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