Chan Lowe & Conservatism

Chan Lowe

Chan Lowe proves cartoon after cartoon and column after column that he either has no clue as to what conservatives believe or that he doesn't care what they believe and will just make it up to suit his narrow view of the world.  Choose to be a liberal Mr. Lowe, if that makes you happy, but stop misrepresenting conservatism.

In a recent column Mr. Lowe opined on a sex survey distributed by the State of Florida.   I agree with Mr. Lowe that the Florida sex survey is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.  However, I don't agree it is representative of conservative thinking anymore than I think Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Al Gore, or Gary Hart's treatment of women is representative of liberal thinking.

Whoopi Goldberg

I also don't agree that words spoken by certain candidates for senate represent the views of all conservatives.  If I did then I would also have to believe that Whoopi Goldberg speaks for all liberals when she said of 43 year old Roman Polanski's raping and sodomizing of a 13 year old girl, "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."

Larry Flynt

I don't pretend to know, as Mr. Lowe appears to, the level of fascination that conservatives have with the topic of sex.  I don't pretend to know the liberals fascination with the topic of sex either but if the adult entertainment industry is an indication of the satisfaction level then it would be my guess that liberals are the more fascinated ones.  Larry Flynt, to the best of my recollection, never offered a bounty for dirt on a liberal.

The conservative concern on these matters, and all matters, centers around the powers of the Federal government.  The intent of the framers of our Constitution was that our Federal government should have limited powers.  They enumerated the specific powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.   Then they added what turned out to be the 10th Amendment that says all other powers not in the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. Despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, the reality is there is nothing in the Constitution about sex, abortion or contraception. There is not an enumerated power granting the Federal government any voice whatsoever on these matters. Constitutionally, each state is responsible for its laws governing sex, abortion and contraception.  The states are not required to make any laws on these matters.   Absent any state laws, sex, abortion and contraception decisions would be left to the individual.

Conservatives don't believe women (and men) are incapable of making these decisions or any decisions about their lives.  To the contrary, conservatives believe in individual liberty and self determination.  People should have the freedom to make their own decisions.   Some of those decisions will turn out to be good, while others may turn out to be bad.  In a civil and moral society the results of those decisions accrue to the individual.  There is no obligation for the individual to share the results of their good decisions with others, nor is there an obligation that others shelter the individual from their bad decisions.   However, we know from experience that Americans freely share their success with others, while others freely provide support to those that are truly in need.  We the People do this better and more efficiently than any government, not matter how large or how small.

Conservatives believe that there is a need for a Federal government but it is not the bloated out of control government that makes laws for abortion, contraception, marriage, light bulbs, shower heads, vending machines and school lunch menus.   Conservatives believe in a responsible and constitutional Federal government with specific enumerated powers.   All powers not enumerated are vested with the States or We the People.

So, Mr. Lowe, if you didn't know what conservatives believe you do now. Please stop with your misrepresentation and dishonesty.   If you want to know more about conservatism might I suggest you put down your National Geographic and pick up the book Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.

Jeopardy

Obama Q&A for $200 Alex.

Alex: The answer is:

"Well the truth of the matter is, you know, as President of the United States I have a lot of responsibilities,"

Abraham: What did Obama answer when he was asked, does the President of the United States have a lot of responsibilities?

Alex: Sorry, no.

Martin: What did Obama answer when he was asked, what's the funniest thing President Bush told you?

Alex: Sorry, that is incorrect.

John: What did Obama answer when he was asked, does Michelle load you up on the weekends with honey-dos?

Alex: Sorry, not even close.  The correct answer is, what did Obama say on June 11, 2012 in response to, there are a lot of Democrats that are upset you didn't campaign for Tom Barrett.

Unfortunately, it is non-responsive answers like the one our President gave above that has put our constitutional republic in serious jeopardy.

Let's give the President credit for correctly stating the volume of responsibilities of the President of the United States.  They are conveniently enumerated in Article 2 of our Constitution.  The President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and the Militia, he may require the opinion of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, he shall have Power to grant reprieves and pardons, he has the power to make treaties, he shall appoint Ambassadors, Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court and certain other officers of the United States, he shall have the power to fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess, he shall from time to time provide a State of the Union, he shall recommend to Congress for their consideration measures that he judges to be necessary, he may convene both houses of Congress, he may adjourn Congress if there is a dispute over adjournment, he shall receive ambassadors, and finally, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The President certainly has a lot of responsibilities.  So has every one of the 43 President's that came before him.  So will the 43 that come after him.

Implied in the President's answer is the time required to fulfill his responsibilities left no time available to go to Wisconsin and campaign for Mayor Barrett.  This part of the President's answer, like so many other answers given by the President and his surrogates, is so blatantly  untrue that I wonder how they speak these words while maintaining a straight face.  Don't ever play poker with Obama or members of his inner circle.

The signatures on the petitions to recall Governor Walker were certified on March 30, 2012 and the election took place June 5, 2012, leaving 66 days available for campaigning.  According to the President's daily schedule, during those 1,584 hours he attended several meetings and signed legislation that appears to be in keeping with his constitutional responsibilities.  His schedule also shows that during the  95,040 minutes he attended 29 campaign (code word for fundraiser) events.  He also hosted an Easter Egg roll, traveled to the country of Columbia (where some his secret service agents got secretly serviced) and joked he was there scouting out vacation spots, honored NASCAR driver Tony Stewart, hosted the NCAA football champs, was interviewed by Jimmy Fallon, hosted the NCAA basketball champs, completed the evolution of his thoughts on gay marriage (with help from his daughters), hosted at the White House a concert honoring songwriters Burt Bacharach and Hal David (apparently my invitation got lost in the mail), was a guest on The View, welcomed the Major League Soccer champions to the White House, gave the commencement address at Joplin High School in Missouri  (haven't these people suffered enough?), delivered the commencement address at the US Air Force Academy, and presented the Medal of Freedom to the Honorary Chair of Democratic Socialists of America.

Most of the weekend days during the 5,702,400 seconds showed no public schedule for the President.  We do know Obama played golf six times on the weekends on the dates of April 1, 7, 21, 29, May 12 and 26.  Perhaps the President was not aware there are golf courses in Wisconsin.  505 golf courses to be exact.  With a little planning Obama could have flown to Wisconsin, campaigned early in the day at a diner for breakfast, played 18 holes with some union bosses, and then back on the campaign trail for dinner with some wealthy liberals.

The President's claim that his presidential responsibilities left him with no campaign time for Wisconsin is laughable.  (If only he had an airplane at his disposal to fly him wherever and whenever he wanted to fly.)  The speculation that Obama stayed out of Wisconsin to avoid being associated with another election loss may be true but even if Walker was too strong of a candidate to defeat and Barrett too weak of a candidate to win, it was an opportunity for the President to be seen and heard by members of his base that he will need in November.  As with Coakley in Massachusetts, Corzine in New Jersey, and Giannoulias in Illinois, if the Obama backed person loses the blame gets attributed to the weakness of the candidate.

Obama entered his presidency with the belief he could bully Congress and the States to sign off on his agenda.  After the 2010 mid-term election he found out this was no longer possible.  Gridlock does not begin to describe the current stalemate in Congress.  It is more like an asteroid has hit the Earth and the grid has been vaporized.  Nothing is getting done in Congress between now and election day.

The States are even more out of Obama's control.  Twenty-seven States have sued the Federal government over Obamacare.  The Federal government sued Arizona over its new immigration law.  Florida and the Federal government are suing each other over the process of validating its voter rolls.  The State issues are filled with real world nitty gritty details that get in the way of Obama's grand utopian views.  Getting into the trenches of the local politics of Fond du Lac, Green Bay, Milwaukee and Racine would not have resulted in capturing the hearts and minds of the Badger state. 

Obama has learned there is no need for hand to hand combat along the streets of Madison when you have the ability to fly drones all over America.  The only way for the President to move Forward with the Hope and Change agenda is to bypass Congress and the Courts.  He ignored the court when it ruled he had to lift the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf.  He unilaterally decided to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act.  He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess.  He signed a treaty without the approval of Congress arguing that what he signed was not a treaty but rather, an executive agreement (whatever that is.)  These have been big, sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional executive branch actions or inactions.  Other than some huffing and puffing by Republicans, the President has gotten away with his failure to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  The checks and balances the Framers counted on to keep our government limited, are safely stored in the same lock box with all of our social security savings.  Somewhere the anti-Federalists are screaming a collective, "I told you so."

On Friday, June 15, 2012 the President bypassed Congress again with the announcement of a new deportation policy.  This appears to be a clear usurpation of an enumerated power of Congress stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."  If Congress does not do everything within in its Constitutional power to check the executive branch then we may as well cut spending by shutting this Congress down. 

Alex: It is time for Final Jeopardy.  The category is Authoritarian Rulers. Contestants, round your wagers to the nearest trillion.

Alex: And the answer is, Barack Obama, 2009 to 2035. (Cue the music.)

Hoodie

I have a confession to make. I am a Caucasian. As far as I know I am as Caucasian as they come. I have a Caucasian wife and two Caucasian children.

That's not my confession.

My confession is:

I own a hoodie.  OK, I own two hoodies. In fact, each member of my Caucasian family owns at least one hoodie.

Shocking, I know.  But each and every word of it is true.

We live in South Florida and it’s about 80 degrees outside these days so we're not wearing our hoodies this time of year. Although my son did wear one to school the other morning because they keep some of the classroom thermostats at a temperature cold enough to hang meat. He assured me that his wearing of his red hoodie that day was not related to anything to do with what may have taken place between Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman & the Sanford, Florida police department.

A brief pause to tell you all you need to know right now about what happened in Sanford, Florida:

1.  Trayvon Martin, while wearing a hoodie, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. The police investigated the matter and decided against arresting and prosecuting Zimmerman.

2.  In the weeks following the shooting, allegations have been made that the police acted improperly. Keep in mind, allegations are not necessarily facts.

3.  Never forget that our legal system is based in our belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. This extends to the deceased, the shooter and the police.

4.  The allegations have received national attention. The State of Florida is now monitoring the investigation.

5.  At some point the investigation will come to a conclusion and the City of Sanford and the State of Florida will take action based on its ability to build a case against the guilty party or parties.

Everything else you are hearing is noise. This is another Fluking. (If you are unfamiliar with the term "Fluking" then read this.) The attempt by the Marxists to turn this incident in Florida into a national race relations debate is a diversion. It is part of their strategy to divide the country, to pit this American against that American. They are desperately attempting to get us to stop pursuing our goal of restoring the limited Federal government envisioned by the Founders of our country and the Framers of our Constitution. Don't be Fluked, be Focused!

This brings me back to the hoodie.

My high paid staff of researchers have determined that the hoodie was the invention of the Knickerbocker Knitting Company (KKC <---Pretty close to being a problem. The KKC is now known as Champion Products and is owned by Hanes.) The hoodie first made an appearance sometime in the 1930's, during the depression. To my knowledge, the hoodie was available for sale to all American citizens, all non citizens visiting America legally and all non citizens in America illegally, regardless of sex, race, color, creed, economic status, religion or sexual orientation. The hoodie appears to be as American as apple pie, baseball, jazz music, Don King and Larry the Cable Guy.

The hoodie is not part of a clothing manufacture conspiracy to identify the "bad guys." Geraldo Rivera climbed up another step on the who's the biggest fool ladder when he said: 

"I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was." 

This is exactly the kind of vile rhetoric that leads to a Marxist plan to make the hoodie extinct. It will start with a sin tax on hoodies. Next there will be laws banning hoodies in restaurants and bars followed a few years later by a no hoodies in the workplace ordinance. Stadiums and theme parks will be required to have designated areas for hoodie wearing patrons.  Hoodie chasing lawyers will seek out victims of hoodie related incidents and sue hoodie manufacturers, distributors and retailers for damages. 

The bottom line is if something is not done now, the hoodie will soon be gone. All that might remain will be a handful of them kept on display at some off the beaten path museum.

Therefore America, I am taking a stand today. I refuse to allow the hoodie to become a symbol associated with any one particular sex, race, color, creed, economic status, religion or sexual orientation. I will be a General in the defense of the War on Hoodies. I want to make sure that all Americans, all visitors to America and all illegal aliens are free to don their hoodies.

(Because it needs to said, I do not believe the owning of a hoodie is an inalienable right, nor do I believe that there is a constitutionally protected right to hoodie ownership. I would strongly object if there was a Federal individual mandate that required all Americans to buy a hoodie or pay a penalty if they do not buy a hoodie. I would also object to a Cash for Clunker Hoodies program as a way of stimulating the economy. And by no means should you have to register or license your hoodie through a national database.)

One of my two hoodies

This is an urgent call for urgent action. I implore you to join with me in the wearing of a hoodie. Go to your closet; take the hoodie off the shelf or hanger. Pull it down over your head (or put it on one sleeve at a time and then zip it up.) Once it is on, proudly pull the hood over the back of your head, then on to the top of your head and finally, give the drawstrings a little tug to adjust the snugness. Now smile. You have just completed a great American tradition. With your hoodie comfortably in place, put on some jazz music, grab yourself a slice of apple pie and thank God that America is still the land of the free, the home of the brave and the nation that had the ingenuity to invent the hoodie.

Fluked!

While motoring along on a major highway you notice in front of you enough red lights to light up a certain district in Amsterdam.  You curse because you know this usually means there is an accident somewhere up ahead and one or more lanes of traffic are likely closed.

Inch by inch the traffic moves forward. Ten minutes. Fifteen minutes.  Twenty minutes.  Finally you can see the flashing lights of police and fire rescue vehicles up ahead on the left.  Traffic continues to slowly crawl forward.  You are now almost to the location of the accident.  You look over and discover the accident is on the other side of the highway on the road that is traveling in the opposite direction of you.

You curse the rubberneckers.  It’s thirty minutes of your life that you will never get back.  It’s some amount of gas and wear and tear on your car that was unnecessary.  Maybe the delay has caused you to be late for a meeting, a meal or a performance.  All these people in front of you, because they needed a brief glimpse of the tragedy on the other side of the road, have robbed you of your time and how you were going to use it.  They got distracted.  They forgot the goal of driving on a highway is to get to their destination safely and in a timely manner.

Rubbernecking is not the only example of people being distracted from their goal by a desire to see a disaster. In fact, it happens in politics all the time.  It happened again this past week.  I predict in a few years from now my name for the political version of rubbernecking will appear in the list of new dictionary words as follows:

fluking (fluhking) v. A technique used by American Marxists to distract the public's attention from noticing the Federal government is shredding another section of the United States Constitution.

The people in this country that are interested in fundamentally transforming America are going to use every tactic ever used by every thief that has ever lived, to steal our Liberty.  The American Marxist is cognizant that if he or she knocked on our door, smiled and said please hand over more of our Liberty that we will slam the door in their face (and/or show our willingness and ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights.)  The only time the American Marxists have been successful in stealing our liberty is when they have succeeded in distracting our attention.  They find a person, place or thing of some extreme interest and then spin the rhetoric, many times using outright lies, to communicate the message that if we don’t allow the American Marxist to enact their new law, regulation or rule, then the person, place or thing will be irreparably damaged.

Until now this tactic was nameless but thanks to the Democrat party we can call this strategy “Fluking” (pronounced flucking).  See the definition above.  This term joins other recent political strategies including Borking and Swift-boating.  How ironic that the birth of Fluking was the result of a dialog on contraceptives and abortifacients.

This most recent Fluking began when the Federal government announced its mandate that all employers that provided their employees with health insurance, including Catholic hospitals and schools, include the availability of free contraceptives and abortifacients.  The church and conservatives pushed back (but for the wrong reasons.)  Enter 30 year old Sandra Fluke (pronounced fluck) a graduate of Cornell University with two degrees, one in Policy Analysis & Management and a second in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies and who is now attending the Georgetown University Law Center. By the time she was done playing her role she had successfully turned the discussion into a show Sarah Jessica Parker might star in, “Sex in the Georgetown Dormitories.” 

Fluke’s script, which she read during a fake congressional hearing, included the following:

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.

“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.”

She went on to describe several alleged instances where woman were denied or experienced difficulty obtaining birth control pills for treatment of other medical conditions.  If this is true, each individual State, as it is the states that currently regulate insurance companies, might want to look into this. 

Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives got distracted by the sex and sex became the issue.  The affordability of birth control became the issue. The merits of her argument became the issue.  The validity of her commentary became the issue.  It was a complete and total Fluking!  As an observer all you can do is sit back and marvel at how adeptly the left can take over an issue. 

News Flash! Co-ed sexual activity at a Jesuit school is irrelevant to the issue.  The amount of sex people participate in is not the issue.  The affordability of birth control is not the issue. 

There is only one issue and there is always only one issue to be discussed when the American Marxist tries to create any new law, regulation or rule.  The issue is:

Where in the Constitution, a document that was intended to limit the size and scope of a central government through the enumeration of specific powers (with the caveat that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people) where in the plain language of this remarkable document is the Federal Government delegated the power to do whatever it is they want to do.

The specific question on this issue is, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government delegated the power to tell ANY private company what it must sell and how much it should sell it for.

Let me say restate this the way a Marxist might understand it:

1.   Read the Constitution. It’s only about 20 pages.

2.   Find the section of the Constitution that says the Federal government is delegated the power to mandate to private companies what products it must sell and how much it should sell the product for.

3.   If you cannot find these words or something very close to it, it is time to Fluke.

Conservatives, I implore you, from now until you breath your last breath, be Fluked no more!  Trust me, another Fluking is already in the works.  There will be many Flukings between now and Election Day. Be alert.  Don’t slow down to view the disaster being perpetrated by the party that is trying to take the country in the wrong direction.  Remember to stay focused on the goal, the goal of shrinking the size and scope of government and the restoration of our constitutional republic as envisioned by our Framers.  If we fail, if we continue to allow ourselves to be Fluked, it is our country that will be getting screwed.

Hammer Time?

Is this statement by President Obama on January 5, 2012 the final nail in the coffin of our Constitutional Republic?

“But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them.  I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.  And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve.  Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans.  We’re not going to let that happen.”

Stunning.

This statement was made in the context of the President making an unconstitutional appointment of Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The appointment was unconstitutional because it violates Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution which says:

“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

The Senate was not in recess on January 5, 2012.  In order for the Senate to be in recess Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution says:

“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

The House did not consent to a Senate adjournment. Therefore, every three days the Senate must hold a session.  The last session it held before January 5^th was on January 3, 2012 and it held a session on January 6^th.

There have been two Presidential impeachments by the House in our nation’s history.  The first took place in 1868.  The primary charge against President Andrew Johnson was his violation of the Tenure of Office Act.  This act, which no longer exists, required the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate to remove someone that was previously appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Johnson was at odds with Secretary of War Stanton.  He removed Stanton without first seeking the consent of the Senate.  (Johnson believed that the Tenure of Office Act, which passed over his veto, was unconstitutional.)  He then filled the vacancy with Lorenzo Thomas, also without the advice and consent of the Senate. The House convened shortly after Johnson’s actions and drew up eleven articles of impeachment. Ten of the eleven articles were directly related to different aspects of the violation of the Tenure of Office Act.  Article of Impeachment 3 read as follows:

“That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, …”

President Obama’s actions on January 5, 2012 are very similar to what President Johnson was impeached for 134 years ago.  In fact, by filling in the blanks, I find that I am able to draft the one and only article of impeachment required today:

That said Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, on the 5th day of January, in the year of our Lord 2012, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States.

Regardless of whether a conviction can be achieved in the Democrat controlled Senate, impeaching the president for this flagrant, unlawful act is the absolute duty of the House.  The Tea Party members that we elected in 2010 all talked about the need to protect and defend the Constitution.  Was that just talk or are they going to act?

It is Hammer Time! We either put the hammer down on this lawless president through impeachment or we hammer shut the coffin that contains our Constitution.  

Constitution Slaughtering

On November 30, 2011 Congress lifted a ban that it had put in place in 2007 that resulted in the prohibition of slaughtering horses for food consumption.  A quick search of the web revealed the expected headlines: 

 Congress to America: You Can Now Watch Horses Races While Eating Horse

Mr. Ed, It's What's for Dinner

Mommy, What Do Horses Taste Like?

Horse Meat Could Be Coming to a Supermarket Near You

Also on the web were reactions like these:

“I couldn't sleep last night after hearing this. I am sick to my core & frightened to think about the future of our horses. I'm at a loss for words... greed appears to be the prevailing compass in our society, overshadowing both commonsense & moral constitution. *tears*”

“This puts it in perspective. Pardon a single turkey while sentencing thousands of horses to a horrible death”

“There are lots of other animals out there for human consumption other than beautiful horses. So rethink this for all the horse lovers out there in this world. Would you like it if they made dog and cat slaughter houses and use your pet?”

I understand why people are upset. What I don’t understand is why they are not outraged over an even more inhumane slaughtering that is taking place, the slaughtering of the Constitution.

The question all Americans should be asking is:

Where in the Constitution is the enumerated power granting the federal government the ability to regulate the slaughtering of horses (or any other animal for that matter?)

The enumerated powers are found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is nothing in this Article I, Section 8 remotely resembling a constitutional power to ban or not ban the sale of horse meat and the slaughtering of horses for their meat.  So absent a specific enumerated power in the Constitution, how does the Constitution want us to deal with this issue?  The answer is found in amendments 9 and 10:

Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is so simple even our Congressmen should be able to understand it. Absent an enumerated power, each state decides whether or not horses can be slaughtered in their state and whether or not horse meat can be sold for consumption.  Absent any state laws prohibiting horse slaughtering or sale of meat for consumption, the power to decide belongs to the individual.

Constitutional Slaughtering is happening every day and is exponentially worse under the Obama regime.  Each time it happens “We the People” lose more of our liberty.  When our Federal Government attempts to violate the constitution, no matter what the issue, we need to react.  We need to let them know that we choose liberty over tyranny, freedom over slavery.  We took the first step towards restoring our constitutional Republic in 2010.  We need to take another step in 2012.