Open Letter To Senators Levin, Stabenow, re: S.744 Vote...

June 27, 2013

Senator Carl Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senators,

You still have 20 million unemployed CITIZENS to take care of before you even THINK about throwing the border open in yet another de-facto amnesty program.  I have objected to amnesties under ALL of the preceding administrations - Democrat and Republican - and I object to this one as well.

I am urging you to vote NO on S.744, the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Bill.  Any attempt to throw our doors open to 12 million plus illegals is a slap in the face to the 20 million citizens - nearly 2 million of whom are YOUR CONSTITUENTS - who have been pushed out of the workforce in favor of illegals who will work for illegal wages with no benefits, as well as the 4 million immigrants who are patiently complying with our immigration laws.

Proponents of the bill claim it will bring unprecedented resources to border security.  They leave out, however, that the Corker-Hoeven Amendment to S. 744 also places sole authority for the deployment of security measures into the hands of Sec. Napolitano, who has already declared, “We are confident that the border is as secure as it has ever been…”   The following quote is directly from the Corker-Hoeven Amendment:

"...nothing in this subsection shall require the secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the southern border, if the secretary determines that the use of placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border at such location." 

In addition, S.744 guarantees that illegal immigrants who are amnestied will be eligible to work, but will not be eligible for ObamaCare. Employers who would be required to pay as much as a $3,000 penalty for most employees who receive an ObamaCare healthcare “exchange” subsidy, WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE PENALTY IF THEY HIRE AMNESTIED IMMIGRANTS. 

CONSEQUENTLY, EMPLOYERS WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INCENTIVE TO HIRE OR RETAIN AMNESTIED IMMIGRANTS, RATHER THAN CURRENT CITIZENS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE RECENTLY ACHIEVED CITIZENSHIP VIA THE CURRENT NATURALIZATION PROCESS."

Your oath of office is to defend the US Constitution and uphold the laws of this land - ALL OF THEM, not to impose a new social order on us. 

Senator McCain - Enforce Our Immigration Laws...

June 24, 2013

Sen. John McCain

Senator,

There was a time when I supported you.  I was one of those who voted for you when you ran for the office of President.  But upon seeing what you have come to espouse in the years that have passed since then, you have lost my support.  You have defended the actions of a president and his administration that are, by all objective, CONSTITUTIONAL standards, indefensible.

And now you have joined the open borders crowd in complete disregard for your own Arizona constituents, and for the rest of us as well.  To make matters worse, you have evidently instructed your staff to ignore all incoming phone calls from constituents who have the temerity to question you and the rest of the so-called “Gang of Eight” oligarchs who have decided that you alone know what is best for this country with regard to enforcing our immigration laws and strengthening our borders.

We believe in enforcing our laws.  We have seen from previous amnesties what transpires.  We have over 20 MILLION CITIZENS who have been been pushed out of the workforce in favor of illegals who will work for illegal wages with no benefits; your first responsibility is to THOSE CITIZENS, not the 12 million plus illegals who CHOSE to live in the shadows.  You have no obligation to bring them out of the shadows - unless it is for the purpose of enforcing our immigration laws.  Your proposed “immigration reform” is a slap in the faces of the 4 million immigrants who are patiently complying with our immigration laws to become productive CITIZENS of this nation, and placing all power to strengthen our borders solely into the hands of Sec. Napolitano, who has already declared that our borders are sufficiently strong for the purposes of the administration, does nothing to strengthen the language of your proposed legislation.

Enough is enough.

Enforce our laws as your oath of office requires you to do - or step down to make room for someone who will.

A Constitutional Constructionist for National Sovereignty.

Open Letter to Senators Levin & Stabenow: Corker-Hoeven Amendment and S. 744, the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Bill

June 24, 2013

Senator Carl Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senators,

You still have 20 million unemployed CITIZENS to take care of before you even THINK about throwing the border open in yet another de-facto amnesty program.  I have objected to amnesties under ALL of the preceding administrations - Democrat and Republican - and I object to this one as well.

I am urging you to vote NO on both the Corker-Hoeven Amnesty Amendment that is scheduled for a vote at 5:30 today, as well as S.744, the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty Bill, as a whole.  Any attempt to throw our doors open to 12 million plus illegals is a slap in the face to the 20 million citizens - nearly 2 million of whom are YOUR CONSTITUENTS - who have been pushed out of the workforce in favor of illegals who will work for illegal wages with no benefits, as well as the 4 million immigrants who are patiently complying with our immigration laws.

Your oath of office is to defend the US Constitution and uphold the laws of this land - ALL OF THEM, not to impose a new social order on us. 

MI HB 4714, Expanding Medicaid and Paving the Way for Obamacare....

I emailed the following letter the the state senator from my congressional district, Sen. Dave Hildenbrand:

Senator,

I called your office and spoke with your administrative assistant a few minutes ago.  I am urging you to vote against HB 4714, the expansion of medicaid.  We need to be working to de-fund and repeal Obamacare, not pave the way for it - which is exactly what the required medicaid expansion will  do.  We are just now beginning to see the state turn around financially; this expansion has the potential to be a HUGE setback for us as we are left holding the financial bag.

From the Republican platform:

"Repeal ObamaCare; it is an attack on our Constitution The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--Obamacare--was never really about healthcare, though its impact upon the nation's health is disastrous. From its start, it was about power, the expansion of government control over one sixth of our economy, and resulted in an attack on our Constitution, by requiring that U.S. citizens purchase health insurance. We agree with the four dissenting justices of the Supreme Court: "In our view the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." It was the high-water mark of an outdated liberalism, the latest attempt to impose upon Americans a euro-style bureaucracy to manage all aspects of their lives. Obamacare has been struck down in the court of public opinion. It would tremendously expand Medicaid without significant reform, leaving the States to assume unsustainable financial burdens. If fully implemented, it could not function; and Republican victories in the November elections will guarantee that it is never implemented."Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

I turns out that Republican victories did NOT guarantee that it would not be implemented; to the contrary, Republicans, including our esteemed governor, have been at the FOREFRONT of its expansion.

PLEASE vote against HB4714.

Pres. Obama: Law Enforcement OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES Gun Control Legislation...

The following letter was faxed to Pres. Obama and my legislators from Michigan:

June 11, 2013

President Barak H. Obama
The White House

Mr. President,

Some time back, you stood in front of the cameras with a few police chiefs and told us that law enforcement overwhelmingly backs gun control.  A recent poll of more than 15,000 law enforcement officers, over 70% of which were officers, not elected police chiefs, however, tells a far different story.

Among the results:

* 95% of respondents said that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

* 90% oppose banning certain semi-automatic firearms.

* 85% said that proposed federal gun control legislation would have no effect on reducing crime, or would even INCREASE crime.

* NEARLY 90% SAID THAT THE PRESENCE OF LEGALLY-ARMED CITIZENS AT OUR RECENT MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS WOULD HAVE EITHER REDUCED OR COMPLETELY PREVENTED CASUALTIES.  This result, by the way, mirrors a statement issued last year by the border patrol officer's union:

"06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. 

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…"

* More than 80% favor arming school employees.

The overall conclusion of the survey?  

"Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard."

The full results of the poll can be found here:  Gun Control Survey-11 key findings on officers' thoughts

So contrary to your public statement, Mr. President, law enforcement does not back your proposals.  And the latest polls reveal that the majority of Americans don't, either.  In fact, in terms of national priorities, only 4% list gun control as a top priority.

It is time to cease your attacks on our Second Amendment rights.  The role of government in this and other issues was clearly delineated in the 1875 Supreme Court Case, United States v. Cruikshank:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them, and to do naught to deprive him of their full enjoyment. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT [I]THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Respectfully submitted,

An Open Letter to Pre. Obama Regarding His Administration's Blatant Violations of the Constitution

Mr. President,

Your administration has taken surveillance of American citizens farther than any administration to-date. And since the NSA is monitoring everything these days, particularly the postings of conservatives, I feel relatively certain that they will stumble across this posting.

I agree with a past leader of our country who was far wiser than you regarding the lengths to which you are going to "keep us safe:" 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

I am well aware that your predecessor set up a system whereby he thought he could skirt the Bill of Rights with impunity, a system your administration is now taking to lengths never before imagined. I am aware that it was the republicans who pushed through the so-called "patriot act," an act which you condemned as a senator, but of which you take full advantage today. I condemned your predecessor's and the republicans' attempts to skirt the Constitution, as I condemn yours today. I will state this plainly: an unConstitutional law is an illegal law. A law that purports to protect the Constitution by violating it is an illegal law. A law that infringes upon the rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the name of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Sovereignty Clauses is an illegal law. That this is true is declared in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Cruikshank, 1875:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PARTICULAR STATE OF WHICH HE IS A CITIZEN TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE THEM, AND TO DO NAUGHT TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THEIR FULL ENJOYMENT. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE." 

These attempts to circumvent the Constitution, to implement unConstitutional laws, must end now, and those who have promulgated these policies must be held accountable for breaking their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They have become what they profess to hate.