From The Patriot Post

Lets be very clear here: There is no law, regulation or resolution that can disarm law-abiding American citizens. It can only make us outlaws.

Mr Cantor, we expect you to stand for the Consitution and specifically, the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution when these bills are presented.

As Majority Leader, it is your job to insure that any legislation being considered meets the requirements of a Constitutional Impact Study.

Do your job and we may allow you to remain in your current position.

Gun Grabbers on the Move

Four pieces of civilian disarmament legislation made it to the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. While Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) "assault weapons" ban was included in the final package, it faces tough odds of getting anywhere in Congress. Democrats instead chose a piecemeal approach, the reasons being twofold: It increases the likelihood that something gets passed, and if a major overhaul fails, Republicans will face the backlash when Democrats cry wolf.

One of the bills being considered is a bipartisan proposal "that would for the first time create specific federal prohibitions on gun trafficking and the straw purchasing of firearms," according to the Associated Press. Recall that these were the same tactics used by the ATF in the infamously (and tragically) botched Fast and Furious sting operation. We're glad to see Congress agrees that the feds shouldn't be trafficking firearms to Mexico.

In related news, "States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths," trumpeted the Associated Press this week, citing a study by Dr. Eric Fleegler of Boston and published in JAMA Internal Medicine. However, Fleegler is an anti-gun activist and used data from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country. Also, though he considered all 50 states, he excluded the District of Columbia. The Brady Center did their own calculations based on findings in a dozen states and came to the conclusion that -- surprise -- we need more gun control. The inconvenient truth is that the "gun-related deaths" prevented by tougher gun laws are suicides, not homicides. In fact, the homicide rate was slightly higher in the 10 states with the most regulation. DC's rate is nearly four times that of the rest of the country.

The Brady Center wasn't the only leftist group promoted by the press either. USA Today placed a piece on an anti-gun study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) front-and-center of Tuesday's edition. PIRE's study purports to show that gun violence cost $12 billion annually. Not surprisingly, financial help is given to the institute through a company tied to none other than far-left billionaire investor George Soros.

The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

The Vetting - Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court

Its all those racist white men on the Supreme Court. yeah, thats it, racist white men; yeah yeah. Devious, cunning, calculating and dangerous to the original intent of the writers of the Constitution.

The president deliberately confused judicial activism--the wholesale manufacture of rights and laws by judges in accordance with their personal or political views--with judicial review, the power courts have to overturn unconstitutional legislation, which the Supreme Court has exercised since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

What is important about Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court yesterday is not that he attacked “judicial activism,” but that he attacked the court at all. It is clear that Obama does not even believe what he said about judicial review—i.e. that courts should not overturn a “duly constituted” law that had received a majority vote in the legislature. If he did, his Department of Justice would not be suing the state of Arizona over its immigration law, and would not be suing the state of Texas over its new voter ID law. In that sense, his comments are merely partisan hypocrisy.

But Obama, following Bell, does believe that the Supreme Court does not deserve the respect accorded to it by his predecessors (even FDR “usually waited” until the Court had made its decisions before criticizing it).

As always, we should pay more attention to Obama’s actions than his words. The very fact that he disparaged the Court is more important than the muddled substance of what he said.

The Truth WIll Not Remain Hidden For Very Long

Congress Attempted to Remove ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Requirement

There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.

Documentation for this video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.

Read more:

A Reposting of Our Beliefs Is In Order

We Already Knew This

20 States: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

President Obama's landmark health care reform law is being challenged in court by a coalition of 20 states. Lawyers argued in Florida that Congress does not have the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance or face penalties.

Attorneys also told the judge Obama care is a bank buster and if cash strapped states are forced to pay more to expand Medicaid programs, they will go broke.

Earlier this week a federal judge in Virginia ruled that citizens can not be forced to buy health insurance. Supporters of the Florida lawsuit want the judge to go further and stop the federal government from enacting health care reform. But so far, two other federal judges have upheld the law.

President Barack Obama's administration says all Americans should have health insurance because everyone requires medical care sometimes to cover catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

We'd Be Better Served With A Constitutional Review of the Legislation Before It Passes

Constitutional Amendment proposal to streamline legislative repeals to hit Congress soon

Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

And our very own House Majority Leader-elect is on board with this.

According to The Repeal Amendment, a nonprofit pushing the idea forward, those in favor of the Constitutional change at the federal level include House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, while many more state-level government officials are on board.

Cantor says he’s behind it because it will limit the power of the federal government.

“It’s time to return America to the common sense conservative principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual responsibility. The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around,” Cantor said in a statement. “In order to return America to opportunity, responsibility, and success, we must reverse course and the Repeal Amendment is a step in that direction.”

Marianne Moran, a spokesperson for The Repeal Amendment, told The Daily Caller she expects the amendment to make it through and get approved in the 112th Congress.

Read more:

I'm So Glad We Cleared This Up

Don't Worry: John Conyers Confirms Constitutionality of Health Care Mandate

Mary Katharine has the details. Its Article 7 Section 10 Paragraph 23 I believe.

Under the "Good and Welfare Clause," of course:

Questions Concerning EO 12452 and The Consitution

From RealNewsBlog
More after the jump

Could Obama Use INTERPOL to Evade Constitutional Law?

Much has been written recently since ThreatsWatch first broke the story of President Obama’s stealth Executive Order (EO) rendering an international police force immune from the restrictions of the Constitution and American law.

Reports are focusing on the ramifications of the EO to U.S. sovereignty and the potential surrender of Americans to war crime tribunals in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

But is the President using the 2(c) provision to sidestep Constitutional law and place the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the ICC without ratification of the UN Treaty by 2/3 of the Senate?

Or is he granting unrecognized authority to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization, providing them unrestrained power over the American people? And could he use these privileges to step above and beyond the Constitution, or as a means for political cronies to profit?

Although the UN Treaty committing signatory nations to ICC jurisdiction has been both signed by President Clinton and ‘unsigned‘ by President Bush, it has never been ratified by the Senate. If INTERPOL has unrestrained authority to arrest and try American citizens in the ICC, the Constitutional requirement for Senate ratification is bypassed in a manner unintended by our founding fathers.

With his signature Obama reversed President Reagan’s EO restricting INTERPOL to the Constitution and American law when acting on U.S. soil. INTERPOL now has the full diplomatic immunities afforded foreign embassies, International Organizations, their officers and employees under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).

It Will Come Down To States' Rights and We Will Stand With the Commomwealth

Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
12/22/09 6:01 PM EST

Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina's attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader's office.

According to AP, South Carolina's Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal.

Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina's two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.

Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMasters, according to AP.

Graham has been all over cable news today visibly angry about the vote-buying by Reid that secured the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as possibly other senators as yet unknown.

Corruption in High Office

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: bribe
Function: noun
: a benefit (as money) given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (as an official or witness) —compare KICKBACK

Main Entry: bribe
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: bribed; brib·ing
: to influence (a person) by giving a bribe

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Senator Mary Landrieu BRIBED with $300,000,000 in taxpayer money

Senator Ben Nelson BRIBED by a an amendment forcing 49 OTHER states to pay increased Medicaid costs to cover HIS state.
(If bills singling out one citizen for a law, how is this legal? In addition to the bribery?)

Senator Harry Reid BRIBES fellow Senators to the tune of $1.2 BILLION OF YOUR MONEY!

I am willing to bring charges and/or a lawsuit against Reid and the Democrats for corruption. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to do so properly.

AG Cuccinelli's first act should be to bring suit to prove that this bill is unconstitutional.

Update: Michelle Malkin has the list of those being bribed

DemCare Bribe List #1

DemCare Bribe List #2


Rope. Tree. Democratic Senators. Assembly required.

What Else WIll They Force Us To Buy?

Buy a Car or Go To Jail; Buy This Washer or Go To Jail; Buy a Refrigerator or Go To Jail

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.) says that Congress derived the constitutional authority to make Americans purchase health insurance as part of its very first enumerated power. He was referring to the language at the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

CNSNews.com asked Merkley: "Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health care?"

Merkley said: "The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it's right on, right on the front end." Before CNSNews.com could ask a follow-up question, Merkley's press secretary pulled him away, apparently to attend an event.

Both House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, an unprecedented form of federal regulation.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," said the CBO. "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states raises a "novel issue."

"Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service," said the CBO.

In a recent interview with CNSNews.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that it was "not constitutionally sound" for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

"But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want," said Hatch.

And, you know, if that's the case, then we didn't need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you. You know, they could require you to buy anything. And that isn't America. That's not freedom. That's not constitutionally sound."

Hatch said that if we let the federal government begin forcing us to buy things we may not want to buy without having a clear constitutional justification for doing so "we've lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us."

NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

DCProtestWarrior:NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

Doug Hoffman is the beginning of the conservative movement's efforts to take Congress back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The "Republican" leadership in the House will be measured by how well they adapt to the new/old ideas of governing.
Its time for the conservatives in Congress to put a stop to the socialist ideas being pushed down the throats of American citizens. Its time to recognize that the Constitution tells Congress what they can and cannot do.

The Constitution is the Law.
Everything else is a regulation.

Written By Someone Who Lived The Hungarian Revolution

SOCIALISM!!!! Seems a perfect, equal system for all, a Shangri-La if you will, not realizing it is nothing but a bridge to Communism, which is total government control!

Socialism at its best is corrupt, rotten to the core, a government without overseers! The idea of Socialism is not new in the United States , but it is not openly identified as such in the places it exists. If you live near by, drove through, or happen to live in the projects, you have seen and experienced Socialism in America ! Government housing, government healthcare, government schools, government food stamps, and what you see there is as good as it gets, when the government decides what is good for the people, takes the power out of the hands of the people, and they spread the wealth.

Our government imposed full blown Socialism on our inner cities, and in over fifty years hasn’t been able to raise the living standard of those who live there! And look how happy and motivated are those, living in the projects with all that the government is providing for them.

Is that the best we can dream for our children and grandchildren? Is that the America we want to see? I certainly hope not, but that is exactly what the government means when they tell you they want to spread the wealth. They will make us all poor by breaking down our economy, forcing on us taxation on a level never seen before, and if we don’t like it and cause too much difficulty for them, at that point they will have the power to no longer tax us at all, simply take over completely, shut down the borders and impose full blown Communism.

Not in America you might say! Think again, look around and see how much we lost just in the last year!

We are citizens of this country first, and private citizens second! This citizenship comes with responsibilities! Keeping the Constitution intact, the freedoms in it, is our foremost responsibility. Citizenship is our birthright, but freedom is not, we have to be diligent in making sure it is not snatched from us in the midst of indifference, ignorance, or under the assumption that it is being properly looked after by our representatives in Washington.

Our greatest enemies are not always those on the outside of our borders, sometimes, as today, they walk among us, pretend to serve, and represent us. Both parties have betrayed us, they both not only strayed from the Constitution, but trying to destroy it. We the people have sat in indifference too long, allowed our children to be indoctrinated by the left, making them believe their ancestors were terrible people committing terrible acts, placing doubt into young minds…questioning their parents’ intent, rather than the government’s!

We turned a blind eye to corruption of government, our courts, and through political correctness they shamed us into shutting up, so no one will ever question or oppose, and feeling alone quietly stand watching the government enslave the people! We need to demand Constitutional correctness from our representatives!

We are the mothers and fathers of this great land! As we would with our children in danger, we viciously, with our blood if needs to be, have to protect this soil we stand on from those who are limiting our rights and carelessly selling our country to foreigners. To those countries who are not our friends, nor supporters,they are in many cases our enemies, who are only worried about how they will get the return on their investment. The fall of this great country would cause them no emotional hardship at all, perhaps a gleeful grin of satisfaction over the idea that it was a job well done. The arrogant Americans got what they deserve.

But we are not the arrogant Americans! Our corrupt politicians are! The most precious thing we have is our country, without it we have no home! Our founders swore to protect it from enemies outside our borders, and from the enemies within! Times may have changed, but human nature has not, money and power is still a lure for men of weak convictions. We need to recruit those who through the political evolution from George Washington to today managed to keep their spines in tact, and are still able to stand upright with dignity, and willing to preserve the last bastion of freedom in the world.

We need to judge all politicians guilty, until they prove to us they are PATRIOTS! These days we may be softer in our comforts then the early Americans were, but I can say with certainty, we do not love our country any less today, and I feel confident if we are called, now that we are called, we will not be less of a patriot than those who fought back then. Our commitment cannot be less than to offer our life if necessary. We have to have commitment on that level, even though we may not want to.

Freedom is that important, ask anyone who knows what it’s like not to have it! Most recently, look at the people of Iran !

This is the most dangerous time in our country’s history, since the founding fathers fought for freedom, and laid the cornerstone for what is today the greatest country on earth! Our liberties have never been more on the brink of extinction than today. It is time for all eyes to be wide open, and believe what used to be unbelievable! The changes we see today have been coming for decades, but today they are meant to change our country’s DNA, and cannot be allowed to continue.

As a nation of diversity we have faced great challenges in our history, and we always overcame, remained strong, but today, NOW our country is in grave danger! It is time we take the loss of our freedoms, and the corruption in our government, and courts seriously, and finally stand together as the Americans we are, all citizens, all the races, all nationalities united, under the one flag of the United States of America , for the most important single cause of our lives…..our freedom.

I Was Right

I do enjoy it when someone infinitely smarter than I am explains why I'm right about something.
You notice from the responses by the dhimmis, that they think we're arrogant for questioning their auhority to bypass Constitutional limitations.

IMAO, its the dhimmis who are the arrogant ones, for questioning why we question them.

Royalty-monarchs-serfs-peasants
rail-tar-feathers

From the Patriot Post/Federalist Digest
God Bless Mark Alexander

Government & Politics
A Serious Question

We have known for many years that Democrats view the Constitution as an obstacle to their goals, not as something to be revered or upheld -- despite their repeated oaths to do just that.

And as Mark Alexander warned last week, our Constitution is on life support.

More evidence of the trauma inflicted by our elected "representatives" surfaced this week when CNSNews.com asked the only truly relevant question in the health care debate: Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was befuddled and deflected:
CNSNews.com: Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?
Leahy: We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?
CNSNews.com: I'm asking-
Leahy: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority, nobody questions that.

While Leahy's answer is both defensive and outrageously arrogant, in a sense, he's right: Not enough voters question the constitutional authority for anything Congress does. Even Republicans too often simply declare, "Me too, only a little less," instead of abiding by the Constitution.

The interviewer persisted, however, and again asked the question. Leahy dodged, saying, "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways." He then walked away.

So to get this straight, Leahy defended Congress' unconstitutional attempt to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy by citing another unconstitutional law that was justly repealed 14 years ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) answered the question by saying, "Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."

On the contrary, in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

According to Hoyer and his accomplices, however, the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution empowers Congress not only to "promote the general Welfare," but to provide it, demand it and enforce it.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was the worst offender. "Madam Speaker," CNSNews.com asked, "where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her brief reply spoke volumes about the Left's contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then ignored the question and moved on to the next one. Her spokesman later added, "You can put this on the record: That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Even in light of the current recession, we live in a day of unprecedented prosperity and, as a result, we have become complacent. Unfortunately, the likes of Leahy, Hoyer and Pelosi, who mock the Constitution instead of keeping their oaths, have almost completely robbed us of the "Blessings of Liberty" which our Founding Fathers pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to defend.

Though questions concerning constitutional authority are finally being asked inside the Beltway, they have been asked with ever-louder voices across the nation since Ronald Reagan reinvigorated that debate. Of course, since the last election, the national debate chorus has become much more unified.

For example, in The Patriot's home state of Tennessee (which Al Gore claims as "home" but which gave its electoral votes to Bush, twice, and then to McCain), there is a 10th Amendment battle underway, and not a minute too soon.

State Republicans are organizing a state sovereignty campaign in opposition to the federal government's abuse of states' rights. This week, a legislative committee approved a motion to invite representatives from the legislatures of the other 49 states to join a "working group ... to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers."

Can you say, "Constitutional Convention"?

Predictably, Obama's state cadre of Democrat sycophants are huffing and puffing. State Democrat Chairman Chip Forrester says, "It's unfortunate that Republican members of the state Legislature have jumped on this crazy train. This is nothing short of lunacy. The Tea Party organizers and their ultra-right wing cronies began this ridiculous issue to disrupt civil debate about how to move this state and nation forward. I hope they are not suggesting we fight another Civil War."

No, we should give the Convention a chance before taking up arms. And if it comes to the latter, I suggest Mr. Forrester say goodbye to the sun and slither down a very deep hole..

Am I Missing Something?

A sitting President fires the CEO of a private corporation; Congress slaps a 90% tax on earned income and targets 73 specific American citizens; then they order insurance companies to disclose the salaries of mid-level managers, then they forbid a company from paying bonuses to low-level employees.

Who do they think they're dealing with, a bunch of ignorant peasants? Do we bear the slightest resemblance to serfs? Anyone?? When exactly did we enter the fuedal system?

Could someone please show me the section in the Constitution that grants authority to Congress or the Executive Branch to set wage limits on private citizens working for private corporations?

I've looked and looked and I swear I can't find it. It must be there somewhere, because this administration is preparing to do just that, and they certainly wouldn't try this if they weren't allowed, would they? They must be extremely jealous of the corporations in this country. So jealous they would resort to breaking the law to "keep them in their place."

If you continue to allow this unprecedented use of political power against private corporations and private citizens, the next one to be affected could be you.

You've been warned.

Richmond Tea Party Press Release

It is beyond time for elected officials to make a decision regarding their loyalties. They took an oath to obey the Constitution. They swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America.
Republican or Democrat, from this moment on, need to decide if they are politicians or Americans serving the will of the people. From my position, all I see is politicians, and I've had quite enough of the Bravo Sierra from Congress. I will make it my life's mission to replace every single politician with someone who truly understands the Founding Principles.

Richmond Tea Party News Release!
October 13, 2009
They Should Be Ashamed of Themselves
“Senators Warner, Webb, and Congressman Cantor Reject 6,000 Petition Signatures”

Richmond, VA – Six thousand Richmond area residents have signed a petition protesting nationalized health care, but Warner, Webb and Cantor refuse to personally meet to acknowledge the petition despite multiple requests.

“The petition signatures represent genuine concern of taxpayers about government take-over of our health care system. The signatures were gathered through face-to-face meet-ups at festivals, neighborhood walks and in our workplaces. We expect our elected representatives to at least feign interest in the will of the people, but when we requested meetings to personally deliver the petitions, we were rebuffed at every turn,” said Sara James of Midlothian.

“These politicians have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in the opinions of thousands of voters in their districts. Warner, Webb and Cantor should be ashamed of themselves.”

Corky Mann of Henrico, a relative newcomer to the political process, expressed dismay about the lack of response by his representatives. “These politicians seem to forget that we hired them, and we expect them to be responsive and considerate of our opinions, not to mention the fact we expect, at a minimum, a reverence for the Constitution, which these health care bills clearly ignore.”

Mechanicsville resident Kevin Dumville agreed. “The absurdity of their refusal to receive 6,000 petition signatures can be easily demonstrated by the fact that when these petitions are laid down end-to-end, they stretch longer than a football field. How does an elected representative ignore that level of opposition?”

The petition states: “We the People of Virginia demand that the Federal Government remain within its Constitutional boundaries on health care. We reject any of the following: Government-run health insurance; One-size government-dictated package of health benefits; New job-killing mandates on employers; Federal medical mandates that violate State Sovereignty; Requirement on individuals to buy medical insurance coverage; Federal institution that controls private health insurance; Government intrusion into our medical privacy; Taxpayer dollars for euthanasia, or life ending services; Medical coverage for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.”

The Richmond Tea Party is a grassroots organization giving voice to the Silent Majority. Its mission is to work to reign in a Government that Has Grown Too Big, Spends Too Much and No Longer Listens to the Will of the People.

What to do to fulfill your Oath?

Enlisted Oath

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Officer's Oath

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Now, my question is: (including those that are now out of the services)

What does one do when one part of the oath, more specifically, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" forces you to consider that elected and appointed members of the government are acting contrary to the Constitution?

(I don't mean illegal orders. That's covered under the UCMJ.)

What to do? What to do.....?

Simple Questions:Simple Answers

Paul Hollrah asks a few questions

Is he a “natural born” citizen, or isn’t he? It seems pretty clear from the available evidence that he is not. If that proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind.

One Simple Fact That We Need To Consider
We've all seen the emails about Obama's citizenship. This is a new twist WE hadn't known. Interesting. More questions, and this time some good questions. While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birthissue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta,and Karachi?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981,without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ,what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers tothese questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1. He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's"no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

Count me in as one of those inquiring minds who'd at least like to know the answers to these easily answered (by Obama) questions.

Congress Lacks the Constitutional Authority

to force free Americans to purchase anything they don't want, and the Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from puntitive retribution on those who choose not to.

The Constitution does not give Congress the auhority to impose healthcare mandates on free citizens or the power to punish those who do not comply by imposing fees or fines.

But since they've never a let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of their marxist engineering or socialist agenda, and its never stopped them before, it's time to let them know we're not going to stand for an imperialist regime imposing their mandates and ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land.

If The Chosen One, may peace be upon him, and his band of useful idiots in Congress wants to force me to buy coverage I don't want, or penalizes me for not buying it, or taxes my current benefits and does not allow for a full deduction of the associated costs, I will cancel my current healthcare policy and stand in my front yard and wait for the brownshirts from ACORN or the Civilian Defense Force to come get me.

Thats when maximum fun begins.

Congratulations to Condoleeza Rice

For being our FIRST African-American and Female President.

"there was a brief window (just after noon) when George Bush and Dick Cheney were no longer President and Vice President, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden also were not yet qualified to enter on the Execution of their offices."

h/t Redstate