Tag: Constitution
You Can Never Have Too Much Tea
I attended “Constitution, Candidates, & Your Vote” presented by The Georgia Tea Party this evening. I had an awesome time mingling with my favorite candidates, listening to Herman Cain, and chatting with good friends.
The event was held at Jim R. Miller Park in Marietta, from 5pm to 9pm. I arrived just after 5:30 and wasted no time getting to the candidate “bullpen” to see who I could photograph.
The first candidate I saw was Kira Willis, Libertarian candidate for State Superintendent of Schools. She got my vote earlier today when I left all of the choices for superintendent blank on the primary ballot.
According to the news media, Karen Handel is doing well in the polls, and it looks like the primary may come down to a run-off between her and Nathan Deal.
I didn’t see Eric Johnson at the event, I am not sure if he was able to attend, but you couldn’t miss seeing John Oxendine. Everytime he opened his mouth there was a bright glow in the bullpen. Is it me or are his teeth un-naturally large and artificially white?
By far, the most disgusting experience of the evening was when I was greeted by another candidate who had abnormally sticky and slimy hands. The next time I attend an event like this, I am bringing a gallon of Purell. I can put up with a lot from people, but this is just disgusting.
Of course, there were many bright spots (and I am not talking Oxendine’s teeth) in the candidate’s area. Gerry Purcell, candidate for Insurance Commissioner, was there. He was greeting people, answering questions, chatting with supporters, and posing for photos.
The next Attorney General for the state of Georgia, Max Wood, was on hand to listen to voters and remind people why we need someone like him in that office.
I spent far too much time in the bullpen, but as soon as Ray McSlimy shook my hand I had to leave in search of hot water, or at the very least someone with a bottle of Purell. I quickly took my seat in the bleachers with the gals from the Douglas County TEA Party, Brenda, Beth, and Teresa. We listened to Herman Cain as he did his live show, and spent the evening chatting about all things “local”. Or was that “loco”. Hmm. I forget.
So I am sitting here tonight, at almost midnight, and I just realized I have to be out the door around 7am for a camera club field trip. You can see the rest of the photos I took on my Facebook page or my Flickr page. If you need the link, it’s at the top of the page.
Something’s Wrong With Your Rights
I hope you enjoyed the Fourth of July weekend. In honor of Independence Day and the signing of the Declaration of Independence I thought I would toss some questions out there for you to think about.
When should declaring a state of emergency automatically suspend one of your Constitutionally protected rights? That’s right, it shouldn’t. Ever. But that’s not quite the case in North Carolina.
The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.
Not only does a declaration of emergency suspend your right to purchase guns and ammunition, it also suspends your right to carry a concealed weapon, even if you have a valid permit. I don’t know about you but I personally think that a state of emergency might just be the best time to be carrying a firearm.
Did you know that rushing the stage of a nationally televised hot dog eating contest is a governmental affair?
This weekend, former hot dog eating champ Takeru Kobayashi got into some hot water when he rushed the stage.
After rushing the stage Sunday in a T-shirt that read “Free Kobi,” Kobayashi was surrounded by police and taken away charged with resisting arrest, trespassing and obstruction of governmental affairs.
Exactly what part of rushing that stage was considered “obstruction of governmental affairs”? I don’t get it.
Do I need to remind you that the First Amendment has already been suspended in some parts of our country?
They Just Don’t Get It, Do They?
“For me… These are people’s lives… These are people’s children… I don’t worry about the Consitution on this to be honest… I care more about the people who are dying every day that don’t have health care…”
Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) does not worry about the Constitution. He does not care what the Constitution says because he cares more about the people who are dying every day that don’t have health care.
The Constitution is the law of the land, and the thought that people are dying every day “that don’t have health care” is a myth. I have never, in my entire life, heard of one person being turned away at an emergency room because they didn’t have insurance. My own brother-in-law had a heart attack, and once he recovered (in a hospital, without any health insurance) they worked with him to pay towards his bill. The cost of health insurance can be astronomical, but people don’t die in the United States because they “don’t have health care”.People die because of the cost of health care, not because they “don’t have it”.
Many more people will die, however, if politicians like Phil Hare keep ignoring the U.S. Constitution in the name of health-care.
Public, Pots, Pelosi, & PussyFooting
Everyone’s feeling better around here, with the exception of the middle child. He’s always the last to get the crud as it makes its way through the house, but he’s also the quickest to recover too, so he should be back up to speed about the same time as everyone else.
I’ve got a lot on my plate again this week, but it’s nothing I can’t handle or I am going to complain about. Here are my thoughts for tonight.
Thought #1
Not even votes for the “government option”?
The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document I’ve obtained.
We’ll see. I still think they are going to attempt to ram it through, regardless of the government option or other amendments.
Thought #2
President Obama has unveiled yet another “plan” which further erodes capitalism in the United States.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp would have authority to unwind large firms whose failure could threaten the overall economy, said the TV business news channel.
“Resolution authority,” or empowering the government to deal with large troubled firms that are not banks, is crucial to reforming financial regulation, lawmakers and Obama have said for months since last year’s severe financial crisis.
Since when should any “authority” in the United States posess the power to “unwind” large firms? The free market does that when the company dies. Each time he puts his fingers in the pot he adds ingredients that are sure to spoil the whole thing.
Thought #3
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like to be asked questions about the Constitution, unless they are serious.
When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Yes, she’s serious. In other words she had no idea. She doesn’t want you to have any idea either.
Thought #4
Speaking of Nanny State Nancy, it seems someone from the House of Representatives was researching some information yesterday.
Someone using the Internet from within the walls of the House of Representatives did a Google search for “nobel peace prize” and “consent of congress”.
I don’t know if I should be proud that a House member is using my site as reference for information on a very important piece of the U.S. Constitution, or scared that a House member had to resort to Google and my site to find otu what the U.S. Consitution says.
Either way, I am glad they stopped by because at least I know someone is doing something up there on the Hill. If they’re researching information I’m glad I could help.
Thought #5
It seems President Obama wasn’t talking about any health care bill when he spoke to the joint session of Congress.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.
“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.
Ooooh. The health care plan which has never been written. Wait. Doesn’t that apply to many different pieces of non-legislation which the Senate and House will be voting on soon?
Thought #6
The war in Afghanistan is President Obama’s war now. Because he has pussy footed around and hesitated in following General McChrystal’s recommendation for more troops, more of our service members have died.
While Obama continues to dither, American lives continue to be lost. As 8 more American troops were killed in two separate bomb attacks today in southern Afghanistan, this officially makes October 2009 the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the start of the Afghan war in 2001.
Thanks Mr. President, it’s all on you now.
Name Dropping Gets You Nowhere
In my final post about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Rightwing Extremism” assessment, I made reference to something that was quoted in the report, and I want to make a few clarifications.
At the bottom of page five, the assessment reads,
Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.
- During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
In short, the government wants you to think that the threat of recent gun control legislation will push many “rightwing extremists” over the edge creating a heightened level of extremist paranoia, weapon stockpiling, and hostility toward the goverment. They go a step further in their attempt to instill fear by referencing the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Many people remember the events that occurred at Waco but few people I have spoken too remember much about Ruby Ridge. Those who do remember it, usually can’t remember why they do, but they know something bad happened there.
Let’s take a look at the history of events which occurred at Ruby Ridge in August of 1992 and try to ascertain why our government would still be referencing the events there, 17 years after it happened.
We’re Nothing Without Truth
Is Barack Obama eligible to be President of the United States? We still don’t know. If you depend on the mainstream media for your news you probably have no idea what I am talking about.
Numerous requests have been made for Barack Obama to produce a legal, certified copy of his birth certificate to prove he meets the constitutional requirement to serve as President of the United States. He hasn’t responded to any of those requests.
There are rumors, and statements from his own family members, that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States. If he was born in Kenya, the citizenship requirements at the time could preclude him from serving as President.
When the questions surrounding his birth first began to circulate, his campaign released a “certificate of live birth”, but that so-called official document has been proven to be false. Why on Earth would his campaign release an altered copy of a certificate of live birth, rather than just reveal an official copy of it, or his birth certificate?
It doesn’t make sense.
Still Wondering, Who Has Standing?
Three weeks ago we learned that the average American citizen does not have standing to bring a lawsuit requesting that Presidential candidates prove they meet the qualifications to hold the office, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
According to Judge Surrick, citizens don’t have this right, voters (also citizens mind you) don’t have this right, and party members (citizens as well) don’t either. But if Congress (comprised of citizens) decides we should have this right, then they would have to pass new laws to grant us that ability. So, if we don’t have it, who does have this right? Our government (ie: citizens) is comprised of the people, by the people, and for the people. Who, but the people, should have this right?
We were left wondering at the time… Who does have standing to bring such a lawsuit? What about Presidential candidates running for the same office? Don’t they have standing to bring such a question to the table?
I must point out that none of this would be happening, and there would be no questions if President-Elect Barack Obama would simply release a certified copy of his birth certificate for everyone to see. That one simple act would prove all the naysayers wrong, and would put an end to all this speculation that he might not be a natural born citizen of the United States.
On November 12th, American Independent Party candidate Alan Keyes, along with Wiley S. Drake, the vice-presidential candidate filed suit to prevent the state of California from certifying their electors until satisfactory proof is produced that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
A Constitutional Conundrum
I’m sure, by now, many of you are familiar with the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. For those of you who may not live in America, or those who simply may not remember it, let’s refresh our memories.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
We the people… A simple three word phrase (yes Mr. Biden, just three) that defines the very foundation of the laws and principles our country was founded on. The United States of America is the people. It was founded of the people, by the people, for the people. Without the people, there would be no United States.
Our Constitution is a living, breathing document which sets forth the guidelines by which all of our subsequent laws are based. We know who writes the laws, who passes the laws, and who interprets the laws, but exactly who has standing to uphold our Constitution? Is that a power limited to the courts, our Congress, or our President? Shouldn’t we, the people, have the right to question the constitutionality of a matter? Apparently not.