Obama’s defensive speech for the US’s Libyan operations- “F” for Failure & Fabrication of Truth.


On March 28, 2011- President Obama took to the podium at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington DC in defense of his premature actions in Libya and his “forgetfulness”  in consulting Congress before committing to air strikes and an offensive approach in Libya.

Watching Obama’s speech with a mixture of skepticism, unbelief and at this point- pure resentment for getting us involved in a battle that we have no means (personally or financially) to be a part of, I had to balk at some of President Obama’s “talking points”.

Who is Obama trying to convince that this war on Libya was a good idea- the general public or himself?

While I understood what President Obama was trying to accomplish with the freeze of $33 billion assets on Qaddafi’s regime, furthering our sanctions and imposing an arms embargo in an attempt to convince Qaddafi to stop using massive force against his people, Ive questioned from the beginning if the United States knew who they were supporting in an attempt to rid Qaddafi of his regime.

Then, out of the blue, I heard reports that the United States were going to lead an offensive air strike against Qaddafi since he violated the UN restricted “no fly zone” (another military operation that I was against from the beginning and as I said- would result in a war with Libya and her allies.)

During his defensive speech, President Obama stated, “And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.”

Whoa, wait a second- Did President Obama just state that he consulted Congress before engaging in an offensive attack? I had to rewind the program and check the written transcripts, yes- he sure did.

That statement is a BOLD FACE LIE. President Obama DID NOT consult Congress which is why there is an uproar from people on the Right and the Left as President Obama violated Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution by not consulting Congress or declare war before entering Libya on the offensive.

Not that it surprises me that President Obama lied as he has a history of saying one thing and doing the other but it floored me that night as it is shameful that President Obama did not follow the US Constitution (especially since he was a Constitutional Professor, one would think he would recognize the US Constitution of its importance- especially when going into war) but he flat out lied, to the People, about how this war started.

How could he consult Congress when the Congress was not even in session?  Im still shocked that he would, so openly, try to twist the truth of the uninformed voters.

President Obama stated that we were joined by a “strong coalition” of France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey and the Arab League but were we really?

The only countries that I have seen really step up to the plate is France, Britain and the United States. In this instance, I feel that we are the “holy trinity” with the other countries in the background cheering us on.

Granted, Canada has stepped up more now that NATO is implemented and the United States will fall under Canadian Lt General Bouchard in which I am grateful. It is also true that Qatar from the Arab League has stepped up a smidgen but they are far from the leads on this offensive.

Not too mention where is the rest of the Arab League? One of the main pushes for going into the Libyan war is that the Arab League asked for our involvement but then when we got involved- they hid in the shadows. Was that their plan all along?

In an almost comical statement from our President, “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”-  I have to wonder if he applied that logic to the Libyan operations.

It sure doesnt seem like it as President Obama has not given a budget or financial impact report on Libya. It is known that within the first day, $100 million were spent on Tomahawk Missiles and basic overhead cost with the cost increasing exponentially, piling on top of our already massive $14.3 trillion debt.

President Obama stated, “So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

I have to disagree as Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that Libya was NOT an immediate threat. Granted, we receive 2% of our oil from Libya and we prefer Libyan oil as it is sweeter and much easier to refine so that would be a major complication but our safety was not at risk and is untruthful for Obama to continue to state otherwise.

In a confused statement, Obama proclaimed, “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

If that is the case, then why has President Obama not laid out a clear, decisive and directive plan and exit strategy? Looks like more fluff and empty statements from our “Commander in Chief” (and I use that term loosely).

Obama then stated, “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold.”

What Obama is failing to grasp is that the US and her people were not “attacked” and Libya did not pose a direct threat to our safety.

Further, how can Obama state that we are going after Al Qaeda in places like Afghanistan yet are willing to take a chance in supporting them (and Obama is pushing to coordinate their command centers and arming the opposition) when Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed that he has “not ruled out that the Libyan opposition is infiltrated with Al Qaeda”.

Who is really the enemy here? Isnt that slight hypocritical, and dangerous, on our part to blindly support the opposition without knowing who is really pulling the puppet strings and without knowing their intentions and long term plan as the Middle East is more militaristic than democracy driven.

It appears that the general consensus on Obama’s speech left the public flat, uninspired and even more skeptical of our involvement in Libya.

I dont feel that Obama made any case for our involvement other than appealing to our emotional side but I am a woman of logic, facts, financial figures and strategy.

Since he did not give any true detail on that- I give Obama a huge F for FORGETTING that the US Constitution must be followed at all times, for FABRICATING the Truth and claiming he received Congressional Approval when it is a known fact that he did not and for FAILING the American People as our President.

Copyright (c) April 1, 2011. All rights reserved.

Libyan Questions that MUST be answered before we continue with Operation Odyssey Dawn.


A multi phased mission, deceivingly named Operation Odyssey Dawn, involves several nations with the lead position being held by the US, the French and the British military forces against Muammar Qaddafi forces in Libya, after the nations became convinced that the Libyan leader was not adhering to a United Nations mandated cease fire.

The United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan have also agreed to provide humanitarian or logistical support.

Together- US & Britain launched 128 Tomahawk missiles on areas of deemed “threat” by Pro Qaddafi forces.

With the UN’s help- Libyan opposition forces claimed victory Saturday over Muammar Qaddafi’s forces in a strategically located in the Eastern city but the battle in the West raged as loyalists tanks resumed shelling Misrata, the city next to Tripoli (Libyas capital) and are setting up camp, after a recent victory for the opposition, in Ajdabiya.

With the importance of Ajdabiya and its strategic location that sits on the path to Tripoli, this could be seen as a turning point favoring Anti-Qaddafi protesters with the Western gate falling on Thursday and the Western  Gate falling on Friday

However, at this point it still is yet to be determined WHO the Anti-Qaddafi protesters actually are?

A number of on the ground contacts state that the leadership falls under Al Qaeda with Hezbollah and Hamas thrown in for extra volatility.

At this point, Britain & France have stated that a no fly zone has been established with Italy pushing for all the nations involved to fall under NATO command.

A NATO structure is still being finalized at this point, however it is said that the US would report to Canadian Lt. General  Bouchard who will be assigned as the joint task force commander (which pleases me greatly as I am French-Canadian) and one thing that I can tell you about Canadians is that they have a great appreciation for the US as their Southern neighbor. I feel that we would be in “safe” hands.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in a news conference that “NATO is in the beginning stages of operation.”

However, it is at THIS point that the United States should retreat and get our bearings together. To continue this fight without huddling back in the US would be a GRAVE mistake.

Before we even continue doing ANYTHING with Libya, Obama MUST get congressional approval and explain to the American People , where much disapproval abounds, a long term plan AND budget, how much this war is going to cost, and an exit strategy.

Let’s learn from our war in Afghanistan and not fight a fuzzy battle of “hope and change”. We need clear cut definition and directive not to mention a declaration of war, as required in the US Constitution, if Congress approves this costly action.

We need to gather our bearings as Obama has said one thing about the war but does the exact opposite. This is not news to us who have been following Obama since the 2010 election. This is a pattern of his; however, now its serious because our US military service men & women lives are stake.

There are several questions that need to be answered before we continue with military operations in Libya. For example;

1. The name Operation Odyssey Dawn.  Is Obama not aware of Homer’s Ilaid and Odyssey where Odysessus travels almost 10 years to get back home to Ithaca? But if you ask Obama, he sees our involvement will be quick. There’s a disconnect. What is the timeline for our involvement in Libya? Obama said it will be “short” but there are serious long term implications if we wage war with Libya as we are all interconnected.

2.  Obama did not consult with Congress before going into this war. He did not set forth a long term plan, budget or exit strategy. It is unclear as to how much this war will cost us. What we do know is that it costs approximately $575, 000 for each cruise missile fired.

At this point, there were 112 confirmed missiles fired and then 16 missiles were said to be fired in a second round (AFTER Obama said he would not send any more missiles because of the exorbitant cause and massive amount of innocent Libyan lives).

That comes to 128 Tomahawk Cruise missiles being fired which results in a WHOPPING $73.6 MILLION.  That price does not include the overhead and maintenance costs of our Airforce & Navy.

3. Obama states that his goal is to get rid of Qaddafi’s power but not Qaddafi. Oh; so we are just going to make Qaddafi angry enough to ban oil exports to the US?  Is Obama planning on having a divided Libya where Qaddafi controls the West side and the unknown rebels control the East? How is this supposed to work in our benefit again?

4. Where is the Arab League? Qater has flown fighter jets overhead but that is the only member who has stepped up to the plate. They asked for our help, as most of you know, I have stated since the beginning that we SHOULD NOT TAKE A ROLE LEAD IN LIBYA. Yet, that is EXACTLY what we are doing. This is not OUR fight. We need to step back and let Libya decide the history of Libya.

5. Where does  Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkey and Italy stand in this fight?  Can we count on their support? Would they be willing to be a lead player in this human rights correction?

6. If we are going to war with Libya because of a human rights violation- do we set the same standard for the other middle east countries doing the same thing? At present count, I have noted 11 areas of disrest. 1. Afghanistan 2. Iraq 3. Tunisia 4. Egypt 5. Libya 6. Bahrain 7. Jordan 8. Yemen 9. Algeria  10. Iran and now 11. Syria.

7. What is the operational budget and how much it is going to cost us taxpayers? I know its  a hard concept for Obama to grasp but money does not grow on trees.

8. What is the exit strategy? How can we avoid another Afghanistan or Vietnam?

9. Who are these Anti-Qaddafi forces really? What do we know about them? From I understand they are a mixture of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas.

If that is the case, why are we going to support them? Their way of life is VERY different from ours- do you really think they will cater to the US like Libya has?? Really? Im sure their definition of freedom is VERY different than our definition.

We need to do a serious background check on these people before we commit time, money, arms and military.

10. If we get into this war, is there a possibility of WW3?  As it looks to me, I see two very distinct sides of this equation.

On one side, stands the US, Israel, Jordan, Yemen, France, Britain, Europe, Canada, South Korea (hopefully Saudi Arabia), Italy, Japan and the Arab League

Against Group B-of  Libya, Old Egypt, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Iran, North Korea, Russia (and more than likely, China).

Read more about the WW3 implications by visiting: https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/is-wwwiii-in-the-near-future-qaddafis-latin-american-allies-blast-military-attacks/

Does anybody else see this potential line up?  If this happens, what are the repercussions and cost of that?! How can WW3 be avoided if we do decide (which I advise AGAINST) to get involved in Libya.

11. Are we prepared to lose Libya’s oil supply? What steps can we do to lessen our foreign dependence on oil?  I can hear the drill baby drill crowd chanting and I am supportive of drilling in preapproved areas as long as we dont add any NEW drilling in the Gulf.  So what other means are available? Plenty and the majority of them can be implemented simulatenously.

So many, in fact, I created a radio show especially to showcase how we can lower our gas cost. Listen here by visiting: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/heart-of-america-radio/2011/03/10/hoas-gus-guzzler-special-edition-03102011

There are many questions that need to be answered and Obama needs to be honest about his stance and his vision of the US involvement in Libya.

So what can WE do about it? For starters, you can contact:

Obama’s staff directly at 1-202-456-1111. Try it, you get to talk to a live person. I  have memorized this number, I call it so much.

Tell them that we need to regroup and figure out the long term plan and exit strategy as well as the cost and the increase in taxes (its either an increase in taxing or cutting more programs to balance!) and how us going into Libya in an attempt to get cheaper oil is a risky investment and not one that you are willing to take, not with a $14.3 trillion dollar debt haunting our children and grandchildren and no clear definition, direction, exit strategy or budget.

Also, make it a point to contact your Senators and Representatives to put more pressure on them and encourage them to stand up against President Obama (we elected them to be our voice!)

Representative Search: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Senate Search: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Finally, dont be afraid to contact your local news media and speak up! The Truth needs to be heard and it is up to US to deliver it. You can do it, I believe in you. If you need help getting started, email me at Theheartofamerica@wordpress.com and Ill help point you in the right direction.

Obama may have preached about hope and change and while change is certainly occurring. I have found many people to have lost their hope and that is a dangerous slippery slope that must be avoided at all costs.

Stay hopeful, stay faithful- Together we will solve this problem and work towards bettering our children’s future. That I promise you.

Copyright (c) March 26, 2011. All rights reserved.

President Obama’s Unconstitutional War with Libya and Call for Impeachment from Both Sides of the Political Fence.


President Obama has longed for bipartisan support to his directives and finally he received it.

However, this bipartisan support does not work in President Obama’s favor as many on both sides of the political fence are coming together under a mutual agreement that President Obama directly violated Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which separated powers for the decision to go into war intentionally with the approval of Congress, in an attempt to thwart the tyranny of kings.

In fact, one of the US’s Founding Fathers, James Madison stated, “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature”.

However, President Obama has proven time and time again that he feels that he is above the law and has shown that he is willing to strip rights away from people (this time not just the common people but the legislature at large!)

In a harshly worded statement Monday evening, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) declared, “The United States does not have a King’s army.”

“President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution,” said Bartlett, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent ally of the president on foreign policy, also called Monday for “full congressional debate on the objectives and costs” of  military action in Libya — and a declaration of war if it goes on.

“There needs to be a plan about what happens after Qaddafi” Lugar said in a statement. “Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all. President Obama, so far, has only expressed vague hopes.”

Not that these “grand hopes with little detail” should be a surprise to everyone as he ran his campaign on the vague concepts of “hope” and “change” and let the American people fill in the blanks with whatever their definition of hope and change was without setting a clear sense of direction.

Much like Operation Odyssey Dawn.

This time though, the criticism is not coming from just the Republican side of the camp but also that of his own party.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC Monday “this isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.”

“We have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way,” said Webb. “The president is in Rio, the Congress is out of session.”

In a conference call over the weekend, several House Democrats reportedly raised questions about the president’s action in Libya, without having consulted Congress.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Monday the president should have done so.

“I truly believe that before we put our young people in harm’s way that people in the Congress should be able to explain to their constituents that our national security was in jeopardy,” he said.

Obama secured United Nations approval in the form of a security council resolution that calls for the protection of Libyan citizens, and waited until the Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone, despite initial opposition.

However,  Under the War Powers Resolution, a president must get congressional authorization to deploy U.S. troops except in the case of a clear threat or emergency to the US.

It is important to note that the US was not in direct danger- our gas prices rose but as far as physical danger- we were not at risk. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates agrees.

That is, the Libyan circumstances does not justify President Obama authorizing air strikes on Qaddafi without the approval of Congress, a concept that Obama is failing to grasp.

Quoting the War Powers Resolution is all well and good and I would be supportive of his action if the Libyan turmoil presented a direct and imminent threat here at the United States but it doesnt.

What President Obama did was essentally get involved in a civil rights battle in the middle east.

For all of you who are saying that he is protecting human rights of freedom, ask yourself this– If that is what Obama was really doing, then how come he did not intervene in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen as the leading government was oppressing their rights to freedom.  President Obama was oddly silent on those happenings.

If you are going to fight for human rights, then they must always be defended- not selected by the President WITHOUT the approval of Congress.

Once again, the Obama of Yesteryear conflict with Obama of the Current Times as  in 2007, Obama told The Boston Globe that it is always “preferable” to have “the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

Obama even goes further to say, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said, responding to a question about when a president could bomb Iran without use-of-force authorization from Congress.

In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

On Monday afternoon, responding to the congressional pushback, he sent a 2 page  letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the president pro tem of the Senate, offering excuses for violating the Constitution, ahem, asserting his constitutional authority.

He noted he did not deploy ground troops into Libya and that the U.S. is conducting a “limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

Well defined mission? It is apparent that there is NOT a long term consequence plan mapped out.

He said he “directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” he wrote. “I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

Further, Obama did not mention the budgetary impact of the military campaign in that letter, but cost has become a flashpoint.

Proven, once again, Obama does not take the budgetary consequences of how actions into consideration.

Our Founding Fathers were absolutely clear in their demand that the country would only go to war upon the collective decision of the representatives of the People.

“The facts are that our budget is stretched too far and our troops are stretched too far,” Lugar said in a statement. “The American people require a full understanding and accounting, through a full and open debate in Congress.”

Additionally, a primary reason for creating a system of representation was due to exigencies of the day that made it impossible for the People to meet and decide their fate in person.

Thus, the true reason for entrusting the Legislature with the power to declare war was to ensure that the People would be involved in the decision as much as was physically possible.

What the Framers did not imagine was a weak and ineffectual Congress that failed to claim its rightful authority in deciding when the nation would go to war, or a power-hungry President that wouldn’t refuse an extra-constitutional transfer of such power from Congress.

If a President failed to recognize the US Constitution in pursuing a war with a country that posed no liable threat to the US- that would be room for impeachment.

Even VP Biden supports impeaching Obama for his offensive into Libya. Well, he didnt say those words exactly but what he DID say was that he would look to impeach Bush if he went into Iran without congressional approval (video evidence below)- so he should stand behind his belief  or else prove to be hypocritical.

What can WE do about it? For starters, you can contact:

Obama’s staff directly at 1-202-456-1111.  Try it, you get to talk to a live person.

Tell them that we need to regroup and figure out the long term plan, BUDGET and EXIT strategy as well as the cost and the increase in taxes (its either an increase in taxing or cutting more programs to balance!).

Also mention that the Libyan air strikes go against the US Constitution as it violates Section 1, Article 8 as Obama collaborated with the UNs and engaged in an offense attack without the approval of Congress.

Causally mention that our current debt of $14.3 trillion is a concern and knowing that the Tomahawk cruise missiles are $575k a piece, you are not comfortable with the fact that we, in a matter of a week, threw $73.6 million on top of our debt with the deployment of 128 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

For an added punch, tell them that you remember when VP Biden supported impeaching Bush if he went into Iran without Congressional approval and this is the exact same situation.

Also, make it a point to contact your Senators and Representatives to put more pressure on them and encourage them to stand up against President Obama (we elected them to be our voice!)

Representative Search: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Senate Search: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Copyright (c) March 22, 2011. All rights reserved.

All this controversy about the Defense of Marriage Act, yet the answer is obviously clear.


In the midst of controversy that has sparked actions and harsh words from both sides of the political fence, Speaker John Boehner announced that the House will defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in Court.

The action comes after President Obama instructed the Justice Department last month to no longer defend the law, which bans the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“Today, after consultation with the Bipartisan Leadership Advisory Group, the House General Counsel has been directed to initiate a legal defense of this law,” said Boehner.

“This action by the House will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group consists of three Republican members of the House — Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) — and two Democrats: Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.).

The group has the authority to instruct House General Counsel Kerry Kirchner to take legal action on behalf of the lower chamber, and it often gets involved in situations where House leaders believe there are institutional or separation-of-powers issues involved.

The resolution calls on the speaker to direct the House General Counsel to “take such steps as he considers appropriate,” including filing an amicus brief, to “protect the interests of the House in litigation in which the Attorney General has ceased to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

My concern is not placed on the Defense of Marriage Act  but rather on the fact that Obama declared it Unconstitutional. Since when did he become a Supreme Court Justice?!

Since when can the President state that he is not going to follow the rule of the land? Is that not an abuse of power?

If that is the case then I declare that the Healthcare Law is unconstitutional and I refuse to acknowledge it as law. See how that could turn into a slippery slope?

Here’s an easy solution to this problem of “marriage”.

Grant homosexuals the ability to enter “civil union”s with the same tax breaks as heterosexuals.

That way, the only difference between the two is who can get married in a church and a definition of marital status.

While we are at it,  homosexuals should also be able to adopt (after passing the same criteria as heterosexual couples) as our adoptions center are overcrowded and under paid.

I would much rather have children go to a family of two loving homosexuals then having to live at an orphanage.

Really, the answer is that simple.

If advocates from both sides of the fence would step back and take a deep breath and stop getting hung up over the word “marriage”, they would realize it as well.

Copyright (c) March 10, 2011. All rights reserved.

Florida Judge who declared Obamacare unconstitutional sends msg to White House with second ruling


Roger Vinson, the U.S. federal judge who ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in its entirety, has ruled again on the health-care law.

On Thursday, Judge Vinson issued a stay on his earlier ruling that the law could not be enforced.

In doing so, he sent a clear message to the Obama administration: Appeal my decision to a higher court or stop implementing the law.

When Judge Vinson ruled on Jan. 31 that the health-care law was unconstitutional, the administration followed up by filing a motion for clarification rather than filing an official appeal.

Vinson’s ruling criticized the administration for that action.

“During the four-plus weeks since entry of my order, the defendants have seemingly continued to move forward and implement the act,” Vinson wrote. “While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.”

Now, Vinson has given the Obama administration an ultimatum to either stop implementing the law, or appeal it – presumably to the Supreme Court.

Following Vinson’s initial ruling, Florida and Alaska stopped implementing the law. Several other states have lawsuits pending challenging its constitutionality.

Meanwhile, President Obama continues on-  completely disregarding the ruling of Florida’s District Court.

Copyright (c) March 3, 2011. All rights reserved.

The REAL ID Act did not make it to the chopping block for the newest Continuing Resolution cut.


For a moment, imagine a future where you are not able to drive a car, get on a plane, get on a train, vote, enter a federal building, open a bank account or get a job without a national ID card. You don’t think that could ever happen in America? Think again as the REAL ID Act goes into effect on May 11, 2011 unless something is done to stop it.

States must be in compliance by May 11th with the regulations laid out in the 2005 REAL ID Act. The law, a recommendation from the Sept 11th Commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks, create a national security standard for state-issued identification cards to be used for general and every day purposes.

As of May 11th of this year,  all driver’s licenses across the United States will be required to conform to federal national security standards.  In essence, our licenses are now going to be federalized and our personal information is going to be compiled in a national database which could result in a field day for hackers and for perpetrators of identify theft as well as government tracking purposes.

Feeling safer yet?

Now security officials will have the ability to ask us for our “papers” just like they used to do in Nazi Germany and the USSR. Let the good times roll.

Back in 2008, former U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote the following about how not having one of these new national ID cards would automatically strip us of some of our most fundamental rights that are guaranteed to us by the US Constitution.

A person not possessing a REAL ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of a Congressmen/Senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Not to mention that the REAL ID Act is in direct violation of the 10th amendment’s declaration of state powers and destroys states’ dual sovereignty and consolidates every American’s private information on a federal database, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves.

I would even go as far as to predict that eventually these national ID cards will likely be required for virtually every single interaction that we have with the federal government, progressively stripping away our rights.

The government has decided that in order to keep us “safe”, everything that we do must be capable of being watched, tracked, traced, recorded and controlled.

I say that we are capable of keeping ourselves safe and we need little, if any, oversight from the federal government.

At one point, there was an Amendment 277 to the Continuing Resolution that proposed defunding the REAL ID Act in the H.R. 1 where $100 billion in spending cuts  was proposed but Democrats rejected it and this defunding does not appear to be in the list for the $4 billion continuing resolution.

To read Amendment 277  as proposed in 2011 H.R. 1, please visit and scroll down: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-02-14/html/CREC-2011-02-14-pt1-PgH776-3.htm

To read the $4 billion Continuing Resolution, set to expire March 18, 2011- please visit: http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/March-18-CR_xml.pdf

As a country we are continually revising what freedom does mean.  With each issue or threat we are allowing our rights to become privileges.   The solution to issues, what some may call threats, must not be to sacrifice our liberty.

With the adoption of our proposed solution and the state legislation that we have made available we can ensure we each regardless of political ideology or religious beliefs will fulfill our foremost responsibility as citizens.

The foremost responsibility of all citizens is to pass on to our children and grandchildren the rights, liberty and freedom we inherited at such great sacrifice of previous generations.  Failure or compromise on fulfilling our foremost responsibility is not an option.

While illegal immigration IS a problem, the bigger problem posed with the REAL ID is the ability to strip away the privacy of the American citizen.

Please contact your Representatives in Washington D.C. and let them know that you want the Real ID Act repealed & defunded once and for all.

Remind them that not only does the Real ID Act violate our Constitutional Rights but it also imposes $11 billion onto the states when most states are already bankrupt, leaving the states to do one of two things- raise taxes or cut spending —  several things that neither party should want to be associated with, especially coming up in the election year.

To contact your Representative, please visit: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Published in: on March 2, 2011 at 1:04 am  Leave a Comment  

Constitutional Concerns Index


26 (potentially 28) states have filed a lawsuit against Obamacare.

Florida to rule on constitutionality of the healthcare bill.

House Republicans unveil new bill to ban resurrection of Fairness Doctrine

Proposals put squeeze on Florida’s jobless and violates the US & Fla Constitution.

Senate Democrats- Finally expressing the Unconstitutionality of the health care law.

Senate strikes down health care reform road, Republicans find an alternate route.

Serrano’s Mission: Abolishing the 22nd Amendment.

PREDICTION: Healthcare law will be sent to the Supreme Court. Eyes on Scalia/Kagan.

Verizon challenges FCC net neutrality rules.

Published in: on February 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm  Leave a Comment  

Proposals put squeeze on Florida’s jobless and violates the US & Fla Constitution.


Job seekers surviving on unemployment benefits that top out at $275 a week aren’t the only ones facing a financial squeeze.

Business groups and Republican lawmakers point to dire finances for the state’s unemployment system, which has been sapped by an economic downturn that left more than 1 million Floridians seeking work.

Unemployment benefits are paid through an insurance system that gets little attention in good times. Employers pay a small premium every year, and workers who are laid off collect benefits.

However, with more people collecting unemployment in a weak labor market, and fewer employers paying into the system as businesses have failed, costs have soared. Two years ago, the minimum unemployment insurance premium for Florida employers was $8 per year per employee. This year, the minimum has soared to $72, and next year it’s expected to top $200.

Those skyrocketing costs led the Florida Retail Federation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to push for tighter limits on unemployment benefits.

“We want small businesses to hire people, not go out of business,” said state Sen. Nancy Detert of Venice FL, sponsor of a bill that would make it harder for some to collect unemployment checks. “We’re looking for abuses of the system so we don’t put small businesses who are hanging on by a thread out of business.”

Detert is suggesting that job seekers accept low-paying job offers. During the first 12 weeks of unemployment, they’d have to accept any job that paid at least 80% of their previous wage. After that, they’d have to take any job that paid at least as much as their unemployment benefits.

This is RIDICULOUS logic as it would put more strain on the family to accept the percentage of amount and find quality childcare at a reduced cost. You cannot impose this logic without having a supplemental child care plan.

Detert also would require unemployment recipients to submit to skills tests to determine whether they’ll appeal to employers.

Now here is something I can agree with. Skill tests would allow job seeking citizens an opportunity to find and focus on their strengths to better connect with hiring employers.

In addition to Detert’s Senate bill, a House bill introduced last week would shorten the duration of state unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks if the state unemployment rate falls below 9 percent. Florida’s jobless rate now stands at 12 percent.

And Governor Rick Scott has proposed requiring drug tests and community service of job seekers who receive unemployment benefits.

If the unemployment rate falls below 9%, I would support the concept of lessening unemployment benefit weeks. However, I disagree with Governor Scott proposal unless somebody drive out to the recipient’s house to administer the drug tests.

It would be unfair to require unemployed citizens to come out to get drug tested when the price of gas is so high and most of the time, these unemployed citizens do not have two cents to rub together.  Not to mention that it is in direct violation of Florida’s Constitution Article 1, Section 12 and the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Proponents of tighter rules say they’re not trying to punish the unemployed.

The intent is to weed out the system such as the example of unemployed people collecting benefits even though they’ve been fired for stealing from their employers or for failing drug tests, or even though they voluntarily quit their jobs. The push in Tallahassee aims to weed out the unknown number of Floridians who collect benefits when they shouldn’t.

I understand money is tight but we cannot unjustly squeeze Florida’s unemployment fund during a time of teetering recession/depression.

I am supportive of cuts to wasteful and abusive parts of our state’s unemployment but to require that people accept 80% of their normal pay and not provide quality childcare or require unemployed citizens to drive to take a drug test in order to qualify for unemployment is ludicrous and morally irresponsible.

To contact Senator Nancy Detert of Venice FL and tell her not to push a “work” program that doesnt have adequate and quality child care coverage which puts our children at risk, please call: (941) 480-3547.

To contact Governor Scott and ask him not to require unemployment recipients to get drug tested as it is against the 4th amendment of the US Constitution and the 1st Article/Section 12 of Florida’s Constitution, please call: (850) 488-7146.

House Republicans unveil new bill to ban resurrection of Fairness Doctrine


Representative Mike Pence has introduced a bill to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reviving the policy, a controversial and defunct standard that required broadcast licensees to offer “balanced” coverage. Critics saw it as an affront to free speech.

Pence is joined on the bill by dozens of other Republicans, including various members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Communications subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, who oversees the FCC, has signed onto the bill.

The bill also has Democratic support, with Rep. John Yarmuth getting on board. Other Energy and Commerce members include Communications Vice Chairman Reps. Lee Terry  and Representatives Marsha Blackburn, Mary Bono Mack, Joe Barton, and Cliff Stearns.

The effort comes ahead of a hearing next week that will include all four FCC commissioners and the chairman, and indicates that the overwhelming feeling among House Republicans that this FCC has shown too much regulatory zeal.

One can only hope that the FCC listens to the Republican Party for if this ruling allows to stand, it’s in blantant disregard to the 1st Amendment that grants us our freedom of speech and freedom of the press as a possible outcome of the Doctrine would result in controversial speech being stiffled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as “unbalanced” views.

Not to mention that broadcasters would be less reluctant to offer their personal opinions for then they would have to allow time for the opposing viewpoint to be heard essentially stiffing their freedom of speech.

This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial h of public importance,” and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. (“FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine,” Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.)

If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views.

With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host.   Turn the dial.

Copyright (c) February 11, 2011. All rights reserved.

Published in: on February 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm  Leave a Comment  

Senate Democrats- Finally Expressing the Unconstitutionality of the Health Care Law.


To much relief of concerned Republicans, A group of Senate Democrats are discussing ways to take aim at part of the Unconstitutional controversy of the new health care law- the individual mandate.

“We’re looking at everything humanly possible. I’ve always had a concern and a problem with the mandate, that we were forcing it, basically saying by the law of the land you have to buy the product,” Senator Joe Manchin.

Manchin is one of the moderate Democrats trying to figure out how to repeal the individual mandate. While talks are still in the early stages, Manchin hopes the push will take shape sooner rather than later.

Joining him in these efforts could be a handful of other Democrats who are also up for re-election in 2012: Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, and Montana’s Jon Tester.

Nelson, for one, has been exploring alternatives to the individual mandate since even before the bill was signed into law.

A former insurance commissioner, he has written to both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office asking them to analyze various alternatives.

If the GAO and CBO eventually provide him with alternatives that would be improvements on the individual mandate, then he could propose legislation to replace the current law.

In addition, Nelson and Manchin have similar profiles and could end up leading this charge, possibly even unveiling a plan within weeks.

Meanwhile, Tester and McCaskill have indicated that they are willing to look at any proposal that improves the law.

Ultimately, the four senators appear interested in improving the bill if a better alternative exists.

Trust me, there is definitely a better bill. So their support is a welcomed addition.

Copyright (c) February 8, 2011. All rights reserved.