Read Glover's OPED. It'll **** YOU OFF: http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamog...on/ci_14109162

White's is better, but ignorant: http://www.alamogordonews.com/search/ci_14109161

Draft.........what do you think?

Title: White & Grover are misinformed, and Grover is rude

Letter:

To Ms. White,

It is simply unconstitutional for the federal government to provide healthcare to citizens. The best constitutional argument is that the government is to provide for the "general welfare" of citizens. That is wrong.

The Constitution was written as a positive document, listing only what the govt could do. It was to be read strictly, as evidenced by scoffs made by the authors of the Federalist Papers when writing about the possibility of the General Welfare and other alike Clauses being abuse. In Federalist 41, James Madison wrote that persons alleging that the General Welfare Clause permitted unlimited exertion of power, were grasping at straws in their attempt to prevent the ratification of the Constitution. He wrote that they were misconstruing the General Welfare Clause to read unlimited powers into the govt.

Madison went further to point out that the first line of Art. 1, Sec. 8 means expressly means to raise money for the enumerated objects that follow. Madison actually mocks persons that believe the General Welfare Clause allows govt to do more than provided by Art 1., Sec. 8 by saying the specific objects alluded to by the general terms immediately follow, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon.” - Fed 41.

Since Art.1, Sec. 8 makes no mention of healthcare (or any other part of the Constitution), it is obvious that healthcare is not to be provided to citizens by the government. In order for government sponsored healthcare to be constitutional, we must pass a Constitutional Amendment.


Now to Mr. Glover,

I am glad you resort to ad hominem attacks, misinformation and general indecency. It makes you look completely ridiculous, ignorant and removes any "sting" from your attacks. At the same time, I feel compelled to enlighten you, so you may become less vile. Firstly, the term "tea bagger" was given to the TEA Party participants by ignorant persons. It was not "self appointed." Second, "open carry" means carrying openly any where, not just your vehicle. If more people carried in the open, criminals would realize that people are willing to defend themselves. Firearms act as a great deterrent. Gary Kleck (a criminology professor at FSU) has studied firearms for years, and has published numerous works. Kleck has found that when firearm possession is encouraged, violent crime generally goes down. He also found that many criminals were deterred by armed citizens.

I suggest you do some reading before you next decide to sound like a pompous ***.

Regards,

Tyler

I am a 2008 graduate of New Mexico State University with a major in Government, and a minor in Law & Society.

 

why are these left wing fringe lunatics even allowed to speak? i understand we have freedom of speech, but really, words as damaging as those two brayed should be outlawed. they do great harm to the safety of americans everywhere, especially the children.

for the sake of the children, those marginalized left wing extremists should be put away.

 

When the left wingers speak everyone is supposed to agree with their insane retoric but if someone speaks out they always resort to personal attacks. I have no use for any of them.

 

The Constitution says "promote the general welfare", not 'provide' for it.

 

Actually, Art 1, Sec 8 says "provide."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

 

Read the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note how "general welfare" and "common defence" are separate entities.

 

Correct. But the Constitution also says "provide" for Common Welfare.

 

Read the Federalist Papers. The founders never intended for the productive members of society to have their wealth confiscated are redistributed to those who choose not to work.

"General welfare" has been re-defined by liberal revisionists in the last century.

 

So is this about those people that brought AR's and handguns to healthcare debates? If so, what exactly was their point they were trying to get across?

 

First off, your statement is false. No one brought guns to the health care debates. They were standing peacefully outside, sometimes hundreds of yards away. Secondly, it is their right according to the Constitution to be armed. Anyone who 'fears' one of these people is truly trying to divert attention. (note how no one was harmed by these armed Americans. Unless of course hurting the feelings of a liberal is considered "harm".)

You should be more fearful of drunks and drug addicts behind the wheel of a 2 ton automobile.

 

...did you even read a word of my first post? That's exactly what I wrote. Constitution defines "general Welfare," and Madison in Fed 41 backs that up saying the govt doesnt have unltd power.

It wasnt a healthcare debate. It was a protest against many of Obama's/Congress' recent policies/actions. The firearms were (A) to reinforce the concept of carrying*; and (B) to draw media attention.

*A while back a military officer open carried to a movie theater in Alamo. He was harassed by the police for it. Settled civil rights lawsuit in the last month or so.

 

False sure, anyway.

Why would these people bring assault rifles to protests about blah blah blah? I don't think anyone is going to disagree with a man with a Kalashnikov on his back.

I'm not saying that execising your right to bear arms is a bad thing, hell I love guns, but I think they just brought out the heavy **** just so they would intimidate everyone who opposed them.

 

I don't see that at all. They were not even carrying signs or really protesting that event. I think they did it simply to make a statement. They were saying that I am allowed to do this now, but it is a right that is underattack just as the government is attacking freedom in this country. They were protesting the "change" we heard so much about and are now seeing. There was no intimidation at all, just a statement. Maybe there were some intimidated, but those would have probably been just as intimidated if you waved a rabbit's foot at them.

 

It seemed pretty childish to me. "We're upset, but on a totally unrelated sublect, we're going to show everyone our collection!"

 

Read what I wrote! It explains the gun carrying. It explains. It explains. Do I need to write it again? I already explained why they're carrying.