Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn 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 future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

1. A world depression is almost a certainty.
2. Higher (stratospheric) Taxes.
3. Legislation through the courts will be the new norm.
   
4. Either the Constitution is abolished or ignored.
5. The war is lost. In fact, Obama will surrender all the gains made in the current war.
   
6. The potential for a much more aggressive China and Russia seeking territorial gains at the expense of a weak president whose agenda is geared to inward views and a hatred of the military.
   
7. Rises in crime and a complete abandonment of principles of justice in the courts. Criminals will be given a free pass while victims will be punished by the courts, like it was in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

1. We're still here. Conservatives, unless we are taken out and jailed for our beliefs, still hold to our values.
2. 2010 is closer than you think and the left is on notice that if it goes too far, the Congress can be taken right back to place a cap on Obama's power.
3. Americans still value freedom. Should it be that these new leaders try to take it from us, I think there would be hell to pay.
4. The 2012 election will quite likely feature Sarah Palin as a primary player. If anything is a good sign, it is the appearance of this amazing woman who signifies a refreshing change to the GOP.
5. This too, shall pass. Patience and holding fast to our values will win the day.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday's election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.

Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.

Philip J. Berg

The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

(Story continues below)

Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.

In a statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an "Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008."

"I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a "natural born" citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president," Berg said.

Written by Dave Nalle
Published November 02, 2008

Watching the Sunday Morning talking heads on Meet the Press and This Week was kind of a surreal experience. For a minute I thought it was next Sunday, because they were all talking about the election in the past tense, with questions like "when was it that John McCain lost this election?" The discussion came down mostly to how much of a landslide the election is going to be for Obama, with no consideration of the possibility of any other outcome.

Apparently the media has entirely convinced itself that exit polls of early voting can accurately predict the overall outcome of the election, despite the fact that it has been definitively proven that people lie pathologically to exit pollsters, as was demonstrated in 2000 and 2004. In addition, all of the polls are using weighting systems based on hypothetical assumptions about demographics, voter turnout and voter attitudes which have no basis in anything except the partisan wishful thinking of the pollsters and their employers. With McCain running such a wildly unconventional campaign, clearly based on a completely different set of assumptions, the talking heads seem foolishly arrogant in their premature conclusions. It is almost enough to raise the suspicion that they are engaging in psyops-style vote suppression and attempting to convince people not to vote because the outcome is predetermined.

One of the fundamental mistakes the punditocracy and the pollsters seems to be making is the assumption that high voter turnout means that lots more Democrats are voting and that independents are turning out to vote Democrat. This seems to be based on the theory that only Barack Obama can inspire people to vote and that those people can only be voting for him. They seem to be overlooking the reality that Obama is a polarizing figure and his power to turn out voters may very well include the power to turn out a lot of voters who oppose him. This is clearly what the McCain campaign is banking on by painting the Obama's negatives in broad strokes and making sure that those who have concerns about Obama are given plenty to worry about.

A second important mistake is the assumption that Obama has a strong appeal to the middle and working class. There's very little evidence to actually support this theory. Obama has become clearly associated with the ruling elite of the left and has consistently alienated the working, tax-paying segment of the population who turn out to vote more than any other segment of the population. Despite the claims of Obama's spokespeople, McCain has been aggressively campaigning towards that demographic and based on the impressive and increasing turnout at McCain and Palin rallies in key working class areas, he seems to be making huge inroads in that traditionally Democratic population. The predictions of the pollsters and pundits seem to give no consideration at all to the possibility that Obama may be losing a remarkable number of votes among the white middle class to whom the McCain message and Sarah Palin's union background and populist persona are very appealing.

The third mistake is the chronic Democratic assumption that voters are stupid and uninformed. The pollsters and the pundits are basing their conclusions about the election on the very questionable belief that McCain's message and his efforts to educate the public about Obama are not reaching the voters. It's a purely anecdotal and personal observation, but from what I've seen, a lot of people have gotten the message that Obama's background and ideology are extremely troubling and ultimately unacceptable. Fear of Obama is very real and very powerful, and it will motivate voters to turn out in large numbers to stop the threat to the nation which they perceive Obama to be.