Is Michelle Bachmann a small Government Constitutionalist?

Is Michelle Bachmann a small Government Constitutionalist?

I've been hearing people say Michelle Bachmann is a Constitutionalist and it makes me cringe a little. Sure Michelle Bachmann might say the right things at times but does she vote that way? Does she have the Constitutional fortitude of Ron Paul?

H.R.3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.
Michelle Bachmann voted against beleagured soldiers while Ron Paul votes yes.

H.R.1255 Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011: Bachmann, yes. Paul, no

A Bill that would Prohibit TSA from using full-body image scanners as "mandatory or primary" screening devices: Look what Bachmann and West just voted against: Amash/Chaffetz Amendment 2 to H R 207, which prohibits TSA from using full-body image scanners as "mandatory or primary" screening devices. In other words, they can be used only as an option during secondary screening. The amendment failed.
Bachmann voted no, Paul voted yes.

Ten percent across-the-board cut to the Department of Homeland Security's budget: Rokita of IN Amendment 1 to H R 2017 The bill reduces DHS spending only to FY 2009 levels. It failed 110-312. Bachmann voted no, Ron Paul voted yes!

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals to include disclosures without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or prior disclosures made to any person by an employee or applicant for employment, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is a violation of any law. Backman voted no, Paul voted yes.

H.Con.Res.28 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan
Bachmann voted no, Paul voted yes.

Bachman votes for Internet Censorship: H.R.4279 and H.R.4061 Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, Sponsored by John Conyers, (D-MI)
Bachmann voted yes, Paul Voted no.

Bachman voted for almost unlimited Presidential war powers while Ron Paul voted no.

And let's not forget the icing on the cake. The TEA Party Caucus leader Michelle Bachmann voted for the Patriot Act, legislation that takes our freedom and throws it out the window.

Is she really a Constitutionalist?

Cheers,

Mike

I support Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

I support Ron Paul's Foreign Policy



I keep hearing people say Ron Paul has great Domestic Foreign Policy but his Foreign Policy scares me, or it's Buffoon like. Well I want everyone to know I support Ron Paul BECAUSE of his Foreign Policy.

Will the real Newt Gingrich please stand up?

We all know candidates tend to start saying anything they need to once they are in striking distance of a political office, especially the Presidency. Can we believe the Newt Gingrich who is currently in the public view? I keep hearing people talk about how well he debates, marveling over his speaking ability and his cuts back at the Media. Is he a rock solid debater? YES. The following is a text book definition for the Concept of Debate.

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe in.

Pay special attention to the last part there. A person who excels at Debate must be able to turn on any issue at any time no matter if they support an issue or not.

In 1997 Gingrich opposed the Brady Gun Control bill but he supported instead the idea of instant verification which relies on the Government having our biometric information on file in order to own firearms.

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich's idea of less government, is more government. Newt Gingrich thinks the Federal Government should have our biometrics on file, this could mean fingerprints, Retinal scans or even our DNA. In other words Newt Gingrich thinks Gun Owners should be treated the same as Felons in the United States of America. Is that who we want as President?

Recently Gingrich was quoted as saying, "There is no difference between left wing social engineering and right wing social engineering." But let's look at a presentation Gingrich made while still a Representative. Newt Gingrich listed his primary mission as being the "Advocate of civilization", "Definer of civilization", "Teacher of the rules of civilization" and the "Arouse of those who fan civilization". He then goes on to say, "This retains a primary focus on the elected political power as the central arena and fulcrum by which a free people debate their future and govern themselves."

Does that sound like someone who isn't concerned with any kind of social engineering? It sounds to me like Newt thinks highly of himself. But don't take my word for it. He wrote this about himself, “The most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich is an excellent debater and that is precisely why I will not support him for President.

Cheers,

Mike

Teen held by TSA while man with loaded gun is allowed to fly.

Yes, 17 year old Vanessa Gibbs found herself detained by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over the appearance of her purse which has a emblem in the shape of gun. The TSA felt it necessary to detain Miss Gibbs for this infraction. Meanwhile in Texas a man returning from South America had a loaded gun which he carried on board and flew with in his carry on.

Doesn't sound like the TSA really has their shit together does it?

U.S. Senate Passes Bill with Questionable Terror Policies

The Senate passed S. 1867 a $662 billion Pentagon funding bill Thursday night after fights among lawmakers over terrorism-related provisions.  One such provision would authorize indefinite detention without trial and give preference to military detention of terror suspects instead of the civilian justice system.  Senator Marco Rubio suggests that these provisions could only be used on suspects with direct connections with organizations like Al-Qaeda but we know how well the Federal Government is at bending definitions.

The Obama administration threatened to veto the legislation, arguing the executive branch should decide how to try terror detainees despite this, the liberal Michigan Democrat and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, rejected call after call by senior Obama administration officials to overhaul how his defense bill handles the treatment of suspected terrorists.  Both parties emerged disagreeing over whether the law allowed or disallowed indefinite detention of Americans.  But after an outcry conveyed by both liberals and conservatives, lawmakers arrived at a compromise that essentially concluded the indefinite detention was allowed while saying current policy wouldn't change.


A few Republicans led by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, have railed against provisions that Mr. Paul argued violated the Constitution, aligning himself with liberal Democrats.  


This legislation is along the lines of the Patriot Act. Disguised as a simple funding measure, it's actions and amendments in my opinion will continue to hamper our rights and freedoms.  


Cheers,

Mike

Letter from Senator Dick Durbin and my Reply

I sent the following reply.  

Dear Mr. Durbin,

In regards to your letter on Gun Control.

Your response letter is appalling to me.  I realize it's a canned response, but you must have approved it, which means your view is that the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to hunt and participate in shooting sports.  Dear sir, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting!  Our Founding fathers made it clear that our right to bare arms was about protecting ourselves and our property, including from the threat of a tyrannical government.  It's the legislators in Washington D.C who pose the biggest threat to our freedom and our individual liberty.  I'm not concerned about my rights to shoot deer or paper targets, I'm concerned about my rights to protect myself against people like you who don't believe in my unalienable rights.

Also, I would like to point out that laws like the Brady Bill made it so only officers of the state have access to high powered weapons.  How are we supposed to defend ourselves against these officers in the event that they are turned against us? 

The LAPD Chief said, "There is no reason that a peaceful society based on rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round magazines".  Well I say there actually is a reason.     

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. 

Mr. Durbin, I urge you to reconsider your views on the Second Amendment.

Thank you and good day,

Sincerely,

Michael Ortiz
Danville, IL

Modern Morals of the average Ron Paul hater

There once was a time when we learned that it was not right to go around punching and hitting people, especially if the only reason was name calling and chiding.  Many parents teach their kids to defend themselves but only when someone hits them first.    
 
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Today it's being re-written.

Sticks and Stones may break me bones, but provocative words are worse.

The new moral of the story, attack anyone who uses words you don't agree with. Especially if they threaten someone else. You need not wait for them to attack you directly.

Can you imagine?

Mother - Billy, why did you punch Bobby in the nose? 

Son - Mom, Bobby was going to hit Kyle first.

Mother - Bobby was going to hit Kyle, but he didn't actually hit Kyle?

Son - Yup. That's what I learned from watching Fox News. It's ok to attack someone if they were going to attack your friend first.

Mother - Oh, that makes perfect sense....

Really???

Is this the new lesson we are going to teach our children?  

Herman Cain Mailer

Police State

What happens when the state sees you as a threat?  They will use all means of force against you.  Resistance will not be tolerated.  The following is an excerpt from a recent SWAT versus citizen situation. 

"Within moments, and without Guerena firing a shot--or even switching his rifle off of"safety"--he lay dying, his body riddled with 60 bullets. A subsequent investigation revealed that the initial shot that prompted theS.W.A.T. team barrage came from a S.W.A.T. team gun, not Guerena's. Guerena,reports later revealed, had no criminal record, and no narcotics were found at his home."

This is what it means to live in a police state.  When a citizen who has served his country is killed due to suspicion and the police who charged with serving us, instead, become jury and executioners.  This man did nothing wrong.  He attempted to secure his property from an unknown attack and was killed by a superior force not made up of gang bangers or criminals but officers granted with a license to kill.  I'm sure that law enforcement will say that this was a accident and point to the fact that this hardly ever happens, but is that true?  In a land governed by the law of our Constitution, why don't they treat every home like it may be armed from within?  When did it become common place for the police to shoot first and ask questions later?

"The extent of this weapon "inflation" does not stop with high-powered rifles, either. In recent years, police departments both large and small have acquired bazookas, machine guns, and even armored vehicles (mini-tanks) for use in domestic police work."

Why is it now common place for the police to have such weapons but citizens need to jump thru hoops just to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to bare arms?  In my home state of Illinois, they require a special I.D known as FOID, (Firearms Owners ID) just to purchase and own firearms.  Many states require special permits and training for concealed carry.  Does this make any sense? 

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.  Do you really think the take over is going to look like this? 

Of Course not right? 

Totally Different!!!  They're wearing black....  

Cheers,

Mike
 

Do we need to support Israel?

We need to support Israel because this is the prophesy the Bible speaks about.  I don't understand this argument. 

 

Most would agree that the bible is clear on defense, and the possession of weapons to defend, but did the United States fulfill a Biblical prophesy in 1948 by creating a nation destined for war? I think that's a self fulfilling prophesy if I've ever seen one. The  Palestinian people people were there in the desert over a hundred years prior to us having ripped their land away so we could create a Jewish state in the middle of an Islamic desert. Then we armed those Jews for war, and we criticize others for arming the Muslims. Does this make any sense, to anyone? Now, today, people are looking at this whole situation like it's some kind of biblical prophesy. HELLO!!! SNL, couldn't make this shit up. Throwing together mortal enemies, adding weapons, and then standing back to see what happens.... OMG!!!, they're fighting, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!! This must be what the bible talked about.....

Further more, the U.S.A is a nation of individuals. Belief in God is not prerequisite in order to be a citizen. 

(Thanks to Obama's bone headed comment you're going to hate my next words)

 
We are not a Christian Nation. 

 

Many people are christian and I have no problem with that. If those people wish to pickup their sword and flock to Israels defense, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, is when people believe that we as a nation have an obligation to commit lives to a war that has nothing to do with our own sovereignty.

I understand many people have a deep passion for Israel, but that passion has nothing to do with our rights and freedoms as American Citizens. Keep in mind there is still no war to speak of. Yes, there are threats and there will always be threats but when we look for a leader, a President for the United States of America, we need to look for a person who has Our (the Nation known as the United States of America) best interests in mind. We are looking to elect the POTUS, not the Christian Crusader of the world. That person has an obligation to ensure the existence of our land and our freedom not that of Israel. I believe that task currently belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Let's just say for a moment that we vote for a candidate who promises to use all of our resources to defend Israel, up to a full scale nuclear war. Is that what's in our best interests?

The American People elected Woodrow Wilson because he promised to keep us out of war. We now know that was never his intention as he fully expected to get into the war and he did just that as soon as he was elected. Now, we have people turning away from a candidate who is promising to keep us out of war, and instead looking to support candidates who are almost promising to get us into a war. These are strange times indeed.

 

Cheers,

Mike

What's going on?

I took a little break from posting so I could reset my mind and consider all that is happening so fast.  

First some good news, Ron Paul won the Illinois Republican Straw Poll.  But as soon as he won, some started to speculate and dissect the poll results to show how his win doesn't really mean anything.  That figures, if Ron Paul does win the nomination and becomes President some people will still be coming up with stories about how he really didn't win, Ron Paul supporters only found a better way to cheat.    


Herman Cains past of sexual harassment doesn't seem to bother the hard core right, in fact the usual suspects are in full over drive defending him.  Its gotten so bad in fact that I'm hoping Cain did do something awful just so I can laugh at all those who are defending him without even knowing what he did or did not do.

Another thing that I noticed while on my short break was this story about forced sterilization in Carolina.  When we were criticizing Obama's Czar for writing a paper on how to carry out this kind of plan we were called crazy conspiracy theorists, but low and behold we find out its already been tried and tested.  That's weird.  But the Federal Government would never do that, would they?
 
How exactly is it that that so many people criticized the TEA party for being hateful and violent?  I've been reading all these stories about these Occupy Wall street nut jobs and I'm forced to shake my head.  At latest count, the Occupy protests have had 7 rapes and 3 deaths and countless reports of attacks and fights.  In Oregon, Occupy Protesters threw urine and feces at food vendors who wouldn't give them free food.  Mind you, that these vendors had given the protesters free food and drink early on but had stopped the practice when it got out of hand.  Was there anything like this at any TEA party events?


Perhaps it is time to seriously think about moving up onto a mountain somewhere. 

Cheers,

Mike