The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Monday, February 26, 2007


Article I, Section I - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

When the Constitution was established in 1787, the Constitutional Congress made three distinct and separate branches in the make up of The United States government. Each of the three branches while members of the whole have specific powers granted to them by the Constitution. Powers that create a check and balance system designed to prevent the possible establishment of a single man or group of men controlling the powers and responsibilities of the federal government. A check and balance system that while governed by people elected by the populace are directly answerable to the citizens of The United Sates.

The three branches are, The Executive which is the Presidency. The Legislative which is Congress consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. And the Judicial which is the Supreme Court and the Federal Court system.

Throughout our history there are many instances where one branch has attempted to over step its bounds but in most cases the check and balance system in the Constitution has corrected and/or prevented any one branch from usurping the powers and the Constitutional authority of the others.

This particular part deals specifically with the Legislative Branch whose duties and authority are defined in Article I of the Constitution. This is the branch of the government that establishes law, raises revenue, provides for and maintains the military, regulates commerce domestic and foreign, legislates Naturalization of immigrants, coins all monies, promote the arts and sciences, declare war, and provide legislative government specifically for Washington DC.

Many of the responsibilities of the Congress especially when that particular issue is in the fore front of American society and is having a negative impact upon the citizenry are credited to the sitting President. One prime example is the issue of illegal immigration. While the President states certain policy it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Congress to establish immigration law and provide for the enforcement of that law. A responsibility that has been a failing of the Congress for quite some time.

One key misconception of the authority of the Congress with the citizens and the elected Representatives themselves which is a pressing issue today is Congressional authority concerning military affairs.

The Constitution states that the specific responsibilities and authority of the Congress to the military are: "To raise and support Armies; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for the calling forth of Militia, (today known as the National Guard), to execute laws Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Congress holds any authority for the command decisions, deployment of or use in service of the military. Their lone and distinct responsibility is for provision and maintenance only. The current attempt by the Congress to force through binding resolution authority over deployment and command of the military does not meet the Constitutional authority and responsibilities set for in Article I, Section 7.

Another misconception concerning Constitutional responsibilities and is widely blamed or credited to a sitting President is the sates of the economy. When the economy is bad the President is blamed and when the economy is good the President takes the credit. Both of which are wrong by Constitutional standards. While the President can present economic plans and ideas to the Congress, (which is to his credit IF Congress adopts them), to address issues within the economy, it falls to the Congress to legislate in accordance with those plans or reject them and create plans of their making.

The President has the ability to veto if that plan is not in conjunction with a bill that is vital to America, (the veto will be discussed in a subsequent article). In actuality the growth or failure of The United States economy falls mostly on the actions or lack thereof by the Congress since they control the purse strings through legislation.

The Congress itself has a check and balance system which at times can become very frustrating for we citizens. That system is found in the two Chambers of the Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House through its very make up can run legislation through at a quick and sometimes reckless pace which then must fall to the Senate to sort out through a much slower and more deliberate legislative process amending bills and refining them.

The bills are then sent to Committee to find compromise and finally to the President for approval or veto. If vetoed then the Congress must agree with a two thirds majority to over turn a Presidential veto.

Congress is directly answerable to the people since it is our vote that places them in or removes them from office. The house is more sensitive to this since we select or reject them every tow years. The Senate on the other hand serves for a six year term and because of the 17th Amendment is directly elected as opposes to the original Constitutional provision of appointment by each state legislature. In this writers opinion this Amendment has allowed the Senate to exercise less responsibility to the people and more responsibility to their own well being.

Prior to the 17th Amendment if the people of a particular state were disappointed with the job performance by a Senator, the legislature could remove them from office and appoint another in their place. The six year length of term without the threat of removal by state legislatures allows Senators to exersise less responsibility to the people. Now the removal of a Senator requires impeachment by the same body in which that Senator serves, which is not likely. This Constitutional change in itself has attributed to much of the unfettered growth of the government as Senators throw earmarked bones to the electorate just before re-election.

The Legislative Branch of The United States is a singular representative body answerable to the people as defined in the Constitution and because of this definition finds no other like legislature in any government of any country. All others answer to a monarchy or another body within that government before answering to the citizenry. Our Republic has the distinction because of this accountability of being the only truly government of the people in the world.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, February 25, 2007


"Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

"Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled"

Quoted from; Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq October 2, 2002

Voting from a united Congress Democrats and Republicans with few exceptions voted in 2002 to authorize the use of United States forces in Iraq. What is little mentioned concerning this resolution is that along with the much reported, "flawed," intelligence that Democrats are backing away from in order to oppose the war, the resolution stated concerning terrorism and September 11....

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" These are the words of The United States Congress not President Bush.

Fast forward to the current Congress and the move underway by Democrats to revise the 2002 resolution to slowly bleed the armed forces in Iraq with the eventual goal of removal without completing the mission or the preparation of Iraqi Security Forces. The revision will limit or eliminate reinforcements which includes replacement forces for those deployed home, close necessary bases, limit shipment of weaponry and ammunition and tie the hands of the President and military commanders to prosecute the war with the Congress not the President being the deciding factor concerning deployment and strategy.

While this revision will weaken the United States because of its blatant plan by Democrats to slowly bleed Iraq of US presence and in the meantime place our soldiers in a more dangerous situation because of hampering of supplies, funding and reinforcements does it stand the Constitutional test ?

The United States Constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and when those forces are in, "actual service, " he is the civilian responsibility for the manner and deployment of forces as part of his duty to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Congress does not share in this responsibility nor are they Constitutionally part of the command of any of the armed forces. Command decisions include all strategies, deployment, replacement of troops and reinforcing of troops and supplying of troops as deemed necessary to protect the country and the troops.

The sole responsibility of Congress concerning the military is for the provision and maintenance of the military. This includes regulations, recruitment, discipline and arming. Or as the Constitution states, " To Raise and support Armies."

With the current revision being proposed by Democrats they are attempting to usurp their Constitutional authority of provision and maintenance of the military. Democrats are moving to become associate Commanders in Chiefs while limiting the command capabilities of the only Constitutional Commander in Chief; the President.

With history as a reference this move by the Congress would be comparable to a revistionist scenario after the D Day invasion. After the success of D Day the allied forces began moving inland and ran into extremely stiff German opposition in what is known a the French hedge row country. An area that is dominated by row after row of thick brush that made advancement next to impossible and provided the enemy with ample protection and fortification.

Forces were advancing at times only yards each day. Eisenhower under the direction of FDR created Operation Cobra in which the third Army under the command of General George Patton would do an end run around enemy forces to draw them from the hedge row country. Patton would use this move to march across southern Europe and eventually break the German forces which was a key strategy to victory.

This move required Presidential Command approval for the appointment of Patton as third Army commander and the deployment and supply of this Army. If Congress had made a similar move then as they are today in , "revising, " the 1941 declaration of war because of the bogging down of forces in the French hedge row country after D Day and US loses that were high, they would have eliminated the deployment of third Army, the supply of same and the appointment of Patton as its commander. WWII would have had a decidedly different out come without Operation Cobra.

This move by Democrats is designed despite their rhetoric to the contrary to slowly surrender US forces in the Iraq theatre. This move if allowed to find full implementation will slowly bleed US forces of personnel, material, hamper any strategy and essentially remove command and control of forces from the President and military commanders to the United States Congress and its current leadership. Which is a direct violation of the Constitution.

This, "revision, " of defeat will weaken United States national security. The enemy will see this as an opportunity to strengthen their resolve and increase their attacks against a weakened military. If fully implemented Iraq will become a haven of terrorist groups and the Iraqi people will become their fanatical Islamic slaves. Our troops will be placed in situations in which they will not have the forces or material to fight effectively and to protect themselves to the fullest extent possible. And ultimately the people of The United States will be less safe and more vulnerable to an enemy whose only goal is our destruction and the death of each of us, even defeatist Democrats!

Ken Taylor

Thursday, February 22, 2007


Yesterday British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he will begin bringing British troops home gradually from the Basra area in Iraq as Iraqi forces are taking control of security in that area. This announcement was met with mixed responses by both the White House , the media and especially Democrats in Congress.

The White House correctly stated that the troop decrease by the Brits fits in line with the strategy that has been in place since the beginning of Coalition presence in Iraq. Once Iraqi forces had the ability to handle security in any given area and eventually in the whole of Iraq Coalition forces whether British, Australian or American would begin leaving that area and redeployed home.

That is exactly what the Brits are doing. The Basra Region which is their area of responsibility has been calm without insurgent or terrorist attacks for some time and additionally Iraqi Security forces have completed training and are in sufficient numbers to handle any security problems that could develop. Therefore in accordance with the exit strategy the Brits are gradually going home.

According to the media and Democrats in Congress, President Bush is losing his strongest ally and this move by Blair is proof that the increase in US presence in Iraq is the wrong move. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took this opportunity to make this ridiculous claim by stating, "The announcement by the British government confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people about the President's decision to increase the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader also chimed in, "At a time when President Bush is asking our troops to shoulder a larger and unsustainable burden policing a civil war, his failed policies have left us increasingly isolated in Iraq and less secure here at home."

Other Democrats jumped on this political band wagon to gain their few moments in the press with a sound bite that would come out against the President. All the while each of these political animals knowing that their statements of the loss of British support and the false idea that Blair is leaving to stress that Iraq policy is a failure is an out right lie.

The Brits have been in the Basra region since the coalition distributed sphere influences after the initial invasion was complete. This region while having its problems is in no way as dangerous as the Sunni Triangle around Baghdad where the American troops are stationed and fighting. To even attempt to compare the two regions as similar and that Blair is leaving because of a failed Iraq policy is a blatant attempt by Democrats to once again play political games with the war and at the expense of our troops.

US strategy is exactly the same as the Brits. President Bush has stated over and over that Coalition forces would not be in Iraq one moment longer than necessary and this move by Blair proves this as fact. This decrease also proves that Iraq strategy is not the total failure that is being portrayed by the press and Democrats. For Pelosi and Reid to use this opportunity for political hay shows once again that their only interest is in opposing the President, undermining the war and making false claims of support for the troops as their words continue to express disdain for what our soldiers are doing.

Ken Taylor

Monday, February 19, 2007


Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There are many aspects of the misconception concerning the Constitution that this series will address that fall chronologically before this particlular subject. In The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution the Founders established that freedom of religion is the first and foremost right that we as Americans and free people experience in this country. Therefore since it is a right that the founders understood was the first and most important for our citizens it is the first misconception that this series will address.

The main contention concerning our right in America for religious freedom whether we practice, follow or do not adhere to any particular religion or belief is the false notion of the Separation of Church and State. This notion has been hammered by many for so long that most of the nation accepts falsely that this phrase actually appears in the Constitution. The, "Establishment Clause, " in the First Amendment as quoted above neither contains this phrase nor makes any contention that church should be separated from the state but rather that the Congress shall not establish any religion by law as the religion of the state.

To fully understand what the Founders intent was in this first of our cherished freedoms and where the notion of a, "separation, " of church from state came from certain historical facts must first be established.

When the Pilgrims landed on this continent they were leaving Europe to flee from religious persecution and seeking freedom to worship as they saw fit. This they could not practice in Europe thus their journey to America. As Puritans the Pilgrims because of the European laws concerning state churches could not freely practice their form of belief. Europe then as today established a state sponsored church and one must belong to this particular church to marry, bury, legally recognize a child's birth and in some instances even to own property. For instance in Germany the Lutheran church is the official church of the state and one must be a member of that church for legal purposes. Today one may worship in the church of their choice but must belong to the Lutheran Church to be legal. This ability to worship as one feels while still belonging to the state church was not the case in the 1600's so the Pilgrims embarked on their American journey.

Once they established themselves in the land they actually began practicing a form of the very religious persecution they had fled from. They established a form of Puritanism as the only acceptable religion which resulted in much persecution and eventually the Salem Witch Trials.

The Founding Fathers in order to prevent religious persecution and establish freedom to worship one's God as one would wish stated that Congress shall pass no law establishing religion thus preventing a state sponsored church and religion leaving it up to the individual as how to worship his God or choose not to believe in God at all.

The idea of, "Separation of Church and State, " comes not from the Constitution but from a letter written by the President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted."

Jefferson's response was as follows. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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."

In this Jefferson was once again stating that the state in accordance with the First Amendment shall make no law respecting religious establishment. This mention of , "separation, " by Jefferson has been the hallmark since to falsely state that , "separation of church and state, " is a Constitutional fact.

The original intent of the Founders was not to eliminate church, or religion from the state but to establish that all Americans would have the right and freedom to worship ones God in the manner of their own conscience. They also established that one who does not believe in God would have that right in this nation as well. Eliminating any semblance of religion or practice thereof from state gatherings, buildings, property or anything else pertaining to the state was not their intent or their wish.

The freedom of religion also establishes that if a religious practice is being performed or displayed whether in private or on state property one has the right to not recognize or participate in that meeting, prayer, display or practice.

The words of Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association have been used to attempt to eliminate religion from all aspects of our government which was not the intent of the Founders in establishing freedom of religion. In this country whether one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Atheist, one has the right and freedom to practice or not practice their beliefs in the manner of their conscience and the time and place of their choosing.

We are a nation founded upon and established through law as stated in the Constitution to have the ability and freedom to worship or not to worship as we as individuals see fit. A right established as the first of our rights and whether we are in the halls of Congress, the White House, our State Capitol a public library or the privacy of our own living rooms a right that we as Americans can practice or display freely without fear of persecution or our removal from the place we choose to participate or not participate in this freedom.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, February 18, 2007


Iran is steadily and consistently appearing in the news as the rhetoric appears to be escalating sparking thought by many of pending military action especially in the light of Iran's continued defiance concerning its nuclear program. There have been many comparisons to Iran and pre WWII Germany both in their actions and in the anti-Semite and aggressive talk of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are obvious reasons for these comparisons for instance the similarities between what he is saying and the position of Adolph Hitler toward Jews especially in his book Mein Kampf. Additionally there is a similar world appeasement toward Iran especially in European countries who derive much financial benefit from the Iranian regime so they are willing to turn a blind eye to the danger as they did in the 1930's.

Though all of the German/Iranian comparison are warranted, the correlation between what is taking place in Iran and its expansionist ideals point more toward similarities with the Soviet Union. The world reaction to Iran though like that of pre WWII Germany is more in line with the forty years of the Cold War and there are many lessons from that period that if applied toward Iran could help in solving the Iranian problem. There are also some striking differences between the Soviets and Iran that in some ways actually makes Iran a far more dangerous threat than the USSR was during the Cold War.

The Similarities - Beginning with the final months of WWII and the post war years the Soviet Union made it very clear in both their words and actions that Communist expansion under the USSR was a primary goal and nothing and no one was going to get in their way to achieve this goal. With an eventual world wide Communist sphere of influence all aligned and puppets of the USSR. In a similar way Iran is expressing its desire for world domination through Islam and the fanatical out reach of the radical factions of this religion of which Iran is the primary state who is sponsoring, training and supplying terrorists and the organizations that they claim along with those Iran directly controls like Hezbollah. They are even now making move to begin that domination by their leadership and supplying of the Iraqi insurgency.

Wherever possible the Soviet Union supported and supplied any Communist regime with advisers and weaponry especially when that regime was in direct confrontation with The United States. Though China was the major Communist force assisting North Korea during the Korean War, Soviet advisers and weaponry were known and found to be assisting the regime. In Vietnam the Soviet presence was extremely strong with the Vietcong along with every type of weaponry. Iran is proving that they are taking a page from the Soviet playbook in Iraq as Iranian advisers, soldiers and especially weaponry is being found almost daily. There are direct links to Iran with the insurgents even to the point that Shiite radical al Sadr has fled to Iran to avoid the increase in US presence and the crack down that is accompanying it. Additionally in last Summers conflict with Israel, Iranian troops were found embedded with Hezbollah fighters and Iranian weaponry was used daily against Israel.The nuclear ambitions of Iran are an obvious similarity to the Soviet Union. Though Iran is not comparable at this point to the shear numbers and might of the USSR nuclear arsenal at its height, Iran none the less has a similar goal of using the nuclear threat as a means to force its plans of domination on the world and appease diplomats into continual negotiation all the while allowing the time and the means to build an arsenal and advance their plan.

A final similarity which is of major concern is the seemingly general fear and concern over any type of confrontation whether in word or action with Iran. For the majority of the forty years of the Cold War the general reaction to the Soviets from political leaders and the press alike was not to push any issue, be very careful of what is said and above all always walk the thin line of appeasement and diplomacy never from a position of strength but always from complacency and acceptance of the Soviet evil. Iran is becoming a situation where most fear standing up to them , fear speaking against them and becoming complacent to the possible existence of a nuclear Iran thus allowing Iran to build, move and begin its advance toward Middle East domination which is in their idea the beginning of a world dominated by fanatical Islam.

The Difference - The obvious differences are of course culture, and the fact that Iran is not a Communist state but an Islamic state. Both of these are what poses the greatest danger and difference with Iran as compared to the Soviet Union. The Soviets though dangerous did not have a wish to die. Though they pushed Communist expansion into other nations they did not seek to convert them to a religion. They did force a political ideal upon each country that fell under their influence but not a fanatical religious society. Iran's primary danger is that their political philosophy is based on and ruled by a fanatical religious belief that has at it base martyrdom and the desired result of converting the world to their belief or that world must die. The Soviets desire to live allowed MAD, (Mutually Assured Destruction), to keep their militaristic tendencies in check. An Islamic fanatical Iranian regime dominating the Middle East will have no such desire which will create an empire of destruction and terrorism that the world has never seen before.Twice in the forty years of the Cold War someone stood strong and fast against the Soviet Union and both times the USSR backed down. The first was in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crises when Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev introduced nuclear missiles into Cuba giving Castro and the Soviets a first strike capability only 90 miles from The United States. President Kennedy steadfastly stood against this and over the course of thirteen days his stance forced the Soviets to back down and remove the missiles. The second stance came with Ronald Reagan who called a spade a spade in referring to the Soviet's as , "the evil empire." His stance and action against the Soviets lead directly to their collapse and the end of Communist expansion in the world.

Now is the time while Iran is still a somewhat small player to stand against the fanatical Islamic domination and preventing a rogue nuclear state. Continual appeasement because of fear of offending and angering Iran will accomplish nothing. President Reagan brought about the Cold War victory without firing a shot by use of the power and strength both militarily and economically of The United States. We have an opportunity to do the same now with Iran. They cannot match us militarily nor do they have the economic might that we do. We can surround this rogue state without firing a shot and prove to them that they will not be allowed to expand or threaten a neighbor. Economically we have the capability of closing markets to this country and stopping any trade. There are rumblings in Iran of dissatisfaction with the regime and especially with the defiance over the nuclear situation. This is to our advantage and a strong united stance from a position of strength can allow the collapse of the fanatical Islamic regime from within. Now is the time and much delay could be to late!

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, February 14, 2007


The House is in the midst of a whirlwind , "debate, " on a non-binding resolution against the troop , "surge, " that is currently under way in Iraq. Each of the 435 members are allowed five minutes to speak their mind, that is those who have one and come to think of even those who don't. This laborious process is expected to last until the vote on Friday to either accept or reject the resolution. A resolution that has no teeth nor any authority to do anything accept allow everyone who voted for it a political opportunity to say, "nya, nya I told you so, " to the President if the troop increase does not bring about the strategic out come that Bush and military commanders are anticipating.

News today of the fleeing of Shiite Muqtada al Sadr to Iran because of fear of the increase in US presence and the influx of American forces in and around the Baghdad which includes, "Sadr City, " would seem to indicate that the increase of troops is having an effect. But of course this will mean nothing to Democrats and the rhino Republicans that support this ridiculous resolution.

A non-binding resolution has no substance nor does it have any meaning other than a weak political statement to gain political points. When we elect Representatives and Senators we expect them to do a job and not spend hours on end of the tax payers money debating for the sake of debate only , then not standing for anything. Using the House and Senate floor as a platform to position themselves for the next election.

Though I do not agree nor advocate a pull back in Iraq or the defunding of this battlefield in the greater Global War on Terror if Democrats and rhino Republicans truly believed that the war was wrong and that the Bush strategy was a bad approach then this would not be a non-binding resolution. It seems that very few especially Democrats are willing to stand up for what they claim they believe by putting their political hide on the line. Rather they make ridiculous political statements like this resolution that satisfy the liberal wing of the DNC yet does not upset moderates and conservatives who believe that we should finish the mission in Iraq.

Speaking out of both side of the mouth seems to be all that many in the Democrat Party know how to do and the rhinos GOP who are similar are no different. If they truly wanted the troops home the House has the ability to cut funding and force the pull out of American troops in Iraq. They also know that if they attempted this the American public would answer with an anger that could be clearly heard in Iraq and every other corner of the world.

So what do they do ? They spend wasted time debating and voting for resolutions that are designed even by the debate format to produce sound bites, attempt to gather political points with the public and send a clear and loud message to our troops that, regardless of the writing in the resolution, the Congress does not believe in nor support what they are doing. To the enemy it sends a signal of encouragement that America will eventually leave so if this enemy will just lay low for awhile they could have their goal of an Islamic radical Iraq where terrorism reigns and hard fought freedoms, paid for with American and Iraqi blood, will no longer exist!

Ken Taylor

Monday, February 12, 2007


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The year is 1787. In May of that year some of the greatest minds the world has known gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to discuss the revising of The Articles of Confederation that had been adopted as the rule of this new nation during the Revolution. The weakness of the Articles in depending on the collective will of the states caused a form of anarchy as states competed against one another in commerce and taxation bringing insurrection and chaos.

The result of this Constitutional Convention was signed and delivered to the people of The United States on September 17, 1787 and in June of 1788 The Constitution of The United States of America became the law of the land as New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify.

The United States Constitution is a document like no other. Many countries have followed its example, even nations under the rule of Despots who never intended to adhere to Constitutional laws. Their reason for copying ours is simply this. The form of government established by the will of the people affords a government where freedom and liberty are the rule of law. Despots use this example in an attempt to fool their people into believing they will be free. Democratic nations use our example because the Constitution created the most balanced and free nation governed by the rule of law that the world has ever known.

There are many misconceptions about our Constitution that have appeared through the years and the first of those is that we are a Constitutional Democracy. A Democracy is a form of government who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives. This is not who we are. That is what makes us unique in the world because we are the only Constitutional Republic on the face of the earth. A Republic is a nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote. This power is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them. Thus the phrase which begins our Constitution, "We the people, " is more than just poetic but an actuality in the description of the form of government that leads this nation.

This series is going to attempt to address the misconceptions that have developed especially in our most recent history concerning our Constitution. I am by no means a Constitutional scholar but my qualifications to discuss our founding document come from the right, yeah the duty that we all have as citizens. That duty and responsibility is to know and understand the principles in which our country was founded and the conscience that established this nation. All of this can be found in our Constitution.

The Constitution has been referred to as, "a living breathing document." In this I agree but not in the context that most use this phrase. The Constitution is, "living and breathing, " in that it is as viable, necessary and the principles found within are as important today as they were the day it was written. Most who use this phrase believe that , "living breathing document, " means the liberal interpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to modern society which has allowed such acts as Judicial Legislation. The Constitution and the principles found therein are unchangeable and liberal interpretation allows a weakening of the original intent of the Founders.

In their wisdom the Founders realized that as the nation grew and society changed that the Constitution would need to adapt. To this end they made provision and that provision is in the ability for the Constitution to be amended, not liberally interpreted. This amendment process was intentionally made ponderous and involving specifically to prevent changes in the Constitution that were unnecessary or fleeting with the winds of the moment. In an avoidance of this Constitutionally provided process the liberal interpretation has allowed for misconception and even a dumming down of the American populace who no longer know their Constitution and depend upon their elected officials to inform them of what the Constitution says and/or defines on current issues.

This provision has made many necessary changes in societal adaptation as we have grown as a nation. It has abolished slavery, allowed women to vote, established specific rights and many other needed changes. Some have been counter productive such as the 17th Amendment which changed the entrance to office of Senators. Prior to this Amendment Senators were appointed by State Legislatures thus making them accountable to their state and its people, who if dissatisfied with the Senators performance of their duties could replace them before the six year term expired. The 17th Amendment provided for direct election of Senators which in many respects eliminated accountability and has been a major cause of the unfettered growth of government as Senators cater to special interests groups and only concern themselves with their state as elections approach then throw pork barrel projects to the electorate to insure re-election.

Each Tuesday over the next several weeks this series will discuss many Constitutional issues that we face today. Issues such as, the separation of church and state, abortion, gun control, Judicial Legislating from the bench, the powers of the different branches just to name a few. This will not be an attempt to portray a specific point of view because the Constitution is truly non-partisan. But rather point out what the document actually states on each subject and the original intent of the Founders who established our Constitutional principles.

As in all Constitutional discussions we as citizens must always remember that in this Constitutional Republic that we are the true authority of our government. Man was not made for the state but the state was made for man and that is what our Constitution establishes. Everyone from the President to our local state representative are directly answerable to, "we the people, " and the dumming down of our nation in the true knowledge of our Constitution and what it actually says and stands for has allowed this nation to drift from a nation , "of the people and by the people, " to one whose elected officials inform the people and who are not truly accountable to the people! Knowledge is power and knowledge of the truth as found in our Constitution is what makes our nation strong and our people united in freedom.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, February 11, 2007


"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing." Al Gore

"The threat against the global environment and global warming are a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction." Hans Blix former UN weapons inspector

We have heard the cries from the liberals and the calls for man to stop killing the planet through the release of CO2 gases which they claim is the direct cause of Global Warming. According to most of those who accept this theory Global Warming is the most dangerous problem we are facing today including the threat and actions of Islamic radicals and the terrorism they perform killing thousands.Let us then take an evidential look at the facts concerning the effects on mankind of Global Warming and the Terrorism. To do so we must first take the worst case scenario of Global Warming as it stands today and accept the claim that we are in imminent danger from Global Warming. Let me also state that I do not accept that man is the cause of the global climate changes that we are experiencing and that it is caused from a natural cycle that the earth has gone through before, including changes occurring in the sun which have brought spikes in its intensity.

So accepting Global Warming as a fact several questions in comparison to terrorism come to mind. Has Global Warming caused the collapse of any buildings ? Has Global Warming hijacked planes and flown them into buildings killing both passengers and the inhabitants of the buildings ? Has Global Warming decapitated anyone ? Has Global Warming held anyone hostage ? Has Global Warming attacked any country such as Israel ? Has Global Warming threatened the world with annihilation and called for the destruction of The United States and Israel ? Initially the case of the dangers of Global Warming posing a greater danger than terrorism looks fairly weak.

The main concern that has sparked the Global Warming frenzy especially in light of the recent UN findings, is that the temperature of the earth is rising due to what is known as the Greenhouse Effect caused according to liberal experts by man made CO2 gases from vehicles and industrialization. This rise in temperature is causing the Polar Ice Cap to melt which is causing the oceans to rise. Additionally the claim is made that the higher temperatures are directly responsible for the increase in both number and intensity of Hurricanes.Now for every scientific evidence that backs this theory there is an equal amount and in many cases more evidence debunking it especially in showing the selectivity of the Global Warming school of thought. Hurricane experts have emphatically denied the Global Warming connection and show a natural cycle in the Hurricane activity. But for the sake of our comparison we will use the liberal Global Warming evidence.

Certain records show by their standard that Alaska's temperature is rising at a rate of .07 - .08 C every ten years . Observational estimates are that the rise in sea level due to rising temperature is about 1 mm per year over recent decades. The percentage of Ice Cap melting varies according to which Cap and who is gathering the information so stating it in a concise form is not possible. Suffice it to say that according to liberal estimates and the Global Warming enthusiasts it is melting. Again for each of the statistics that are mentioned here there are evidential stats that counter and debunk their claims. But again for a comparison to terrorism over ten years we will accept the stats.

In the past ten years just taking into account the worst terrorist strikes that caused the deaths of 100 or more since 1997 there have been 28 major attacks resulting in the death of 6947 innocent people. This number does not include military personnel who have died as a result of terrorism just civilian deaths. The attacks have ranged in location from New York and Washington to Manila, Philippines and everywhere in between.

For liberals who wish to scare the world into believing that the fantasised theory of the end of the world through Global Warming is a far more dangerous problem than the murderous and intentional acts of terrorist and the Islamic radicals who make up terrorist organizations and states is such a ridiculous contention that it boggles the mind. Terrorists could care less whether one believes that they are in danger from a rising sea or a .07 C change in temperature. Their desire is for all who do not believe in their radical view of Islam to find death at their hands through major attacks like 9/11 or the attack of a lone homicide bomber in a market square. Regardless, their wish is for our death liberal or conservative, Global Warming fanatic or the common Joe trying to earn a paycheck from week to week. And that my friend is a far more dangerous threat to mankind than true or perceived Global Warming!

Ken Taylor

Friday, February 09, 2007


"Come fly with me, come fly, come fly away." Ok so Frank Sinatra actually sang it but Pelosi seems to be extending the invitation! So come on board and fly,
" Pelosi One," to San Fran. Enjoy a free flight to the West Coast at Pentagon expense. Included in your party flight is your in-flight movie " An Inconvenient Truth, " unlimited drinks that will give you plenty of spirits to tolerate three hours to the Coast with the Speaker. If you need to stretch your legs, hey on a 757 there is plenty of room. Bring your exercise clothes since with only 45 , "staff, " members on board there should be plenty of room to jog around the passenger cabin. Take a snooze in the luxury spaciousness as your Air Force crew of 16 whisks you away

to sunny California. Come fly with Nancy to exotic world destinations and enjoy stimulating liberal discussion on how CO2 gases from the common peoples SUV's are causing Global Warming. Enjoy energetic discussion on ways of adding huge taxes on , "big oil, " as in the comfort of her military jet thousands of gallons of fuel whisk you away with Nancy to visit her friends in the Bay Area, world leaders who don't care what she has to say but receive her out of respect for The United States. So be sure to book your passage today on , "Pelosi One, " and join Nancy as she wields the power of the Speaker for everyone to see!

" Hey Al, Global Warming is freezing us to death !" All I can say is let's see if the Guru of Global Warming can convince the folks in the Northeast and North Central US that they are victims of Global Warming! Record snow fall, record low temperatures and a generally COLD winter in most of the nation. Sure looks like the, "debate on Global Warming is over." Maybe its over to Private Jet set flying Al Gore and his Gorwellian vision of the end of the world, but evidence and a large percentage of legitimate scientists disagree. So I am going to put on my jacket, as it is cool in Myrtle Beach, below the average temperature by the way, get into my SUV and head to the store and fill up with big oil gas, go have a STEAK at my favorite restaurant and bundle up to enjoy an afternoon matinee!

Ken Taylor

Wednesday, February 07, 2007


Yesterday the Republicans stood up and were accountable. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted to force a vote on the stiff version of the non - binding Iraq resolution that called for the possibility of cutting funds among the many provision in the Resolution. The majority of Republicans stood firm and did not allow the Resolution to come to the floor thus stalling debate on the Senate floor. This Resolution was a slap in the face to our men and women in Iraq and many Republicans made it clear that Democrats were non - supportive of the troops when condemning their mission. This does not get certain Republicans off the hook for their support of a lesser version of the Resolution but it at least temporarily stops the momentum in the Senate to push for any resolution.

Democrats attempted to counter this by crying and even chanting that they support the troops but the attempt looked more like they were trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. It came across like one who brags about their prosperity only to find that the truth was just the opposite. When asked about the defeat of the vote on the Senate floor and comments made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the GOP move Reid angrily stated only that, "they are not in charge, " referring to the GOP and his power hungry lust as Majority Leader. I suppose that with his new status Reid expects every Senator to bow to his whims and fancies but that did not happen yesterday.

Determined to force a Resolution Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced immediately that the House would pass a Resolution next week. With the Democrat majority in the House greater than that in the Senate, passage is likely.

Their determination to pass a Resolution against Iraq policy even according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates emboldens the enemy and it is a fact that as troops listen to this debate it effects their morale. This though does not matter nor will it detract from the Democrat determination to push this defeatist, morale busting, enemy supporting and ultimately security threatening Resolution.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, February 06, 2007


In every interview, every campaign appearance, every sound bite, almost her every waking breath, Senator Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton has been back peddling concerning her Iraq vote and standing for the Congressional authorization to use force. Stating repeatedly that her vote was a, "mistake, " and actually voicing this reversal of opinion in an animated, memorized tirade that sounds much like listening over and over again to a voice mail greeting, Hillary is using this as another opportunity to bash the President and attempting to portray herself as an innocent who was misled and nearly forced into voting for the use of force.

Her political savvy gives her the realization that the average voter has an extremely short term memory and that what she says today will be forgotten tomorrow and what she said four years ago on the eve of the Iraq invasion has been for the most part totally forgotten by the electorate. This of course allows her to twist what she stated emphatically in 2003 when she not only stood on the Senate floor and supported using force against Iraq but stated that her own personal investigation of the intelligence made it clear that Iraq supported terrorism and that regime change was the only option since Saddam would not follow UN mandates nor allow inspections.

Here are just two examples of many stating her emphatic position prior to the Iraq invasion.

October 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

This was not a , "mistake, " nor was it a vote that was twisted by deception as she is trying to say today. It was a calculated and studied vote in support for force against Iraq based on intelligence reports that she viewed, advise from her political advisers who told her that it was in her best interest politically to vote for the authorization because the polls would lean in her favor if she voted expressing her support.

Fast forward to 2007. Many polls show that support for our presence in Iraq is dropping and Hillary who is guided by the rule of political expediency now is changing her tune and even attempting to claim she was duped into her vote. All in an attempt to satisfy her base who is totally opposed to Iraq, or any other US military action anywhere. She is not one who is guided by conscience, principle or core beliefs but is completely poll driven and develops policy positions in accordance to what she believes will gain the most support and votes.

As the push for 2008 approaches her run for President will be guided completely by what she and her advisers perceive will best play to whatever public she is facing, the demographics of any news program, late night or daytime television show she is a guest on and how vocal her liberal base in the Democrat Party is. This is just the beginning of the many faces of the Hildabeast. The Hildabeast Watch continues.

Ken Taylor

Sunday, February 04, 2007


The Senate is poised to pass this week a non - binding Resolution expressing non support for the increase in the number of troops that are currently in Iraq. This reaction follows the announcement by the President of an increase of troop strength of 21, 500 based on a new strategy of gaining full control of the troubled areas in Iraq which are mainly located in and around Baghdad. The increase in troops and the strategy are a result of plans that were developed by both the Pentagon, in field Commanders and Presidential military advisers. An increase deemed necessary by new Multi National Commander General David Petraeus who the Senate confirmed unanimously.

The Resolution is a result of a combined effort lead by Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia. While all but two Democrats not surprisingly support the Resolution only a handful of Republicans have expressed their support which was the reasoning for the compromise Resolution in order to gain enough GOP support to prevent a filibuster. The two Democrats Christopher Dodd,(D CONN), and Russell Feingold, (D WIS), are not supporting the compromise because they support the increase but because the new version does not call for a defunding of the war!

While the Resolution is non - binding which means that regardless the President as Commander in Chief can still go forward with the increase, it does have far reaching ramifications that make it a dangerous and defeatist attempt by the Senate to undermine the war and our troops. It also shows a complete hypocrisy by Senators who support the Resolution

The hypocrisy - The Senate hypocrisy is two fold concerning this defeatist resolution. Nearly every Senator is on record prior to the Iraq invasion expressing support for attacking Iraq and in fact most emphatically stated that it was necessary for United States National Security and that it was the right move by the President and he had their complete support. Secondly last week the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petraeus as the new Iraq Commander. The Senate expressed their complete confidence in his abilities and expertise in command and full confidence in his strategy in handling military affairs in Iraq. A strategy that I might add is in TOTAL agreement with the President including his statement of the necessity of the additional troops.

Message to the troops - while in the short term the Resolution does not effect the troops the message that it sends has an immediate and very damaging effect to troop morale. Our soldiers deserve the complete support of the people AND their elected officials. In passing and even debating this Resolution the United States Senate is in essence stating to our troops that they do not support what they are doing. It can only be taken by the soldier in the field as a slap in the face to their service for our country and the sacrifice and accomplishment they are making daily for the cause of freedom. A mission that they support and in which they voluntarily serve and that the Senate is demeaning by their politically based statement which is designed for the enhancement of their personal careers rather than support for our troops as Senators claim it to be.

Message to the enemy - after the United States pulled out of Somalia shortly after the infamous, "Black Hawk Down, " incident, Usama Bin Laden came to the realization and stated that America did not have the stamina to fight a sustained war nor the strength to face the death of our soldiers and citizens. This lead directly to the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks. This Resolution sends a similar message to the enemy in the fact that it states that a governing body of the United States of America is siding against the military effort that is fighting this enemy. Which only encourages both insurgents and terrorists alike to fight with a new vigor as they are emboldened to believe that the harder they fight the more likely the United States will leave because the will to complete the mission and achieve total victory is not in our make up.

We entered this war against terrorism united as a nation with a resolve to see it through to final victory both in remembrance of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks and to end the scourge of terrorism so that we nor our children would ever have to face the sorrow and anger of that September morning again. When we entered Iraq nearly everyone agreed of its necessity and its association in the war against Islamic extremists and the states that support them. While no one associated Iraq directly with 9/11 all understood Hussein's terrorist ties and his support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Everyone realized the danger of allowing this rogue state to continue and the implications of financial, weapons and yes known WMD available for support of terrorism.

Now just over five years after 9/11 victory is no longer desired and Senators and Representatives alike are reversing their stance for political expediency. Whether one supports the President or not everyone can agree that he is a man of principle and regardless of pressure or polls the security and the good of the country is foremost in his duty and his responsibility. He has not wavered in his resolve and he still understands the consequences of failure and the necessity of victory.

Standing for what is right does not mean caving to political pressure or making policy in accordance with polls and the advancement of political careers or even winning elections. This is what our Senate has become a political animal whose only interest is being elected while never standing for anything. This type of attitude would have compromised with the British during our own Revolution and we would have never become a nation. General Douglas MacArthur once said that, "in war there is no substitute for victory." In this war not only is there no substitute but it is a necessity for our nation, our security and our future. If it were left to the Senate and their resolutions we would fall to defeat and Islamic radicalism would rule the world.

Ken Taylor


The February Blog of the Month is, "Conservative Commentary." Excellent conservative views from a Marine Corps and law enforcement vet. Commentary that covers politics and a very strong stance in support of our troops AND their mission can be found from this fellow conservative. Quoting Ronald Reagan in the Blog Header and his famous, "government IS the problem, " statement while referring to him as a, "very wise man, " also places this writer high in my book. Well worth your reading and adding as a link. The Blog of the Month spotlight is located between the polls and will be added to the blog roll as a regular link at the end of the month.

Ken Taylor

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.