President Obama’s definition of fairness is fiscal equality; that my friends is flawed logic. This administration seeks to manufacture fiscal fairness by lowering the ceiling to raise the floor. Punishing the successful does nothing to help the unsuccessful, it in fact harms them by taking liquid cash out of the marketplace. If your house were on fire would you want the firefighters to come put your house out, or light every house in the neighborhood on fire to establish a sense of equality? This is essentially what the Obama administration is attempting to do. In lieu of actually developing sound economic policy and creating jobs, the liberals seek to punish the wealthy in a veiled attempt to appease the poor and make them feel better. That’s Obama’s flawed and dangerous definition of fairness.

The beautiful thing about America is everyone has opportunity if they choose to pursue it. I do understand that the playing field is not even, however nowhere on earth is there ever an even playing field. The “Equal Playing Field” concept is an abstract utopian idea that does not account for familial and generational success; it is unrealistic to assume that each generation will destroy its wealth instead of passing it on to the next. A great motivator of mankind is working to better the lives of those to come. The “Equal Playing Field” rhetoric discounts the very nature of who we are as a people.

Nevertheless, in the United States everyone is at least able to climb the proverbial ladder to success. Every citizen and most residents have access to public education. Although public schools systems vary in quality, all schools are held to a minimum standard by federal and state organizations. Even a student in the most disadvantaged, downtrodden area is still afforded the opportunity to succeed. The unfortunate reality is that some individuals must work harder to climb the ladder than others but the opportunity to climb still exists. It is of great importance that we remember nowhere in the Constitution are we guaranteed the right to an easy climb. I understand overcoming difficult circumstances is often arduous, tedious, tiresome and grueling. However, if an individual fails to graduate high school, fails to enroll in a GED program or vocational school, fails to join the military, fails to apply for Pell grants or subsidized education assistance, and fails to utilize job training programs, taxpayers and society should not be held liable for their lack of motivation.

I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter in Atlanta. During that time I had the pleasure of witnessing individuals go from homeless with no education, to earning their GED, or in some cases, even graduating college. Overcoming difficult circumstances is possible; all it takes is work ethic, desire to succeed, dedication and determination. No nation can promise easy access to prosperity but here, everyone has access to acquire the tools necessary for success.

Furthermore, if an individual finds himself or herself in a difficult life situation, be it a drug addiction, alcoholism, or even an unplanned pregnancy, society should not be held liable for circumstances they created for themselves. This great land is full of opportunity; if an individual fails to attain success it is his or her own fault. This is a nation where personal responsibility trumps all else. I have worked long and hard to set myself up for success and I should not be punished for someone else’s failure to do the same. The United States is filled with charitable organizations that exist to catch individuals when they fall and get them back on their feet. Americans give more to charity than any other people group on the planet. If someone does not seek help they have made a conscious decision to fail, as sad and unfortunate as that is, taxpayers should not be held liable for their mistakes.

Friends we must not fall into the trap of President Obama’s Fairness Doctrine. We should be proud of our successes and not made to feel guilty for the fruits of our labor. We must rise up and speak out against the senseless entitlement programs that enslave the unsuccessful. So long as we continue to give handouts we will never inspire the impoverished to better their situation. We must make living on welfare uncomfortable in order to motivate entitlement recipients to seek education and work. If President Obama and his cronies spent their time educating and inspiring the lower class instead of punishing and lambasting the upper class, America would slowly begin to resemble the great country we once were. A country of prosperity and opportunity rather than a country plagued by the class warfare this administration so ardently seeks to create. That sounds fair to me.

I’m Shane Wright, and I’m changing the world, one outburst at a time.

Many will recognize the men for their contributions, but true history will reveal that the wives of these men were just as important to the battle for freedom.  We all have heard the jest that “if momma isn’t happy, then nobody’s happy.” That is not something that is said just because it’s funny.  So why would we think that human nature was any different in 1774?  The women of our founding nation were just as involved as the men, and often times bolder in their assertions.

When Parliament and King George began attempting to recoup the money spent during the French and Indian wars by imposing unreasonable taxes absent any representation for the people of the colonies, outrage was the response.  Our founding families relied on the goods imported from England to conduct their everyday lives.  The taxes imposed upon these goods and many others were seen as a form of slavery and oppression.  When petition after petition to the Parliament and the King were ignored, more drastic measures were required.  George Washington asserted that a boycott of English goods may be a more effective way of getting the government’s attention.

Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren

To stir patriotic sentiment even hotter, patriotic newspapers offered suggestions about colonial substitutes for imported teas, including sassafras, raspberry and mint. In support of these protests countless women gathered in private homes for spinning parties or participated in public spinning contests.  Two women, whose names should be recognized, were Abigail Adams and her historian friend, Mercy Otis Warren.  These were women of position, with husbands of reputation, yet they shunned tea and proudly wore homespun garments in lieu of British finery.

James Warren was the president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and member of the Sons of Liberty, but it was his wife, Mercy Otis Warren, whose patriotic efforts encouraged the war efforts.  Mercy was a prolific author of anti-British propaganda plays and an historian of the American Revolution.  Her friend, Abigail Adams, said in 1773 that Mercy was “a sincere lover of [her] country”  It was said that Mercy was so grieved by Great Britain’s actions that she felt her nation to be “oppressed and insulted”.

Mercy Otis Warren was a vocal contributor to the independent efforts of the colonies and great pen pal to John Adams.  John Adams often took great comfort from the words and advice of Mercy.  In one letter, Mercy voices the sentiment of the American people.

 ”America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring. But may we not yet hope for more lenient measures!”

Hannah Winthrop, wife of Dr. Winthrop, describes Mercy in January 1773 as “That noble patriotic spirit which sparkles must warm the heart that has the least sensibilities, especially must it invigorate a mind of a like fellow feeling for this once happy country.  How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!”  As we look around today, I know that we can certainly empathize with Hannah’s frustrations.

Hannah Winthrop, Penelope Barker and Elizabeth King

Shortly after Samuel Adams and his men threw tea up and down the coast of America, a second Tea Party protest erupted within the hearts and minds of the women.  A great revolutionary heroine by the name of Penelope Barker wrote a public statement in which she endorsed a boycott of tea and other British products, such as cloth.  Ten months after the famous Boston Tea Party organized by men, Barker led a “Tea Party” on October 25, 1774, in the Edenton Home of Elizabeth King.  She and fifty other women signed the protest statement.  At the meeting, Barker said, “Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now.  That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard.  We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party.  The British will know who we are.” The women of this Tea Party signed a declaration that stated, “We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

The amazing part of this public protest and notice sent to parliament and the King was that these were women whose husbands and fathers were men of reputation. Many of the men related to these women were English merchants.  The fact these women signed their names to a document of protest showed their courage and their dedication to the principle that the Liberty of their children was more important than a paycheck or even their lives.

On Jan. 1st, 1774, Hannah Winthrop’s patriotic spirit cries out.

“Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard. May they yet be endowed with all that firmness necessary to-carry them through all their difficulties, till they come off conquerors. We hope to see good accounts of the tea cast away on the Cape. The union of the Colonies, the firm and sedate resolution of the people, is an omen for good unto us.”

Elizabeth Adams

These brave women of resolve did not simply support the efforts of the men fighting for Liberty; they themselves sacrificed everything for Liberty.  They were outcasts to the Loyalists.  They were called “harlots” and “loose women,” and were literally chased from their homes, sometimes as their homes burned to the ground.  Elizabeth Adams, wife of Samuel Adams, had to hide in a small cottage far from the city, since her father was an English Merchant.  In a letter to Samuel, she does not chastise him or berate him for his neglect of their family.  Instead she reassures him that all is well at home and that he should concentrate on the battle at hand.  She writes;

 “I beg you would not give yourself any pain on our being so Near the Camp; the place I am in is so Situated, that if the Regulars should ever take Prospect Hill, which God forbid, I should be able to make an Escape, as I am Within a few stones casts of a Back Road, Which Leads to the Most Retired part of Newtown …. I beg you to Excuse the very poor Writing as My paper is Bad and my pen made with Scissars. I should be glad (My dear), if you shouldn’t come down soon, you would Write me Word Who to apply to for some Money, for I am low in Cash and every thing (sic) is very dear.” Feb 19 1775

Mary Bartlett

Mary Bartlett wife of Dr. Bartlett, was as ardent in her patriotism as her husband.  When their home lay in ruins and the family were driven to seek shelter and safety elsewhere, she fled to their little farm, which she managed from then on, leaving her husband free to devote himself almost entirely to the fight. In all her letters to her husband and her children, there is not one word of regret for his situation or pity for herself, left alone to bear the duties forced upon her by the tyranny of the British government.  She had no complaints, only a spirit of loving, helpful sympathy for everything that her husband was going through.

“ These women believed their sacrifice was just as much a fight for Liberty as the lives lost on the battlefield.  These were women of courage and resolve, willing to give everything for Liberty.  Mercy Otis Warren wrote, they were “…ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanction of compacts.”

Mercy was amazing at voicing the feelings and fears of these brave women in the battle for Liberty.   ”I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the weak passions of my sex should damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolution of yours. May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

We could learn a great deal about what real women act and sound like from the words and deeds of these great heroines.  And, as I am sure you can now see, the revisionists have been lying to us for many years.  These women were not oppressed by their chauvinistic husbands to the point of servitude.  They were bold and brave women of resolve.  They were dedicated to the cause of Liberty and the battle against tyranny.  In her display of patriotism, Hannah Winthrop uttered the following battle cry,

“And be it known unto Britain, even American daughters are politicians and patriots, and will aid the good work with their female efforts.”

These women believed in their hearts and in their souls that without Liberty, life was not worth living.  They supported their husbands and gave everything they could to ensure that their children would live free.  As Mercy put it, “We will stand against tyranny today or our children will bow tomorrow.”  How can we, on such a day as this deny these great women their due?  These are the women of Liberty and they are heroes worthy of recognition.  Without them, America would not be the shining city on a hill and the last bastion of hope.  We should honor what these brave women have done not only for America, but for the world.

HR 347 and S 1794, the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings.  This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill.  Reasonable people understand that restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions.  However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to simply DISRUPT the ORDERLY CONDUCT of government.  The violator doesn’t have to be on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the self-proclaimed business.  The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be “roving” and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they go.

1752(a)(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

1752(a)(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;

1752(c)(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

The right protected in the First Amendment is the right to peaceably assemble.  We do not have the right to impede the flow of traffic, either on sidewalks or roadways.  We do not have the right to impede anyone’s business practices.  But this law is not about private business, it is about government operations.

This Congress has a habit of writing in vague and overbroad terms; yet, in order for laws to be Constitutionally sound they CANNOT be vague and overbroad in ANY aspect, and they can ONLY interfere with the rights of the people in as narrow a capacity as necessary.  But this law makes it a crime to disrupt the government.  The Supreme Court has said this type of broad language gives too much power to the government, and they have been saying this since 1939.  This law actually places the desire of the government to be free from disruption over the right of the people to redress the government of their grievances.

Suppose your Congressman, who is under secret service protection, has a town hall meeting and many members of the community show up to challenge him on his voting record.  This law could be construed to allow federal charges to be brought against these citizens for disrupting his town hall meeting.  After all, it will not be hard to claim that people who are not happy with the Congressman’s voting record had the “intent” to disrupt this meeting.  This vague and overbroad language has the potential to ultimately prevent people from gathering outside any government building or politician’s function for fear of being charged with a federal offense.   In Constitutional law, we call that a “chilling effect” and the Supreme Court has always held these restrictions to be unconstitutional.  After all, as the people in this video were forced to decide, who can afford to go to jail to stand for their rights, even if they will win?

The right to orderly conduct government is NOT a Constitutionally protected right.  However we DO have the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.  Our Constitution establishes the fundamental principle rights to speech and assembly are held by the people and the government must protect these rights, not limit them.  The Court in Hague v. CID, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), memorably stated;

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled in Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988), that protesting outside an embassy is worthy of Constitutional protection. Washington DC attempted to make this protest unlawful because it disrupted the business in the embassy.  However, the Court recognized that freedom of speech “reflects a ‘profound national commitment’ to the principle” and “‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”  The Supreme Court has “consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues.”

Additionally, as if to reaffirm the Court in Hague, the Court in United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983), stated that “`Public places’ are historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be `public forums.’”  Again in Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S.  37, (1983), the Supreme Court chimes in on this issue of the right to protest on public grounds.

In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” emphasis added.

Attempts to silence the people, like in this video, were perpetrated by governments using the claim that orderly government and the desire to be disruption free should outweigh our Constitutionally protected rights.  Each time the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the orderly conduct of Government is NOT the standard to be protected.  People have the right to complain, the right to have their voices be heard, the right to redress their grievances in the form of protests.  These actions are supposed to make the government take notice. Disruption cannot be the standard to stop speech.  To allow the government to create this new standard allows the government to tell us to sit down and shut up.  What happens to the man in this video under the new law after Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) tells him to sit down and shut up?

The chilling effect occurs not in the fact that you are denied your due process.  If you are arrested because of unlawful legislation you can fight the prosecution and even sue the government for violating your rights.  If the Supreme Court has not become completely corrupted you have fairly good odds of winning.  But, anyone who has been wronged by a government agency can tell you, a victory will often come at the expense of a ruined life and livelihood.  Under this language could former Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) have press charges against the student he assaulted for “impeding government business?”

The bottom line is that there are laws in every municipality that punish Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Assault, and any other crime involving real threats against government and people.  Why do we need a vague and overbroad FEDERAL LAW to enforce laws that are already in effect, when that law could encroach on our protected rights?   William Penn said, “Necessity, it is said, is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves.”  The fact is, we don’t need a “Federal Trespass Bill.”  We already have one; it’s called the Bill of Rights!

When will we have enough of government intrusion on our Constitutionally protected rights? We were outraged because we are Taxed Enough Already.  When will we recognize that if we cannot trust the government with our finances, then we certainly cannot trust the government with our Liberty?

In 1066 England, William I takes the throne and begins forcing his rule over the people of England.  A people, who because of the agreement of 1041 had become accustomed to participation in their government and had established a common law they felt was fair and just for their time.  William I, however had different ideas.  He and his sons continue to fundamentally transform the England, up until Henry I took the throne.  Henry is the signer of the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which he promised to end the tyranny of his father and brother.  He made a charter with the people to end all evil and oppressive practices as carried out by the crown.  Interestingly enough, what the people of 1100 England felt was evil and oppressive, we might find alarmingly familiar.  Besides promising to end the evil inheritance taxes, and ensuring that lawmakers were subject to the laws they made, Henry promised to abandon the practice of requiring the ecclesiastical leaders of the Church of England to do the government’s bidding.  Henry made a promise to the people, that first and foremost, he would declare the church free of government interference:

“Know that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom; and because the kingdom had been oppressed by unjust exactions, I, through fear of God and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free, … And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed;”

But that would not end the reign of tyranny forever, because tyrants hates Liberty and “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” T. Jefferson

In 1213, John is the King of England and his hatred for the church quickly becomes apparent.   Tyrants do not like to share power, and throughout history they came to recognize the great force within the church, after all, if God be for us, who can be against us?  John is called the most evil King England has ever known.  The English have said that “hell was fouled by the presence of John”.  It was John’s ruthless behavior toward the English people who would not submit to his tyrannical rule that gained John’s infamy.  But, it was John’s refusal to grant the people the right to choose an Arch Bishop that threw the people into rebellion.  John wanted to power over the church as well the treasury; after all it was his Divine Right.  The Barons, Lords and the chosen Arch Bishop, Stephen Langton, in an attempt to avoid bloodshed drew up a charter to force the King to keep the promise issued by the crown in the 1100 Charter of Liberties.  This edict gave specific directions to John on what tyrannical acts were to be halted and is called the Magna Carta.

“In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate;… Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid.”

The King promised once again, through the Magna Carta, to honor the sovereignty of the Church and the right of the people to maintain their religious Liberty.  But under tyrants who have no regard for the Rule of Law and see themselves as the ultimate authority, religious liberty cannot survive without a fight.

This time it was Charles I who had to be put in his place.  Charles was accused of devising ‘a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People’. To do this he had ‘traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented’.  What was among Charles’ atrocities? You guessed it, offenses against religious liberty, 11 counts to be exact and all were listed in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641.  His tyranny was summarized as follows:

“For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy, and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and oppression to the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of your people-”

The people rebelled against Charles’ unjust laws and against the oppression of the church.  Charles was found guilty of tyranny and oppression, and he was sentenced to death.  Liberty once again succeeded with new protections obtained by the resolve of the people.

Just 60 years later the people found themselves once again in the hands of a tyrant, this time his name was James II and he was also attempting to control the church.  James was attempting to tax the people through the church and he was attempting to control the method and mode of worship instead of allowing the people to worship according to their beliefs.  In order to enforce these laws, he was placing agents of the crown in the church and establishing arbitrary regulations and courts to bring government action against the leaders of the church.  The people of England charged James with attempting to completely destroy Liberty.

“Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to [overturn] and [completely destroy] the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting [various] worthy [ministers] for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power; By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

The people stood against James, causing him to flee the throne.  They lost a tyrant and retained their Liberty in this new document, The Bill of Rights of 1689.

In our own nation many preachers, particularly of the Baptist faith, were prosecuted, tarred and feathered, whipped, jailed, and executed because they would not submit to a license under the state religion.  The blood shed on our own shores in the name of religion is the very thing that brought us the first amendment and led to the eventual dissolution of all test acts and state churches.  This is the history of our founding fathers and mothers.  This is the wisdom they brought to the table when drafting our government.  These tyrants of the past are the reason our founders gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to “secure the blessings of Liberty for our posterity”.  They knew that a tyrant would come along sooner or later.  They knew that this tyrant would hate liberty as much as those in the past.  But they also knew that tyranny has a limited bag of tricks, so they did their best to give us the protections gained from over 700 years of battle for Liberty.  This is precisely why we have a 1^st Amendment, to secure the right of the people to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and to keep the government out of the business of the church.  After all, THIS is the REAL meaning of separation of church and state.

It is no surprise that tyranny would rematerialize in the very same way it has for centuries.  Once again, the government attempts to govern the church, to impose its rule over the conscience of the people.  Healthcare mandates against the church have nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with tyranny over the people.  Kings do not concern themselves with the good of the people as much as they do with the will of the King.  If this tyranny is allowed to stand, a door will be open that will allow the Kings troops to march even greater oppression against the church, history guarantees it.  These troops, undoubtedly in the form of regulation and law, will once again “deny the church their voice in government” causing a great “hazard to religious liberty” bring forward the “prosecution of various ministers” in arbitrary “courts of ecclesiastical causes” which will surely bring about the “complete destruction of liberty”.   What we must learn from history, what we must understand today is that if religious liberty is allowed to fall, all other liberties will quickly follow.  The battle for all liberty is rooted in the battle for religious liberty and the ability to speak, print, assemble, and air our grievances according to the dictates of our conscience.  It is no coincidence that it is the FIRST Amendment.  The question is what are we going to do about the tyranny that is fundamentally transforming America into an utter wasteland of ruined liberties?

We cannot fully understand the 10^th Amendment until we understand of the 9^th Amendment as well. The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And to understand the 9^th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights.  As he states in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government.  His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights.  (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.  (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9^th Amendment.  He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9^th Amendment would solve all those problems.  Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10^th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither state nor federal.  So when the 10^th Amendment says,   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,  our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People.  They were saying, in conjunction with the 9^thAmendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States.  The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.

Our Founders never intended to invest in the states the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If a state could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free state would be defeated and that state would become a tyrant over its people.  Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the states again, would be the tyrant over its people.  While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away.  Life is an inalienable right.  That this right begins at conception is a biological fact.  This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law.  If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed.  The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person.  Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point.  Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either.  There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium.  You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium.  Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion.  You cannot abort an action that has never begun.  Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound.  Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights.  This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10^th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles.  Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life.  If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness.  In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.”   Abortion is not a state issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based.  A state cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a state to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10^th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty.  Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality.  Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty.  Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who states in a USA Today article, ”God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.”  You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?  -Thomas Jefferson.

Al Hayat TV in Egypt interviewed Justice Ginsburg asking her for the advice she would give Egypt in writing the Constitution for their newly formed government.  Her reply to this question gives insight into this her thoughts and understanding of the very Constitution she has given an oath to support and defend.

“I can’t speak as to what the Egyptian experience should be” she said, “because I am operating under a rather old Constitution, the United States in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation, yet we have the oldest Constitution still in force in the world…”

Immediately, Ginsburg diminishes the value of our Constitution because it is the “oldest Constitution”. She is completely ignoring the fact that it is the oldest Constitution because of the very foundation and principles it espouses.  Our founders, although wise and possibly geniuses, were not making up things as they went along, they built a nation upon 700 years of experience with human nature, tyranny, and Liberty in mind.  Our Constitution is not over 200 years old, but in reality, its principles and practices are over 1,000 years old.  And it IS its age that gives it its credibility.  It IS the tried and tested principles and practices that make America the shining city on a hill and the envy of the world.

But Mrs. Ginsburg’s criticism of our Constitution doesn’t end there.  When asked by the reporter if Egypt should look to the US Constitution as an example to form their own, her response is shocking.

“You should be aided by all the constitutional writings that have gone on since the end of World War II, I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

Yes, you heard right, she is telling Egypt to disregard our Constitution when drafting theirs.  She offers up, rather, the Constitutions of South Africa and Canada.  She even strongly suggests the European Union’s Human Rights statement as a BETTER example of Constitutions.

“I might look at the Constitution of South Africa, that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights; [they have] an independent judiciary, it really is, I think a great piece of work that was done, much more recently than the United States Constitution. Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms that dates from 1982. You would most certainly look at the European convention on human rights…”

Can we glean from these statements that Mrs. Ginsburg does not believe OUR Constitution was a “deliberate attempt to embrace basic human rights”?  I am really beginning to wonder what Mrs. Ginsburg actually KNOWS about our Constitution.  After all, how is a nation founded upon the principles that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” not deliberately attempting to embrace basic human rights?  Maybe she missed Sam Adams’ explanation of the rights of the colonists when he said they were “First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”  I guess in Mrs. Ginsburg’s books, those are not principles of basic human rights.  In this interview, Mrs. Ginsburg says she is “a very strong believer in learning and listening to others”, unfortunately she never took the time to learn and listen to the men and women who founded this nation.

Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge the wisdom of our founders but points out the absence of women at the Constitutional Convention:

“…we were just tremendously fortunate in the US that men who met in Philidelphia were very wise, it is true they were lacking one thing, that is there were no women as part of the Constitutional Conventions, but there were women around, who sparked the idea…”

It is interesting that even if it is just in passing, Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge that women were involved in the foundational “ideas” of this nation.  Yet she does a great disservice to the women of that era by completely ignoring the magnitude of their input.  Her perpetration of revisionist history even becomes part of her advice to the country of Egypt.

“John Adams who was one of our first presidents, and instrumental in the Constitutional Congress, his wife Abigail was very well known, intelligent, said “Now John when you write that Constitution, please remember the ladies.” And he wrote back something amusing, he said, “are you suggesting that women should be part of the political community, look if we do that everyone will be claiming the right to vote, 12 year old boys will be claiming the right”, he treated like a joke…”

The internet is an amazing thing.  It was not difficult to find the letters between Abigail and John that she references and John Adams said NOTHING like what Mrs. Ginsburg claims. Most historians not in the business of rewriting history are quick to acknowledge that John Adams held his wife in very high regard and often relied on her wisdom.  Additionally, most of our founders felt the same way about the strong women in their lives.  To suggest as Mrs. Ginsburg does, that the men excluded women from this process because they were tyrants and oppressive husbands, is as ridiculous as her rendition of the letters she quotes.  Liberty, as John Adams describes in this letter is contagious.  Our founders knew that with patience and proper focus on Liberty, in time, all would enjoy as much or as little Liberty as they wished to obtain.  This is a valuable point Mrs. Ginsburg would do well to point out to a newly forming nation.

The truly puzzling thing is that she admits that our founders were “wise” and calls them “genius” and even admits that women had a role in sparking the “idea” of Liberty.  But she then immediately perpetuates the liberal lie that our founders were not interested in women’s rights and wanted slavery to remain a guiding principle in this nation. May I remind Mrs. Ginsberg that the Declaration of Independence states “ALL” men are created equal.  Not all men of a particular race, color or creed, or not even just all AMERICANS, but all men.   In my dictionary “all” means “all”.  In “listening and learning” from our founders they made it clear that slavery was something that must be abolished.  It is precisely why they set a “sunset” for the institution of slavery. Maybe Mrs. Ginsburg doesn’t understand that provision since our current government doesn’t respect “sunset” provisions and simply votes to perpetuate them.

To our founders, who were focused on Liberty, creating a union of states was the most important aspect to ensuring that Liberty would prosper.  They knew they could not plow new fields overnight and if they tried to change the world in one move, the union would never have a chance, and Liberty would not have its way in all the states.  They understood the fundamental aspect of Liberty, that if the focus of a society is on Liberty, that Liberty will be contagious. People who observe others enjoying Liberty will always want to enjoy it for themselves.  Our government was established as a Republic so once that desire for Liberty began to spread, a minority group could have a society-changing voice.  Our founders deliberately did not establish a democracy, because in that form of government, the majority would always choke to death the desire for Liberty of a minority. Yet another point that Mrs. Ginsberg might be wise to share with Egypt instead of encouraging them to strive “to achieve a general democracy…”

The dichotomy of her praise and criticism of our founders and our Constitution shows that she is greatly misinformed of both.  The fact that she would lift up the European Union’s Human Rights statement should greatly concern us.  But the finality of her statement to a newly forming nation, that they should NOT look to the wisdom of our founders and use our Constitution as a guide gives us the greatest insight into what she believes about the founding of our nation and the supreme law of the land.

I have begun to understand that those in our government repeatedly take oaths that they do not understand do not actually believe.  Taking an oath and not understanding what that oath means, is the equivalent of taking no oath at all.  Mrs. Ginsberg is a great example.  Here is the oath every Supreme Court Justice takes:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

According to an online dictionary the word “support” means to keep from weakening or failing, to strengthen. Synonyms for this word are uphold, back, advocate, champion.  According to the same online dictionary the word “defend” means to keep safe from danger, attack, or harm, to ward off an attack. It seems to me, that putting down our Constitution and lifting up others above it is a very strange way to keep it from weakening, to advocate for it, and to ward off attacks against it. This justice, whose entire job depends upon the definition of words, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these vital words. Mrs. Ginsburg might do well to pick up a dictionary and put down her distorted Constitutional law books.

Mrs. Ginsburg did make one statement that was right on.  When asked her ideas on how to draft a constitution, her reply should cause every patriot to sit up and take notice.

“A Constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom if the people don’t care, then the best Constitution in the world won’t make any difference, so spirit of liberty must be in the population.”

Bravo, Mrs. Ginsburg, you have the fundamental foundation for being a patriot. Now, put down your law books, put down your revisionist history, set aside your agendas and REALLY ”learn and listen” to the men you called genius. Learn WHY they were able to pledge their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor so ages and millions yet unborn could live in the greatest nation on the planet protected by the greatest human rights statements ever drafted. You may just then begin to understand the pledge you took, and the principles embodied in the document you are supposed to support and defend.  You will then be qualified to maintain that seat on the Supreme Court.  May I be so bold as to suggest a really great book for you to get started?  Not A Living Breathing Document, Reclaiming Our Constitution.

Interesting how the words of our founders still come back to haunt us.  In the Letter from a Federal Farmer 8, the author warns us that: 

Men may always be too cautious to commit alarming and glaring iniquities; but they, as well as systems, are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees.

That is exactly what has happened.  The elimination of Constitutional rights of US Citizens are being eroded by slow degrees. Consider the following: 

Immediately after 9/11, Congress passes the Patriot Act, legislation that in part allows the FBI to conduct warrantless searches and seize people and property without probable cause and without judicial review. 

Next we have Janet Napolitano issuing in an OFFICIAL REPORT of the Department of Homeland Security stating that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion, along with others who hold conservative American values are the real potential terrorists. 

Recently, in April of 2011, the Government Accountability office reported that State Department and DHS officials could not agree on “what degree of ‘association’ with a terrorist is sufficient to render an applicant ineligible for a visa.”  Through this report we know that our US Visa offices are and have been granting legal resident status to citizens who have documented terrorist affiliation.  We also know that these legal residents have been granted full citizenship in spite of their documented terrorist affiliation.  Case in point; consider Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, who was granted a student visa and then full citizenship all the while being on a terrorist watch list.  Because of Faisal Shahzad’s terrorist attack on America, Eric Holder went on a campaign, not to fix our immigration system or to limit the real terrorists, but to declare that OUR Constitutional rights should be “more flexible” so we can combat terrorism. 

Every move that has been taken by this government moves us closer and closer to the death of the Constitution in the name of combating terrorism.  

Next, the National Defense Authorization Act declares an indefinite worldwide war on terrorism and makes provision the indefinite detention of those the government labels terrorists, or belligerents, or hostiles, or…? 

Congressman after Congressman has declared these sections EXCLUDE US Citizens.  They ignore section 4 that authorizes open and unchecked waivers of any established limitations. They claim that the language of this Act, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” gives that exclusion, even though telling a government agency they are not required to do something is not the same as prohibiting them from doing it.  Not even close.  We have declared open and undefined war on the nebulous enemy – “terrorism”, and we have given the President the ability to detain US Citizens indefinitely. Never fear, the current President has promised he will not use that power. 

Obama will never have to keep that promise if the Enemy Expatriation Act passes, since this act will strip US Citizens of their citizenship for simply being suspected of association with terrorist activity. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes guidelines of how a citizen can “lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”.  The act then proceeds to list seven ways someone can relinquish their citizenship, among those acts is treason.  The Enemy Expatriation Act adds an additional criteria, language straight out of those troublingly worded sections of NDAA that we were told were not aimed at US Citizens.  According to Senator Leibermann and others, citizens both by birth and naturalization do not deserve their citizenship if they are suspected of: 

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

We should be asking ourselves, why do we need this language in addition to the crime of treason already listed as a way to lose citizenship.  The key may lie in the definition of treason in the Constitution: 

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

The Constitution and the provisions in the Immigration act both require a conviction of treason in court.  The standard of engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting, as stated in the Enemy Expatriation Act contains no requirement for CONVICTION of these activities.  The Patriot Act allows the government to build their suspicion upon information obtained using warrantless searches. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have made it clear who they think the enemy is and that they believe these “enemies” deserve no Constitutional rights.  But I guarantee, those in favor of the Enemy Expatriation Act will claim that they have now defined “hostilities” and this will protect those citizens who have “nothing to hide”.  The act declares “hostilities” for THIS SECTION means, any conflict subject to the laws of war.   This does not define “hostilities” for any other document in effect.  We must remember NDAA has declared open and continual war on terrorism.  This “limitation” is no limitation at all.  

Do not be fooled.  Arm yourself with the truth!

The first TV show segment of the 2012 season was the melodrama that surrounded the payroll tax holiday extension bill. The President re-cast the bill in a new role whereby the “producers” called it a tax break for the “little guy.”  He then pushed Congress to pass a year extension of the bill and asked them to pay the tab from the expenses created by the bill on the backs of the “rich.”  These unwilling “rich” participants became the villains in this made-up Jerry Springer moment.  The President stood in front of countdown clocks while having press events and convincing the viewership that their 2012 was going to be a disaster all because of the members of Congress.

The next melodrama of the 2012 season was last week’s recess appointment of Mr. Cordray to be the head of the consumer financial bureau. This is the new watch dog agency created in the Dodd-Frank financial modernization bill. The President used Article II of the Constitution to recess appoint Mr. Cordray while the Senate was in recess. He then directed a moment whereby one of Mr. Cordray’s first acts as the head of this consumer agency was to listen and counsel two folks who had been harmed by the financial meltdown of the last few years. All the while, the participants (members of Congress) are screaming about the recess appointment process which gave Mr. Cordray his new job. The President, or host of the show, seems in complete control, creating “Jerry Springer” moments and then walking away letting the “participants” look like out of control drama kings and queens.

Why would the President start this reality show in 2012, the same year as his reelection for a second Presidential term? The answer for this writer is simple…because of Congress’ approval rating. Last week it came out that Congress’ approval rating hit an all time low according to the latest Rasmussen reports national phone poll. They polled 1,000 likely voters on Dec. 27 and 28 and found that only 5% of them thought Congress was doing a good or excellent job. If only 5% of the public approve of Congress, that means that 95% of us presumably don’t like Congress. If the President can orchestrate mini-turf battles and tug-of-war games with Congress and win them, at least temporarily, he appears to be on the side of the 95% of us that dislike Congress. These scenarios, if repeated over and over in 2012, will allow us to begin to think of President Obama as being “on our side.”

Members of Congress allowed themselves to be cast in this realty TV series as a result of their legislative accomplishments starting from the beginning of President Obama’s term of office. Remember, the democratically controlled Congress passed almost every initiative this President asked of them in 2009 and 2010. By 2011, the American people had really begun to feel the effects of the President’s legislation agenda and all of the adverse effects. The American people began to lash out at the ones who enacted the harmful legislation…members of Congress. Once Congress’ approval rating hit rock-bottom, the President casted them in his new reality TV series. Almost immediately the President began to look like he is standing up for the “little guy” because his adversary is the extremely unpopular Congress.

If Congress doesn’t begin to recast themselves in different roles, the President might just win the survivor grand prize this coming November.

Stay tuned to see how this new reality TV show works out for our President and Congress over the next several months

Elizabeth B. Letchworth is a retired, elected United States Senate Secretary for the Majority and Minority. Currently she is a senior legislative adviser for Covington & Burling, LLC and is the founder of GradeGov.com.

One of my favorite things at this time of year is to check the mailbox and get the Christmas cards arriving from friends and family!

It is that time of year again…Christmas is right around the corner and it is time for our annual Patriot Christmas card exchange.  This will be the third year that we have done this fun holiday activity.  Patriots across the country love interacting with each other and especially with some holiday spirit and cheer.

The first Christmas card exchange took place in 2009, the first year of this tea party grassroots movement. You can read about what inspired this Christmas activity on SouthernBellePolitics.com.

In 2010, we had another successful Christmas card exchange with even more Patriots across the country. We want to continue the tradition and festivities this year and hope the number of participants continues to grow.

Are you in the Christmas spirit yet?  Join the effort and you will realize why this is a favorite holiday activity by many.

The details and instructions are below.  If you want to participate, please register HERE by Thursday, December 15th.

HOW IT WORKS

Depending on the turnout and in order to keep this manageable, each person will be assigned 25 names to send holiday cards.  If you would like more than 25 names, please indicate in your email.  In return, your name will be given to the same people that you will receive their names.  You should receive the same number of cards in which you send.

All you have to do to participate is register by Thursday, December 15th.  We will compose the list of addresses as we receive them and will email them to you by Saturday, December 17th.  This information will be kept confidential and will not be published anywhere.  The lists will be mailed privately to those participating and will only include the name/alias and mailing address.  We understand the issue of privacy is important and if you prefer, you do not have to use your real name, but can use an alias.

To make the Christmas Card Exchange even more fun, instead of including a picture of your children or animals, include your favorite picture from a tea party or something related to the tea party movement.  The purpose is to get in the holiday spirit and send real holiday greetings to like minded people.

May your holidays be filled with love, laughter, and abundance of cheer.

Merry Christmas from American Grassroots Coalition!

***REGISTER HERE***

Conservative vs. Republican Establishment

This week (Tuesday, December 13th) we have a big battle coming with the Republicans in the United States Senate.  This is a battle that we need to engage in so that we let Senate Republican Leadership know that we are paying attention and are watching everything they are doing.

The Senate leadership race for Vice Chair of the Republican conference is shaping up to be a battle where the leadership is actively trying to prevent a new perspective from having a seat at the table. That new perspective is the conservative / tea party perspective.

Last week, Leadership quietly moved up the race from its originally scheduled date of January 25th to December 13th, in an effort to secure a rushed victory. The vote for this position will now happen on Tuesday.

Last year, we propelled Republicans to victory across the country.  Is Republican Leadership in the Senate going to deny a member representing the conservative / tea party movement a position in leadership? Shouldn’t a member that represents the energized base have a seat at the table too?

We need to step up and have our voices heard in this battle. We cannot sit back and let business as usual continue in the Senate. Our base needs to be represented because we were the ones that elected the new Senators such as Rubio, Lee, Paul, Ayotte and Toomey.

Senator Ron Johnson (WI) wants this position as Senate Conference Vice Chair and the conservative base would like him to have this position. Senator Ron Johnson announced earlier this fall that he wanted this position.

Senator Roy Blunt (MO) announced this past week that he wants the position too. The same day Senator Blunt made this announcement, Republican Leadership moved the election up to next Tuesday. Erick Erikson wrote an article that claims the word coming from the Senate is that Republican Leadership is whipping votes for Senator Blunt to win this election.

Senator Ron Johnson is a businessman of 31 years and a great conservative Senator that we all helped elect. Senator Johnson brings his perspective of a producer and job creator to Washington.  He understands how the private sector works, how jobs are created and how tax and regulatory policies impact small businesses. This experience is an extremely valuable asset for the Republican caucus to have at the leadership table.

Senator Johnson, while he may be a quiet leader, he brings a fresh perspective to the Senate and is willing to respectfully challenge the status quo. He is willing to stand up for the conservative cause instead of just falling in line. He is exactly what we need in Washington.

What is the alternative?

Senator Roy Blunt has been in Washington for 14 years. He is part of the establishment.  It is highly unlikely he would ever challenge Leadership or make a decision that would go against the establishment.

Not to mention, Senator Blunt is the Congressional Liaison for Mitt Romney’s campaign. Why would Republicans in the Senate elect a Senator that is part of a Presidential candidate’s campaign?

Do we really want another Senator that is part of the “good ‘ole boy” network sitting at the table or would we rather have a fresh new perspective from a conservative at the table?

The Bottom Line

Senator Roy Blunt brings the same old ideas and strategies that have become a problem in the Senate.

Senator Ron Johnson is a new voice that represents the conservative energy that sweeping the country.

What Can You Do?

Call Republican Senators:

Please do your part and call your Republican Senators and tell them to support Senator Ron Johnson for Vice Chair of the Republican Conference in the United States Senate.  If you have time, please call other Republican Senators also.  You can find contact information for all Senators HERE.

Social Media:

Also, after you have called the Republican Senators’ offices, please Tweet them and write on their FaceBook walls.

Visit our FaceBook wall and let us know your thoughts on this Leadership election in the US Senate.

Please share with others and get them engaged on this battle too.  We cannot do this without you.  Thank you for all that you do!