http://nimrod.lolthen.net

http://toby.lolthen.net

http://blogster.lolthen.net

http://tearallies.lolthen.net

http://neo.lolthen.net

http://neo2.lolthen.net

Meet Constitution-butchers Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter.

Cleaning House…by bloodying it:

Photoshop exclusive: Big Fur Hat at iowntheworld.com andApplecross Media

Via Doug Ross:

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!

Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

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…

According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.

Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

…It would be government by fiat… meaning there would be no law… the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us… at the brink. At the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

***

And it indeed appears to be unprecedented. Mark Tapscott at the Examiner:

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.

The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.

Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.

Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.

***

Reminder: March 16 in Washington DC – The People’s Surge against the Demcare cramdown.

Time: March 16, 2010 from 9am to 6pm
Location: Cannon House Office Building
Street: Independence Avenue SE and New Jersey SE
City/Town: Washington, DC

***

Update: Obama pollster says shut up and take your medicine. You will like it.

Update: A massive rally to stop the Demcare cramdown in Minnesota turned out thousands, reports Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Update: 11:30pm Eastern. The 2,309-page Demcare reconciliation bill “shell” — with the student loan nationalization plan folded in — has just been posted online. See here.

***

Contact Louise Slaughter:

Washington D.C. Office
2469 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822

Contact Pelosi:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Contact list – Blue Dog Democrats

Via Tea Party Patriots:

TARGETS BY STATE

ALABAMA

Rep. Bobby Bright, Alabama 2nd

http://www.bright.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2901, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-8913
Local Office Number: (334) 794-9680, Local Fax Number: (334) 671-1480
Chief of Staff: Jason Buckner email: jason.buckner@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

ARIZONA

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona, 1st

http://kirkpatrick.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2315, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-9739
Local Office Number: (928) 226-6914, Local Fax Number: (928) 226-2876
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Harry Mitchell, Arizona 5th

http://mitchell.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2190
Local Office Number: (480) 946-2411
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, 8th

http://giffords.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2542, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0378
Local Office Number: (520) 881-3588, Local Fax Number: (520) 322-9490
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

ARKANSAS

Rep. Marion Berry, Arkansas 1st

http://www.house.gov/berry/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4076, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5602
Local Office Number: (870) 972-4600, Local Fax Number: (870) 972-4605
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas 4th

http://ross.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3772, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1314
Local Office Number: (870) 881-0681, Local Fax Number: (870) 881-0683
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

CALIFORNIA

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, California 18th

http://www.house.gov/cardoza/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6131, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0819
Local Office Number: (209) 383-4455, Local Fax Number: (209) 726-1065
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Jim Costa, California 20th

http://www.house.gov/costa/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3341, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-9308
Local Office Number: (559) 495-1620, Local Fax Number: (559) 495-1027
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Laura Richardson, California, 37th

http://richardson.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-7924, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7926
District Office Number: (202) 225-7924, District Fax Number: (202) 225-7926

Rep. Linda Sanchez, California, 39th

http://lindasanchez.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6676
Local Office Number: (562) 860-5050

COLORADO

Rep. Markey, Colorado 4th

http://betsymarkey.house.gov/

DC Office Number: 202-225-4676, DC Fax Number: 202-225-5870
Local Office Number: 970-221-7110, Local Fax Number: 970-221-7240
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

FLORIDA

Rep. Allen Boyd, Florida, 2nd

http://boyd.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5235, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5615
Local Office Number: (850) 561-3979, Local Fax Number: (850) 681-2902
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Ron Klein, Florida, 22nd

http://www.klein.house.gov/index.html

DC Office Number: (202) 225.3026, DC Fax Number: (202) 225.8398
Local Office Number: (561) 544-6910, Local Fax Number: (561) 544-2864

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, Florida, 24th

http://www.kosmas.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2706, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6299
Local Office Number: (407) 208-1106, Local Fax Number: (407) 208-1108
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

GEORGIA

Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia 8th

http://jimmarshall.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6531, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3013
Local Office Number: (478) 464-0255, Local Fax Number: (478) 464-0277
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. John Barrow, Georgia 12th

http://www.barrow.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2823, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3377
Local Office Number: (706) 722-4494, Local Fax Number: (706) 722-4496
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

IDAHO

Rep. Walt Minnick, Idaho 1st

http://minnick.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6611, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3029
Local Office Number: (208) 888-3188, Local Fax Number: (208) 888-0894
Chief of Staff: Kare Haas email: kate.haas@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

ILLINOIS

Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Illinois 3rd

http://www.lipinski.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5701, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1012
Local Office Number: (312) 886-0481, Local Fax Number: (773) 767-9395

Rep. Melissa Bean, Illinois 8th

http://www.house.gov/bean/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3711, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7830
Local Office Number: (847) 517-2927, Local Fax Number: (847) 517-2931

Rep. Deborah “Debbie” Halvorson, Illinois, 11th

http://halvorson.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3635, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3521
Local Office Number: (815) 726-4998, Local Fax Number: (815) 726-8024

INDIANA

Rep. Peter Visclosky, Indiana, 1st

http://www.house.gov/visclosky/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2461, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2493
Local Office Number: (219) 795-1844, DC Fax Number: (219) 795-1850

Rep. Joe Donnelly, Indiana 2nd

http://donnelly.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3915, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-6798
Local Office Number: (574) 288-2780, Local Fax Number: (574) 288-2825
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, 8th

http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4636, DC Office Fax: (202) 225-3284
Local Office Number: (812) 465-6484, Local Fax Number: (812) 422-4761
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Baron Hill, Indiana 9th

http://baronhill.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5315, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6866
Local Office Number: (812) 288-3999, Local Fax Number: (812) 288-3873
Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

KENTUCKY

Rep. Ben Chandler, Kentucky 6th

http://chandler.house.gov/contact/index.shtml

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4706, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2122
Local Office Number: (859) 219-1366, Local Fax Number: (859) 219-3437
Chief of Staff: Denis Fleming email: denis.fleming@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

LOUSIANA

Rep. Charlie Melancon, Lousiana

http://www.melancon.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4031, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-3944
Local Office Number: (985) 876-3033, Local Fax Number:
Chief of Staff: Joe Bonfiglio email: joe.bonfiglio@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

MAINE

Rep. Michael Michaud, Maine 2nd

http://michaud.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6306, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2943
Local Office Number: (207) 942-6935, Local Fax Number: (207) 942-5907
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MARYLAND

Rep. Frank Kratovil, Maryland 1st

http://kratovil.house.gov

DC Office Number: 202-225-5311, DC Fax Number: 202-225-0254
Local Office Number: (410) 420-8822, Local Fax Number: (443) 262 – 9713
Chief of Staff: Tim McCann email: tim.mccann@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland, 2nd

http://dutch.house.gov/

DC Office Number: 202-225-3061, DC Fax Number: 202-225-3094
Local Office Number: 410-628-2701, Local Fax Number: 410-628-2708

MASSACHUSETTS

Rep. Ed Markey, Massachusetts, 7th

http://markey.house.gov/

DC Office Number: 202-225-2836
Local Office Number: 781-396-2900

Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts, 9th

http://www.house.gov/lynch/

DC Office Number: 202-225-8273, DC Fax Number: 202-225-3984
Local Office Number: 617-428-2000, Local Office Fax: 617-428-2011

MICHIGAN

Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan 1st

http://www.house.gov/stupak/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4735, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4744
Local Office Number: (906) 786-4504, Local Fax Number: (906) 786-4534
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Mark Schauer Michigan 7th

http://schauer.house.gov

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6276, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-6281
Local Office Number: (517) 780-9075, Local Fax Number: (517) 780-9081
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Gary Peters, Michigan, 9th

http://peters.house.gov/index.html

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5802, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-2356
Local Office Number: (248) 273-4227, Local Fax Number: (248) 273-4704

MINNESOTA

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota 7th

http://collinpeterson.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2165, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1593
Local Office Number: (218) 847-5056
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MISSISSIPPI

Rep. Travis Childers, Mississippi 1st

http://childers.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4306, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3549
Local Office Number: (662) 841-8808, Local Fax Number: (662) 841-8845
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4th

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5772, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-7074
Local Office Number: (228) 864-7670, Local Fax Number: (228) 864-3099
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

MISSOURI

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri 4th

http://www.house.gov/skelton/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2876
Local Office Number: (816) 228-4242
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

NEW JERSEY

Rep. John Adler, New Jersey 3rd

http://adler.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4765, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-0778
Local Office Number: (732) 608-7235, Local Fax Number: (732) 608-7268
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote high priority

NEW MEXICO

Rep. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico 1st

http://heinrich.house.gov

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6316, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4975
Local Office Number: (505) 346-6781, Local Fax Number: (505) 346-6723
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Harry Teague, New Mexico 2nd

http://teague.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2365, DC Fax Number:
Local Office Number: (575) 393-0510, Local Fax Number:
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

NEW YORK

Rep. Tim Bishop, New York 1st

http://timbishop.house.gov

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3826, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3143
Local Office Number: (631) 696-6500, Local Fax Number: (631) 696-4520
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

Rep. Michael E. McMahon, New York 13th

http://mcmahon.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3371, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-1272
Local Office Number: (718) 351-1062, Local Fax Number: (718) 980-0768
Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted No on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Scott Murphy, New York 20th

http://scottmurphy.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5614, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1168
Local Office Number: (518) 828-3109, Local Fax Number: (518) 828-3985
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Bill Owens, New York 23rd

https://owens.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4611, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-0621
Local Office Number: (315) 782-3150, Local Fax Number: (315) 782-1291
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York 24th

http://arcuri.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3665, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-1891
Local Office Number: (315) 252-2777/2778, Local Fax Number: (315) 252-2779
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently No Vote on Health Care
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition Membership

Rep. Daniel B. Maffei, New York, 25th

http://maffei.house.gov/

DC Fax Number: (202) 225-3701, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4042
Local Office Number: (315) 423-5657, Local Fax Number: (315) 423-5669

NEVADA

Rep. Dina Titus, Nevada 3rd

http://titus.house.gov

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3252, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2185
Local Office Number: (702) 387-4941, Local Fax Number: (702) 837-0728
Voted Yes on Health Care
Currently Undecided

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rep. Paul W. Hodes, New Hampshire, 2nd

http://hodes.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-5206, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-2946
Local Office Phone: (603) 223-9814, Local Fax Number: (603) 223-9819

NORTH CAROLINA

Rep. Bob Etheridge, North Carolina, 2nd

http://etheridge.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-4531
Local Office Number: (919) 829-9122

Rep. Mike McIntyre, North Carolina 7th

http://www.house.gov/mcintyre

DC Office Number: (202) 225-2731, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-5773
Local Office Number: (910) 323-0260, Local Fax Number: (910) 323-0069
Chief of Staff: Dean Mitchell email: dean.mitchell@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Rep. Larry Kissell, North Carolina 8th

http://kissell.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-3715, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4036
Local Office Number: (704) 786-1612, Local Fax Number: (704) 782-1004
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently No on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11th

http://shuler.house.gov/

DC Office Number: (202) 225-6401, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6422
Local Office Number: (828) 252-1651, Local Fax Number: (828) 252-8734
Chief of Staff: Hayden Rogers email: hayden.rogers@mail.house.gov
Voted Yes on Stupak
Voted No on Health Care
Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote
Listed on Blue Dog Coalition

Posted in: Health care, Nancy Pelosi

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Obamessiah Chronicles, Part I

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Obamessiah Chronicles, Part II

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Obamessiah Chronicles, Part III

Click here to view the embedded video.

General Larry Platt

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Visit Gigitt at Gigitt.com

1.    We were blessed to hear very little about the latest overdosed Pop star.

2.    The black messiah in the White House was silent for a change, and probably had a very bad day.

3.    Michael Steel and the turncoats in the RNC learned who their new boss is going to be.

4.    Liberals all over the country messed their pants.

5.    The news media, especially Shepard Smith and Keith Olbermann, had their vacations ruined by the sting of being out maneuvered by Sarah Palin once again.

6.    Mitt Romney learned he is not the Republican front runner.

7.    And John McCain surely is hanging his head in shame for taking a dive when he had the chance to serve alongside the most prominent real American on the scene since Ronald Reagan.

I know all the arguments… that Sarah Palin isn’t experienced enough. That she is too earthy, and too pious to capture the imagination of the American people. Pardon my French, but bullshit! First she is darn well qualified, and even if she weren’t she is a loyal American with morals and values, and THAT is what we need!! And our American service men and women will love here.

A monkey could run the executive branch in today’s world… Teleprompter Obama is proof of that. Has there ever been a man less qualified for the office than Obama? Obama is not only incompetent, idealistic and naïve, but he is a Marxist. He places more value in the words of Lenin and Trotsky than he does in the inspired wisdom of Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, or any of the Founding Fathers.

The most important thing the President does today, is to make Federal appointments, including czars (in Obama’s case), his own cabinet, and Federal Judges. Then he wields the bully pulpit to sway the slant of governance, for better or for worse. What is perhaps most sickening to me, is that he is also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, and that he represents us to the world. I am sincerely ashamed that he was allowed to usurp the office of President.

If Sarah Palin never lifted a finger beyond restoring real Americans to our Government through appointments, it would a glorious day of restoration for our beloved country. And does anyone doubt that she would do that? Compared to Obama, knowing Sarah Palin, I would never lose a wink of sleep over any appointment of hers, without question.

Then there is THE “Football.” I have great concern with that power being in the hands of Obama. I don’t fear that he would use it hastily, but I worry more that he would hesitate until it is too late. Or worse, that our enemies are not deterred because “they” think he would hesitate. If Obama were called upon to make that fateful decision, I am certain he would be like a nervous coward holding a gun in the face of a perceived threat. He would be as likely to blow the head off an innocent bystander as to use it against a real threat.

In the predawn hours of April 19, 1775, American Minutemen gathered on the village green at Lexington. They had been warned by Paul Revere and William Dawes that the British were coming.

By the time the 800 man British advance guard arrived, the assemblage of 77 local citizens had been instructed by their commander, Captain Parker, “Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

The British commander, was not impressed by the small American force, and ordered the Minutemen to throw down their arms and disperse. Outnumbered, a few obeyed the order and began to leave. Then a shot was rang out and others quickly followed. When the smoke cleared, eight Americans lay dead and the outmatched Minutemen retreated into the nearby woods as the redcoats proceeded to Concord.

It is not known who fired that shot heard round the world on April 19, 1775, but I’m pretty sure another was fired on July 3, 2009, by Sarah Palin. Sarah is our Captain Parker. The message today is that, if these scoundrels want war, it begins here. If any of us missed Sarah’s message, don’t worry… every liberal on the planet heard it loud and clear.

Symbolism is important. That is why the only argument to gain any real traction against Barack Obama has been what must have seemed a silly issue to him… his missing birth certificate. Until now, the illegal interloper has had his way with America, our laws, and our system of self-governance.

The volley of fire delivered at Lexington that morning in 1775 bought time to ensure the arrival of enough minutemen at Concord to defeat the British and drive them back to Boston.

It is too late for Obama to reverse course. Too much damage has been done, and he must be removed from office. Tomorrow there are Tea Parties all over America. Be sure and attend one near you, and let it be know, that we back Sarah Palin. We don’t know if she will run for President, but it is clear she is embarking on a tour of support for new moral leadership.

Since Sarah is the first and only to stand head and shoulders above the crowd… let’s fall in behind her. After all, she is the only one in National politics leading where we want to go. Ignore Fox, and rest of the naysayers! Today was a good day for America!

The Concord Hymn

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837)

———————-

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled;

Here once the embattled farmers stood;

And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;

Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,

And Time the ruined bridge has swept

Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,

We place with joy a votive stone,

That memory may their deeds redeem,

When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare

To die, and leave their children free, –

Bid Time and Nature gently spare

The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

The country is in one big mess, no doubt. I’m just about broke, and don’t expect to ever again gather any meaningful wealth. I guess I’m at that point in life where we all have to admit that our health and energy will just go downhill from here. I’m single, divorced, and I guess I’ll stay that way. I just can’t see inflicting any woman with a mate as unqualified as myself. I will never own another new car, or buy another house. I’m a renter with limited income, limited intelligence, and I’m old and tired.

But above all else, I’m thankful. I thank God that I live in America! I thank God that I have an opportunity to stand up for my country in her hour of need… to stand up for freedom, and for the future of my children and my Grandchildren. Thank you Heavenly Father, for all of this! And yes, I do mean all of it. Thank you for every trial and challenge I have encountered in life from birth, right down to the blind and ignorant internet liberals who think themselves wise, though they follow a well-trod path to bondage.

In 1776, as the decimated Continental Army limped across New Jersey, America was seemingly but a fading dream surviving only in the hearts of George Washington and a few others. It looked to any with reason, including British General William Howe, that all was lost. Howe decided the Americans were so beaten that he would just put his troops in winter quarters at Trenton, and easily finish Washington’s Army off in the spring.

Washington had just been soundly beaten, he had no money from Congress, scant munitions, sick, wounded, and starving troops, many of whom wore rags on their feet for shoes, and all in the midst of a bitter cold winter. They should have made camp and dug in to lick their wounds shouldn’t they? Isn’t that what we would do? Considering all the defeatist talk, whining, and bickering among ourselves, we sure as hell wouldn’t have faced the enemy yet again would we?

Well, I thank God again my friends. This time, I offer thanks to God for giving us his Excellency George Washington. Washington recognized that the dream for American Independence was on the cusp of extinction, so he wrote in a letter to John Hancock, that he was inclined to “strike some stroke.” …And as sure as God is on his throne, “strike some stroke” they did! Against all odds, our brave forebears drug themselves, weak and bleeding, across the ice-choked Delaware on Christmas night, looking nothing like the romanticized painting of the event that has a bedecked Washington standing up in a small boat.

After crossing the Delaware, the troops moved on to Trenton marching against bitter cold wind driving sleet, snow, and ice against them. It was so cold that if a man stopped marching, he would freeze to death, and in fact, two men did. Hours behind schedule, they had lost their only advantage of darkness against the well-armed and disciplined Hessian Mercenaries who were warm, fed, and dug in at Trenton.

But our future first President (a real President), and the troops who were with him did what our troops always do… God Bless America’s troops! …they routed the Hessians, killing over a hundred, and taking over nine hundred prisoner. It was a small win strategically, but it was the turning point in the war for independence, and is the single most notable ensign of America’s determination to be free!

Please, find a good book about this important battle, and read it darn it! I recommend starting with 1776 by David McCullough. Read it, then read it again. Then next time any of us feel the urge to whine about how tough a spot we are in, or how we have given up on America, and are throwing in the towel, let’s hit ourselves over the head with it, then get on our knees and pray to God for forgiveness for dragging down those who enter the fray every day, not to decry defeat and their own disgust and weariness, but to renew their commitment that we will never give up… NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!

Giving up in the face of this enemy is not an option, and it is not a thought that can even enter my mind. It has no place there. I praise God for the blessings he has given me in my life, and I will die in His name before I will give up those blessings of liberty without a fight to the death. We have just begun to fight, if we are weary at this early stage of the contest for what is right, maybe we ought to go to bed and cover up. But if we are patriots, and if we love God, our families, and our Country, shake it off brothers and sisters, and let’s join this battle arm in arm like the proud Americans we are.

Wishing us all a happy 4th of July tomorrow, and signing off with God Bless America!

Q: What is the Militia?

A: It was best defined by George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who said, “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.”

Q: If they’re the whole people, why do we need a special word like “militia” to refer to them?

A: The Militia is the people in a certain capacity, as defenders of the community and enforcers of the law. In that capacity, they are expected to have and use the tools needed to perform that role: personal weapons, and particularly firearms.

Q: Isn’t that what we have the military and police for?

A: Yes, we do hire some of us to perform these duties on a full-time, paid basis. But that does not relieve us of the power or the duty to perform those duties when the situation calls for it.

Q: Power? Don’t the military and police have powers ordinary civilians don’t have?

A: Yes, the police have special powers to enforce certain regulations, like traffic regulations, that civilians don’t have. And the military can engage in combat operations on foreign soil representing the United States. But all citizens have general powers to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws, the three duties of the Militia, just like the military and police. They just don’t do it on a full-time, paid basis.

Q: Come on. If I tried to go out and enforce some law, wouldn’t I be subject to arrest for something? Like impersonating an officer, or maybe obstructing justice?

A: Not if you only tried to enforce the laws that civilians have the power to enforce, which are laws against felonies and more serious misdemeanors, and didn’t misrepresent yourself as an officer, who outranks most civilians, and who therefore is authorized to issue orders to civilians in situations where he is present and is himself acting in accordance with law. As for obstructing justice, anyone, including a law enforcement officer, can do that. Everyone involved is expected to cooperate with one another in enforcing the law and not jeopardize one another’s legitimate efforts. That applies to everybody, officers and civilians alike. When there is disagreement about how best to do that, the dispute is ordinarily resolved by deferring to the officer with the highest rank, but he may be out of line. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to decide who is obstructing whom.

Q: So don’t federal law enforcement officials outrank state officials, who outrank local?

A: No, each can investigate and apprehend under all the same laws, just as any citizen can. The problem arises with the attempts by the federal government to extend its authority to act against “crimes” that it does not have the constitutional power to prosecute, and to try such cases in federal courts. The Constitution delegates only very limited criminal prosecution powers to the federal government for acts committed on State territory: treason, counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas and against the laws of nations (that is, war crimes), and civil rights violation by officials. It has broad legislative authority on federal territory, which includes State land ceded to the federal government by a State Legislature, but there is very little of that left since Hawaii and Alaska joined the Union. It does not include land that is merely owned by the federal government, nor does it include land on which some activity is conducted that is regulated bythefederal government. The federal criminal laws which have been enacted which are not on the above list are ostensibly based on the constitutional power of the federal government to “regulate” interstate commerce, but it was never the intent of the Framers that the power to regulate was the power to prosecute criminally, nor was “interstate commerce” intended to include everything that ever crossed a state border, or might cross a state border, or is done by a party that operates across a state border, or that might “affect” interstate commerce. This “interpretation” of the interstate commerce clause is clearly unconstitutional, and amounts to amending the Constitution by statute instead of by the amendment procedure the Constitution prescribes.

Q: That may be the way things once were, back when this country was founded and during the frontier era, but does the concept of the Militia have any relevance for today?

A: As much as it ever did. This country still faces threats from foreign enemies. Maybe not invasions on the ground from a foreign army, but terrorists, guerrillas, and criminal gangs, either foreign or domestic, are a growing threat. Urban riots are always possible, and looters are a potential threat following natural or manmade disasters. The police can’t be everywhere, and rising crime means that everyone must be prepared to act on his own or in cooperation with other citizens to enforce the laws until the professionals can assume control of the situation. Everyone must also be prepared to perform emergency services until emergency professionals can take over, sometimes under circumstances in which they must also be prepared to use armed force.

Q: Come on! I’m not trained or equipped to act as a policeman, a fireman, or a paramedic. How can I be expected to do that?

A: Because you are an American citizen, and it goes with being a citizen, whether you like it or not. What you need to do is get trained and get equipped.

Q: Come on! It takes those guys years to learn those skills. Wouldn’t I just be doing more harm than good if I tried to get involved?

A: No one is expecting you to jump into a raging river to save someone from drowning if you don’t know how to swim, but what you should do is learn swimming and lifesaving. Likewise, you can learn other skills that may be needed, and keep some of the tools you might need. For a reasonable investment of time and money, most citizens can prepare themselves to function effectively in most such situations, sometimes even better than the professionals. For example, statistics show that in shootouts against criminals, law enforcement professionals are five times more likely to hit innocent bystanders than armed civilians are. Part of this may be due to the civilians being on the scene first, and therefore knowing who the bad guys are and are not, but it also indicates that civilians are more careful, and often more skilled. Many civilians are also skilled in the unarmed martial arts, skills that many law enforcement departments actually forbid theirmembersfrom learning and using, fearing lawsuits.

Q: Are you really saying we should all carry guns all the time?

A: Most of the time, yes. It’s not that difficult. After a while, you barely notice it.

Q: Wouldn’t there be a lot more deaths and injuries from firearms if everyone carried them all the time?

A: Well, we don’t say everyone should always carry one. Obviously, some people shouldn’t. But they are exceptional. Most people will carry them safely and responsibly, with a little training. Of course there will be some additional incidents if most people carry most of the time. Professional police and military have accidents and incidents, but we don’t disarm them, because on balance we are better off if they carry most of the time. Same with most other civilians. On balance most of us will be better off if most people carry most of the time, after receiving training, and with regular practice. In a large population of people, there will always be a certain number of injuries resulting from the possession and use of any common implement. But firearms, with proper use, are remarkably safe. Statistics show that injuries are more likely to be caused by common appliances like toasters and vacuum cleaners than by firearms.

Q: You are talking about handguns, but what about military-style semiautomatic rifles, such as those banned under the recent Crime Act? Are they really good for anything but killing people?

A: In a sense, all functional firearms are for causing potentially deadly injury to their targets, but their primary purpose is to provide a credible deterrent against criminal attack. In a tactical situation in which both parties are armed with semi-automatic or full-automatic weapons, such weapons shift the balance in favor of the defender, and partially offset the advantage of surprise enjoyed by the attacker. It is not practical to carry them everywhere, but in many situations, like defense of a fixed position, such as one’s home or workplace, they can provide the margin of survival. It should also be pointed out that military-style rifles, whether semi- or full-automatic, are the primary weapons for use in performing militia duties, and therefore bans against such weapons are in violation of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, such as Art. I, Section 8, and the Second Amendment, which provide for the Militia and recognize the right to keepandbear arms.

Q: What does the U.S. Constitution say about Militias?

A: Art. I, Section 8, provides that the U.S. Congress can adopt regulations for organizing and training of the Militia, but that the organizing and training of the Militia, and the appointment of its officers, shall be done by the States. The Second Amendment mentions the Militia as an important reason why the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Q: So, what do federal laws say about how the states should organize and train theirMilitias?

A: Not much. They define who may be required to respond to a call-up of the Militia by the President. In 10 USC 311, what we might call the obligatory militia is defined as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.” But they don’t say anything about how the States should organize and train their Militias. The States are left to do so on their own.

Q: So, what do State constitutions and laws say about organizing and training their Militias?

A: Again, not much. They define what most of them call the reserve militia, usually as “able-bodied males” of age ranges that vary from one state to the next, typically as 16 through 59. Some of them also provide for a State Guard, which is a full- or part-time organization which is what the Framers of the Constitution called a select militia. Not the full Militia.

Q: What about the National Guard? Aren’t they the Militia?

A: A part of it, yes, as we all are. But although they are available to the State for certain purposes, they are organized and funded under the constitutional authority to raise armies, not the authority to call up the Militia. As such, they are part of the national military, not what the Framers meant by the term Militia.

Q: Wait a minute. You first defined the Militia as the entire population, except for a few officials. Now we have these laws that define it as “able-bodied males” within a certain age range. Which is right?

A: Although everyone is in principle subject to being called to Militia duty, it has long been felt that few situations are likely to arise in which absolutely everyone would need to be called up. Therefore, the law tries to identify a subset of the entire Militia that may be required to keep arms and to be kept in a state of readiness. In the event of an actual call-up, these would also be joined by volunteers who, while not falling within the definition of who may be required to be thus prepared and to respond to a call-up, would respond anyway and who would be an asset. We call the first group of those who may be required to stay ready and to assemble the obligatory militia. We call the volunteers the voluntary militia. The combination of the obligatory militia and the voluntary militia is the ready militia. That is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they used the term Militia. They envisioned a militia system like thatofSwitzerland.

Q: Well, if neither federal or state laws call for the organizing and training of the ready militia, does that mean they are prohibited?

A: No. A few state laws prohibit armed groups, but the legislative history of such laws shows that they were directed at criminal gangs , not at the organizing and training of the Militia by local leaders or officials. Any such laws would be unconstitutional if interpreted in that way.

Q: So, who has the authority to call up the Militia?

A: Anyone can call up the Militia. Anyone at all. Historically, the call-ups have usually been issued by local officials, such as sheriffs or mayors, but in the absence of action by such officials, the people can assemble on their own initiative, called up by anyone who offers a credible reason to assemble.

Q: Wow! You mean I could call up the Militia in my area?

A: That’s right. Indeed, if you are aware of some situation that requires the Militia to be called up, then you are obliged to issue a call-up if you can’t get some official to do so.

Q: Wouldn’t it cause some alarm to a lot of people if we did that?

A: It might. That is why it is a good idea not to wait until an emergency occurs before you do it. The Militia should be kept in a state of readiness between emergencies. That way people will not see the call-up as something unusual and alarming.

Q: Aren’t there laws against alarming people that could be used against any unofficial assemblies like that?

A: Longstanding constitutional precedent is that one has to actually direct arms against an innocent person and specifically threaten him for it to qualify as “alarming the public”. And the person has to be innocent. If one has reasonable grounds to believe that he has or is about to commit a crime, then an armed threat may be appropriate.

Q: Wouldn’t such armed assemblies of the Militia, or at least such part of it as responds to the call-up, be vigilantes if they tried to do that?

A: No, vigilantism is the improper assumption of the role of judge, jury, and executioner, not the role of investigator or apprehender.

Q: What about the rights of the accused? Where do they come in here?

A: The Militia is obliged to treat the accused the same way the police are expected to treat them. That means informing them they have a right to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney. They must use no more force than is necessary to prevent them from either escaping or committing a crime.

Q: All this is fine in theory, but when was the last time the Militia was actually called up officially?

A: The President last called up the Militia on the West Coast in 1942.

Q: What about unofficially?

A: Depends on what you would consider a call-up, but a notable example occurred in Athens, Tennessee, in 1946, when a group of returning veterans discovered that the sheriff was stealing the local election. They issued a call-up, and laid siege to the court house. Despite a great deal of gunfire on both sides, no one was killed. The sheriff surrendered, and the Militia provided for an honest count of the votes. Dealing with vote fraud is a proper Militia role.

Q: Was that really necessary? Couldn’t they or others in a similar situation use peaceful, legal methods to enforce voting laws?

A: Not necessarily. There may be no one to enforce the law except the Militia. The crime may be a conspiracy of local, state, and federal officials who can effectively block any official enforcement action. There is evidence that most computerized elections are subject to being rigged at any time, and that they are rigged with some regularity, at the direction of parties on the national level that control official law enforcement agencies at all levels. Of course, the rigging is very subtle. It can be done right under the noses of pollwatchers. Investigating such rigging is a somewhat involved operation, but it can be done, and should be before resorting to Militia action. The same situation may occur with other kinds of official corruption or abuse. The Militia may be the only honest law enforcement activity remaining.

Q: Are you saying that the main purpose for reviving the Militia tradition is to fight official abuse and corruption? Have things really come to that?

A: Sadly, yes. Most people are blissfully unaware of how bad things have become, or prefer not to see it or think about it. But it is approaching the point where more and more of them will be unable to sustain their state of ignorance or denial. It would be better to act now before things get much worse. The longer we wait, the more likely that there will be violent conflict, and we really don’t need another civil war.

Q: Can you provide evidence of any of this?

A: There is plenty of evidence. It is readily available for those who want to make a little effort to find it. The sponsors of this document can direct you to much of it. After you read some of it, and talk to government insiders who are providing information to patriotic citizens about what is going on, you will readily understand why it is now time to activate the Militia across the country.

Q: My god! This sounds like you are proposing to overthrow the government. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this?

A: There is reason to believe that the U.S. Constitution has already been effectively overthrown by a conspiracy centered in the intelligence and military establishments, with ties to the financial, industrial, media, and criminal establishments. We seek to restore constitutional governance, hopefully by balancing the power of this cabal with armed militia units in every state and linked together across the country. That, and exposing their operations to public view, will hopefully bring reform without the need to resort to violence, just as it happened in the former Soviet Union.

Q: The Constitution already overthrown? C’mon. Who’s going to believe that? Maybe there is more and more corruption and abuse, but everything seems normal, for the most part.

A: Yes, the conspiracy is secret and subtle. It tries to avoid abusing too many people or people who are too prominent, but just try to expose it or raise these issues, and you will soon discover that you live in a police state and not in a constitutional republic.

Q: Maybe it is better to just not try to expose it or raise these issues, but keep a low profile and hope this conspiracy will overlook me?

A: Well, leaving aside the fact that to do so is to betray what generations of Americans have fought and died for, and that such a position is dishonorable and cowardly, evidence indicates that whoever you are, a low profile won’t help you. Sooner or later, you will have to face it. Better now than later. Now we can prevail. Later it may be too late.

Q: Look, it’s not just me. I have a family to think about. Maybe I should just join this conspiracy you talk about?

A: Join a conspiracy that depends on secrecy to survive? You don’t join them. They recruit you. If they don’t, there’s no way in. And no protection for you even if you do join them. They are not noted for protecting their own people. Deals with them are Faustian bargains, long on promises and short on delivery. That is one reason we are getting more and more defectors, despite the personal dangers. You have to ask what kind of country and world you want your children and grandchildren to live in.

Q: It all seems so incredible. What could these people want that would cause them to overthrow the Constitution? What more could they get that they don’t already have?

A: They may be driven by fears of losing what they have, or they may foresee some crisis they feel will require them to have more power than they already have. What did the Nazis want? Or the Italian fascists? Or the Japanese in WWII? Or Stalin? To us these fascists, for that is what they are, collectively, seem irrational. But they were not strong on reason or wisdom. The allies may have won WWII and the Cold War, but fascism is alive and well and running Western countries, including our own.

References:

[] Morgan Norval, ed., The Militia in 20th Century America: A Symposium, 1985, available from Gun Owners Foundation, 5881 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
[] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, available from the Independent Institute, 134 98th Ave, Oakland, CA 94603.
[] Rodney Stich, Defrauding America, 1994, available from Diablo Western Press, Inc., PO Box 5, Alamo, CA 94507, 800-247-7389, $27.25 Ppd.
[] James M. & Kenneth F. Collier, Votescam: The Stealing of America, 1992, available from Victoria House Press, 67 Wall St #2411, New York, NY 10005, $10.00 Ppd.

For more information contact:

Constitution Society
6900 San Pedro #147-230
San Antonio, TX 78216
210 224-2868