Does the U.S. Constitution stand for anything in an era of government excess? Can that founding document, which is supposed to restrain the power and reach of a centralized federal government, slow down the juggernaut of czars, health insurance overhaul and anything else this administration and Congress wish to do that is not in the Constitution?

The Framers created a limited government, thus ensuring individuals would have the opportunity to become all that their talents and persistence would allow. The Left has put aside the original Constitution in favor of a "living document" that they believe allows them to do whatever they want and demand more tax dollars with which to do it.

(The above is from a column written by Cal Thomas. Read more of the column below.)

In 1939, the Supreme Court began to dilute constitutional language so that it became open to broader interpretation. Rob Natelson, professor of Constitutional Law and Legal History at the University of Montana, has written that even before Franklin Roosevelt's court-packing scheme, it was changing the way the Constitution was interpreted, especially, "how the commerce and taxing powers were turned upside-down, the necessary and proper clauses and incidental powers, the false claim that the Supreme Court is conservative, how bad precedent leads to more bad court rulings, state elections as critical for constitutional activists, and more."

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the Left.

(Read the whole column by Cal Thomas Can the Tenth Amendment Save Us?)

The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening an Alabama school district over prohibiting a lesbian from taking her girlfriend to the prom.

Tharptown High School near Russellville told Cynthia Stewart she could not attend the prom in March with her girlfriend in tow. On behalf of the 17-year-old junior and her guardian, the ACLU is now demanding that school officials reverse their decision.
 
According to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the case is typical of the ACLU in that "anything that is anti-moral, anti-religious liberty, and anti-freedom, you can always find them on the other side."
 
"Here they are again: They're supporting lesbianism in a school situation where...the school does not want to promote lesbianism," the attorney explains. "The prom is [designed] for young men and young women to come and celebrate -- it's not [intended] for an exhibition of lesbianism; and the school simply has said [it's] not going to allow lesbianism in the prom. (ACLU defends lesbian student on prom issue  )

(The ACLU should not be using our courts to force a behavior on a school that doesn't want it. However the way our courts work it might be just a matter of time before this school has to allow this behavior better to put your children in private schools and remove them from the government schools) 

A conservative military watchdog expects a tough fight in Congress if Democratic leaders move forward with a plan to try ending the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military by attaching an amendment to next year's defense authorization bill.

On Wednesday an aide to Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) told The Hill that both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) back the strategy of using the defense bill to attempt to change the 1993 law which strictly forbids homosexuals from serving in the military. That law has often been confused with Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" directive, which was never approved by Congress.

(This is an issue which shouldn't be about gay rights but what is best for the defense of America. The military should not be about pushing some cause but what is best for America. Based on what I have seen the men and women in the military don't want this policy ended. Read more on this issue Dem's plan for repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'.)

A conservative media watchdog believes that former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs was forced to resign because the network didn't agree with his stance on illegal immigration.

The long-time CNN anchor made the bombshell announcement on Veterans Day. "Tonight I want to turn to a personal note, if I may, and address a matter that has raised some curiosity. This will be my last broadcast here on CNN, where I've worked for most of the past 30 years," Dobbs said. He went on to explain that he had been advised "to go beyond the role at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day."  

Jeff Poor, a staff writer at the Business and Media Institute of the Media Research Center, believes there was continued pressure at CNN to get Dobbs off the network.

(If Dobbs was forced out it is too bad. I would not be shocked the way the left have gone after Mr. Dobbs for his stand against non legal immigration. Read more right here. )

Federal prosecutors have announced they are taking steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization. The organization -- the Alavi Foundation -- has long been suspected of being under the control of the Iranian government. Prosecutors say the Foundation has been helping to illegally funnel money back to the Iranian government. ( Feds want to seize Muslim-owned properties )

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, views the alleged scheme as part of a much larger objective. "It's probably just the tip of the iceberg," he says.

(This is something our government should have been doing long ago but better late than never. )