Do you believe that the federal government can do anything and everything to “provide for the common defense,” or to “promote the general welfare,” or to “secure the blessings of liberty.”

For the answer to this I rely on the wisdom of Michael Maharrey,  the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty.

For many Americans, knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with the preamble. A lot of people probably even memorized it at some point in school. I suppose you could laud the educational system for at least acknowledging the existence of America’s governing document. But unfortunately, all of the focus on the preamble has done more harm than good.
For all of its poetic beauty and the sweeping principles it highlights, the Constitution’s preamble tells us very little about the American system of government as conceived by the founding generation. In fact, apart from establishing who has the ultimate authority in the system, and generally outlining the purposes of the union, it doesn’t really tell us anything. In particular, it reveals nothing about the powers vested in the federal government.

While the preamble outlines the broad objectives of the federal government, it does not confer any authority to it at all. Delegation of powers follow in the various articles. Article 1 Sec. 8 delegates specific enumerated powers to Congress. Article II delegates specific powers to the president. Article III establishes the authority of the judiciary. Without the delegation of powers that follow, the preamble is nothing but a poetic list of objectives with no mechanism to carry them into effect.

    Many Americans don’t understand this. They believe the preamble empowers the federal government to take virtually any action necessary to achieve the Constitution’s stated objectives. As a result, they point to it to justify all kinds of unconstitutional federal actions. They believe that the federal government can do anything and everything to “provide for the common defense,” or to “promote the general welfare,” or to “secure the blessings of liberty.”

    Americans began abusing the words of the preamble almost before the ink was dry. Early on, power-seekers attempting to expand the scope of federal authority argued that the preamble authorized their actions. In fact, defenders of the Alien and Sedition Acts resorted to this tactic. Madison dispensed with their arguments in the Report of 1800.

    A preamble usually contains the general motives or reasons, for the particular regulations or measures which follow it; and is always understood to be explained and limited by them.

The preamble is like the introduction to a book. It gives you a general idea as to what the book is about. But you would never write a book report just by reading the introduction  – that is if you care about getting a decent grade.
Anybody trying to justify this or that federal action through the words of the preamble is almost certainly expanding government power beyond its constitutional bounds. The preamble tells us a little, but it doesn’t reveal a lot. Americans need to keep those well-known words in their proper context.

While the preamble does not tell us anything about the extent of government power, it does reveal to us where that power comes from.
Have you ever stopped to think about why the opening words of the U.S. Constitution – We the People – appear in large, ornate letters? It’s actually significant. When an 18^th century British king issued a grant, his name always appeared at the top in the same fashion. The framers of the Constitution merely replaced the king’s name with “We the People,” signifying the sovereign authority from which the delegation of power flowed. In other words, all authority in the United States ultimately flows from the people, not the government.
 
In the British system, the “King in Parliament” was sovereign. In practice, Parliament exercised ultimate authority with the king serving as the arm to put its power into action.The British developed a constitutional system, but not in the same sense Americans think of it today. Their constitution was not written. In the British system, no distinction existed between “the constitution, or frame of government” and “the system of laws.” They were one and the same. Every act of Parliament was, in essence, part of the constitution. It was an absurdity to argue an act of Parliament was “unconstitutional.” Since it was sovereign, anything Parliament did was, by definition, constitutional.
    In the years leading up to the War for Independence, Americans began to question this theory of political power. Instead, they began to view a constitution as something existing above the government. The colonists ultimately rejected the idea that governments form the constitution and instead conceived of the constitution as something that binds government. The written U.S. Constitution established by “we the people” reflects this shift.
    But “we the people” does not mean the “whole people,” or every person in America taken together as a giant glob. It would be more accurate to say “we the people of the states.” In fact, as originally drafted, the preamble listed every state. “We the people of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia…etc.” So why did the committee of style change the wording to simply “we the people?” Because there was no guarantee every state would ratify. Say Rhode Island decided not to join the union. It would have made no sense to have it listed if it didn’t ratify. The change in style was for that purpose, not a reflection of a change in how the framers viewed sovereignty.
 
    With the ratification of the Constitution, the states remained the preeminent political societies in the American system. As stated in the preamble, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to create “a more perfect union.” This implies the document did not create a new union, but merely built upon the existing union established by the Articles of Confederation. America’s original constitution explicitly affirmed the independence and sovereignty of the states. This basic structure carried over into the new constitution.

    James Madison explained this concept in his Report of 1800 in defense of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. In the resolutions, Madison asserted “that the states are parties to the Constitution or compact.” By this, he meant the people of the states created the union. He further developed this idea in the Report of 1800.

"They will waste but little time on the attempt to cover the act by the preamble to the constitution; it being contrary to every acknowledged rule of construction, to set up this part of an instrument, in opposition to the plain meaning, expressed in the body of the instrument. A preamble usually contains the general motives or reasons, for the particular regulations or measures which follow it; and is always understood to be explained and limited by them. In the present instance, a contrary interpretation would have the inadmissable effect, of rendering nugatory or improper, every part of the constitution which succeeds the preamble.”

    In short, the people, organized into political societies known as states, are sovereign in the American system.
Along with revealing the ultimate source of authority in the United States, the preamble also establishes the general purposes of the union and the objectives of the general government created by the Constitution.
In a nutshell, the reasons spelled out in the preamble answer this question: why did the American states form a union?
The answer: to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

How Breitbart turned on Ted Cruz

On August 19, 2016, I came across an interesting article written by Jonathan Swan which should make any decent American voter skeptical about the press regardless of party affiliation....republican or democrat.

In late January, Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon was tipped off about a story that he hoped would damage Ted Cruz . Bannon, who this week became CEO of Donald Trump ’s presidential campaign, was told that a radio advertisement would be landing in Iowa aimed at hurting Cruz with evangelical voters — the very constituency the senator was depending on to win the state’s caucuses on Feb. 1. The line of attack, which was being pushed by Cruz’s presidential rival Mike Huckabee, was that Cruz had donated only a small fraction of his income to his church, not enough to fulfill his tithing duties of 10 percent. Bannon was excited by the story, stating that it could spell the end of Cruz’s candidacy. He told his reporters to chase the story hard, though their efforts turned up nothing new. Bannon didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment from The Hill, but a spokeswoman for the conservative news sight downplayed any work Breitbart’s reporters did on the tithing story. “With regards to your question on Ted Cruz: Breitbart did virtually zero reporting on this,” Breitbart spokeswoman Alexandra Preate said. Preate would not comment further, however, and did not deny that Bannon was pushing reporters to pursue the storyline. In the early stretch of the presidential campaign, Breitbart was seen as a staunch supporter of Cruz, with Bannon leading the charge. Coverage of the Texas senator was favorable, with Breitbart at one point getting an exclusive look at Cruz getting his children ready for bed. But Breitbart’s allegiances shifted as Trump’s campaign caught fire. The story of how that happened, which has never before been told in such detail, provides a vivid illustration of how Trump’s rise has changed the balance of power in the conservative media, and by extension, the entire Republican Party.
In Cruz’s corner
To report this account, The Hill spoke at length to 12 sources with intimate knowledge of Breitbart’s internal operations, including several former staffers who were upset with the company’s direction. Most refused to be identified by name and several talked entirely off the record, only to confirm details.
All of the sources agreed that Bannon was once enthusiastic about Cruz’s presidential candidacy.
In early 2014, a source who attended a gathering at Bannon’s Capitol Hill townhouse, known as the Breitbart “Embassy” among staff, said that Bannon was telling anybody who would listen that Cruz was the most hardcore conservative likely to run for president and a guy he thought could win.
“He didn’t outright say he was endorsing Cruz, but he made it clear that Cruz was his guy,” said the same source who was with Bannon that night.
A year later, Bannon’s opinion had changed.
The first strike against Cruz came in July 2014, when Cruz joined Bannon's sworn enemy, the conservative radio host Glenn Beck, on a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border. Cruz's staff described the trip as a "humanitarian" mission to help a church provide supplies to needy families.
Bannon thought the trip painted Cruz as soft on illegal immigration, and Breitbart ran a story titled, “Ted Cruz Joins Glenn Beck for 'Soccer Balls and Teddy Bears' Event.”
"Steve was still ranting about that trip six months later," said a source who worked with Bannon at the time.
Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier declined to comment for this story.
The second strike against Cruz came in April 2015, when the senator signaled his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the fast-track legislation needed to push it through Congress.
Making matters worse, Cruz promoted his support for fast-track authority in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Bannon made clear to Breitbart staffers that he wanted to destroy Ryan's political career and what he called his “globalist” agenda. Shortly after Ryan became Speaker last October, Bannon began instructing reporters to look for ways to take him down. That effort culminated earlier this month in an unsuccessful bid to unseat Ryan in his Wisconsin primary, with the challenger heavily promoted in Breitbart coverage.
Cruz ultimately walked back his support for trade promotion authority, voting against fast-track legislation and explaining his decision in an exclusive for Breitbart News. But that conciliatory gesture wasn’t enough to win back Bannon, or at least not enough to overcome his growing affection for Trump.
“Steve has always been basically an anti-trade guy,” said a second source who worked closely with Bannon at the time. “That’s one of the fissures with the Trump and Cruz support.
“When push comes to shove, Cruz is basically a free-trade guy, and part of the reason why he saw Cruz as the weaker second option, and why he was willing to go after Cruz, was because he didn’t trust that Cruz would hold the line on trade.”
Embracing Trump
Soon after the trade flap, Bannon concluded that Trump was his guy, sources who worked with him at the time assessed.
He saw the billionaire as the most effective tribune of Breitbart’s populist nationalist movement. Bannon and other senior editors at Breitbart also believed that Trump had all but stitched up the nomination.
Breitbart’s slow turn against Cruz was complicated by the fact that a major funder behind Cruz’s presidential campaign, New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, is also a major funder of Breitbart.
Several prominent Cruz allies registered their distress about Breitbart’s coverage to Mercer's daughter Rebekah, asking her why she was supporting an outlet that was hurting her candidate, Cruz.
The Mercers, who never opposed Cruz and resolutely backed Bannon as being fair to the senator, eventually came around to Trump. They are now funding an anti-Hillary super-PAC and are increasingly influential figures in Trump’s orbit, as The Hill has previously reported. They were seen as influential players in Trump's decision to hire Bannon as his campaign CEO.
When Breitbart’s coverage shifted toward Trump, some say the tone of Breitbart coverage about Cruz never became overly hostile.
“To be completely honest, I felt like Breitbart were more than fair to [the Cruz camp],” said the source defensive of Bannon.
“Breitbart had a standing offer to the Cruz folks that Breitbart would print anything they pitched,” the same source said. “Only problem is they didn’t pitch anything.”
But while Breitbart continued to publish stories favorable to Cruz, the website’s sympathies soon became clear, with pro-Trump coverage overtaking the site.
A directive went out to Breitbart staff over their internal Slack channel in mid-2015 that any stories involving Trump or Cruz, or conflicts between the two of them, needed to be approved by Bannon and editor-in-chief Alex Marlow.
The move was explained to staff as necessary to ensure that politically consequential stories were appropriately vetted, but several staff members said they felt that it was a means of tipping coverage in Trump’s favor.
On the attack
In January, When Trump began raising questions about Cruz’s Canadian birthplace and his eligibility to be president, Breitbart jumped on the storyline.
Bannon ultimately scored a concession out of the Cruz camp. When the Cruz campaign decided to release the birth certificate of the senator’s mother, it did so by giving it exclusively to Breitbart.
Another anti-Cruz storyline Breitbart pursued aggressively was what Trump called the “weak” and “pathetic” informal alliance between Cruz and John Kasich late in the primary season.
On April 25, Breitbart published seven stories about the alliance, which quickly fell apart.
The same source defending Bannon pointed out that Breitbart never supported the “birther” movement questioning President Obama’s birthplace. The source defended the coverage of Cruz’s citizenship and said that the Breitbart chairman simply wanted Cruz to explain the issue to voters.
The source also said Breitbart would’ve gotten fully behind Cruz or any other Republican had they won the nomination, in keeping with the philosophy of the site’s founder, the late Andrew Breitbart.
Caught in the middle
Three sources familiar with Breitbart’s internal operations said that Bannon didn’t want to have to choose between Cruz and Trump and found it an uncomfortable position to be in.
“Their hope was that they would get both sides together to fight the establishment,” one of these sources, who no longer works at Breitbart, said. “So they were hedging their bets, but it was clear when push came to shove they would side with Trump.”
By late 2015, sources working at Breitbart — both those sympathetic and hostile to his leadership — believed that Bannon was privately all-in for Trump but trying at the same time to keep on good terms with the other candidates in case Trump didn’t win.
“As general chairman of Breitbart, he might as well have been general chairman of Trump for president,” said Kurt Bardella, Breitbart’s former spokesman who resigned because he was upset with the company’s direction.
Bardella, who has publicly criticized Breitbart and Bannon, was in constant contact with Bannon for two years. He said it was “almost like [Bannon was] placing bets” during the primaries.
“You have some chips on some numbers,” Bardella said. “They kind of flirted with Rand Paul they then flirted with Ted Cruz.
“I think Steve kind of astutely saw that there was something more than a novelty of Donald Trump being temporary and began moving his chips into the Trump side of the betting table.”
Bannon's underlings felt that he’d hitched his wagon to Trump by the time of the first Fox News debate in August — the one where Trump had a famous confrontation with co-moderator Megyn Kelly.
And by January 2016, when Cruz stopped praising Trump and started attacking him as a liberal, Bannon became increasingly enraged and instructed his reporters to hammer Cruz.
Throughout this period, Breitbart staff made no secrets of their close ties to the Trump campaign.
Bannon kept colleagues abreast of his near constant contact with Trump and Corey Lewandowski, who was then Trump’s campaign manager.
Breitbart’s Washington political editor, Matthew Boyle, had long since established himself as one of Trump’s favorite reporters. That dynamic was on display last summer when, according to The Washington Post, “Boyle, 28, asked Trump about his rising poll numbers ... [and] Trump broke into a broad smile and high-fived the young journalist in front of startled onlookers in the post-debate spin room.”
A source who observed several of Boyle’s interactions with Trump staff said that on the campaign trail, Boyle was “actively giving consulting advice to the Trump campaign staffers and strategizing with them while he was reporting on the primary.”
Boyle declined to comment.
Another chance for Cruz?
Since refusing to endorse Trump in the most aggressive way possible — in a speech at the Republican National Convention that got him booed from the stage — Cruz has been back at work in the Senate.
lose in November.
Despite how the 2016 primaries went down, a source close to Bannon said that Breitbart News “still has hopes” for Cruz.
“Breitbart believes he could still come around and do the right thing,” the source said. “He could still have a future.”

                          

By Jonathan Swan

"Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Little Sisters of the Poor", we are truely at the gates of hell....

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the religious order must comply with Obamacare’s abortion mandate, forcing the group to pay for birth control and other drugs that may cause abortions. More from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in this case in December of last year, when for the first time since the case began, Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, delivered a public statement on the case which goes as follows: Mother Loraine Speaks Out for the Little Sisters of the Poor For Immediate Release: December 8, 2014 Media Contact: Emily Hardman, ehardman@becketfund.org, 202.349.7224 Washington, D.C. – Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns who vow to serve the elderly poor, made a statement today outside a courthouse in Denver just after a highly anticipated hearing in the case (see video). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument for Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, a closely watched case that has already been to the Supreme Court once. The case involves the government’s mandate forcing religious ministries to violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties (see video). For the first time since the case began, Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, delivered a public statement on the case. The following statement can be attributed to Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor: As Little Sisters of the Poor, we offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ, cared for as family and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to Himself. We have done this for over 175 years because of our faith in God and our vocation as Little Sisters of the Poor. But now the government demands we choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith. We cannot do that and we should not have to. It is a choice that violates our nation’s historic commitment to ensure that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives. But the government forces us to either violate our conscience or take millions of dollars that we raise by begging for the care of the elderly poor and instead pay fines to the IRS. We are not seeking special privileges. The government exempts huge corporations, small businesses, and other religious ministries from what they are imposing on us–we are simply asking to carry on our mission to serve the elderly poor as we have always done for 175 years. We are thankful that the court has heard our case and for the work of the Becket Fund, and we prayerfully await the judges’ decision. The following statement can be attributed to Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor: A year after losing at the Supreme Court, the government’s aggressive pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor continues. Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without the involvement of nuns. The idea that the most powerful government in the world cannot come up with a way to distribute these products without forcing the Little Sisters to participate is ridiculous Today the Tenth Circuit ruled that government can force the Little Sisters to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties. The court held that participating in the government’s contraception delivery scheme is “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax form, or registering to vote” and that although the Sisters sincerely believe that participating in the scheme “make[s] them complicit in the overall delivery scheme," the court "ultimately rejects the merits of this claim" because the court believes the scheme "relieves [the Little Sisters] from complicity." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “As Little Sisters of the Poor, we simply cannot choose between our care for the elderly poor and our faith. And we should not have to make that choice, because it violates our nation’s commitment to ensuring that people from diverse faiths can freely follow God’s calling in their lives.” Maguire said in a statement. “For over 175 years, we have served the neediest in society with love and dignity. All we ask is to be able to continue our religious vocation free from government intrusion.” The Little Sisters of the Poor received a temporary injunction from the Supreme Court last year, which protected them from the mandate. In an effort to extend that protection the group then went before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ended up ruling against them. Today that ruling has been upheld. “We’re disappointed with today’s decision,” Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor, said in a statement. “After losing repeatedly at the Supreme Court, the government continues its unrelenting pursuit of the Little Sisters of the Poor. It is a national embarrassment that the world’s most powerful government insists that, instead of providing contraceptives through its own existing exchanges and programs, it must crush the Little Sisters’ faith and force them to participate. Untold millions of people have managed to get contraceptives without involving nuns, and there is no reason the government cannot run its programs without hijacking the Little Sisters and their health plan. “ The fight for religious liberty is not over yet, however. “We will keep on fighting for the Little Sisters, even if that means having to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Daniel Blomberg, Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans (53 percent) oppose Obamacare’s HHS mandate.

“Schumer: Senate has votes for media shield law.”

What do you need a media shield law for? The First Amendment is pretty clear, “Congress shall make no law.” If Congress shall make no law, not only would that include the printing of something that Congress may not like, it would also include the process under which the person that was going to do the printing gathered the information." A supporter of a bill to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal confidential sources said Friday the measure has the backing of the Obama administration and the support of enough senators to move ahead this year. Whenever I hear anything like this, the first thing I think of is trouble. Uh-oh, what are they doing? Whose idea is it to try and pass a new shield law? By passing a new shield law, are they actually trying to write shield law code so it can be used against people like Glenn Greenwald, for example? It seems to me that under the disguise of “we must protect journalistic integrity,” no, you must protect the journalistic integrity of people that have found favor with you is what must happen. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, spoke optimistically about prospects for the measure, identifying five Republicans who would join with Democrats and independents on a bill that he said would address a constitutional oversight... [Is it a constitutional oversight or was the Constitution just not clear enough for you, Senator Schumer?] While the first amendment protects freedom of the press, “there is no first amendment right for gathering information,” Schumer said at The New York Times’ Sources and Secrets Conference on the press, government and national security. [Again, what good is freedom of the press if you can’t gather the information to put the materials together that you’re going to go to press with? This is a no-brainer here. What’s going on?] The bill was revived last year after the disclosure that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months’ worth of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a search warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist. The Justice Department took the actions in looking into leaks of classified information to the news organizations. The AP received no advance warning of the subpoena. Schumer discussed the bill’s provisions and how, if it became law, it might affect journalist Glenn Greenwald, who reported on National Security Agency’s secret surveillance based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. “It’s probably not enough protections to (cover) him, but it’s better than current law,” Schumer said. If Schumer is saying, “It’s probably not going to be enough to protect some clown like Greenwald,” what has Glenn Greenwald done? All Greenwald did was agree to a meeting with Snowden after Snowden contacted him and said: Hey, man, you’re a pretty good journalist. I’ve got some mind-blowing stuff here that no one is going to believe. How can I get it out into the press without all of us being assassinated? Greenwald, for a fear of his life, and Snowden as well, where did they meet? They met in China. We’re going to meet in the land of the free and the mobile home of the brave. No, we wouldn’t want to do that sort of a meeting here in the United States. You’d have to go somewhere where they have some actual freedom, China. Yes, I know that sounds like it’s upside down and in reverse, but that’s what happened. Then what happened after that? Greenwald vetted what he could determined that Snowden was the real deal, brought in the filmmaker to film the entire interview so he’d have a video record of it. Now, why would Greenwald want to have a video record? Think about that for just a moment. Why would he videotape it? Why would you want to tape that? It ought to be pretty obvious. The reason you want to tape it is because sometime in the future when somebody like Schumer tries to get ahold of you and bury you underneath the federal prison in Leavenworth, accusing you of this and that and the other, then you have a videotape record and can say: That’s not the way it happened, sir. This is the way it happened. I was contacted as a journalist. I met the man as a journalist. I asked questions. I did not incite him. I did not encourage him to do anything. You trying to nab me as a terrorist isn’t going to work because I have a video record here that shows that’s not what I did. That’s why you would tape it. The bill’s protections would apply to a “covered journalist,” [What exactly is a “covered journalist?”] defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years. It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. In other words “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.” If you’re a journalist then, in what part of the First Amendment does it say you had to have worked for a year and a half inside of journalism before you could qualify to report on something according to the United States Senate? Folks, this whole thing is rigged. This is an attempt to stifle speech, not increase it. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a “covered journalist” who would be granted the privileges of the law. You know what that means, ladies and gentlemen. That means that a federal judge would also have the discretion to declare a journalist not to be a “covered journalist.” What does that mean? That means hello Leavenworth, that’s what that means. The bill also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as “newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast … or motion picture for public showing.” While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or other social media websites by non-journalists. Again, Congress and the United States Senate is saying: That whole First Amendment thing is not really whole. We get to determine what the press is. We get to define what is the press. Does any of this sound like it’s aboveboard to any of you? Does this sound like an honest and valiant and gallant effort to protect the integrity and safety of the free press out there? Or does it sound like an attempt to try and rig the rules so that only those that do what Congress wants them to do or does what people like Senator Schumer want them to do are then afforded State protection? Why do I need State protection? The First Amendment is put in there to instruct Congress and instruct the new general government that it may not have any say-so, it doesn’t have any role in telling people what they can or cannot write, what they may or may not speak, what religion they may or may not practice. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say anything about defining what a journalist is, about transferring that authority to a federal judge, about saying you have to work a certain amount of months or a certain amount of years in order to be accorded the status of journalist. It doesn’t say anything about that. What’s really going on here? The bill makes clear that before the government asks a news organization to divulge sources, it first must go to a judge, who would supervise any subpoenas or court orders for information. Do we have the protection of judges now? If we don’t trust these guys…” Do you trust these guys? Have you seen what they’ve done to the Constitution lately? Have you seen what they’ve done to the acts of the several states lately? Do you trust them? What’s happening here is this bill basically is going to put into the hands of Congress what is and what is not free speech, what is and what is not published free speech. They get to define it and write the rules, and they get to write the rules in their favor. What do you think is going to happen? “Am I just being paranoid?” You know what? In this day and age, you better be paranoid, or at least proceed with a healthy dose of skepticism. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill last September on a 13-5 vote. Schumer said the measure has the support of Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson of Georgia [Big red flag.], Roy Blunt of Missouri [Larger red flag.] and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina [Warning, warning, Will Robinson. Warning, liberal approaching. Bigger and more giant red flag.] He also noted the backing of Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch in the committee. Ok people, we are truly dead as a republic.......I guess I`m just not a good American for even questioning this madness....

Another wonderful bipartisen omnibus bill is unleashed on us in the dead of the night....When will The Citizens of These United States wake up?

Guess what else was stashed in the CR omibus spending monstrosity last week? A blanket authorization for the NSA to collect all "non-public" data records on everyone, anywhere in the U.S. it wants to. I have to wonder just how long some so called american conservatives can keep up the facade that the GOP is "their party", when they act just like 3rd world dictators.... Another CRomnibus Sneak Attack: 4th Amendment ‘Probable Cause’ Safeguard Eviscerated by Andrew P. Napolitano Is Government Faithful to the Constitution? When the government is waving at us with its right hand, so to speak, it is the government’s left hand that we should be watching. Just as a magician draws your attention to what he wants you to see so you will not observe how his trick is performed, last week presented a textbook example of public disputes masking hidden deceptions. Here is what happened. Last week was dominated by two huge news stories. One was the revelation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of torture committed by CIA agents and contractors on 119 detainees in the post-9/11 era – 26 of whom were tortured for months by mistake. In that revelation of anguish and error were the conclusions by CIA agents themselves that their torture had not produced helpful information. President Barack Obama acknowledged that the CIA had tortured, yet he directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute those who tortured and those who authorized it. The other substantial news story was the compromise achieved by Congress and the White House to fund the government through the end of September 2015. That legislation, which is 2,000 pages in length, was not read by anyone who voted for it. It spends a few hundred billion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenue. The compromise was achieved through bribery; members of Congress bought and sold votes by adding goodies (in the form of local expenditures of money borrowed by the federal government) to the bill that were never debated or independently voted upon and were added solely to achieve the votes needed for passage. This is how the federal government operates today. Both parties participate in it. They have turned the public treasury into a public trough. Hidden in the law that authorized the government to spend more than it will collect was a part about funding for the 16 federal civilian intelligence agencies. And hidden in that was a clause, inserted by the same Senate Intelligence Committee that revealed the CIA torture, authorizing the National Security Agency to gather and retain nonpublic data for five years and to share it with law enforcement and with foreign governments. “Nonpublic data” is the government’s language referring to the content of the emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of nearly every innocent person in America – including members of Congress, federal judges, public officials and law enforcement officials. I say “innocent” because the language of this legislation – which purports to make lawful the NSA spying we now all know about – makes clear that those who spy upon us needn’t have any articulable suspicion or probable cause for spying. The need for articulable suspicion and probable cause has its origins in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which was written to prohibit what Congress just authorized. That amendment was a reaction to the brutish British practice of rummaging through the homes of American colonists, looking for anything that might be illegal. It is also a codification of our natural right to privacy. It requires that if the government wants nonpublic data from our persons, houses, papers or effects, it must first present evidence of probable cause to a judge and then ask the judge for a search warrant. Probable cause is a level of evidence that is sufficient to induce a judge into concluding that it is more likely than not that the place to be examined contains evidence of crimes. In order to seek probable cause, the government must first have an articulable suspicion about the person or place it has targeted. Were this not in the law, then nothing would stop the government from fishing expeditions in pursuit of anyone it wants to pursue. And fishing expeditions turn the presumption of liberty on its head. The presumption of liberty is based on the belief that our rights are natural to us and that we may exercise them without a permission slip from the government and without its surveillance. Until last week, that is. Last week, Congress, by authorizing the massive NSA spying to continue and by authorizing the spies to share what they have seized with law enforcement, basically permitted the fishing expeditions that the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent. How can the president and Congress defy the Constitution, you might ask? Hasn’t every member of the government taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution create the presidency and the Congress? How can politicians purport to change it? The answers to these questions are obvious, as is the belief of most of those in government that they can write any law and regulate any behavior and ignore the Constitution they have sworn to uphold whenever they want, so long as they can get away with it. All I can say is way to go to The Cowards in Congress and to our wonderful All Powerful President for putting the rights of American Citizens 1st....

U.S. Marine’s Scathing Response to Sen. Feinstein’s Gun Control Proposal: ‘I Am Not Your Subject. I Am the Man Who Keeps You Free’

Now this marine is truely an american hero...... Posted on January 2, 2013 at 7:30pm by Jason Howerton

One U.S. Marine was more than a little displeased with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s draconian gun control proposal, which includes an assault weapons ban and provisions on handguns and even “grandfathered weapons.” The letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston, was titled “No ma’am” and was first posted on CNN iReport on Dec. 27. The letter has since gone viral and has been shared extensively on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, as it seemingly has resonated with a segment of the American population. Read Boston’s entire “No ma’am” letter below and then share it with others: Senator Dianne Feinstein, I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one. I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man. I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public. We, the people, deserve better than you. Respectfully Submitted, Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps 2004-2012

Well folks here we go, get ready to lose your 2nd ammendment rights!

As Obama and Romney express shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference but you know its only a matter of time before the debate heads down that road.... For one we have the mayor of New York already goating the presidential candidates toward that discussion, as if were the mayor of these united states or if like the election goes thru him or needs his blessings. Forget about how crappy a job that obama has done in his term as president, that jobs are nowhere to be found, that his administration has single handedly attacked everything we find sacred about our country and The Constitution..... no, the real problem is that we need to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens because of one psycho on a killing rampage. Now you and I know this was the only excuse that these godlike polititions needed to attack 2nd ammendment rights....they have been trying to impose on our rights for years. The latest attack being that misguilded program Fast and Furious......where obama tried to backdoor the american people to make them look like common crimminals like we were suppling all the bad guys with guns. But back to Obama, and Romney: OBAMA 1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month. 2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush. 2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot — a stand the group continues to take today. April 2008: Obama is criticized for elitism after sounding dismissive of gun owners in a talk to campaign donors. He said voters in struggling small towns in Middle America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" to explain their frustrations. September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration. 2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains. 2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning. 2011: Obama says the shooting that severely wounded then-Rep. Gabriel Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people should lead to "a new discussion of how we can keep America safe for all our people." He calls for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks on gun buyers. But he's short on specifics, and the Obama administration hasn't proposed any new gun initiatives since then. March 2012: Obama calls the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida "a tragedy," saying Americans should do some soul-searching and "examine the laws" to figure out why it happened. He hasn't called for any legal changes in response to the case, which mostly brought attention to some states' "stand your ground" laws making it easier for a shooter to claim self-defense. Indeed, most gun regulations are imposed by states. The primary federal law is the Brady law requiring background checks on firearms purchasers. July 20: Obama says he's heartbroken by the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and calls for Americans to unite in prayer for the victims: "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile, our time here is limited and it is precious." Asked whether the mass shooting should prompt a new review of gun laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney declines to comment beyond reiterating Obama's existing stance in support of "common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them." ROMNEY 1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA." 2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race. 2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee — from $25 to $100 — as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit. 2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase. 2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts. 2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member. 2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" — a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters. 2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation. 2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment. 2012: Romney tells gun owners that Obama wants to erode their rights. "We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will." July 20: Like Obama, Romney avoids talking politics on the day of the Aurora shooting. He says Americans are coming together in their sorrow: "There is something we can do. We can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering or heavy laden, and we can mourn with those who mourn in Colorado." So really people I ask you, do you really think that your rights are protected under either of these 2 windbags??? Or will it be politics as usual??? I have to thank CONNIE CASS from the Associated Press for her participation in this blog.