Conservatives are not necessarily Constitutionally literate

Conservatives are so-called Constitution defenders. We haven't had much for protection of the Constitution for over 70 years. I know it really started in the 1800's. With the decision of Abraham Lincoln to attack the seceded states. They seceded from the Union, legally, before they were attacked by the United States(the north). If you don't believe me, do some research yourself. The Republican party have been the original national abolitionists. But there was John Brown, who the US had quelled(killed). The Republicans are not interested in the Constitution. Prove to me that they don't want the Patriot Act. The so-called War On Drugs is an abomination. Now the War On Terror has our government spying and interrogating, without cause, regular citizens and at check-points not designated by nor allowed by the Constitution. We are being attacked by the same people that swore to defend our Constitution. We are required to have a gun license, a marriage license a farm fresh food permit, and a business license.

Loss of American Citizenship and Assassinations

Imagine you are sitting home on a quiet Sunday afternoon in conversation with your beloved spouse. Suddenly your husband slumps over, blood draining from his head as a sniper's bullet shatters your living room window. Your husband has just been assassinated by a government agent and it is later discovered -- after ten years of painful inquiries carried out under the threat of your own assassination -- that your husband was targeted as an enemy combatant and a terrorist. Just as easily, you and your entire family could have been killed in a home invasion in an attempt to cart off your husband for weeks of torture and lifetime detention or execution in an unknown Federal facility. Your investigation might also reveal that your loved one was targeted mistakenly by a bureaucrat or was a political enemy of officials in the government or their corporate allies.

Thus could be the very near future for American citizens if President Obama, Senator Joe Lieberman and people like Mayor Rudy Giuliani get their way. Lieberman (with Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Congressmen Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA)) introduced the "Terrorist Expatriation Act" last week. The act would strip "terrorists" of their American citizenship and is in response to the recent attempted bombing of Times Square by an American Citizen -- a former Pakistani granted this privilege in 2009 (Faisal Shahzad). It would make it very convenient to torture and kill any person that is viewed unfavorably by the powerful and arrogant elite sitting in Washington D.C. today. In fact, the New York Times reports that the President has authorized the assassination of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki who was born in New Mexico and now is reportedly plotting against America from Yemen.

On ABC's "This Week" (5/9/10), Mayor Rudy Giuliani permanently lost my support when he advocated removing Miranda Rights from American Citizens who are "terrorists". " I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant" says Giuliani of the naturalized American Citizen arrested and accused by the State; an American Citizen who has not even had a 5th amendment right to a trial to ensure he is not actually wrongly accused. Who else would Giuliani, Obama or George Bush declare an "Enemy Combatant"? Would they quietly kill them in the field after a period of torture? Given the categorization of anyone with a Ron Paul or "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker as a potential danger to the state and the Department of Homeland Security report on "Right Wing Extremism", just who does the government think a "terrorist" is? Excerpts of an article by David McKalip, M.D. from Campaign for Liberty http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=852

When I am elected

Politicians are only in office for a short time until they are running again. They are constantly seeking donations to their campaigns. It takes millions to run each time. It may be a two year vote, but then they have to be in high gear again. My complaint is that they are in a money mindset. Millions and we just keep it coming. I am determined to get them thinking about their patriotism and not pocket grease.

Immigration remedies for our Arizona Illegal Alien laws

This is a perfect example of trickery. National Identification Cards were opposed by most Americans until now. Look at what is sparked. The federal government has been waiting for a state like Arizona to do this. Now we will want ID's for everyone. We only need to patrol the borders and keep the illegal out at the line. Now we have 100 mile safe zones from the borders where the illegals will be tolerated. All due to the policies of the last 4 presidents.
I say safe zones because our I.C.E. is set up in the strangest locations and if legal ESL Americans do not carry their papers at all times, they may also get deported. Why should anyone free, be required through checkpoints. Can't you see tyranny?
We should be working the borders and securing it with our guns. We should be eliminating all red tape for naturalization of all responsible world citizens who want to become citizens.
Work visas are abused and ignored. We don't need them to extend past 1 month. We also don't need to be wishy-washy with our border.

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

Barack Obama had his records sealed, yet claims to have a past

I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Nobody recalls him. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not kidding." Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me.

No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange?

It's very strange." Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root#column-one

NOTE: Root graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major (in the same class as President Barack Obama WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN)

The Federalist No. 1 General Introduction For the Independent Journal

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

* THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY
* THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION
* THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
* ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION
* and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS

1 The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.