to further support separation of Church and State. The 12^th Article reads as follows, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]…” Many take the first portion, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” and omit the rest to support the infringement of our first amendment right to practice our faith freely. To fully understand the meaning of this part of the treaty you have to look at a couple of things.

The first is to just include all of the text, not just bits and pieces. If you read that first part and then include the rest it explains what it means. The treaty does not simply say that the United States is not a Christian nation, what it says is that it is not a Christian nation like European nations were. So called “Christian” European nations were always at war with Muslims over their religion (hence the Crusades) and the United States wanted to make sure that the Barbary States understood that they would not follow in Europe’s footsteps.

Second, you have to look at the position the United States was in when this treaty was written and signed. The Barbary States knew Christian nations to be warlike nations. To them a Christian nation was a threat, an enemy. The United States had just become an independent country and had few resources due to war (Revolutionary War). The United States had no navy and our trading ships were being attacked by the Barbary States. With our resources limited and no navy, the United States had no choice but to enter into a treaty with the Barbary States (who considered the United States an enemy at the time).

America’s president at that time was President John Adams. President Adams was America’s 2^nd president and the president that signed this treaty and sent it to the Senate to be ratified. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," those were President Adams’ words just two years after signing the treaty. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united." It is obviously clear that Adams was a Christian and that he believed, and knew, that the Constitution was made for Christians and “religious people.”

Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli and taking those points into consideration, it’s fair to say that the treaty does not mean America is not a Christian nation, but that it means that America will not follow Europe’s example and fight more religious wars or persecute those for their faith. Also, judging from Adams’ words after the treaty it is evident he, and many others, knew that the United States was founded on Christian principles.

Many secularists argue that the Declaration of Independence is not law and because of that it’s not relevant that it includes “Our Creator.” They also argue the fact that the word “God” is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is proof enough that the founders had no desire for God to be part of American government and that their (secularists) view of separation of Church and State is right. This, like so many other things they believe in, is not true. Although the word God does not appear in the Constitution, a reference to our Lord does. In Article VII, of the United States Constitution, there are these words, “…Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…”

First, let’s just make clear that the U.S. Constitution was done by the “Unanimous Consent of the States present…” So now that we know that it was unanimous lets look at the reference to “our Lord.” Now who is this Lord that they are referring to? Is it just a word they through in to make it sound better? No. Is it just the date? No, they could have done that without referring to our Lord. Then who is this Lord and Creator they are speaking of? John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Johnston, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, James McHenry and many, many more Founding Fathers and early country leaders have made it very clear. From public speeches to military addresses to private letters to congressional debating they make it very clear. This Lord they were referring to is Jesus Christ, and the Creator, God.

Did the Founding Fathers want a separation of church and state? I believe the answer is in the First Amendment. That amendment, though very short, explains the Founders’ intent concerning religion and government. There should not be a government-run church or church-run government. The people of the United States have the right to practice their faith, or lack of faith, freely and should not be discriminated against for their choice of faith. They should not be forced to believe in something or restricted from practicing their faith.

What about God and government? Our country’s founders have made it very clear. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the words spoken and written by these very men, it’s easy to see that they intended for a country founded on God. For a country with the most solid foundation available. They knew that there were no better principles than those of Christ. This is clear in their own words, such as, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God,” by John Adams. Or, “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus,” and “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,” by Thomas Jefferson.

Separation of Church and State has been taken too far. America needs to go back to our founding documents and reexamine our country. God was intended to be part of America and should continue to be our foundation.

Obama Still Defending Wright

Senator Barack Obama continued his defense of his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, today by saying that Wright was stuck in a "time warp".

“What they spoke to was, I think, a brilliant man who was still caught in a time warp back in the ’60s, early ’70s and the ’50s, where he grew up, and had a sense of where America was and didn’t have a good enough sense of how it had changed,” said Obama. Obama's comment came on an appearance on "The View" earlier today.

If this man cannot grip reality and realize that this is not the 60's, he has no place on the pulpit. Obama can defend Wright all he wants, but the fact is that this says a lot about Obama's judgment and character. As much as he claims that he was not present for "SOME" of these statements, made by Pastor Wright, there is no way that you attend a church for 20 years and not know what types of things are being taught. Especially when you are as involved as Obama has claimed to be.

To go back to something else that I mentioned in this post, Obama said that he was not present for "SOME" of the bigoted, racist, anti-American and hate-filled sermons. So was he saying that he is was also present for some? If he was then there is no excuse for not getting up and leaving in the middle of a sermon. He should of either left the church or asked Wright to resign. It is my personal belief the he was present for some or at least knew of some of the hate-filled sermons delivered by Wright. Because he chose to continue to be a member of the church and had a close relationship with the racist pastor I am certain that his man lacks the judgment and experience to lead the strongest country in the world.

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

D.C. Gun Ban Goes to Supreme Court

Tomorrow is a very big day for Washington D.C. and the rest of the country. Washington D.C.'s unconstitutional handgun ban is finally going to the Supreme Court, where I pray they will uphold the Constitution and our right to bear and keep arms. The Supreme Court's decision could affect the rest of the country's fire arm laws.

Dick Heller is the agitator bringing on the suit against D.C. . He claims that his personal handgun is necessary to defend himself at home (which we know is true).

What is really interesting in this case is that D.C. claims that the Second Amendment does in apply to them because they are a district. But wait, I thought that they wanted equal representation in congress as a state? I guess that liberals there just can't make up there mind. They really don't care, as long as they get more power.

55 Senators (Democrats and Republicans) and 250 Representatives (Democrats and Republicans) have sent a brief to the court in support of Heller. Only 17 Representatives (all Democrats) have sent a brief in favor of ignoring the Constitution. And of course Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have not made their positions known, but I wouldn't expect anything else from them, they're just liberals playing politics and the less we know the better right?

Thank you for reading and God Bless.

For more information on the arguments being made here is a link