When: Friday, April 12, 2013

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J. West

Tonight: Hammy is out of the country and Stevie has taken over The broadcasting studios of Casa de Hammy. Special co-hosts Tabitha Hale and Dave Tripani join Stevie to talk to Jen Knight and Brandon Combs about the Calguns Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

There are more stories about this than I have toothpicks and we owned a restaurant. (Trust me, you end up with a lot of toothpicks after closing a restaurant.) I have a much different take on things but first “the facts:”

“No worries America”

When you think about it – I mean really think about it – can you even imagine having the desires (plural), let alone the time and energy of what’s left in a 24-hour day, to think of all the places you could go or of all of the friends you could take or could you find enough hours in what’s left of that day to spend $585,000 for a one night stay – even in Paris with an entire security entourage? And just who’s running our country without this brain child of gluttony at the helm?

Rush Limbaugh hit this nail on the head: People like this self-serving hooligan could not and would not (because they could not) do such things with their own money. They couldn’t afford to, even on their Congressional pay and perks. OUR money is paying for this amoral gluttony and whether you are a Liberal or Conservative, if you aren’t mad as hell about this waste and excess then there’s something seriously wrong with you – get out of here. Now.

“The Facts”

Joe Biden’s $585,000 hotel bill makes no sense, MSN Money

Biden did spend an evening in Paris in early February, but there are no details in the document about whether this contract is accurate or what the final hotel bill came to. A standard room in the hotel costs about $475 a night, and the royal two-bedroom suite runs about $3,900 a night.The Weekly Standard also points to another government contract for Biden’s London hotel stay in early February. The contract, to the Hyatt Regency London, totaled $459,339. An associated document with that contract said it was for 136 rooms for 893 room nights.

Few expenses are spared when Vice President Biden hits the road, racking up five-star hotel bills of $500G, Daily News

It can cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 a night — and that’s just for the hotel.Biden’s one-day visit to Paris on Feb. 4 required more than 100 rooms at the five-star Hotel InterContinental Paris Le Grand.

The lodging cost taxpayers $585,000.50, according to federal contracting records that emerged Friday.

Joe Biden runs up bill of $585,000 for just ONE NIGHT in five-star Paris hotel (and taxpayers will pick up the tab), Mail Online

When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night. The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Weekly Standard

The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available.  However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.

Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000, The Washington Free Beacon

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February.They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also according to the Weekly Standard:

Joe Biden Spends 1 Night In Paris, Racks Up $585K Bill [PHOTOS], Hip Hop Wired

(See photo essay.)

If you want to know how Biden did this against all reasonable human odds, you’re in the right place … Go here.

This is no joke. That’s the only reason I don’t parody this lamebrain administration’s unconscionable thuggary-theft of taxpayer money more. You need to read this linked article and make time for its video. Until then this will only get worse. GOP Old Guard Republicans are no better. They’re lovin’ it just as much. All on the backs of our labors (or entitlement program cut, whatever your case may be – it DOES effect you). Stop it or stop whining.

Contact your legislator today. Tell them to stop this gross spending as they deprive taxpayers who’re paying their overly extravagant bills. If not you, who? We could function better without a government than with this one. Pick your poison. I’ll take my chances with YOU any day.

In Minnesota, union influence was purchased with more than $11 million. Payback is taking the form of increasing the number of dues-paying members through bully legislation.

Making its way through Minnesota Senate committees is a rehashed proposal to force private business owners and sole proprietors to join a union or be forced to pay a “fair share” penalty.

The bill, Senate File 778, states that any child care provider who accepts clients who are subsidized by the state Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) must, under penalty of the law, join the union or pay the “fair share” fee of $25 per month. There are approximately 9,000 business owners and child care providers that would be affected by this part of the law.

Minnesota Senate State and Local Government Committee met Monday and was greeted by a large crowd of both opposition and support. Chief author of SF 778, Senator Sandra Pappas, who was endorsed by AFSCME and SEIU (Service Employees International Union) in her 2012 campaign, presented her proposal along side union bosses and sobbing testifiers. Executive Director of AFSCME Eliot Seide testified in favor of Pappas’ bill. He was paid over $122,000 last year by the union. According to union members present at the senate committee hearing, both AFSCME and SEIU would see an increase in membership if the bill becomes law.

According to testimony at the hearing, child care providers already have the option to join AFSCME and a total of 57, out of more than 9,000, have already done so.

Republican members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee had harsh words and presented stiff opposition to Pappas’ bills. Senator Brandon Petersen criticized the bill saying, “…you’re talking about unionizing small business owners… Isn’t this just a plan to syphon off dues money for the unions?”

Petersen was visibly frustrated throughout the meeting. Referring to a provision in the bill that would make the State of Minnesota the “employer of record” for all child care providers, Petersen asked, “Home child care providers are not employees. Why are we trying to unionized small business owners?”

Pappas embarassed

One testifier in opposition to the union power grab took it upon herself to call child care providers in Pappas’ district to find out if they wanted to be unionized. Becky Swanson, a licensed child care professional, only found three. Swanson urged members of the committee to return to their districts and find out for themselves if their constituents are in favor of forced unionization.

Hollie Saville also testified before the committee in opposition to the bill. She quipped, “I brought a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence,” as she waved the booklets in her hands, “Perhaps some need a refresher on them.”

Republican Senator Dave Thompson asked Pappas if there was any way to know how many providers who currently take CCAP clients will stop taking low income family clients because of this forced unionization. Pappas simply replied, “no.”

Consequences and the Democrat War on Poverty

Republican Senator Dave Thompson exposed a consequence of the bill. Many in-home child care providers currently take clients who receive CCAP funding. That funding follows the low income family, not the provider. CCAP is a reimbursement to the provider. Thompson wanted it on record that he finds it “unbelievable that you would suggest people give up a large portion of their income OR join a union and pay dues.” Senator Dan Hall suggested this was a form of bullying.

In response, Pappas confirmed that providers would have to pay union dues or fair share fees, or turn away low income families.

By that rationale, Pappas and those who would vote for this bill are aware that some low income families would have to find new child care providers. In theory, Pappas is encouraging the mass exodus of licensed in-home providers and forcing low income families into more expensive, union-backed facilities that will likely have higher costs. These costs will be the burden of the tax payers in Minnesota.

More to the bill than child care

Not only does SF 778 establish a new and expensive state board, a coucil, and other administrative bureaucracy, it also attempts to unionize unlicensed in-home care givers like those caring for a disabled child or aging parent.

A Star Tribune report breaks down this part of the bill accordingly.

According to Katy Chase, executive director of the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association, unlicensed providers are often relatives or neighbors who do not have to meet the requirements of licensed providers. “You’re talking grammas and grampas, families and neighbors,” she said.
“To have them included in a bill that’s talking about negotiating things that wouldn’t even come into play for them — we don’t think they should be included,” said Chase, whose organization will oppose the AFSCME-backed bill.
At the same time, a former union supporter, Kathy Stevens, who provides licensed family child care in Brainerd and was once active in the union effort, issued a statement saying the union engaged in “unethical tactics in signing unlicensed providers.” She said the reason for doing so was to win votes for the unionization attempt.
“Legally unlicensed providers are a mere pawn in the numbers game to obtain votes,” Stevens said in her statement, which was submitted to the Senate committee.

Should the unionization of small in-home child care business owners pass in the MN Senate, it will also likely pass the state House. Both senate and house are led by a democrat majority. Many of the democrats in both the senate and house were endorsed by AFSCME and SEIU in the last 2 election cycles, as was Governor Mark Dayton, who would sign it into law.

To see a comprehensive list of unions & their influence on Minnesota politics, click here:
Shot In The Dark – Unions Buy Minnesota

See others who are influenced by union campaign contributions in Minnesota here: Bought & Paid For
*******************************************
Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/erinhaust

Rep. Darrell Issa

The Congressman sent a letter to acting Treasury Secretary Neal S. Wolin, seeking information about a relationship between an unnamed IRS employee and the owner of Signet Computers Inc., Braulio Castillo. Throughout the letter sent by the Committee Chairman, the name of the IRS employee in question is blacked out.

The document also alleges that Signet Computers may have lied to the Small Business Administration (SBA), as well, in order to make it easier for the company to get federal contracts. Also, in 2012, Issa writes that the company changed its name multiple times, potentially to avoid additional scrutiny from the SBA. Investigators have determined from witnesses that Signet Computers, Inc. is also known as Strong Castle, Inc. and Strong Castle, LLC; all owned by Castillo and sharing the same business address and website.

The Committee is requesting a series of documents to be turned over by 5:00pm on March 6th. These include the following:

According to the letter, a whistleblower contacted the Office of The Treasury Inspector General in August of 2012 with evidence that the unnamed IRS employee improperly awarded contracts to Mr. Castillo and Signet Computers Inc. The whistleblower’s evidence also showed that Signet Computers also obtained various certifications in an improper manner. Chairman Issa’s letter also states that a second whistleblower contacted the SBA in January of 2013 with the same concerns that were highlighted in August of 2012.

Issa states in the letter that “At best we have a conflict of interest”, but also highlights the alternative by saying, “At worst, the IRS may have a situation in which a contracting official is awarding sole source contracts based on false justifications or receiving kickbacks in exchange for government contracts.”

To read the full Issa Letter Sent To The IRS by Representative Issa, click here. (PDF)

___

Some internet “vandals” saw this as an opportunity to deface, in a way, the Wikipedia page of Senator Menendez.

The Screen capture is below, with the “modifications” highlighted in red. The photo of Senator Menendez was changed to one of Mike McQueary, who was a key witness in the Penn State University child sex scandal.

___

Follow me on Twitter: @_TJThompson
___

Aside from creepy nature of speaking to the Court decision as if it is an actual person, the basic theme, and overall attitude, of the video is one that expresses a profound, unwavering support of the decision by saying “An anniversary like this is not something you forget, no no no no baby, it is something that you fight for. That’s exactly what I’m going to do, baby. Fight. A few of us – well, actually, a couple hundred thousand of us have chipped in to get you something mighty special, baby. We’re gonna be standing by your side today, tomorrow, and the years to come.”

Don’t worry, though, the Center For Reproductive Rights injected it’s backhanded slap to those who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision right from the get-go with the following line: “All these years, so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. Take you away. Put limits on you… on me… on us. But every time we’ve proven ourselves stronger.”

See the video for yourself below, and leave your thoughts in the comment section.

h/t FTR Radio

___

Reported yesterday: “[Obama's] new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens… . Those who will not are being removed.”

Obama is drenched in Americans’ skepticism about potential for martial law. Gun control fanatics have given more rise to what many perceive as an imminent possibility. Americans’ concerns first arose in 2008 when Obama spoke about instituting “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. Given similar statements he’d made that ultimately were not what Americans believed his words meant (known as “information dominance”) such as “fundamentally transforming America,” Americans are right to remain concerned.

Subsequently in 2010′s Health Care Bill Obama provided for a “Ready Reserve Corps,” dismissed by some as simply being comprised of health care professionals in event of catastrophe. Since then questionable images have surfaced of Obama’s “civilian army” comprising young black chanting thugs quite unlike any military Americans have ever known. That was enhanced by Obama’s official statements defining “Veterans” and “Christians” as “domestic terrorists;” and by now the well known FEMA Camps that make no practical sense. Admittedly, two-years later Americans still know very little about just what is in the Health Care legislation – and why – so these legitimate questions do persist.

A year or more ago it was reported in legitimate Conservative news that Obama was infiltrating our nation’s military with street thugs, changing its composition with characters who’d have less discipline and no particular loyalty to the American People. I find this believable not only because of its source but mostly because Obama has, on many occasions, indulged in and allowed thuggary and, through his silence on a grand scale, has further encouraged it in his governing of America. Those behavioral examples speak loudly, as they should, regardless of the words being used.

Americans have taken comfort in believing our military will stand with us, they having sworn duty to our Constitution, not to any one president or his ideology. The formation of Oath Keepers gave us some reassurance. Oath Keepers had their first annual conference in 2009, understandably so given Obama’s wholly unAmerican handling of the Health Care Bill despite majority demands of The American People in opposing it. From the Oath Keepers site:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore … to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

On Monday Dr. Jim Garrow, a well-respected man dedicated to rescuing infant girls from China’s one-child policy and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, reportedly posted on Facebook:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.

When asked who his source was Garrow reportedly answered: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Read Garrow’s Amazon bio here. The Examiner reported on this yesterday, adding:

This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.

Lest we forget the three high-ranking Generals plus an Admiral who were inexplicably and untimely unseated from their positions immediately following Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “stand-down” orders in Lybia; and their nonsensical lies about a little-known “film” that clearly did not lend to that great American tragedy. Reports of inordinately replacing these officials were buried, curiously superseded by the just as suspicious “scandal” surrounding Lybia and our otherwise renown for his ethics general, General Patraeus.

Oh what a wicked web we weave when we seek first to deceive. God bless our Oath Keepers. God bless America.

[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?

At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.

Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.

For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?

Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.

America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness

By John Renken

(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively.  I don’t think for a second  that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground.  The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!

… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation.  When we look at our educational  system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The  Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in  high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look  up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood  have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood,  rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are  being raised without their biological dads.

Read full article here.

Two days ago the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Audit of the United States Government for fiscal years 2011 – 2012. The government’s own conclusion is this:

“… Absent policy changes – the Federal Government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.” (Minute 00:35)

That means – if the Federal Government does not stop the wild spending – the U.S. dollar will collapse.

This is like telling people on a beach, “Hey, a tsunami is coming and if you don’t move you will be killed.”

But the beach folks say, “I like it here, I’m not moving,” and eventually the wave comes in and kills them.

That’s exactly what’s happening now.

We The People are allowing this.

Only We can change this.

The best Talking Points I’ve heard in a long time:

With the current media circus aimed at gun control, can you imagine if the founding document, our U.S. Constitution, was on trial? Instead of demanding our Constitutional Right, we’d have to justify why an individual has the right to possess a gun. Many mainstream state politicians and lobbying groups across the nation are applying for a second Constitutional Convention and…it looks like they may get it.

Americans exercise liberties no individual had experienced prior. In return, the innovations America’s contributed to mankind are unimaginable prior to introduction. This is because our founder’s ingeniously wrote the Constitution establishing a strong but limited government designed to protect our individual rights. Over the years, our government and the protection of our individual rights have eroded. Today, these rights and responsibilities are just as important and just as vulnerable. As these groups pursue an “Article V Convention”, are they looking to abolish our current government and replace it with another?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence, 1776

Some organizations and academia want the name of a Constitutional Convention change to something else. ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is an organization that advises and recruits state legislators across the nation. According to their manual for “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States”,

“Other acceptable names for a convention for proposing amendments are amendments convention, convention of the states, and Article V convention. (…it is inaccurate and misleading to call a convention for proposing amendments a ‘constitutional convention”.)

To call an Article V Convention anything but a “Constitutional Convention” is misleading. Other than being defeated at war, there are ONLY two ways to amend or alter the Constitution. The first method is the Amendment process which has successfully amended the Constitution 17 times and the other is by Convention. Once Congress calls a Convention according to Article V, there is nothing that can alter its course.

“…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

America’s problem is not an antiquated Constitution but a government that has deviated from it; this includes local, regional and state governments. We cannot fix our government through changing or adding new rules; we need to hold it accountable to the rules already set forth.

Once an Article V Convention begins, what will the Federalist Papers resemble? Our founders wrote Federalist Papers to convince the states in ratifying the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights. With today’s media, it could easily be made a mockery on CSPAN, MSNBC, CNN or Fox with commentaries of Pierce Morgan, Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly moderating the coverage.

In today’s chaos, our Constitution is our only foundation, it preserves our liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, due process, private property or arms…just to name a few! Hopefully, you’ll be prepared to defend these freedoms when it comes for deliberation!

Our Constitution protects our rights as individuals. We, the citizens, are not positioned to defend our Constitutional individual freedoms in such a forum. We have been segregated into false labels so we could easily pick our opponents for trivial stuff.

Imagine our First Amendment’s Five Freedoms, freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly and petition did not exist. What if authorities arrested without charging, search and seized property the State deemed necessary? These fundamental Individual Rights are protected by a federal government established within our Constitution.

When it comes to our Second Amendment, the massacres of Aurora, Newtown and Ft Hood don’t hold a candle to the massacres done by dictators’ like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Our founders understood an out-of-control government and attempted to limit it as much as possible. They also understood how special interest could infiltrate it and use it as their weapon.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Once the Constitutional Convention starts, our individual rights will be open for debate. It’s difficult to understand why someone would submit for a Constitutional Convention in these times unless they wish to get rid of our Individual Rights…rights protected by a limited government that may no longer exist. …Or they may wish for a fundamental transformation of America.

 ”Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Hopefully, Americans have not taken our individual liberties for granted to allow bureaucrats, politicians and special interest to take them away. The only way to accomplish this is hard work, petitioning your Representatives and replacing those who do not protect our individual rights.