Tag Archives: United States Constitution

Learning About The Politics Of My New Home State

Posted on by

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I have recently moved from Southeastern Massachusetts to Coastal North Carolina. Obviously the politics are a little different, and I am spending some of my time learning about some of the groups that share my political philosophy. (I’ll probably never get the language down, but the climate and politics I love!)

Today I had the privilege of sitting down with Hal James, Chairman of the Watchdog Committee of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association (CCTA). I asked Mr. James to list some of the current concerns of the Watchdog Committee.

Mr. James began by mentioning his concerns about the Common Core curriculum which is being introduced into North Carolina and other states around the nation.  He stated that the Common Core curriculum is a federal intrusion on education, and is thus unconstitutional (in violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution). The Common Core curriculum is an attempt to influence the values of young people in a direction not consistent with the traditional values of America. The CCTA is currently working to make parents and voters aware of the things in the Common Core curriculum.

The general goal of the Watchdog Committee is the hold elected officials accountable to the people who elected them.  Members of the Watchdog Committee attend meetings of various city and county boards and legislative meetings. Their goal is to become informed so that they can share information that may not be included in the news in order to make voters more aware of what their government is doing. Watchdog Committee members study the county budget and read the audits. North Carolina law requires every governmental agency to have an independent audit of its books. Those audits are made public, and members of the CCTA Watchdog Committee read them.  Reading the audits will reveal such things as unfunded liabilities that might not be obvious in simply reading the budget.

We are currently entering into the budget process. Department heads in Craven County will be submitting budgets to the County Manager. After review by the County Manager, the budget will be submitted to the Board of Commissioners. There will be public meetings in the county during this process.

Mr. James pointed out that the Board of Commissioners has recently been studying the idea of privatization of home hospice care in Craven County. That move would be a cost cutting move for the county and would save taxpayers money.

Mr. James also pointed out that Carolina East Hospital, which is run by a private corporation, is built on county land. The hospital pays no rent (or taxes) for the use of the land. Originally this occurred because it assured the area of having a local hospital. As the area has grown, other hospitals have been built, and it is time to seek a new arrangement with Carolina East.

Mr. James also addressed the claim by the Board of Commissioners that they have reduced real estate taxes in the county two years in a row. It is true that real estate taxes have been reduced, but somehow they failed to mention that the reduction was about $10 on an average-size home.

If you are interested in learning more about the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, their website is www.cctaxpayers.com.  The organization is very welcoming and always willing to share the results of their research on various issues.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does The U. S. Constitution Still Matter?

Posted on by

On Monday, Forbes Magazine posted an article about entitled, “President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations of 2013.” Most of these violations have to do with ObamaCare, but there are a few that do not that are interesting.

The article lists the top 10:

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation.

6. Political profiling by the IRS.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments.

8. Recess appointments.

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses.

10. Mini-DREAM Act.

Please follow the link above to read the details of each item. The two items that are most disturbing to me are the misuse of the IRS for political purposes and the recess appointments made while Congress was technically in session. The Obama Administration has shown by its actions that it has little respect for the U.S. Constitution as the basis for our government. I will be very happy when this crew is voted out of office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Are We Teaching Our Children About America?

Posted on by

The Examiner is reporting today on one of the lessons included in the sixth-grade class assignments of the Common Core curriculum.

The article reports:

The assignment made the assumption that the United States government has determined that the Bill of Rights “is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”

The children were to assume the persona of “experts on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” in their aim to ensure that “the pursuit of happiness remains guarded in the 21st century,” despite the fact that the phrase “pursuit of happiness” exists in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

There is nothing in the lesson that explains how the Constitution is amended, and the mother of the child said that the child did not think the word amended had been used in the lesson. Wouldn’t it be better to teach the children the value of the Bill of Rights, how unique it was for its time, and how unique America is because of the Bill of Rights? If we continue to undermine the respect our children have for America, we will raise a generation that will not understand or work to preserve our freedom.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Amazing Statement

Posted on by

This video is from YouTube:

Aside from the total callousness of his statement, Senator Harry Reid is claiming that the House of Representatives has no right to ‘pick and choose’ what parts of the government they will fund.

I would like to point out what the U.S. Constitution says about that (from a website called archives.gov):

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Unfortunately, lately we haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Scares Me When I Agree With The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Posted on by

This is a map from the ACLU:

The map describes the shaded area as the Constitution-Free Zone in the United States. So what is this about?

The ACLU Website posted a fact sheet on these zones which states:

  • Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches. 
  • The border, however, has always been an exception.  There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply.  For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.” 
  • But what is “the border”?  According to the government, it  is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States. 
  • As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
  • Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship.  Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders.  They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts. 
  • However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose.  On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
  • The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.

This is disturbing.

The article also states:

This trend is also typical of the Bush Administration’s dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security.  Instead of intelligent, competent, targeted efforts to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, and other crimes, what we have been seeing in area after area is an approach that turns us all into suspects. This approach seeks to sift through the entire U.S. population in the hopes of encountering the rare individual whom the authorities have a legitimate interest in.

The article concludes:

If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.

Notice that the date on this is 2008. As far as I know, the Obama Administration has continued the policies of the Bush Administration in this area and added other forms of surveillance as well. Where is the update on this concern?

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Conservative Voice Worth Hearing

Posted on by

This is the mission statement of the website Conservative Junction:

To unite Conservatives in order to win elections so that we can re-establish Constitutitional pinnciples and Conservative values to the Republican party. We will do that by supporting Conservative candidates who will uphold the Constitution and the laws provided therein.

We will seek to rid the nation of all such elected officials who are not responsive to their Constituents, but instead wish to write policy and act in a manner that is against the people in which they serve, in ways that are deemed to be beneficial to only their own self-interests or to the interest of a friend, family member or one that lobbies their office for favors.

This website and others like it are desperately needed right now. Please follow the link above to visit the website and see how you can help restore the role of the Constitution in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Haven’t These People Read The Constitution ?

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting today that Vice-President Joe Biden has stated that “there are executive orders, executive action that can be taken” on gun control.

The article reports:

Biden was appointed by President Barack Obama to head a task force to explore the issue of preventing gun tragedies, following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

It is time for Congress or the Supreme Court to remind the President and Vice-President that at least theoretically, they are bound by the U. S. Constitution.

This is what the Constitution says:

                              AMENDMENT [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.

Our free state is protected by citizens who have guns. None of the recent high-profile murder cases involved people who should have had access to guns. The problem is not the guns–it is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Executive orders do not trump the Constitution!

Enhanced by Zemanta

And I Thought They Only Wanted To Remove The Second Amendment

Posted on by

When I first read this, I thought it was a joke. Evidently it is not. Thomas.gov confirms that it is not (because Thomas.gov does not retain links, you have to type in the bill number to see this):

H.J.RES.15
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Sponsor: Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-15] (introduced 1/4/2013)      Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate who votes for this should be removed from office in their next election campaign.

NOTE: This is not as bad as it looks–evidently he has offered this resolution in every new session of the House of Representatives since 1997. I am just uncomfortable that with the level of honesty and transparency in the current administration, they may actually try to pass this. Also note that as of this time there are no co-sponsors.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America In Her Twilight Years

Posted on by

President Obama has been re-elected. What does that mean? It means that he has more flexibility, as he explained to Russian President Medvedev. What does that mean? There will be higher taxes for all Americans. There will be another round of quantitative easing, which will make American dollars worth less. America will unilaterally disarm. ObamaCare will not be repealed, and the elderly and those who value life in all seasons will soon find out what a serious mistake they have made.The new taxes from ObamaCare will begin to kick in during the coming year. Those taxes will impact the real estate market, the medical research industry, and many other areas of the economy. The number of people who take money from the government will increase; the number of people working and paying taxes will decrease. The economy will continue to limp along, possibly heading into a double dip recession.

What happened? There probably was some serious voter fraud along the way, but I don’t think that made the difference. The Evangelical vote never materialized. The average voter watched a media that left out the story of Benghazi and trashed Mitt Romney whenever possible. The mainstream media has exercised their power and elected a President. The majority of Americans are obviously ok with that.

Where do we go from here? We create a political party that actually represents people who are working, supporting their families, and not dependent on the government. That is going to be more difficult as jobs become more scarce.

The re-election of Barack Obama is a body blow to the principles America’s Founding Fathers expressed in The Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution. It is possible that America can return to her roots, but it will be a difficult path to travel from where we went last night.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ordering Law Enforcement Not To Enforce The Law

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller is reporting that ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Dallas, Texas, charging that President Obama’s June 15th deferred action directive is essentially an order for the ICE agents to break the law.

The article reports:

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an adviser Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is the lead attorney on the case.

“The Directive is an extension of the DREAM Act, which was rejected by Congress, and aims to grant an amnesty to 1.7 million illegal aliens,” Kobach said. “It violates federal immigration laws that require certain aliens to be placed in removal proceedings, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and it encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution.”

“The lawsuit notes the position that these ICE agents are being put in, they are being ordered by their political appointee superiors to break federal law, or if they don’t break federal law, according to their orders, they will be disciplined. This is an absolutely breath taking assertion of authority and an abuse of authority,” he added in a conference call with reporters, comparing the situation to Fast and Furious.

This is another illustration of Presidential overreach and how it impacts America. The ICE agents are being prevented from doing their job–not because Congress has changed the law or a change to the law has been made constitutionally–but because President Obama says so.

It’s time to elect a president who respects the U. S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Denying America’s Heritage

Posted on by

The Metro West Daily News reported on Saturday that the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) (on behalf of a local parent) has lodged a complaint against Wayland High School because their band played “God Bless America” on Pearl Harbor Day and Memorial Day.

The article reports:

In a letter to Stein (Superintendent Paul Stein), the Freedom from Religion Foundation, on behalf of a local parent, argued that playing and singing the song at school functions violated the U.S. Constitution’s provision of separation of church and state.

The story also pointed out that when the song was played only the music was played–the words were not sung.

Superintendent Stein is handling this with common sense. The article reports:

At a School Committee meeting this week, Stein said the district’s lawyer said the foundation’s letter does not merit a reply now.

“Certainly if they pursue this in court, they should be writing directly” to the committee’s attorney, Stein told the School Committee.

He added, “I don’t dismiss these concerns, I respect these concerns. … Where I would draw the line is obviously different from where this organization would draw the line.”

The whole idea that “God Bless America,” one of our great patriotic anthems, can be banned because one person thinks it endorses religion is ridiculous. If this does wind up in court, I would like to see the FFRF have to pay all court costs as well as a hefty settlement in apology to the school district.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Chance That The First Amendment May Be Upheld

Posted on by

There is a possibility that the First Amendment (free speech, religious freedom, etc.) may actually be upheld in the courts. The Blaze reported yesterday that a Federal court has upheld a lawsuit against the controversial contraception mandate, filed by Catholic-owned employer Hercules Industries.

On Wednesday I posted an article about Hercules Industries and their right to reflect their religious beliefs in their corporate policies. The Justice Department denied them that right and they have appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado.

LifeNews.com reports:

A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court.

…Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business.

The decision only applies to the company, and the court emphasized the ruling did not apply nationwide.

This is good news. Federal judges had dismissed two other lawsuits against the contraception mandate. The decision of the Tenth Circuit to hear this case will eventually bring this matter before the Supreme Court regardless of what the ruling by the Tenth Circuit is.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Free Speech ?

Posted on by

There have been a few instances in recent years that have called into question whether or not we have a First Amendment. Two recent examples are the four people charged with disorderly conduct because they were handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside an Arab cultural festival.(see rightwinggranny.com) and General Boykin being denied the right to speak at West Point because of his stand against Islamic terror (see rightwinggranny.com). The latest violation of the First Amendment by those who should be supporting it occurred near Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Yesterday the Insurance Journal reported that the Thomas More Law Center has filed a civil suit against Allegan Michigan officials and the leaders of a Muslim civil rights organization that asked the city to cancel the event.

The article reports:

According to the suit, a speech given Jan. 28 by Kamal Saleem at Allegan High School was stopped by police acting on a letter opposing Saleem’s visit. The letter was sent several days earlier by Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The suit also said that police were told of possible _ and unconfirmed _ threats against Saleem, said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More center. Thompson said shutting down the meeting violated Saleem’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel for the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More center, commented, “The irony is this event was held to extol the virtues of the U.S. Constitution. In the middle, you have the police coming in and shutting it down. The audience is shouting ‘What about free speech?’ ”

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), stated, “We believe he is a bogus ex-terrorist. I’m saying he’s a total fraud. If they want to sue me, then sue me for defamation of character. We view this lawsuit as a nuisance and form of trying to drain advocacy organizations of their resources. Advocacy organizations have freedom of speech to raise concerns about people who propagate divisive messages in the community.”

We need to understand that CAIR was in unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Case–they have an agenda. Their goal is to use the American legal system to undermine the rights of Americans and destroy the US Constitution so that it can be replaced with Sharia Law. If that sounds wild to you, please google the Holy Land Foundation Case and read the plans for destroying the American legal system. Those plans are included in the case documents and are available to the public.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happened To Our Representative Republic ?

Posted on by

Today’s Los Angeles Times posted a story about the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Proposition 8 is a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

CNS News reports:

California’s Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008. It added a provision to the California State Constitution which states: “(O)nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t always understand how things work legally, but it seems to me that if Proposition 8 passed with a majority of votes, it should become law.

The Los Angeles Times reports the argument of those who oppose Proposition 8:

Instead, they simply held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it took away “rights” that had already existed in California for same-sex couples – including the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children, to raise children together, to become foster parents together and more.

“Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority in the 2-1 decision.

“It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the state, or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of  ‘marriage’ to describe their relationship. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Reinhardt, citing the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, said the California law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that the Constitution does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

CNS News pointed out:

“This battle is far from over,” said Sears {Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund(ADF)} , who has advised clients in numerous state and federal court cases involving same-sex marriage challenges.

“Judge Reinhardt has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more times than any other judge in American history,” he added.

Historically, the two-parent heterosexual family is the foundation of a healthy society. Why are we trying so hard to tear down the things that give us stability and provide a foundation for our society?

Enhanced by Zemanta

As Our Rights As Americans Are Being Taken Away The Rights Of Whales Are Increasing

Posted on by

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that a California court will decide if amusement park animals are protected by the same constitutional rights as humans. Good grief–haven’t they got more important issues to look at?

The article reports:

The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in a San Diegocourt on behalf of five orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises.

The whales perform water acrobatics at the SeaWorld amusement parks in San Diego and in Orlando, Florida.

 PETA argues that continuing the whales’ “employment” at SeaWorldviolates the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery.

District Judge Jeffrey Miller heard arguments in the complaint Monday and reviewed the response from SeaWorld, which asked that the lawsuit be dismissed. His ruling is expected to come later.

Why are we taking up the Judge’s and the Court’s time with this nonsense?

The article further reports:

The complaint demands that the court “appoint a legal guardian to effectuate plaintiffs’ transfer from defendants’ facilities to a suitable habitat in accordance with each plaintiff’s individual needs and best interests.”

Why was this case not immediately thrown out of court?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The First Qualification To Hold Office In America Ought To Be A Respect And Love For America

Posted on by

The Daily Caller reported today that Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a television interview that when the people of Egypt write their constitution they should not look to the U. S. Constitution as an inspiration. She stated that the U. S. Constitution is too old and that there are more recent constitutions to use as examples.

The article reports:

Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.

“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Might I point out a few flaws in her logic. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to prison for stating an inconvenient truth about the founder of Islam (see rightwinggranny). In Canada, Mark Steyn was put on trial for stating something true about Islam in a publication. In both cases, the facts these people were citing were true–that was not the issue–the issue was that they were charged with hate speech for telling the truth. In America, we can still speak the truth without fear of arrest. What part of free speech does Justice Ginsburg not understand?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Avoiding The Constitution When Necessary

Posted on by
English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the Oath of Office the President of the United States takes when he assumes office:

I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution all imply that the holder of the office will honor the Constitution. Unfortunately, President Obama has recently chosen not to do that.
 
CNS News is reporting today that in a recess appointment President Obama has appointed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Unfortunately for the President, Congress is technically not in recess.
 
The article at CNS News points out:
 
The Senate, in fact, is not formally in recess. It rejected a resolution of adjournment – required by the Constitution to end a congressional session – meaning that the current 112th session of Congress continues. The pro-forma sessions Pfeiffer referred to are short, formal sessions of Congress that typically last a few minutes or less and are not intended to conduct business. They are intended to keep Congress technically in session, specifically for the purpose of preventing the president from making recess appointments.

Both chambers of Congress have held pro-forma sessions every three days, in order to comply with the constitutional requirement that Congress not recess for more than three days during a session without the consent of both houses.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called Obama’s decision on Cordray a “power grab,” saying that it would devastate the traditional balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

 
Admittedly the pro forma sessions are part of the game routinely played in Washington. However, up this point, both sides have at least respected the rules.
 
The article further reports:
 
Cordray, former Attorney General of Ohio, was nominated over the summer, but was blocked by Senate Republicans who wanted to make the CFPB more accountable to Congress before it began its regulatory work. The Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination on December 8 when it failed to gain enough votes for it to be brought to the floor.

 
I don’t know what the options are for Congress at this point, but if the Congressmen think the Constitution means anything, I suggest they stand up for it.
 
Just to add to the confusion, The Hill reported today:
 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

“I support President Obama’s decision,” he said in a statement.

This is one of the reasons I think most Democrats are sleazy–they have no defining principles–it’s all about politics. There is no respect for the Consitution–it’s all about the party–not the country.

    
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Defending The Constitution

Posted on by

December 12, 2011

7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street

Northborough, MA

 If you have not heard of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”, you are not alone … 99% of the citizenry are equally in the dark.

Why should we be concerned? There has been a continual, two-decade effort by thousands of “One World Order” advocates to destroy our capitalist system by promoting environmental programs that not only sound plausible, but appear to be absolutely necessary. Under the guise of protecting our planet, these programs have multiple objectives – all intended to redistribute wealth, hand-cuff industry, undermine national sovereignty, restructure the family unit, and take away our property rights.

The public is invited to attend this eye-opening meeting on Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Guest speakers Hal Shurtleff, of the John Birch Society and Dave Kopacz, a Municipal Conservation Agent will describe the evolution of U.N. Agenda 21 and its impact on Massachusetts – 37 towns are currently involved, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Cameron Carey of the Northborough Tea Party, “This U.N. directed program, also known as “sustainable development” is truly insidious – it is motivated by the notion that human beings are less important than saving the planet. But as we will discover, that is only the tip of their philosophical iceberg.”

The free admission, public service program is open to residents of Northborough and surrounding towns, the Press, and especially to high school students. It is sponsored by the Northborough Tea Party. Contact: John O’Mara 508.393.2044,

Enhanced by Zemanta

Defending The Constitution

Posted on by

Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Northborough, MA – If you have not heard of the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”, you are not alone … 99% of the citizenry are equally in the dark.

Why should we be concerned? There has been a continual, two-decade effort by thousands of “One World Order” advocates to destroy our capitalist system by promoting environmental programs that not only sound plausible, but appear to be absolutely necessary. Under the guise of protecting our planet, these programs have multiple objectives – all intended to redistribute wealth, hand-cuff industry, undermine national sovereignty, restructure the family unit, and take away our property rights.

The public is invited to attend this eye-opening meeting on Monday, December 12th, 7:00 pm, at the Northborough Free Library, 34 Main Street.

Guest speakers Hal Shurtleff, of the John Birch Society and Dave Kopacz, a Municipal Conservation Agent will describe the evolution of U.N. Agenda 21 and its impact on Massachusetts – 37 towns are currently involved, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Cameron Carey of the Northborough Tea Party, “This U.N. directed program, also known as “sustainable development” is truly insidious – it is motivated by the notion that human beings are less important than saving the planet. But as we will discover, that is only the tip of their philosophical iceberg.”

The free admission, public service program is open to residents of Northborough and surrounding towns, the Press, and especially to high school students. It is sponsored by the Northborough Tea Party. Contact: John O’Mara 508.393.2044,

Enhanced by Zemanta