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 It was the high-water mark of an outdated liberalism, the latest attempt to impose upon Americans a euro-style bureaucracy to manage all aspects of their lives.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.

Romeike Family Amnesty Resolution, Michigan House of Representatives....

The following resolution in support of the Romeike family was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives today by Rep. Tom Hooker, along with 16 co-sponsors; it was sent to the Committee on Gov't Operations, or as Rep Hooker termed it, the place where bills go to die:

Rep. Hooker offered the following resolution:

House Resolution No. 159.

A resolution to call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested.

Whereas, In our nation's past, we have celebrated immigrants who came to this country in order to escape the persecution that was brought against them. Furthermore, the United States Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has stated that "...creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the eleven million unauthorized immigrants in this country...is a matter of civil and human rights"; and

Whereas, The Romeike family, which consists of Uwe, Hannelore, and their six children, have deeply held religious beliefs and convictions regarding how their children should be educated. Over the course of time the Romeikes came to believe that the state school system in Germany, which does not permit homeschooling as an alternative to the public school system, was educating their children in ways that were at odds with their beliefs. Upon making their decision to pull their children out of the state education system, they were heavily fined, their children were taken to school under police escort, and they faced litigation from the state; and

Whereas, The Romeike family immigrated to the United States in 2008 and in 2010 were granted initial asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. In 2012, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals overruled this decision and denied asylum. In 2013, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the family's appeal; and

Whereas, Our society has held for the better part of the last two hundred and twenty-four years that, as expressed by Albert Gallatin, "[T]he whole Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority have the right to deprive them of"; and

Whereas, The ruling against the permanent grant of asylum to the Romeike family will have the effect of establishing a legal precedent of divesting certain parents of the fundamental right to direct the education of their children by choosing homeschooling, thus limiting their ability to practice their freedom of religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, explicitly states:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" and

Whereas, The youngest daughter of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike is entitled to all of the rights and protections afforded to all citizens of our country under the United States Constitution. She was born within the United States and is a United States citizen. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;" now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

"We need your honor..."

Fine, then let's see that honor demonstrated by the Commander in Chief first.

“We need your honor, that inner compass that guides you, not when the path is easy and obvious, but it’s hard and uncertain, that tells you the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong,” Obama said. “Perhaps it will be the moment when you think nobody’s watching. But never forget that honor, like character, is what you do when nobody’s looking.”

Practice what you preach, Mr. President.  You have no moral authority to make such a demand.

Let me paraphrase your other relevant remark from this address:

“Those who commit dereliction of duty after receiving numerous please for help, who order troops to stand down when our ambassador and his staff are being murdered, who direct the IRS to target conservatives and others with whose ideology you personally disagree, who tell Christians that they must fund abortion and give vocal approval to homosexuality in violation of their First Amendment Rights, who direct the Department of State to provide funding and weapons to islamic terrorist organizations and hostile governments, and who direct immigration and other law enforcement agencies not to enforce our laws regarding illegal aliens, just to give a few examples, are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that makes our country strong.” 

True leadership doesn't make demands of others that it doesn't first make of itself.

Pres. Obama to West Point Grads: "We need your honor..."

Becoming an "American"

Letter from former Pres. Teddy Roosevelt to the president of the American Defense Society, written on January 3, 1919. It was read aloud at a concert sponsored by the ADS on January 6, 1919; Roosevelt died three days later. It speaks to divisions among the American people, and what he believed to be the obligations of those who would become American citizens.

"I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you God speed. There must be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over.

There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.

In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. 

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

A copy of the original letter can be seen at this link: Pres. Teddy Roosevelt letter

Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?

"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…"  B.H. Obama

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg 

At every turn, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. It's amazing that the words "unalienable" or "shall not be infringed" could ever be interpreted as, "at the government's whim."

If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.

The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."

Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.

H.R. 1005: Defund Obamacare Act...

I support H.R. 1005, Defund Obamacare Act. Obamacare will actually force more people who are currently insured into the ranks of the uninsured, it will result in a net loss of over 70,000 doctors, and it is already resulting in the underemployment of our nation's workers as employers cut hours to slide under the Obamacare threshold. Not to mention INCREASING the size of the IRS (NEVER a good thing!).

If you haven't contacted your representative to encourage them to fully support this legislation, take a moment to do so now.

This is a starting point.  We need to take it to the next step and repeal this travesty in its entirety.  Tell Pelosi, "We HAVE read it, we HAVE found out what's in it, AND WE DON'T WANT IT!"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1005/text

April 23, 2013: the First Anniversary of the End of the War on Terror....

April 23, 2013. 

Today is the first anniversary of the end of the war on terror.

I'll bet you didn't know that.

One year ago today, the administration did something that went largely under the radar until after the Boston Marathon bombing: it declared the war on terror to be over. 

In an interview with the National Journal, a senior State Department official stated, "The war on terror is over... Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a LEGITIMATE ISLAMISM" (all caps added). 

In other words, the administration folded. It has admitted defeat. But while the US is no longer engaged in a war on terrorism, recent events make it clear that we are still a target for terrorists.  The man who castigated Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" while still carrying out combat missions in Iraq has declared an end to the war on terror even as we deal with terrorist sleeper cells in this country.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/23/Obama-war-on-terror

US Army: No Purple Hearts for Victims of Ft. Hood Massacre...

OK -- so the administration made the decision to assassinate an American and his family living abroad because he was PLANNING an attack on US interests (he richly deserved prosecution for his actions, but the DOJ readily admits that they had no specific intelligence relating to specific acts of terrorism or specific targets), declaring him a traitor and a terrorist without a trial, but they are afraid to label this man, who actually carried out an attack on fellow service personnel, on US soil, a traitor and terrorist - thereby denying the affected service personnel and their families the decorations, benefits and assistance that they should rightfully be receiving? 

According to Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution, this man is a traitor: 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." 

He carried out an act of war against the US in support of muslim extremist enemies of this country. He is a traitor and a terrorist under the terms of this article of the Constitution. He is still Constitutionally due his day in open court, but make no mistake about it - he is a traitor and a terrorist; for the military to say otherwise is an affront to all members of our armed forces, particularly those who were personally affected by his actions.

If you find this offensive, pass this on - and contact your legislators to demand that this travesty be corrected immediately.

U-S-Army-Protects-Shooter-Says-No-Purple-Hearts-For-Ft-Hood-Victims