The Constitution


There was a truly shocking multiple murder in Itamar in West Bbank of Israel [www.ynetnews.com] this week. The US mainstream media gave this crime little play, so most folks may have missed this sad news all together. Most of the Fogel family, a family of Jewish settlers in the West bank, were slaughtered in their sleep by as-yet unidentified assailants. The victims Udi and Ruth Fogel, and three of their six children — aged 11, 4 and three months — were all stabbed to death as they slept in what has been described as a grisly crime scene in their home. Three of the children, aged 12, 8 and 2 survived and are in the custody of their grandparents.

Although no one has been identified as the attacker or attackers, there are rumblings of responsibility from the usual Palestinian circles. This act was yet another “reprisal” against Israel and her citizens for their courage to erect settlements on their own sovereign territory.

But underneath this veneer of legitimate protestation is the tacit barbarism of Islam. These murders are just another manifestation of the “Religion of Peace” as emboldened by the concept of democracy. Democracy is not the substitute for a for a humanistic, Judeo-Christian Constitution where all men and women are created equal with certain inalienable rights and liberties. No siree. Because the cloak of democracy allows the dirty little (once) secrets of the Maghreb to exist and flourish. The mobs of a democracy can become the murderers of a thugocracy if they use the precepts and biases of the like of Sharia Law. This is what happens in Muslim countries where fealty to theology is prized over fealty to human rights and liberties. In any modern, enlightened and humanistic society, these two concepts — Sharia and democracy are akin to a match and gasoline. One is the enabler of the other, and they live in a hateful symbiosis. Just ask the Jews in any Arab/Sharia country.

The slaughter of the Fogel family should not be seen as a random and heinous religious crime. It is the persistent reminder that in the eyes of Muslims, the Jews are the lowest of the low infidels. As such, a crime like this in Itamar represents the barbarism of the ‘democrats’ in (albeit disputed) Muslim territory. God help us all if we don’t learn from the sacrifice of the Fogel’s and open our eyes wide to the theocratic barbarity among us. Regardless of what exists in other regions around the world, we must be ever vigilant and quick to stamp out any foothold of this on our soil. We are America. We are not a democracy. We stand for something — the US Constitution. And it is tragic that we need the murder of innocents elsewhere to drive this point home.

Labor of Love: The economic and employment situation must be dire indeed when the financial markets embrace, then rise on, an ADP report stating that 217,000 jobs were added in February over the 180,000 that were predicted. My math informs me that this represents an annual increment of 444,000 jobs. That works out to less than one-half of one percent of the total working population. If this news is somehow titillating to investors…and cause for an 8.78 point rise in the Dow, then things have become so irrational that my mattress or a hole in the woods is looking better and better as a place to park my 401k balance.

Belaboring Their Position: The protesters in Madison, WI have definitely wrung out their 15 minutes of fame. If I may speak for the average citizen (in whose class I am firmly entrenched), you have made your point, spoken your piece and worn out your welcome. The carnival that now exists in Madison, under the guise of decrying Draconian union “rights” truncation, has now become a forum for socialists and insurrectionists. Perhaps the teachers and union supporters are unwitting “useful idiots,” or perhaps they just don’t care. But I think there is some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangement between the unions and the socialists — their mission statements are essentially the same and their main aims (collectivization) are complementary.

Eric Holder — Attorney General for Blacks?: A recent comment by US Attorney General Eric Holder makes me wonder if he is really the legal defender of all Americans. In response to congressional questioning regarding the Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute the Black panther’s case in Philadelphia, Holder replied:

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,” said Holder, who is black.[emphasis added]

I don’t think that I have to remind Mr. Holder that his people are the American people. In his position, there cannot be any divisions based on race, class, ethnicity or sexual orientation. He is (supposed) to be the bulwark of the Constitution…and if we cannot trust his impartiality or neutral application of the law, then who can we trust. I cannot help but think if those same comments were made yesterday by a white Attorney General, that he/she would be a former Attorney General today.

Crisis, Crisis and Gas Prices: Where is the outrage regarding the ever escalating gasoline prices at the pump? Oil futures are now trading at over $100 per barrel and pump prices are now exceeding $3.30 nationwide. In our present weak economy, these increases, like those seen in the spring and summer of 2008, can be a deal breaker for our fragile recovery. Certainly the reasons for the price increases can be found in the recent insurrections and instabilities in the Middle East. But there is also the 900 lb. gorilla in the room when it comes to the gasoline prices that Americans pay now and will pay in the future. This is the reluctance of the Obama administration to endorse and allow oil exploration and drilling on American soil or in American waters. It appears that Obama has been successfully indoctrinated by the greenies and global warmists…and it also appears that there will be no new meaningful oil exploration until the next GOP president takes control of the White House. Until that time (hopefully in 2012) we will be at the mercy and caprice of Middle eastern potentates and strongmen…and subjected to the vagaries of a quickly changing world political arena. As such, expect that gasoline prices might top out at $5.00 a gallon, and that your plans to lead a “normal” life might be placed on hold, accordingly.

Cowards at Home and Abroad: The fourteen still-AWOL Wisconsin senators should be dealt with harshly by the government of Wisconsin. As of today, the remaining GOP legislators have passed a resolution that fines these cowards $100 per day, after a two day continuance absence from the senate, that is set to start on Friday. This weak punitive measure follows the withholding of their pay and certain senatorial benefits like photocopying privileges. But these “punishments” to date have done nothing to loosen the intractability of the absent legislators. Something powerful and financially painful needs to be done to let these cowards know that they were elected to do all the people’s business, and not that of their favored unions special interests. Unfortunately, there are criminal cowards abroad who have murdered two US servicemen on board an airport bus in Germany. The gunman was reported to have cried “Allahu Akbar” or “Jihad, jihad” when he opened fire on the bus marked “US Air Force.” The gunman, identified as an ethnic Albanian, was subdued after his gun jammed. I guess cowards come in all forms, their cowardice manifests itself in all forms, and they exist in great abundance both here and abroad.

In retrospect, I’m glad that Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election. There are actually two reasons for my gladness: the first is that we got our once-whispered orgy of socialism/Progressivism out in the open, and this led directly to the 2010 conservative gains in the House. The second is the fact that we didn’t have to suffer through the tenure of President John McCain. Yes, McCain did have Sarah Palin as his running mate, and she was the ONLY reason that I supported his candidacy. But McCain has shown himself to be a tiresome RINO…a liberal/Progressive who uses conservatism to suit his political ambitions when it is convenient. In this vein, McCain used Ms. Palin as his conservative “beard,” and it was a desperate Hail Mary attempt by his campaign to rescue it from obscurity. History shows us that even former Governor Palin and the tremendous interest she created in the conservative community was too little, too late for his ineffectual campaign. I thank him for introducing Ms. Palin to the wider political audience, but I have come to mistrust and oppose John McCain for his continued political duplicity.

This news story probably illustrates why I distrust and reject John McCain’s avowed “conservative” credentials:

McCain says a ‘much more centrist’ Obama ‘much’ easier to work with

Even as a newly-repackaged “centrist” POTUS, there are still enough ideological differences between Obama and any so-called conservative Republican (ostensibly Mr. McCain) to raise the hackles of said Republican. Not so with McCain. Ever the infuriating ‘maverick” legislator, McCain is constantly finding ways of helping the Democrats to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat to the GOP. This includes his failed presidential attempt in 2008. Now it appears that McCain is hell-bent for leather to give Obama credibility in his now-magical transformation from a new age Karl Marx to ersatz Ronald Reagan. Apparently McCain now sees Obama as much easier to work with now that he’s conveniently tacked his image to the center. Really? Was Obama the paragon of compromise and ease to work with when he had political majorities in the Congress John? Was the passage of Obamacare in such a humiliating manner to the GOP, with the tacit approval and imprimatur of Obama, an example of this co-operation?

Goody-two-shoes McCain is trying to make himself relevant in a news cycle that has pretty much relegated him to history. He’s trying to put himself back in the spotlights by engaging in this crazy high wire act with Obama. Except it’s not so much high as live wire…and the results are indeed truly shocking for those of us who are fed up with just a half-term’s worth of the Obama agenda…and see McCain as a vehicle for Obama’s successful re-election. Unfrortunately for McCain, the up and coming Republicans (and those who are getting all the news focus) are those who are actively embracing conservative values and putting voice to Tea Party principles such as limited government and personal freedom and liberty. McCain has never been big on these core conservative Republican principles…in fact he has been willing to jettison them in favor of crossing the aisle in search of “bipartisanship.”

But now he’s gone way too far. His endorsement of Obama’s attempt to transmogrify himself into an ebony Ronald Reagan stretches his own credibility to its breaking point. How do we trust a man who would in some way encamp with the enemy and support its aims? Yes, I did mean the enemy! Because Obama’s first half-term as POTUS has shown him to be antithetical to every ideal that conservatives and constitutionalists hold dear. And McCain now declares that he sees Obama as being easier to work with? Doesn’t this supposedly astute senior senator understand that his endorsement of sorts of Obama will enhance his chances for re-election in 2012? Could it be that the “maverick” is beginning to show signs of his dotage?

Perhaps if I had to craft a title for John McCain’s biography it would be “The Mis-Adventures of Gullible” because he is either the dumbest politician that God has created, or he is a scheming ideological subversive within the ranks of the Republicans. A “squishy” RINO like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine and both willing to blunt attempts to enforce GOP unity. You know, the partisan unity that is the hallmark of the Democrats.

Well, given what is at stake for our nation…we definitely don’t need the attribute squishy in GOP politics. We need conservative politicians with spines of steel who are true to the constitutionalist’s ideology and true to their supposed conservative core principles. We need patriots and stubborn men and women of virtue — bulwarks of our noble cause.

What we don’t need are the trite and tired antics of John McCain.

Add Renee Loth of the Boston Globe to the Idiot’s Opera in regards to voicing skewed constitutional interpretation. From today’s Boston Globe: We all ‘own’ the Constitution. Read Ms. Loth’s interpretations carefully to understand the breathtaking ignorance of the left and their acolytes. Ms. Loth has apparently used the Cliff Notes version of the document when she claims:

Opponents of the law say it is unconstitutional because it requires individuals to buy insurance coverage. But the broad mandate for government action to “promote the public welfare’’ is right there in the preamble.

Uh, no Ms. Loth. The preamble of the Constitution does not contain the phrase “promote the public welfare” but rather it accurately says “promote the general Welfare.” If you had a sliver of initiative Ms. Loth, you would have referred to the Federalist Papers to understand that the “general Welfare” described in the Preamble refers to the welfare of the Union of the several states, not of individual citizens. But what is such a trifle of interpretation regarding the Preamble when such plums like Article 1, Section 8 await.

Ms. Loth, your ignorance is challenged only by your stupidity.

It was all at once amusing and infuriating to watch my congressman, Jim McGovern (D-Havana), bloviating on the House floor or in conference over the past few days. Yesterday, Mr. McGovern raised hypocrisy to a sacrament when he was challenging the new House rules for considering the GOP-proposed Obamacare repeal bill. McGovern was challenging the claims of transparency by the House GOP regarding their rules.

Well, if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black! If we put on our time travel suits and turn the clock back to last year just before Christmas, we will find that Obamacare passed because of the twisting, no shredding, of the House rules by then House Rules Chair Jim McGovern. Imagine that. The same guy who engineered the Christmas eve vote using “special” rules and the same man who invoked the “nuclear option” and twisted reconciliation more than once now is crying foul now that he is on the outside and warming the back bench.

Today, the shameless McGovern took to the House well to decry the GOP’s one page Obamacare repeal bill, which he called “the most expensive piece of one page legislation in history.”

What?

So, a two-thousand plus page piece of legislation that violates our constitutional rights, assumes control over 1/6th of our economy and spends enough money to cover 30+ million new insured isn’t expensive? Not according to the CBO, crows Pelosi, McGovern and the Dem choir. But if one scratches the surface of the very flawed CBO estimates on the “savings” that are claimed for Obamacare, one will see the vast deceit and obfuscation that was used to seed the CBO’s initial assumptions (by the House Dems.) The Dems claim that over the next 10 years that Obamacare will save over $800 billion. But a more accurate (and honest) analysis by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) reveals that Obamacare will actually cost $701 billion. [Breaking news: A new, honest and accurate estimate from the CBO just released finds that the repeal of Obamacare will actually save $540 billion and eliminate $770 billion in new taxes!] Double counting savings and omitting costs allowed the Dems to fabricate their favorable savings figure — which provided them the ammunition that they required to bolster support for its passage.

But average Americans still reject Obamacare; according to Rasmussen 60% of those polled favor repeal. So Jim McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their capo de tutti capi Obama can crow about the benefits of Obamacare, and decry the GOP for their repeal efforts. But they are on the wrong side of both public opinion and economics. Sorry Jim…hypocrisy may be a powerful political tool for you, but in this instance it is a loser!

The Democrats, Obama and their ilk go off the tracks when it comes to dealing with commerce. The Constitution (you know that tired old document that’s at least 100 years old and quite difficult to read — at least according to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post) gives the Congress power to regulate commerce between the various *states*.

But is does not give the Congress the power to regulate individuals, industries or businesses. When Congress assumed this power, and the Supreme Court codified this with past landmark decisions in favor of this congressional assumption, they did so in direct conflict with and violation of the Constitution. Since that time in the 1930′s, there has been little push back by the states, businesses or citizens to limit this congressional power and authority.

However, by regulating and legislating to such a granularity, rather than at the interstate level as the Founders intended, Congress (and the enabled government) actually dictates, limits and restricts commerce and not encourages it. We are not truly free when our government takes control of and then dictates our behaviors — because commerce is the means by which we (are supposed to) freely make our livings and seek our fortunes.

The power that the Founders provided the Congress was to level the commercial playing field between states in the Union, such that one state could not gain onerous competitive advantage over another through anti-competitive laws, levies and regulations.

The powers the Congress has assumed have not only changed the rules of the commerce game, it has shrunk the playing field, has hamstrung the players and has limited the number of players in the game. Instead of a fair play game, we now live under a system where the game is dominated by the referees…and the scores are rigged by their calls. Hell, the government is even fielding teams for itself (GMC, for example.)

It’s well beyond high time that we put the Congress and the government back in their place with regards to their role in the process of commerce. Then we citizens can play the game of commerce unimpeded as the Constitution allows, and be able to seek our fortunes and prosper limited only by our individual drive and initiative.

For the past seven decades or so, the three branches of the United States government have participated in the wholesale circumvention of the original intent of the Constitution. Worse, this circumvention is performed by the same people who have sworn themselves to uphold the document. The Congress often makes laws that have no (readily visible) constitutional basis. The president uses executive orders to control the behaviors and lives of the American people – an authority that finds no place in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court makes rulings based on foreign laws, unconstitutional precedents and according to “the way things ought to be.” As a result of these previous actions, our government is now run according to a ‘hidden’ Constitution – one that is not readily apparent to the owners of this document, the American people.

Our elected officials are preoccupied with authority that is beyond what is allowed to them in the Constitution; At least as the document is written in plain English and according to the will of the Founders. Let’s take a recent example of what may be termed extra-constitutional authority assumed by the Congress – the so-called child nutrition bill. This bill, when signed into law as expected by President Obama, will give the Agriculture Department sweeping new powers over the foods that may be served to children at schools, and authorizes the funds to provide after-school meals for children. Who doesn’t care about the wellbeing of kids? But whether they eat or not, or what they eat, should not the concern of the federal government. It is the responsibility of the parents. Or at least it used to be. Article I, Section 8 (AIS8) of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Congress. Nowhere is written the authority of the Congress to mandate child nutrition programs. However, our representatives cite this power as outlined in the welfare clause…or it that doesn’t suffice, then in the similarly malleable commerce clause.

But if we take a look at these two constitutional passages, we can see the vagueness of these claims (of authority) and the sweeping power that Congress may assume by exploiting the meanings of just two words – welfare and commerce. The welfare clause states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The commerce clause states:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Note that in both instances, the welfare that the Congress is charged with looking after is that of the United States: That is, the collection of the various states in the Union. Not the welfare of the individual citizens of the United States. Similarly, the commerce that the Congress is charged with regulating is that among the (several) States, and, again, not for regulating the commerce of individual citizens. The Founders were quite precise in their words and their intent – if they had meant “people” in either of those clauses, you can be sure that that word would have been used. Also, if the Founders had intended the Congress to be assigned infinite powers then there would be no need for the limited, enumerated powers in AIS8, or the 10th Amendment, as the assumed infinite powers of the Congress render this Amendment moot.

But here we are in the year 2010 with a long history of congressional misuse of their powers, codified by many Supreme Court decisions in favor of these vast, hidden powers. We cannot know what the true extent of these powers means for future legislation, because based on previous abuses the Congress has become emboldened to interpret these two words to connote whatever it takes to pass the legislation at hand. This is a dangerous situation, and should give pause to any citizen concerned for their constitutional rights and liberties.

Extra-constitutional abuses don’t begin and end with the Congress. Presidents have used executive orders to exercise authority over a wide range of national issues and matters since the early 1900’s. Supporters of a president’s executive order authority will point to Article II, Sections 3 and 4 as granting this authority. However, a careful reading of these two passages grants very limited powers and authorities to the president, including that “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….” Certainly the words written in the Constitution do not give any president sweeping powers over the lives and livelihoods of individual American citizens or businesses.

Take for example the recent executive order by President Obama to ban oil drilling in the waters of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. President Obama’s action begs the question: Is the president allowed, via the Constitution, to enact a ban on oil drilling without predicate legislation from Congress that precisely authorizes such an action? Any person reviewing Article II in the Constitution would be hard pressed to find few authorities that are assigned to the president beyond implementing and enforcing existing laws that Congress has enacted, appointing Supreme Court justices, selecting cabinet members and negotiating treaties.

So, here is another case of extra-constitutional abuse of power by the office of the presidency. However issuing executive orders is not new to the presidency of Barack Obama. Historically, there have been over 7,300 executive orders from the FDR administration to the present. Unfortunately, these have been 7,300 opportunities for presidents to negatively affect individuals and businesses, unencumbered by the restraints of the law and the Constitution. Also, quite unfortunately, there has been little outrage or action from the Congress or the SCOTUS, or any show of concern whatsoever from the American people.

Making matters worse, our nation has a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) that has, historically, not been reluctant to either ignore the actual words and intent of the Constitution or ascribe the document meaning that simply does not exist in ink on paper. Couple this with the very real and unchecked ability of the highest court to legislate from the bench, and a recipe for Constitutional abuse and chaos exists. A prime example of this misuse of high judicial power is the matter of the interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. This Amendment states:

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.

Inexplicably, in several high court decisions, this Amendment has been interpreted in such a manner that any Christian religious display, such as a Christmas crèche or even a secular symbol of the Christmas holiday, the Christmas tree, may not be displayed on public property in order to achieve and preserve a “separation of Church and State,” or worse, to offend anyone. However, the words separation, church and state (or offend) simply do not appear in the 1st Amendment. Better stated, they do not exist except as a legal construct in the minds of the majority of once-seated Supreme Court justices. This wrong-headed judicial interpretation of the actual words and intent of the Constitution has the force of law – usurping the actual written words of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.

But the extra-constitutional influence by the SCOTUS to the Constitution does not stop at the so-called establishment clause. Another recent, egregious example of past SCOTUS perfidy is the now-infamous Kelo vs. New London eminent domain lawsuit from 2005 in which the SCOTUS redefined the meaning and stretched the limits of eminent domain laws in the United States. The Kelo decision affirmed past SCOTUS rulings from the 1830’s that allowed the taking of one person’s private land  to benefit another person…”as a matter of public use” as permissible according to the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Kelo and the past SCOTUS rulings have eroded our precious property rights to the point where our property may be taken in order to satisfy the profit-making aspirations of another private citizen. How can “just compensation” be afforded to one party if the government intercedes on behalf of another private party for an alleged “public good?”

So the question remains, how far may the Constitution be stretched before it is irrevocably broken? Similarly, how far must the average American citizen’s patience be stretched by this process before it also reaches the breaking point? Most of us believe that our rights and liberties come from God, and that a government of, for and by people is a necessary evil in order to protect these rights from all those who would infringe or abolish them. But how do we rein in a government that is not beholding to the Constitution as its immutable frame of reference? After all, we are presented or faced with example after example of laws, actions and decisions that fly directly in the face (and intent) of the Constitution, and little is done to decry or otherwise challenge each constitutional insult with little more than a shrug of the shoulders and a sigh of resignation.

Unfortunately, the manipulation of the people’s Constitution by any of our three branches of government has become an accepted practice, legal dogma and government modus operandi. We have come to expect and are inured to conservative (i.e. true to the letter) or liberal (more specious or broadly-defined) interpretation, reading and observance of the Constitution by the majority of those who hold office, depending upon their political ideology. However, with our silent assent to this practice, we have allowed for the existence of a phantom, but very powerful “hidden” Constitution that does not physically exist anywhere. This phantom Constitution only exists as un-ratified footnotes in case law precedent, and represents our past and present abandonment of personal constitutional vigilance, as well as our utter lack of action to prevent these (what I propose are) constitutional affronts.

And through our past and present feckless silence we have unwittingly ceded hard-won personal freedoms and liberties that we will never, ever regain; and I am sure that future Americans will certainly and righteously curse our damnable civic neglect.

The screening rules and practices of the TSA strike me as “guilty until proven innocent.” Subjecting all air travelers to the full body scans, or if the individual opts out, to an embarrassing grope fest by TSA screeners neglects the rights of each travelers — and subjects each traveler to an unreasonable search and seizure.

Sure, those who defend the screenings will declare that the processing of passengers in such a manner is necessary given the almost limitless cleverness of those who would harm us. But just because someone has tried to implement a certain method in an attempt to bring down a commercial airliner doesn’t mean that every person who wishes to travel by air is guilty of that crime. By subjecting everyone to the standard screening, the TSA and the US government is taking the easy way out. They are using their power to control the sheeple — yes sheeple, who are herded into inspection areas and performing whatever inspection criteria that the government authorities dream up. This inspection criteria is performed in the name of safety and security. But we know that this premise is poppycock. If the real motives were safety and security, then all Middle Eastern men would be automatically subjected to the closest of scrutiny. And wheelchair-bound elderly, nuns and grandmothers would be saved the indignity of full body screenings or pseudo-erotic pat downs.

In other words, our security personnel would profile, and they would profile those from social, ethnic and national groups who demonstrated (from experience) the proclivity to endanger US commercial air flight. They would profile according to the actual threat arising from the passenger. But no, rather than do the rational…the intelligent, our hyper-PC TSA decided to implement the sheeple approach. And they decided to encroach up the rights and liberties of 100% of the prospective air travelers. Because the ACLU and CAIR and other organizations growled and frowned upon singling out the ethnic cohort who actually have a historical record of flying airliners into buildings, attempting to ignite shoes and underwear, and plotting to do similar damage in conspiratorial groups. God forbid that we should implement a cogent screening process that profiles such high-risk travelers.

So, here we are with the TSA’s “misery loves company” approach to air travel screening. And if a person chooses to opt out from this screening, for whatever reason. why they are handcuffed and detained…in some cases their tickets are destroyed before their eyes. All this a result of the “Constitution Free Zones” (CFZ’s) that have been carved out at each airport and within 100 miles of the US coastline/border. Don’t know what a CFZ is? I suggest reading up. Whether you know it or not, you have ceded your rights when you enter an airport to travel. And many of us live in a CFZ when we put our feet up and relax at home. This begs the question: Is this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

It is almost unbelievable that the US government resorts to disabusing its citizens of their rights (something that they simply cannot do according to the Constitution) in situations like airport security screening. But the government is seeking not only the easy way out, it is seeking the PC way out. And they will accomplish this through any force necessary. It is easier for the TSA to herd and screen the sheeple with the threat of intimidation than it is to do the real heavy lifting involved with security (like the process that El Al has implemented in response to the constant threat that threatens Israel). It’s easier to just make rights disappear, and treat everyone like a proto-criminal.

This is wrong…it is unconstitutional and it must change if we are to remain in compliance with our Constitution. We the people wish to be safe. But we the people do not want to be unduly trifled with — particularly by our own government.

Gentlemen,

Based on your past legislative and voting performances in your respective legislatures, what justifies Massachusetts voters voting for you on November 2nd?

Rep. McGovern, you claim that you are concerned for the welfare of voters in your district, yet you supported harmful, and in some cases unconstitutional, legislation — for example Obamacare. You supported the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda almost 100%, and as a result we are trapped in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And your shameless bending of the rules (as Chair of the House Rules Committee) during the run-up to the vote on Obamacare was indefensible.

Harold, I’m disappointed in you because of two serious issues. The first is your serving as a defense attorney for OUI drivers (I served on a jury where you defended an OUI driver from Auburn, and you were the defense attorney for the OUI driver who hit my wife head-on in 2005.) How can you possibly be a defender of such individuals while being an unbiased legislative advocate for the people in your district? My second issue with you was your support to shanghai the will of the voters of Massachusetts with your support and vote for the National Popular Vote legislation in June 2010. This legislation is in direct contradiction to the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution, and diminishes the voice Massachusetts voters in future presidential elections. Shame on you!

I am always troubled when my supposed representatives act in a manner contrary to my welfare, rights and liberties, and when my Constitutional rights are unnecessarily trifled with. It is for the aforementioned reasons that I find both of you unworthy to serve in your respective offices and I urge my fellow voters to join me in voting for your challengers – Martin Lamb and James Gettens.

Sincerely,

Anthony G.P. Marini

The next time that you have the chance to rub elbows with any of the candidates for US representative, please ask them how they stand on Article  I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If they look at you with a puzzled expression, gently remind them that this section deals with the “Powers of Congress.”

In a perfect world, you should receive an answer that includes and acknowledges the following:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If they hem and haw over the question, have them elucidate on the passage that gives them the power to force US citizens to procure health care or to enforce Cap-and-Trade legislation. Don’t take no for an answer…pin them down to an unqualified reply: Make them go on the record.

This may be the most important question that you will ever ask…and the answer will be the most important in the career of the incumbent or challenger.

Because the answer that they give should have more influence over your vote than their party affiliation or them being a “good guy or gal.” PLEASE, for the sake of yourself and your children, PLEASE vote for the Constitution rather than the candidate. If we are to emerge from the mess that we’re in, we need strict Constitutionalists representing and serving us in the Congress. We don’t need more Constitutional abuse and contempt for us…in other words, more of the same.

Period.

« Previous PageNext Page »