Tea Party Cartoons

James Freeman: Glenn Beck’s ‘Happy Warriors’

Despite all the claims by leftists like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et. al., the Restoring Honor rally was the most peacful and good-mannered that D.C. has seen since, well, has ever seen period.

There was no hate. And the claims of it being an all-white crowd were quashed with the presence of a large number of African-Americans and their families, including Harry R. Jackson. (I know Rev. Jackson was there because I saw him in a video of the event, a video that Keith Olbermann either never knew existed or, more likely, deliberately chose to ignore.)

Anyway, James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal has a fantastic summary of what he saw and heard at the rally.

From his column:

This army of well-mannered folks that marched into Washington seemed comprised mainly of people who had once marched in the U.S. Army or other military branch, or at least had a family member who had. Perhaps that’s not surprising, given that the event was a fund-raiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which provides scholarships to the children of elite troops killed in the performance of their duty. The day was largely devoted to expressions of gratitude for the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers, for great men of American history like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and for God. But it didn’t end there. Dave Roever, a Vietnam veteran, offered a closing prayer in which he thanked the Lord for the president and for the Congress. Despite the unpopularity of the latter two, no booing or catcalls could be heard. Perhaps feeling defensive about how they would be portrayed in media reports, various attendees wore t-shirts noting that they were “Not violent” or “Non-violent.” For other participants, there was no need for an explicit message. Relaxed young parents felt comfortable enough to push toddlers in strollers through the crowded areas along the memorial’s reflecting pool.

If Olbermann, Matthews and the other members of the hate-filled left would actually take the time see reality, they might not look so foolish when they make their outlandish claims.

One aspect of the event made it undeniably superior to other rallies of comparable size: the area was cleaner when they were done than it was before they started.

Not only was the rally akin to a “huge church picnic” (in one Journal reporter’s description), but one had to wonder if the over-achievers in this crowd actually left the area in better shape than they found it. After the event, walking from the Lincoln Memorial’s reflecting pool through Constitution Gardens, this reporter scanned 360 degrees and could not see a scrap of trash anywhere. Participants and volunteers had collected all their refuse and left it piled neatly in bags around the public garbage cans. Near Constitution Avenue, I did encounter one stray piece of paper—but too old and faded to have been left that day.

Contrast that with how Obama supporters left the mall after they were done so rudely singing “Na-na-na-na. Hey! Hey! Goodbye!” to George W. Bush:

Here is a video showing how the participants of the Restoring Honor cleaned up in a way that Obama’s supporters didn’t even dream of doing:

And although Glenn Beck himself claimed to disagree with the final two paragraphs, they are relevent:

The conservative Mr. Beck’s ability to draw this many people to Washington may suggest enormous gains for Republicans come the fall. But the GOP shouldn’t expect voters to simply hand them a congressional majority without making them earn it. If pregame chatter and off-season optimism translated into victory, the New York Jets and the Washington Redskins would meet in the Super Bowl every year. Between Saturday’s crowd in Washington and the tea partiers agitating for limited government, we may be witnessing the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition, the “fusion” of religious and economic conservatives that political theorist Frank Meyer once endorsed. Reagan always believed that the Republican Party was the natural home for this movement, but GOP leaders in Washington need to prove they are worthy of it.

Yes, they do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Glenn Beck’s ‘Happy Warriors’
James Freeman
Wall Street Journal
August 31, 2010

Leftist Judge Susan Bolton Sides With Illegals And Drug Lords Against America

No, that’s not sour grapes in the title. It’s the bare truth. Essentially, Susan Bolton is saying that Arizona cannot enforce Federal Law and that the Feds do not have to enforce their own laws.

Think I’m kidding? Here is what Investor’s Business Daily notes:

Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona’s law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re here illegally. So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can’t ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along. Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.

Judging Arizona
Investor’s Business Daily
July 28, 2010

In essence, by tossing the Arizona law, Bolton also tossed Federal Law.

Now, we have nothing to contain the tide of illegals, drugs and other contraband that is coming across the Mexican border. Barack Obama has gotten his wish, as he expressed to Senator Kyl of Arizona:

Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
Fox News
June 21, 2010

So, what we have here is a situation where the Federal Government is refusing to carry out its responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States and it is prohibiting the citizens from protecting themselves. That is a volatile combination, one that will either have mildly serious consequences or majorly serious consequences down the road.

I don’t know who, but someone once said: “When the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens, it is the duty of the citizen to take up that responsibility for himself.” That is going to come into play here very soon. It will come in two phases.

First, the November elections are coming up fast. The mood across the United States is clear. The Obama Administration is in the toilet and this ruling against a state law that enjoyed broad support across the United States is only going to make that worse. There were several Democrat Governors visiting the White House who expressed their concern that the actions against Arizona are “toxic” to the election and re-election hopes of Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns On Immigration
Abby Goodnough
New York Times
July 11, 2010

After the November elections, if the Federal Government doesn’t get the message from the American people, then the people will begin taking matters into their own hands. A nation that is truly free must have laws and those laws must be enforced by the government entrusted to enforce them. If the government decided to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which laws it will ignore, it will destroy the confidence of the people and the people will respond accordingly.

We may very likely begin seeing a violent backlash against illegals in the country with a concurrent attempt by the government to stem this backlash. But that will only fuel the fire. People will see a government cracking down on its own citizens while ignoring the threat coming across the border. That will, in turn, result in more violence.

Think that’s exaggerating? Consider this:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was “far from over” and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico’s murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits. So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law’s foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing “free” health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state. And it can’t say no. Isn’t that taxation without representation? Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn’t enforcing now. Now, they’ll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton’s ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too. If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.

Once that level has been achieved, the Federal government will have no way of controlling it. Think law enforcement agencies will be able to handle what is coming? No, it will be too big. Think using the military will work? No, most members of the military will refuse to take action against American citizens and will openly question why the illegal invasion was allowed to go unchecked in the first place.

Susan Bolton may very well have written the modern day Uncle Tom’s Cabin that will spark a modern civil war, a war that the Federal Government will not be able to win this time.

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also “friends of the court” in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution. Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). “Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. “Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.”

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

• Nancy Pelosi
• Henry Waxman
• Louise Slaughter

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children’s future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP’s Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

Democrats Change The Rules, Preparing To Trash The Constitution (Slaughter Solution)

How many times did we Conservatives warn about this during the 2008 election cycle and how many times were we ignored? The Democrats are radicals who want to force the failure of European-style socialism on the United States.

The Dems are now going to try forcing Obamacare through the legislative process using a trick known as the Slaughter Solution that is clearly unconstitutional, but they don’t seem to care.

From U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner’s Blog:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.

This is referencing a Congress Daily story that states:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Essentially, The Dems want to “bundle” the Senate bill in with the corrections bill. No debate on the Senate bill will take place in the House at all.

This is the most brazen usurpation of our Constitution in the history of the United States. We Conservatives knew the Democrats were more than capable of pulling tricks like this, but few, if any, seemed to listen to us.

Is anyone listening now?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” To Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without A Vote
Dave Schnittger
Rep. John Boehner’s Blog
March 10, 2010’s

Congressional Report Exposes Fraud And Corrpution With ACORN

Most of us have known that the voter-fraud organization known as ACORN is among the most corrupt entities being given access to Capitol Hill by the Democrats. Now, a new report coming out of Congress shows that the corruption runs deeper than we first thought.

From Fox News:

[T]he report offers the first detailed account of the allegations that have dogged the organization in recent months. The executive summary of the report says ACORN provided contributions of financial and personnel resources to indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and candidate Obama, among others, in what the report calls a scheme to use taxpayer money to support a partisan political agenda, which would be a clear violation of numerous tax and election laws. “Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan agenda and to manipulate the American electorate,” an executive summary of the report reads.

Of course, ACORN is denying all charges. But they cannot deny the facts in the case:

The report accuses ACORN, after receiving more than $53 million in federal funds since 1994, of blurring the legal distinctions among 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities to divert that money into partisan political activities. Evidence found in the report relies in part on documents provided by former ACORN employees. “Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators,” the report read. “Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act.”

These are very serious findings that we Americans should take note of and demand accountability from our elected representatives.

Here’s why:

It would be up to the chairman of the oversight panel to hold hearings on the ACORN report and up to the Justice Department to pursue a criminal investigation. Likewise, the census director will determine whether ACORN remains a partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States.

Do we want an organization that actively engages in voter fraud and other corrupt activities to be involved in something so important as a Constitutionally mandated census?

No. We do not. ACORN should be dissolved and their leaders arrested and frog-marched to prison.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Congressional Report Accuses ACORN Of Political Corruption, Widespread Fraud
FoxNews.com
July 22, 2009

Florida The Latest State To Consider Sovereignty

From the Tenth Amendment Center:

State Senator Carey Baker (R-Eustis) has introduced a memorial in the Florida Senate reaffirming the principles of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The memorial, awaiting an official Senate number, urges “Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power.” “Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government’s reckless deficit spending and abuse of power,” Senator Baker said. “With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state’s rights must be respected.”

Those who ignore or dismiss such proceedings do so at the peril of the Union.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Florida Senate To Consider State Sovereignty
Michael Boldin
The Tenth Amendment Center
July 16, 2009

Obama Administration To Attempt Another Socialist Power Grab

You know, I have a question for all the hard-core Democrats that keep stamping their feet and insisting that Obama is not a socialist: Why does Obama insist on proposing socialist policies which enhance his power over the free market? I have yet to see any Democrat answer that question.

Here is Obama’s latest attempt at a socialist power grab according to the Los Angeles Times:

The Obama administration this week will propose the most significant new regulation of the financial industry since the Great Depression, including a new watchdog agency to look out for consumers’ interests. Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would have new powers to seize key companies — such as insurance giant American International Group Inc. — whose failure jeopardizes the financial system. Currently, the government’s authority to seize companies is mostly limited to banks.

The government shouldn’t have the power to seize anything and this latest attempt by Obama to grab more power for himself over the means of production should serve as the final straw for any true freedom loving American.

But it isn’t just Obama. Other Democrats wanted this measure earlier and with more power:

“This is too little, too late,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), based on his understanding of the plan. “It’s going to be way less than it should be.”

We have to wake up! From my history lessons, I remember two prominent socialist movements who seized the means of production in their respective countries and they both ended in disaster, one in utter defeat in 1945 and the other finally fell under its own weight in 1991.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama To Propose Strict New Regulation Of Financial Industry
Jim Puzzanghera
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2009

Chrysler Deal Highlights The Democrats’ Culture Of Corrpution

You may get tired of hearing this, but it needs to be repeated over and over and over. Back in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on a Republican culture of corruption. Their claim was that they would bring back transparancy and fairness to Washington D.C.

Well, the Dems lied to us. They are more immersed in a culture of corrpution than the Republicans ever were, even more than they claimed the Republicans were. Now, we can see that this culture of corruption extends all the way to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Chrysler bankruptcy deal was supposed to sail through with no problems and Fiat would be the new majority owner at the end. But, the Obama administration didn’t count on a group of Indiana pension funds looking critically at the deal and finding out what was really going on.

This whole deal with Chrysler was about paying off union supporters at the expense of Joe and Jane Average American.

From the Dow Jones Newswires:

Fiat would initially own 20% of the new company, though it would have the option of increasing its stake to as much as 51%. A United Auto Workers health-care trust would initially get a 55% stake, while the U.S. and Canada, which are lending Chrysler $4.9 billion during the bankruptcy, would own 8% and 2%, respectively. Senior lenders owed $6.9 billion would receive $2 billion, giving them a recovery of about 29 cents on the dollar. The Indiana funds own about $42 million of the senior debt. The UAW’s health-care trust has an unsecured claim against Chrysler for about $10.5 billion. In addition to the equity stake in Chrysler that the trust, an unsecured creditor, would receive, it would also get a $4.5 billion note under the plan.

In other words, the UAW, a junior creditor, would be given preference over the Indiana pension funds, part of the senior lenders group. This is why the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the sale, to look at the legality of this situation.

Giving junior lenders preference over senior lenders is wrong. This is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to pay off their leftist union supporters through the sale of Chrysler and screw over hard-wroking Americans in the process.

(BTW, didn’t Obama promise to get the automakers back on their feet? Why is he now so hot about selling them off?)

The concept of fairness and the due process clause in the Constitution dictate that senior lenders must be tended to first and junior lenders after that. Obama is trying to turn that around. In other words, he is changing the rules in mid-stream so that his supporters get the greater benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The Democrats’ culture of corruption now adds to Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson and Todd Blagovich the name of Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pension Funds Ask High Court To Delay Chrysler Sale
Mark H. Anderson
Dow Jones Newswire via Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2009

And another good analysis can be found on-line here:

Don’t Like the Game? Change the Rules
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 8, 2009

Obama Administration Pushes For Illegals To Be Allowed To Vote In Georgia

Anyone still think that Obama is all about securing borders and keeping safe the integrity of the American election system?

Not after his Department of Justice declared that the state of Georgia was not allowed to verify a voter’s citizenship through a verification process. What this means is that Georgia must halt citizenship checks. Thus, illegal aliens can now register to vote in Georgia.

According to Shannon McCaffrey of the Associated Press:

A three-judge federal panel in October ordered the state to seek Justice Department preclearance for the checks under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the same reason the federal agency must sign off on the new law that made Georgia only the second state after Arizona to require such proof. Georgia is one of several states that need federal approval before changing election rules because of a history of discriminatory Jim Crow-era voting practices. Secretary of State Karen Handel blasted DOJ’s decision, saying it opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state. “Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy,” said Handel, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.

You can read Secretary of state Karen Holder’s response here:

Barack Obama’s Department Of Justice Shows A Shocking Disregard For The Integrity Of Our Elections
June 2, 2009

Should you be concerned about this? Yes, and here is why:

Handel said that more than 2,100 people who attempted to register in Georgia still have not resolved questions regarding their citizenship. Her office’s inspector general is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who said she registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006. Handel said the checks were designed to follow federal guidelines to ensure the integrity of the vote and that those eligible are casting ballots.

Now, multiply that case by the thousands of illegals who could potentially register to vote in Georgia under the Obama administration’s directive.

And don’t think Obama doesn’t know about this. I’m sure he’s done the math more than once and he’s knows that he can solidify his power by legalizing million of illegals and getting them to vote in favor of the Democrats’ socialist programs.

After all, one of his biggest latino cheerleaders filed the original lawsuit to make this happen:

“We are pleased with this decision,” said Elise Shore, Southeastern Regional Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “It vindicates our filing of the lawsuit.”

Yep. Pleased times 12 to 20 million illegals.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Feds Spike Voter Citizenship Checks In Georgia
Shannon McCaffrey
Associated Press via Google
June 2, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If it weren’t for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male …”

Now, let’s say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman…”

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a “racist” and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren’t they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that’s racist?

Read this from Sean O’Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.

More:

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O’Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing

The tea parties were only the beginning, it seems. Now, state governments are stepping up and showing that they can hear the voices of the people, especially the voices of the Forgotten Man.

Consider the following:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If you went to elementary school back in the 1970’s, like I did, then you will recognize from your 4th grade history lessons the words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Apparently, not everyone learned that lesson or their teachers failed to teach it. Whichever it is, several states are forcing that lesson back to the national forefront.

Henry Lamb wrote the following for Right Side News:

Nowhere among the enumerated powers is there authority for the federal government to be in the mortgage loan business – as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the banking, or insurance business – as in Citibank, and AIG. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the health care business, or the animal identification business, or in the energy business, or in most of the places where the federal government is now flexing its regulatory muscles.

Many states are trying to remind the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama (a lawyer who should understand the Constitution) of this very thing.

Oklahoma said it very plainly and unambiguously in their resolution of sovereignty:

“…the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

So far, 21 states have passed similar resolutions or are planning to. Among those states are Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, none of which is a Republican stronghold. This indicates that this is not a left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a people vs. the government issue.

The Federal government would do well to pay attention to what is happening. They ignore this issue and the tea parties at their own peril. Likewise if they continue to ignore the Forgotten Man.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
Henry Lamb
Right Side News
May 9, 2009

Maryland National Guard Issues Warning About TEA Party Protestors

The Obama administration has come forward and said that they do not want Islamic terrorists to be called “terrorists” and that we should listen and learn in an effort to better understand them.

But this same administration regards all those who disagree with it’s policies as “potential terrorists.” The administration has yet to distance itself from a DHS report that regarded all Veterans as potential right-wing extremists.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Why does Obama have such harsh words for peaceful, freedom loving Americans and then sits down and politiely listens to thugs and tyrants like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez as they insult and demean the United States of America?

One year ago, I could not even imagine that our own government would turn on us like this. Today, it infuriates me that this has become reality.

Read the following excerpt from David Noss at Southern Maryland Online:

A document issued by the Maryland National Guard on April 9 warns full-time Guard personnel to be aware of threats from local citizens protesting income taxes during grass roots events known as TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties — one of which was held on Solomons Island March 22. The Guard document, “Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004),” was believed to have first been revealed by a blog called The Jawa Report. A call today to Col. Kohler, Md. National Guard Public Affairs in Baltimore, confirmed the authenticity of the document. The document was officially classified as UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U/FOUO). … The Guard document follows closely on the heels of a Dept. of Homeland Security document, released on April 7 that profiles American citizens who are concerned about gun rights and the “current economic and political climate” as potential rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists. The document is titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and was recently profiled in a Washington Times article. Yet another Homeland Security document from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), leaked to the press in March, profiles vocal supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin as potential domestic terrorists. The so-called MIAC document also cautions police to be aware of citizens carrying a copy of the U.S. Constitution, labeling the document as “political paraphernalia.”

The Constitution is “politcal paraphernalia?” who the hell came up with that analysis? Josef Stalin?

So, what were the orders from the government to the Maryland National Guard regarding the TEA Parties held on April 15?

Read on:

HEADQUARTERS, MARYLAND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 13620 Meuse Argonne Circle Camp Fretterd Military Reservation Reisterstown, Maryland 21136 JFHQ-MDARNG-G3 9 April 2009 MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: Planned TEA Party Protests (FPCON Advisory 09-004) 1. (U) This Maryland Army National Guard (MDARNG) Force Protection advisory is in response to a nationwide planned protest activities scheduled for April 15, 2009. Although there is no known direct threat to MDNG facilities and MDNG members, they may become a target of opportunity during plan protest activities throughout Maryland. 2. (U) FORCE PROTECTION CONDITIONS. a. (U) USNORTHCOM FPCON baseline for the continental United States, Alaska, and Canada remains unchanged at ALPHA. b. (U) MDARNG is not recommending a FPCON baseline change at this time. 3. (U//FOUO) SITUATION: Numerous entities have formed recently to express displeasure/anger over recent federal/state government actions: more taxes, increased spending, higher deficits, a surge of borrowing to pay for it all, bailout of the financial institutions, and etc. This movement can be identified by different variations of “TEA Party” or “Tea Party.” Past “TEA Party” events have been peaceful. There was a “Tea party” event at Solomons, Maryland, on March 22, 2009. “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” 4. (U) KNOWN LOCATIONS AND EVENTS: According various websites and open source information, planned protest locations and time on April 15 in Maryland are: *Annapolis, 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm, Campbell Park (Dock/Boardwalk), Annapolis Harbor *Baltimore, 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm, The Inner Harbor *Bel Air, 12:00 pm, Bel Air Courthouse Plaza on Main Street *Cecil County, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm, Elkton Christian Academy, 144 Appleton Road *Frederick, 3:00 pm, City Hall then march to Winchester Hall *Cumberland, 12:00 pm, Baltimore and Mechanic Streets *Havre de Grace, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm, Tydings Park Gazebo *Salisbury, 4:30 pm – 6:30 pm, Downtown Salisbury *Westminster, 6:30 pm, Legends Cafe off of Route 140 in Westminster *Washington DC, 12:00pm-2:00pm, US Treasury Department – National Stage; 11:00am-3:00pm Lafayette Park – Grassroots Stage (not MD) 5. (U) FORCE PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: a. (U) Full-time personnel (i.e. armories) and recruiters need to be aware their surroundings. Contact local law enforcement when feel threaten by protesters or protesters trespass into MDNG property. b. (U//FOUO) Commanders at all levels should establish relationship with local police in order to understand the local threats. Keep family members informed. Talk to other service personnel to share information. Practice OPSEC. Don’t provide personal information to anyone you don’t know. Avoid high risk areas. c. (U//FOUO) Commanders are encouraged to update alert rosters and review emergency evacuation plans/rally points. Ensure all facilities have emergency phone lists posted (i.e. FBI, FIRE, POLICE, HOSPITALS, EMS, ETC…). Be aware of and avoid local protests. Report all potential protest activities to your next higher headquarters. d. (U//FOUO) Continue implementation of RAM and a review of policies and procedures, especially in regards to cooperation or assistance with local emergency responders. 5. POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator, -[redacted- at (410) 702-[redacted] or by e-mail [redacted]@us.army.mil [Redacted LTC author’s name] DISTRIBUTION: ATOs MSCs CDRs

In case you just simply skimmed through the whole thing (I admit that military memos are a long a boring read) I’d like to point your attention to Paragraph #5 which states: “POC is Antiterrorism Program Coordinator.”

Barack Obama is bending over backward to kiss the rear-ends of jack-booted thugs like Chavez, Ortega and Castro and is trying to grant real terrorists Constitutional rights that could get them released from prison, but he refers to Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly as possible terrorists?

Given that all of the demonstrations were peaceful and without incident, you can see how out-of-touch Barack Obama and the leftist controlled government is with reality on this one.

You can access the original news story and the Maryland National Guard Memos on-line here:

Md. Guard Issues Warning To Staff About Local TEA Party Protestors
David Noss
Southern Maryland Online
April 15, 2009

Missouri House Approves State FairTax Constitutional Amendment

I’ve been a proponent of the FairTax for a few years now. My faith in the FairTax has never waivered nor will it anytime soon. Although many on the left (and a few on the right) have worked to discredit the idea of the FairTax over the past few years, the movement is gaining momentum.

The lastest victory come from Missouri where the House of Representatives voted to approve of a state Constitutional Amendment that would give Missouri a state-level FairTax.

From Fair Tax Nation:

In a development of potential national significance, the Missouri House of Representatives, on April 16, 2009, sent a proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution, HJR36, to the state Senate that, if enacted, would bring a state-level Fair Tax to Missouri. The sponsor of the bill, Edgar G. Emery (R-Missouri District 126, Lamar), advised me yesterday he thinks the bill has a reasonable chance of passage in the state Senate. There is no definite time table yet there – the resolution has had its first reading. However the passage of the proposal in the state House has enhanced the profile of the bill in the state Senate. If the state Senate approves, the measure will be submitted to the voters of the State in November 2010 without need for consideration by the Governor. If approved by the voters, the measure would take effect on January 1, 2012, and Missouri would become the first laboratory in the United States – and perhaps the world – to test the macro-economic benefits of the Fair Tax. New Jersey FairTax State Co-Director, engineer and business owner, Norm Simms, has stated frequently that his decisions on where to site production are sensitive to tax climate. If the state FairTax passes, businesses would be expected to seriously consider locating – or relocating – to Missouri. Credit for the success of this bill goes to the Missouri FairTax volunteeers.

You can access Missouri HJR36 on-line here:

Missouri HJR36

There have been many efforts at tax reform over the past twenty years, but all of them failed to produce the desired results. Here are three end-goals that any tax reform plan must have in order to be viable:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

There is only one tax reform plan that addresses all three of these end-goals:

THE FAIR TAX

Americans For Fair Taxation

Some Quick Thoughts On The Tax Day Tea Parties

I’ve been looking at the news and comparing the ways each network covered the Tax Day Tea Parties. Of course, left-leaning news outlets said every possible negative thing they could have said about the demonstrations, even things that were not true. It is those untrue items I wish to discuss here.

Item #1: The claim that Fox News orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events around the nation for a ratings boost.

The truth: Fox News simply covered the events, they did not orchestrate them. They presented the story in a fair, objective manner and were about the only network to do so. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all parroted the same lines over and over as if they were reading some talking points that someone handed to them.

Item #2: The claim that Rush Limbaugh orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events arouind the nation.

The truth: Rush may be the most popular talk radio host in the world right now, but I do not remember him ever putting forth one single idea or plan one little detail of any of those demonstrations. In fact, I don’t even recall his name being mentioned at any of the 800 events.

Item #3: The claim that the rich orchestrated these Tea Parties in an effort to justify their own greed.

The truth: Well, I don’t remember seeing very many rich people on the television or Internet news coverage of the Tea Parties. In fact, I saw mainstream Joe and Jane Average Americans. I saw parents with children. I saw small business owners. If there were any rich people in those crowds, they blended in quite nicely.

So, why am I bringing all of this up? Because these Tea Parties are not the end. There will be more demonstrations against the excesses of the current leftist-controlled federal government as time goes on. As Congress passes more “intolerable acts” and Barack Obama signs them into law, people will become more and more angry and demand that the government finally listen to them.

Now, far from trying to correct the above misconceptions, I actually want to see Old Media and groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org coninue to spread those lies. Why? Because it is a major advantage for our side if they do so.

As long as Old Media is assigning responsibility to the wrong crowd, the people who really did organize and mobilize these Tea Parties will be free to continue their planning and organizing unhindered and unfettered by distractions. They will be free to plan and organize new Freedom demonstrations for the coming 4th of July. Further, the more that the left attacks Fox, Rush and others, the more that the organizers and planners will know how big of an impact they really made.

So, to all the hate-mongers over on the left, please, continue shouting that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz put these things together. The more you convince yourselves of that, the more you will leave the real planners and organizers alone to plan and organize more. It is the best thing you can do for our side.

84rules

Tea Party Messages Resonate Loudly Among Average Citizens (Photos Included)

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When people fear the government, that’s tyranny. When government fears the people, that’s liberty.”

The U.S. Government should take the time to understand what Jefferson said and to relate it to yesterday’s Tea Parties.

Those tea parties were not the elite coming together nor was it the rich coming out in an effort to keep their money. It was Joe and Jane Average American sending a message to D.C. That message is: “We’re fed up with your wasteful mismanagement of our money and your selling off of our children’s future.”

Look at the pictures below. They are randomly selected from the 800 or so tea parties that took place yesterday. You will not see fear of the government in these people’s eyes. You will see anger; an anger that can only be placated on the day when politicians in D.C. do the right thing. It does not look like that day will come under Barack Obama or with a Democrat-controlled congress. But that day will come soon.

Contrary to what the libs are saying about these events, they were not organized by Fox News nor were they put together by Rush Limbaugh. These were not Republican operatives. These were common men and women coming together for a higher purpose. They were not called to come, they came of their own volition. This is more than just a grass-roots movement. What we saw yesterday was the beginning of the Second American Revolution.

There were no riots. Police officers who were sent to maintain the peace saw nothing but peace.

The pictures:

It won’t stop here. People are angry at what the socialists in Congress and the White House are trying to do. The people will win in the end.

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The “J” Word

When I was growing up in the 1970’s and going to elementary school in Prince George’s County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have “festivals” celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn’t seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to “forget” about where we came from. And, if you don’t know where you came from, you cannot get to where you’re going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, “Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind.”

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was “wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind” was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a “murder is a crime” civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor’s house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor’s children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn’t meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders’ ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700’s. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

“Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament.”

Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. … Like George Washington, I don’t believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that “Freedom of religion” now means to them “Freedom from religion.” They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is “offensive.” In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn’t our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn’t afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word “Jesus”?

The Founders weren’t. And we shouldn’t be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Pro-Amnesty Groups To Help Obama In The Census: No Illegal Alien Left Behind

ACORN, the voter-fraud organization that worked so hard to register voters like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Clark Kent, along with pro-amnesty groups like Voto Latino and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will be helping Barack Obama make sure that illegals are counted as population in the upcoming census thereby helping to ensure that the Dems will maintain a majority and will be able to force their disastrous socialist agenda on the rest of us.

No, this is not the plot of some futuristic movie from the 1970’s. It is cold, hard reality today. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke set this wheel in motion when he told the “government’s partners” (i.e. ACORN, Voto Latino and SEIU) that the “privacy rights” of census takers would not be violated. What that means is that the people doing the census will not ask whether or not a family being counted is actually a legitimate family or an illegal family.

That will have long-range consequences on the politcal map here in the United States.

Writing for Town Hall, Michelle Malkin has the following:

Obama’s census partners are using the process to pressure homeland security agents to halt interior enforcement efforts and workplace raids so that illegal alien cooperation with the national survey is maximized. Inclusion of the massive illegal alien population has resulted in a radical redrawing of the electoral map. The census is used to divvy up seats in the House as a proportion of their population based on the headcount. More people equals more seats. More illegal immigrants counted equals more power. This is not hypothetical. The Center for Immigration Studies determined that in the 2000 election cycle, the presence of non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, temporary visitors and green-card holders, caused nine seats in the House to switch hands. As the think tank’s analysis reported: California added six seats it would not have had otherwise. Texas, New York and Florida each gained a seat. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat. Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to secure a seat they would otherwise have gained.

Given ACORN’s track record at fraudulently registering voters over the past eight years, it is very likely that ACORN may use those same fraud techniques to influence the census count and make sure that Congress and the federal government remains in the hands of the socialists.

And Obama himself is already making sure that illegals are free to remain in the United States for the census:

The Obama Department of Homeland Security is already continuing the tradition — reversing the work of investigative agents who have uncovered massive document fraud at illegal alien worksites, and cutting immigration and customs enforcement operations at the knees. During the eight years of the Bush administration, groups such as ACORN received millions of dollars in subsidies. The pro-amnesty faction of the GOP pandered to unions such as the SEIU and ethnic lobbying groups such as Voto Latino seeking to boost their membership rolls. Now Republicans can only stand by helplessly while the political opponents they helped fund use the census to wipe them off the electoral map. You reap what you sow.

I wonder if those pro-amnesty Republicans are going to recant all those speeches they made when they tried to shove amnesty down our throats back in 2007.

Do you, as an American, want the future of our nation determined by a bunch of aliens who entered and stayed in the county illegally? I don’t.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Census Plan: No Illegal Alien Left Behind
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
April 3, 2009

Response From Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District)

A couple of weeks ago, I called on Frank Wolf (R-VA) to resign his seat for violating the Constitution by voting “Yea” on HR 1586. For a refresher on that story, visit the following link:

Time For Frank Wolf (R-VA, 10th District) To Resign
84rules
March 20, 2009

My argument is that by voting for legislation that essentially amounts to both a Bill of Attainder and an Ex Post Facto law, Rep. Wolf violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and must be held accountable for it. I sent Mr. Wolf a letter voicing my concerns and asking that he step down. I further made it known that my concerns were over the Constitutional issues, not the bonuses.

I got a response through the mail yesterday. A hard copy letter signed by Mr. Wolf. Here are two excerpts from that letter:

By a vote of 328-93 on March 19, the House passed the bill (H.R. 1586) to impose a new 90 percent tax on the bonuses paid after December 31, 2008, to employees of companies that recieved over $5 billion in taxpayer money.

Here, Mr. Wolf freely admits that HR 1586 qualifies as a Bill of Attainder, which is defined as any legislation that will pose negative effects on a narrowly defined group of people. Mr. Wolf himself defines that group. Further, Mr. Wolf noted that the date of the legislation in question was March 19, 2009 and that it would be retroactively enforced back to December 31, 2008. That qualifies this bill as an Ex Post Facto law.

So, why did he do it? Here is what he wrote:

While I had concerns about the rushed nature of the legislation and some of the legal and constitutional issues raised, I voted for the bill. I reached that decision because of the message that AIG’s payment of bonuses was sending hard-working Americans whose tax money was being used to bail out the company.

That’s it. Frank Wolf voted to trample on Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States in order to “send a message.” He had no concern whatsoever that what he was doing violated the Constitution.

What’s next? Will Mr. Wolf vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to “send a message” to violent criminals? Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to allow duties or taxes on exports from a certain state in order to “send a message” to the people of that state. Maybe Mr. Wolf will vote to impose taxes on a specific religious denomination in order to “send a message” to the members of that religion.

Mr. Wolf’s actions regarding HR 1586 are inexcusable. His excuse for taking those actions is intolerable.

Anyone who would violate a certain part of our Constitution will be capable of violating other parts of the Constiotution. Such a person is not to be trusted.

I repeat my earlier call for Mr. Wolf’s removal. I would rather deal with an honest Democrat than a disgraceful Republican. I have already decided that I will not support Frank Wolf for re-election in 2010.

Video: Rep. Michelle Bachmann Questions Tim Geithner’s Knowledge Of The Constitution

This is something that all legislators, Democrat and Republican, should be doing. They should always question whether or not a policy or proposed bill has a basis somewhere in the Constitution.

I don’t mean from court rulings or extensions of court rulings. I mean in the document itself. For any particular bill in front of Congress, can the sponsors cite Article and Section of the Constitution that gives the government the power to enact such legislation? If they cannot, then the proposed bill should be immediately thrown out.

For example, not one member of Congress can quote any part of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to retroactively impose taxes on a narrowly defined group of people. But I can certainly point to a section of the Constitution that unambiguously prohibits it.

That is why Michelle Bachmann is such a rising start in the GOP and among Conservatives in general. She is asking such questions. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Rep. Bachmann and Seccretary of the Treasury Geithner:

BACHMANN: What provision in the Constitution could you point to … to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ’08? GEITHNER: Oh, well, the — the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities. BACHMANN: Sir, in the Constitution. What — what in the Constitution could you point to to — to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken? GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is — is — has been using authority granted by this body — by this body, the Congress. BACHMANN: And by — in the Constitution, what could you point to? GEITHNER: Under the laws of the land, of course.

You’ll notice that Geithner never answered her question despite the fact that it is a very legitimate question. In fact, Rep. Bachmann had to ask it three times. He punted and simply said “the laws of the land.” Unfortunately for Geithner, the phrase “law of the land” appears in the Constitution only in Article VI and establishes the Constitution as the final authority over the several states. Article VI does not give the government the powers the Obama administration is taking for itself.

As for Old Media reporters, they should be asking the same questions. After all, they do style themselves as “watchdogs of government.”

There are many unhinged libs at websites like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post who are stamping their feet like little children right now over the way Michelle Bachmann exposed Geithner’s ignorance of the Constitution, but none of them are able to answer Rep. Bachmann’s question either.

The truth is, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government any power whatsoever to go in and take over the businesses and firms in the private sector. None. If you believe there is, please respond to this post by citing Section and Article of the Constitution.

If you are able to do so, then you will have done something that the current Secretary of the Treasury was embarrassingly unable to do.

You can access the video on-line here:

Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geithner & Bernanke About A Global Currency
YouTube
March 24, 2009