The Most Important Question Asked in Sunday’s Debate!

By: Richard H. Frank

The entire media, mainstream and others, seemed to miss the candidate’s answer to the question that will have the most long-lasting impact on every American, our children and grandchildren. At least they are neglecting to talk about it and prefer to focus on the personal attacks and scandals that occupy the headlines.

The question was, “What sort of people would each candidate appoint to open positions on the Supreme Court?”

Hillery Clinton droned on in her usual fashion about how the Republican controlled Senate refused to give Obama’s latest nominee a hearing before embarking upon a diatribe of issues including how Trump would appoint Judges that would overturn “Roe vs Wade” and Gay marriage and how her selections would overturn the “Citizens United” decision on campaign finance. She was quick to add that the Second Amendment would be tampered with to make mandatory background checks the law of the land.

Her priority was to appoint Justices having the same view as she holds with regard to “social justice” issues. She implied that her nominations would represent the diversity in America and not necessarily be confined to Federal Judges. Could this be she is referring to people like Obama or Elizabeth Warren?

Never once in her answer did she mention upholding the “Bill of Rights” nor did she use the word “Constitution”.

Donald Trump, on the other hand stated that he had put forth a list of 20 candidates all of which held beliefs in the vein of the late Justice Antonin Scalia that would faithfully discharge their oath to uphold the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

Hillery Clinton has publicly stated her intention to continue the policies of Barack Obama. His strategy and policies were revealed in a book entitled “Obama’s Blueprint for America” and specifically pointed to his intention to make appointments to the Supreme Court with Judges holding “secular progressive” leanings. He stated in his run for the Presidency in 2008 that the Constitution was a “basically flawed document.” Thank God that the court has seen differently and reversed many of his executive orders as being unconstitutional.

Without the checks and balances enumerated in our Constitution this nation will wake one day to find we have achieved the status of becoming a “Banana Republic” under the thumb of a corrupt and oppressive dictator. Only “WE the People” can stop this from happening by exercising our “Constitutional” right to vote and elect representatives that believe in our “Constitution” as written.

Elena Kagan Unfit for a Seat on the Supreme Court!

by Richard H. Frank

After enduring hours of political theatre with the unending statements of praise for Obama’s latest nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court, we finally got an insight on what drives Elena Kagan.  I am sure Ms. Kagan is an exceptionally smart individual and by all accounts relatively easy to get along with.

What should raise suspicion and generate questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee are the words used in her opening statement that seem to shed some light on her judicial philosophy.  She described the Supreme Court as a “wondrous institution that also must be a modest one – properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives.” Somewhere along the way, she seems to have missed the principle that members of the Court are deferential to the  Constitution of the United States of America.

Her remarks concerning her White House experience are of equal concern when she stated in part “The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our  Government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals.  But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American People.”

The American people do not make law – their elected representatives do – and those laws must conform to the “Constitution” which is the ultimate law of the land.  Further, the Constitution is explicit with regard to the powers delegated to the various branches of Government.  She was remiss in not enumerating those limits on Government during her opening statement.  This fact leads one to believe she holds a Progressive view of a living Constitution contrary to that of the Founding Fathers.

Her reference to “lessons learned” while at Harvard is quite revealing.  She said “…and what I’ve learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom and I’ve learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.  I’ve learned that we can come close to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind.  And I’ve learned the value of a habit that Justice Stevens wrote about more than 50 years ago … of “understanding before disagreeing.”

These are statements we might expect from an academic,  not a Supreme Court Justice!

Lastly, she stated “I will make no pledge this week other  than this one… that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all of these lessens.”

The pledge every American should hear from Elena Kagan is that she will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  Anything less should disqualify her from consideration.

Religion in America – Adding Insult to Injury

By: Richard H. Frank

The latest assault on religious prayer being reported in the media is that residents of a nursing home have been told they may NOT pray before their meal since a portion of the cost for the food comes from the Federal government. Just how far are the secular progressives willing to go to destroy our Christian heritage in America? They hide behind the First Amendment of the Constitution and not only misinterpret the words but omit those words that render their argument moot. The amendment says,” Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:” To my knowledge Congress has  not established any religion, especially Christianity. The secular progressives, through the courts, have imposed laws against the practice thereof in direct violation to the Constitution.  We can no longer celebrate Christian holidays or traditions in our schools and on any Federally funded or owned property in the United States. Federally owned means owned by the government, which  in turn receives its money in the form of taxes imposed upon “We the People”. Thus “We the People” must in fact own the Federal Property and also determine how and upon what Federal money should be used to finance. 

According to the PEW Forum on religion in the United States 78.4 % of the population are Christians, 1.7% Jewish, 3.0% other and the remaining Unaffiliated 16.1%. Given these statistics it seems ridiculous that some Judge is able to subvert the Constitution and make law from the bench regarding how and where we may practice our faith. Call it political correctness or just plain political activism it is not only wrong from a representative standpoint but is also unquestionably unconstitutional. Should we adopt a precept of ownership with regard to schools and government-owned property then we should be allowed to observe Christian traditions 78.4 % of the time since Christians contribute that percentage on average to the funding of the government. This of course is as ridiculous as the current situation barring any religious observances on government property.

The founders knew that government unchecked would evolve into tyranny and within the Declaration of Independence stated…”that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security.” Assuming that those persons that occupy the positions on the Supreme Court are virtuous and will uphold their oath to the Constitution, it is time for Christians to challenge the rulings and laws that prohibit exercising our Constitutional right to practice our religion whenever and wherever we deem appropriate, the same way Christians recognize the rights of all other religions. Should the Supreme Court fail to uphold the Constitution, then it is up to congress to impeach those Justices that continue to violate their oath. No one person, President or Judge is above the law and the Constitution is the supreme Law of the land.

Christians in America have been “disposed to suffer” the indignities imposed upon them by the secular progressives and it is time to stand up and return to the principles and values enumerated in the Constitution.