The view on the way to Grandma's for Thanksgiving.

Got this in an email......

The top car pool

An Open Letter to the United States Senators of the 111th Congress.

Honorable Senator,

This open letter is addressed to Senators who believe their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America is above party politics, personal prestige, or career advancement.

Once again a few men and women stand upon a pivot of history. Once again a mere handful will determine the fate of nations and people. This time the burden falls on your shoulders, the decisions you make in the next two years will determine whether the Constitution of the United States of America stands, or is irreparably changed.

You, a United States Senator sought high office. You took an oath to uphold, defend, and protect the ideals set forth in the Constitution. You’ve chosen this place and time to serve, history and posterity calls you now to do your sworn duty.

President Elect Obama and the Democrat party have set forth the agenda. Many parts of this agenda are not only in direct opposition to the Constitution, they undermine the spirit, values, and intent of the Constitution.

It is your sworn duty to stand in opposition to this agenda. This agenda is an assault on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The assault on our foundational rights includes but is not limited to direct legislative, administrative and judicial restrictions on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.

Sen. Charles Schumer

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man...Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech, a thing terrible to public traitors. It has been for some time a question with me, whether a commonwealth suffers more by the hypocritical pretenders to religion or by the openly profane?... Some late thoughts of this nature have inclined me to think that the hypocrite is the most dangerous person of the two, especially if he sustains a post in the government...They take him for a saint and pass him for one, without considering that they are (as it were) the instruments of public mischief out of conscience, and ruin their country for God's sake."

Ben Franklin

President Elect Obama through a spokesperson has stated his opposition to the “Fairness Doctrine” however he does promote other regulatory restriction on other mediums of speech. Many of the Democratic leadership have expressed support for the “Fairness Doctrine” and the intent to bring it to the floor in the next congress, especially with the election of a Democrat President. His early appointment of Henry Rivera, an avid advocate of the “Fairness Doctrine” indicates the direction the Administration is headed in.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367) ruled at the time the Doctrine did not violate the 1st Amendment. However they did rule that if the Doctrine ever did restrain speech the constitutionality should be reconsidered. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, (418 U.S. 241) ruled the Doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.” This inescapably dampening of speech is a defacto abridgement of speech.

The Founding Fathers realized that as long as the people had a voice, could speak out, could voice all opinions with out repercussions that the openness benefited all. It is when this voice is stifled, restricted, limited, when the people have no outlet for their concerns that eventually alternative methods of seeking a voice is sought.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In 1996 President Elect Obama answering a question from the Independent Voters of Illinois:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. Ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. Mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

"US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

Diane Feinstein 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Samuel Adams,

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

President Elect Obama has publicly stated he can’t confiscate the people’s arms because he does not have the votes. The only thing that now keeps him from having the votes is those of you in the Senate that will stand with the Constitution. The President Elect’s party has a long history of passing legislation that in small incremental steps infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S (2008) affirmed this right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The right is not collective, limit to a militia. Some of the Justice disagreed with this point, which is made clear not only in the language of the Constitution, but in the supporting writings and words of the Framers. President Elect Obama’s appointments to the court will likely mirror the minority opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right.

Attacks on the peoples right to defend their sovereignty and maintain the consent of the governed takes many forms. Out right un-constitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, the use of onerous “reasonable restrictions” in the name of public safety, excessive taxation on arms and supplies. All aimed and limited the right of the people to defend themselves and maintain liberty.

The first amendments primary purpose, the very reason the Founding Fathers including it is to preserve for eternity the sovereignty of the individual and the consent of the governed. The final check on tyranny is an armed population. This is not a call for insurrection. It is what the Founding Fathers put in place to preserve the right of the people to resist tyranny. The Founders placed the peoples right to preserve liberty not on the good will of the government or at the pleasure of powers and potentates. The Founders placed the power to preserve liberty directly, purposely in the hands of the people, in the form of arms.

Taxation:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

11th Amendment

President Elect Obama in a well-publicized conversation with a citizen said he would “spread the wealth around.”

"It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut,"

Sen. Joseph Biden

Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to “soak the rich,” Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.

The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.

Thomas Jefferson

John Locke wrote of Life, Liberty and Property. That from the right to Life flowed Liberty, living life to suit oneself. From Liberty flows the opportunity through ones own labor, the ability and initiative of the individual to acquire property. Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of independence extended property to pursuit of happiness, the existential pursuit that does not directly produce property. Jefferson did not excluded property; he expanded Locke’s vision to include all the endeavors of the human mind and spirit.

Nowhere in the Constitution is “fairness” a guarantee, what is in the Constitution is equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment. The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

“Spread the Wealth” is merely “from each according to ability, to each according to need” rephrased to be more palatable. It is all the same, taking by force of government the fruit of labor of one individual and giving it to another. Such a concept is nowhere in the Constitution. The Founders would have found idea abhorrent.

The Constitution and Framers did see the need for necessary taxation for the common good. Where the tax levied was used to benefit all equally. All citizens benefit from the security provided by the national defense, all of us benefit from infrastructure paid for with taxes. Taking from one and giving to another, harms one, benefits another, and in the harms the initiative of all. Why sweat, labor and toil to produce something, that when successful will only result in the confiscation of the property so intensely brought forth by the individual?

Spreading the wealth violates the right to Property, since Property flows from Liberty, the right to Liberty is violated and ultimately the right to Life itself is violated by take from the individual property they have spent a portion of their Life acquiring.

Judiciary:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section II

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

Barack Obama on WEBZ in 2001.

The Judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (465)

This portion of the agenda requires the appointment of judges who view the Constitution as an impediment to the progressive agenda, not a foundational document against which all law is tested.

The judges that President Elect Obama is on record as seeking will fundamentally alter the meaning of our founding documents. The effect of these changes is that rights established as inalienable and untouchable by governments or other men, will be allowed by, administered through, and granted at the whim of those currently in power. Our fundamental rights are not arbitrary or with in the province of the government. They must at all costs remain forever, inalienable.

President Elect Obama’s nomination if he follows his on the record statements will be the type to make radical changes to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate has the duty to advise the President on his choices, and then to consent to them. Your first duty as Senators is to uphold the Constitution. Duty requires that you advise the President not to send forth for nomination judicial nominees who would make wholesale changes to the Constitution. Duty also requires that you block such a nominee if they are sent to the Senate for confirmation.

Security of our rights, equitable taxation for the common good, the right of self defense against tyranny, and freedom of speech, These were the keys to the foundation and formation of our government, the consent of the governed, and the insurance and security of these invaluable rights. The incoming executive branch and congressional majority are on record and have in the past taken steps, proposed legislation, and announced the intent to irrecoverable alter these basic ideas at the foundation of our Republic.

With he structure of our government it falls to a minority in the Senate, the handful who understand and believe such changes to the core of our Republic is unwise, and a violation of our core principals as a people and nation. It is far easier for the Senate to stop these changes, than for them to be reversed at a later date.

The time as come. Your choice, and the course of human events has placed you at the critical position for the up coming events.

On July 2, 1863 Col. Joshua Chamberlain was on the extreme flank of the Union Army, Chamberlain knew if his line were breached, the entire Union Army at Gettysburg would be at risk of being routed. He and his men were exhausted, thirsty, and nearly out of ammunition, Chamberlain ordered his men to fix bayonets and charged. He secured the flank, and ended that threat to the Army. Chamberlain considers only one thing, not career, not reputation, not even personal safety. He considered only his duty, which at that moment was to hold the flank.

The Senators of the 111th Congress now stand at the end of line. Political forces are attempting to flank the Constitution and our very liberty is at risk.

The question is will you, A United States Senator do you duty disregarding the risks and uphold your sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?