Sunday, January 31, 2010

Quiz Time

Since Uncle Barack has decided to concentrate on the economy and jobs, I thought it would be interesting to revive a post with a poll I put up the end of last February. Some of you took it last year and know the answer, but if you took it last year, please give the same answer you did last year, so you don't sway any newcomers voting on it.
The poll I have just added relates to the following quote from a speech given by a President of the United States.
No cheating. You have four choices. Who said it?

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system—and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in .....
I'm not talking about a ‘quickie' or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

This Should Be Run Nationally All Year Long

Got this from my buddy, Dave.

Want to know why Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race? Check out the You Tube video. The Republican National Committee should run this generically, all year long, nationally!!

P.S. Hey, Steve and Tommy_Boy, from "comments",  are you still out there paying attention. I figured I'd throw this in for Steve because it has "Liberty" and "Tyranny" in it.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

I Drive a Truck

To all you lefties out there who are fit to be tied about the Massachusetts Senate race, here is a little song for you. Courtesy of Jim Vicevich's "Sound off Connecticut" radio show which is on
weekdays on WTIC 1080 AM from 9:00 to noon. Enjoy!

I drive a truck!

Monday, January 25, 2010

Replies to Comments Section of My "Letter to the Editor" Post.

To Anonymous - Typical, if you can't argue the issues, hide behind anonymity, and resort to the politics of personal destruction.

To Austin - I know where my base is, and this country can't get back to it soon enough for me.

To Steve - I am a person who believes that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, and it says nothing about providing health care, and the government has gotten far away from the Constitution in a whole lot of areas. No, the government should not be involved in providing any health care, other than the VA, which is a entirely different story. That provides services to men and women who have put their life on the line to protect the Constitution and our freedom. They deserve it as our way of saying , "Thanks"! The VA would be much more efficient and provide better care if it was run by the private sector. Take a good look at the VA bureaucracy and you see what you will get with Government run Health care. The average citizen doesn't deserve government medical care just because they are here. I am on Medicare, but I don't believe in it. Then why am I on it? I paid into it because the government mandated that I do (I want my money back), and if I don't have it, I CAN'T GET medical treatment because the government mandates that doctors can't accept cash for Medicare covered treatments. They HAVE to take Medicare. So the Government has made it mandatory that I take a government program, I don't have a choice, just like the proposed legislation mandates that you buy insurance, if you don't, you pay a fine, if you don't, you go to jail. That is not the America I grew up in. If the government got out of medicine entirely and opened it up to total free market competition, costs would plummet, just like they do in any free area of the economy. The government NEVER makes anything cheaper or more efficient than the private sector does.
Personally, I am pro-life, and while I believe Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision (10th Amendment). The choice of whether a women has an abortion is between her and her doctor. The government should keep it's nose out of it either way.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

New Letter to the Editor (Based on a Recent Post)

Massachusetts vote says People serious about change
To all you arrogant elitists in Washington, D.C., do you remember the Tea Parties from last year? We rallied and told you we wanted no part of stimulus spending, expanded government and government-run health care. You didn't listen, and called us right-wing extremists and mobsters.

During the August recess, you had town-hall meetings, and we told you we didn't want huge government spending, expanded government and government-run health care. You didn't listen, and called us right-wing extremists, mobsters and Nazis.

We took the governors' elections in Virginia and New Jersey in November. Once again, you didn't listen.

The Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy had been in Democratic hands since 1952, in a state that hadn't elected a Republican senator (a liberal) since 1972. We took the seat in a state won by President Obama by 26 percentage points in the November 2008 presidential election.

Democrats ran their 2008 campaign on "transparency." Legislation would be debated on C-SPAN, with bipartisan support, and it would be posted on the Internet for at least 72 hours so people could read it. Instead, negotiations went behind closed doors; no Republicans need apply. Legislation was brought to the floor and voted on before anyone had time to read it.

If we can take the Senate seat in Massachusetts, there is not a safe Democratic congressional seat in the country. Reps. Jim Himes, 4th District, Chris Murphy, 5th District, Rosa DeLauro, 3rd District, John Larson, 1st District, and Joe Courtney, 2nd District, are you getting the message yet? I suggest you start paying attention to the people if you want to continue your political careers past Nov. 2, 2010.

Enjoy those Georgetown parties while you can. We're taking back our country.

Jon Quint


Government and Where We're Headed if We Don't Pay Attention

Absolutely brilliant video of government and what it can lead to if we aren't careful.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Freedom of Speech Renewed

Translation: It's Going to be a Lot Harder to Pass My Marxist Agenda
 WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.
In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.
Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.
"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."
Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around.
"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."
The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way and as Obama's Democratic Party feels the pressure from a string of losses in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts, where this week Republican Scott Brown came from behind to win a Senate seat Democrats had held for decades.
Obama said the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence and protect patients from insurance company abuses — key elements of his domestic agenda.
"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said. "And we don't intend to."
He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision.
"It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," ObamaSaid


Got this from my lovely wife:

This one is a little different... ... Two Different Versions.... .......... .... Two Different Morals

      The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

       The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...' ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome". Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

      Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity Anti-Ant Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs, and having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper. The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood. The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

Huge Lawsuit Coming - 2nd and 10th Amendment to be Tested


MISSOULA - The United States has made its first response to a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Missoula to test the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories made and retained in Montana are not subject to federal regulation under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce "among the several states." The MFFA is a states' rights challenge on Tenth Amendment grounds, with firearms serving as the vehicle for the challenge.

This lawsuit to validate the MFFA was brought by the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The suit names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as defendant, and is referred to as MSSA v. Holder.

The first response to the lawsuit by the United States is a Motion to Dismiss, submitted January 19th and considered to be a standard procedural maneuver in lawsuits against the U.S government . This motion seeks to avoid the legal merits by asserting that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that a justiciable controversy does not exist, and that prevailing case law is against Plaintiffs.

MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle." However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."

The MFFA concept has gained traction across the Nation since its passage in Montana. Tennessee has enacted a clone of the MFFA, and other clones have been introduced in the state legislatures of 19 other states, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. . Ten or more additional states are expected to introduce yet more MFFA clones in the next few weeks. (See: )

The U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support are viewable at:

MSSA and SAF have assembled a litigation team for this effort consisting of three attorneys from Montana, one from New York, one from Florida and one from Arizona. Lead attorney for the Plaintiffs is Quentin Rhoades, partner the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci and Rhoades. Other interested parties from both in and out of Montana are preparing to weigh in on this issue of national interest and national importance as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

Marbut commented, "The FFA concept has created a firestorm of interest nationwide. Lots of people and other states are watching carefully to see how Montana fares in this challenge to overbearing federal authority and to Washington's attempt to control every detail of commerce in the Nation, especially including activity wholly confined within an individual state. That level of micro management certainly was not the intent of our founders when they gave Congress limited power in the Constitution to regulate commerce 'among the states'." (See: )

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners and hunters in Montana, having gotten 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills through the Montana Legislature in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Hey, You Arrogant, Elitists in Washington - Have You Gotten the Message Yet??

      Do you remember this from last Spring and Summer, the Tea Parties? We rallied, and told you we wanted no part of Stimulus spending, expanded government, and government run health care. You didn't listen, and called us right wing extremists and mobsters. During the August recess, you held Town Hall meetings, and we told you in no uncertain terms that we didn't want huge government spending, expanded government, and government run health care. You didn't listen and called us Right wing extremists, mobsters, and Nazis. We took the Governor's elections in Virginia and very blue New Jersey in November. Once again, you didn't listen. We had to take the Senate seat of Ted Kennedy in a very blue Massachusetts. A seat that had been in Democrat hands since 1952 and a state that hadn't had a Republican Senator since 1972, and he was a Liberal Republican. We took the seat in a State won by Obama, by 26 percentage points, in last November's Presidential Election. If we can take that seat, there is not a safe Democrat seat in the country - House or Senate. We're taking back our country! Jim Himes, Chris Murphy, Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, Joe Courtney, and Richard Blumenthal, have you gotten the message yet. I suggest you start paying attention to the people, if you want to continue your Congressional careers past this coming November.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Terrified Yet???

This is a video of Sections of the House of Representatives Health Care Bill. This is what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are about ram down our throats. They are not listening to the People. Polls show only 36% of Americans are in favor of this "Abortion". Take 10 minutes out of your busy life, watch this, forward it to friends and neighbors, and call your Senators and Representatives and tell them "NO WAY".

Monday, January 18, 2010

Of Meat and Global Warming

The following article appeared in the National Rifle Association's magazine "American Hunter". It shows the hypocrisy,idiocy, and laws of unintended consequences from the Animal Rights, Global warming, and Environmental wackos agenda.

Of Meat and Global Warming

Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s president, recently said, “A tax on meat would help prevent future global-warming-related natural disasters by encouraging a decrease in meat consumption.” Yeah, that’s right, Newkirk wants a sin tax on meat and her rationale is climate change.

She’s not alone either. Many environmental groups say eating meat results in more global-warming-causing emissions than all our trains, planes and automobiles combined—Al Gore’s private jet included. The main reason is methane emissions from livestock—yes, belches and farts—which they say is 18 times worse than vehicle exhaust. How they came up with that figure is hard to determine, as is how they measured cattle flatulence.

However, we do know the assertion that meat eating causes global warming is based on a report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” by The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA). You can read the 377-page attack on farming and ranching here. The report was produced with support from—those purveyors of wisdom—the World Bank and the European Union. It concluded that 18 percent of global-warming emissions comes from the livestock industry—transportation’s portion, the FOA concluded, is 13 percent.

So they’re postulating how much gas cows pass to argue that we all must become vegetarians for the planet’s sake. Newkirk has even called on Al Gore to give up being an omnivore.

But then Newkirk’s stance highlights her own hypocritical contradictions; for example, if global warming is real and meat eating is really its No. 1 cause, then wouldn’t PETA (a group that is virulently anti-hunting) have to acknowledge that hunting (which game managers use to control populations of methane-emitting elk, deer, bighorns … .) is reducing global-warming? Wouldn’t it also be true that when hunters eat wild game they are not consuming commercially raised livestock? So shouldn’t PETA applaud this double-whammy curb on animal methane?

After all, ending hunting would mean having uncontrolled populations of game animals. And there’s always the pesky fact that if deer and other game populations are left unchecked they would continue reproducing until farmers’ crops were nothing more than deer food. And while we're at it, shouldn’t we also consider the carbon footprint of our game populations; for example, what about the American bison? Did killing off the buffalo in the 19th century contribute to global cooling?

Newkirk, we await your response to these critical questions.

While we wait, we’ll keep looking for honest ways to benefit our environment, such as encouraging farmers and ranchers to continue working with hunters so they continue being the environmental stewards they’ve become in America.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Proposed Bank Tax

I suppose most of you have heard about the new "Bank tax". Obama wants to tax those big banks that got bail out funds, so we get our money back. Great idea, right? WRONG!!!! First of all, most of those Banks have already paid back the bailout funds, plus interest, so we already  have gotten "our money" back and then some. So why the tax? To punish the achievers!! Most of those bonuses are paid out on contracts signed between the companies and the executives. The executives typically work for $1 a year in salary, and have contracts for bonuses based on how they and the company perform during the year. If the companies have paid back all the bailout funds, I'd say they did pretty good. It is absolutely none of our business what corporation executives make. That is between the company, it's stock holders, and it's customers. If the customers don't like it they can go to another bank. If the stockholders don't like it, they can change the Board of Directors. It's called competition. It's what the private sector does and is what made America the great land of opportunity that it used to be. This a populist push by Obama because, he's pushing his agenda of "let's get those evil guys on Wall Street". It's class warfare and it works pretty good, because a lot of people are envious of someone who has more that they do. It is a deliberate attempt to destroy America as we know it and to turn it into a European Socialist style country where the government controls everything! So you punish those bankers, cut their bonuses, cut their pay, and that does what to your wallet? Absolutely nothing!! But, but, but the banks have all that money and they aren't lending, and that's why the economy isn't recovering. The banks aren't lending because businesses have no idea what kind of new taxes and regulations are going to be coming out of Washington like health care reform, cap & trade, card check, etc., so they are not applying for loans to expand their businesses. They are taking a "wait and see" attitude. If I was planning on expanding my business, I certainly would not do it now. Remember, every dollar taken in taxes by the government is a dollar out of the private sector that could be used for investment, new jobs, etc. The government has never created a single job in the private sector. There has never been a country that taxed itself to prosperity.

P.S. Since this tax will only apply to banks that are worth more than $50 billion, it is also unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but who cares about that old worn out document any more.

We're Coming for You - Enjoy Those Georgetown Parties While You Can!

 Great video that about says it all.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Richard Blumenthal & Peter Schiff

Senator Chris Dodd is gone, along with his corruption, bashing of the Constitution, and helping push Obama's Marxist agenda, along with coddling Latin American dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Good riddance and don't let the door hit you in the a.. on the way out. Now we have Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal seeking the Democrat nomination to replace Dodd. Blumenthal has defended everything Dodd did and is just another self-serving far left wing politician who has absolutely no respect for the U.S. Constitution. He will do what he pleases and laws be damned. Don't believe me, watch the You Tube video below from last March about the AIG bonus outrage. Now that he is running for the Senate, be very careful and stay safe. Make sure you never find yourself between him and a TV camera!

      For what it's worth I'm endorsing Peter Schiff for the Republican Nomination for Senate. Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons are RINO's (Republican in Name Only), although Rob is a little more Conservative than Linda. We need Conservatism in Washington now, we have had enough with RINO's.

Exactly, It's Time We Stopped Being Nice Guys & Girls

Email sent by The Chairman of the Woodbury Republican Town Committee to the Rob Simmons for Senate campaign. I couldn't agree more. When are we going to take the gloves off?

"Sorry Rob,
I cannot join anyone in wishing a person, who has done so much to destroy the Constitution and enrich himself at the expense of his State and Nation, anything except good bye. Don't forget he still has the next 11 + months to continue OBAMA's and his agenda.
Here is a copy of my comments to Linda McMahon's Campaign Committee, please think hard on them.

Thanking Chris Dodd for all the disservice he has done to this State and Nation is an affront to all clear thinking Americans. After all he and the Democratic have done in Washington,D.C., (Freddy Mac, Fanny May, TARPS, GM/CHRYSLER Bailout, Stimulus I, Universal Health Care, De-funding of the War on Terror and giving this money to their Democratic cronies, Terror Trials in N. Y., Et Al) is something we will never forget.

It would have been better if Linda had said nothing. Civility my foot. The Democratic's have shown how the feel about that. Look only to the latest move to behind closed doors of the universal health care bill. What is to be gained by licking their boots!!!!!! That is why they have no respect for us."

Finally, I want all to understand that we (Republicans in Woodbury) ran a fact driven campaign pointing out things our First Selectman and Selectman(s) were doing wrong in our town, some of which at times bordered in being illegal. The Democratic's never once replied to these facts during the election. However. since the election, which they lost, they have pursued a course of declaring we lacked Civility while are doing everything they can to do fain Civility and doing the opposite.

It seems that only the REPUBLICANS must be polite and then get kicked in the face anyway!!!!!!!  Sorry we must take back Hartford and Washington, D. C. for the good of the people we represent. We must not worry how we are perceived by those who don't listen or care, when what we are trying to do is right.

Art McNally, Chair
Woodbury Republican Town Committee"

It's Because of Global Warming

Monday, January 4, 2010

Stop the B.S. and Let 'em Have it!

       On Christmas Day, we were reminded once again that there is Islamist evil in the world intent on destroying America and killing Americans. A Nigerian Islamist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight during its approach to Detroit. He was subdued by passengers and the flight crew. In spite of the fact he was able to smuggle an explosive onto the plane, and in spite of the fact that his father had warned U.S. officials about his son’s “extreme religious views” (translation: jihadism), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Sunday the airline security system worked.
      The only reason the bomb didn't go off was because the detonator failed, and the bomber only succeeded in setting his underwear on fire. If that bomb had gone off, it would have killed everyone on board and who knows how many on the ground.
      Secretary Napolitano (now known as Secretary Incompetano) said the system worked. So am I to understand that the system is based on Al Qaeda using faulty detonators and passengers and flight crews subduing the bomber, in order for us to be safe?
      Enter Uncle Barack. Two days later, that's right, it took him two days to make a statement on the attempted bombing. He said that an "isolated extremist" "attempted" to set off a bomb. "Attempted"??? Nah, he was just trying to set his underwear on fire. What's wrong with these people? He then said that the "suspect" was arrested. "Suspect"??? Are you sure is might not have been the guy next to him with his underpants ablaze. This is ridiculous!! We have an Administration that won't use the word "terrorist", they are "people who would cause us harm". We can't call it the "war on terror" anymore. We have Islamic Jihadists who want to kill as many of us as possible (That includes all you "feel good" Leftists, too). They'll kill you just as fast as they'll kill any right wing extremist like me.
      So what does the Administration do with this "person who would cause us harm". He's arrested, read his Miranda rights, and given a Court appointed attorney, paid for with our tax dollars. Now he's lawyered up and not talking. We're certainly going to get a lot of information out of him about any other pending attacks aren't we?? He should have been turned over to the CIA for interrogation. He's an "enemy combatant" who attempted an "act of war" against us, not a common criminal. Whether Obama wants to admit it or not, Radical Islam has declared war on us, and it's time we acted as if we are at war.
      Note to Obama - The election is over, you won, stop campaigning, and get out of the playhouse in the backyard where you have been "playing President". You're in the "Big Boy's chair" now. Start acting like you care about the safety of the American people, and do everything in your power to protect them. I would start by putting some of those Al Qaeda training camps in Yemen on the Navy Seal and cruise missile target lists. Time to end the B.S., and start responding with overwhelming force.

Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional

Got this from Chuck Muth's News & Views

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?  Do You Really Have to Ask?
While most members of Congress can’t or refuse to answer where and how the current ObamaCare proposal is constitutional – and all Nancy Pelosi could muster up when confronted with that question was, “Are you serious?” – some liberals have stretched the Constitution to the breaking point in efforts to justify the proposal.
But in a Wall Street Journal op/ed this morning, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell and Kenneth Klukowski blow such arguments out of the water.  Enjoy….and save for future reference. This issue and questions won’t be going away anytime soon.
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.
First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.
In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.
Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.
A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.
A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.
This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.
America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.
(Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.)

Friday, January 1, 2010

Facts are Really Very Troubling Things That Keep Getting in the Way (Damn it!)

Do you remember the stories in the news about gun and ammunition sales going through the roof after Obama was elected.

Isn't it amazing how the facts keep getting in the way of agendas???

Vol. 16, No. 51 12/30/09

FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders
As Firearm, Ammunition And "Large" Magazine Sales Soar

      Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report, showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963 - a 46-year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.
       According to gun control supporter dogma - "more guns means more crime" - the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and "large" ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned - AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.
      Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008.

More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.

Happy New Year It's 2010 - Let's Get Started!

Had enough? Talk to your friends and neighbors. Lets show these arrogant bast...s who works for who. We've had enough of your "in your face" attitude. Time to go! Don't let the door hit you in the a.. on the way out! This country is governed by our Constitution, not your Socialist, Marxist agenda.