Eventually, the boys texted to say they were on the way home, and my friend and I got off the phone. It took Leif way longer to get home than it should have. I was still trying to decide whether to be mad or worried at him taking so long, and mulling over that decision with (another) glass of wine when he finally walked in the door.

“What took you so long??”

“I got pulled over.”

Horrified, I gasped, “Did you get a DUI?”

“Yes, Honey. Then they let me get back in the car and drive home.”

Oh. Total blonde moment.

Anyway, we were headed home from wine tasting drinking with friends yesterday when traffic came to a standstill two blocks from our house. We had been driving for 45 minutes, I was not the least bit sober, and Thing 2 had been crying most of the way, because apparently that’s what she does now. Leif had had some wine earlier, but he was my designated driver, so he was careful to stay within his limits.

A block away from our house, the police had set up a sobriety checkpoint.

Since I’m me, I immediately notified Twitter of the atrocity, and then told Thing 1 to keep her lips absolutely zipped, and if she said one word out loud, I’d send her new bike back to the North Pole. I could just imagine, “But Daddy, you did drink wine!” and I had no desire to explain to Mr. Just-Doing-His-Unconstitutional-Job-Policeman that that had been hours ago.

She just nodded. Even Thing 2 stopped crying. It must have been a really good mom look.

We finally pulled up for our turn. Leif rolled his window down.

“Evenin’, Sir,” said the officer.

“Evenin’,” responded my sober husband. I kept my mouth shut, because if I opened it, I probably would’ve gone off on the fourth amendment and unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Have you been drinking tonight?”

Two heartbeats later, Leif answered, “Yes.”

Gah.

The officer peered into my husband’s drained face, saw eyes glassy from listening to a three-year-old scream for 45 minutes straight, and I swear he was about to ask him to get out of the car and take a sobriety test, which of course he would’ve passed, but we all just really wanted to get home at that point.

I did the only thing I could do. I snorted. “I’d hardly call one glass of wine four hours ago drinking, Honey. Officer, if I were driving, you’d totally have to arrest me, but my husband is my designated driver tonight.”

The dude looked at me, and then suspiciously back to Leif. Thing 2, bless her heart, chose that minute to start screaming again. The officer looked in the back seat at the children, one of which had obviously been crying for some time, then back to us.

“Get your family home safely and have a good night.”

30 seconds later, we pulled in the driveway, threw the girls into bed, turned on How I Met Your Mother, and banished Leif’s sobriety with some more wine.

Bah humbug to illegal DUI checkpoints.

The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

The Constitution is not confusing — Ezra Klein is confusing. The ‘issue of the Constitution’ is not that the language is confusing; it’s that people like Klein are so readily willing to disregard the parts of the U.S. Rulebook that they don’t like (like the Second Amendment) and make up parts to suit their own purposes (like the ‘right to privacy’). The issue is that there are people that believe that the Constitution is a binding document, an agreement among a nation of people that broke from tyranny and decided to give self-government a try, and other people that believe it’s a living, breathing document open to reinterpretation whenever the wind shifts direction.

Read the rest at The Stir

Which means that there are four justices on the bench that would have Americans abandon the most valuable tool they possess in defending their liberty. The Second Amendment ensures that we keep all of the other amendments we’ve grown so fond of — like the freedom of speech or the right to a fair and timely trial.

After all, those in power won’t dare take away our God given, Constitution-protected rights so long as We the People have the ability to resist. What happens if the government takes away our right to vote, or our right to practice our own religions, if the law-abiding citizens have no guns? We can call the lawyers, but is anyone really afraid of lawyers?

Do you really want to have to trust the government that much? Or wouldn’t it be better to know that if a group of power-hungry people were to get in control, we’d have the ultimate ability to resist them if need be? As Americans, we get to make one last stand against tyranny, rather than submit or be killed.

Read More

On Monday, President Obama announced his nomination of Elena Kaganfor the Supreme Court of the United States. Nine players sit on the bench of the highest court in the land, and they play for life. It’s a more powerful position than behind the desk in the Oval Office when you think about it.

Those nine justices interpret our laws and our Constitution, and the buck stops with them. Because it’s the highest court we have, there’s nowhere to go for an appeal. The process for overturning a Supreme Court decision is messy and sticky and basically next to impossible.

Read More

The time for talk is over.  It is clear that the vast majority of Americans do not want this health care legislation passed.

Any sane and logical congress would say, “Ok, thanks for letting us know.  We represent you the people, and you have made your voices clear.  Let’s toss out this 2000 plus stack of paper and get started on something else.”  But nope, not our congress.  Our congress says, “We know you don’t want it, and we don’t care.  We’re going to find every loophole we can so we can slam you with the largest most unconstitutional tax ever created, all in the name of ‘helping the poor.’”

The poor will not be helped by this bill.  Just look at any other country with government run health care.  It’s the poor that suffer.  Only the rich can afford timely and reliable care.  Why does anyone think it will be different in the US?

I’m absolutely going to go bonkers if I keep hearing, “health care is a right.”  It is not a right.  It isn’t a privilege either.  It’s a service.  You are not entitled to the labor of a doctor.  Just like they are not entitled to free oil changes from the mechanic.  We all work for a living, some of us harder than others.  Call me crazy, but I believe that the people that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education, work 90 hour weeks, and make life and death decisions on a daily hourly basis deserve to be paid more than my mechanic, and I’m happy to pay it.  I am not happy to pay for other people to see that doctor because they spent their money elsewhere.  We all have to make sacrifices.  Deal with it.  And here’s the thing about Americans- for the most part, we are an extremely charitable group.  If someone really was in a bad situation, I bet there would be a doctor somewhere willing to treat them, or benefactors willing to pay for the treatment.

I have faith in the American people.  I have faith in every single person who wants to better their life.  I have faith in the single mom struggling to make ends meet, the newly graduated college student looking for a job, the father of two teens that just got laid off after 20 years.  I have faith in those people to do what it takes to get through these rough patches of life, and I have faith in their friends and neighbors to help them as they’re able.  I do what I can to help those in need.  I’m grateful for all the times others have been there for me.

But oh this congress.  This congress does not have faith in us.  This congress does not want us to feel the triumph of overcoming adversity, the joy of accomplishment.  This congress wants to enable us with the most massive entitlement program our country has ever seen.  We are better than that.

I want this congress to stop taking my money and giving me back a paltry sum and expecting me to jump for joy.  I know what  you took.  Don’t tell me to be grateful for the $10 check when you snuck $100 out of my back pocket.  I’m wise to your tricks.  A lot of us are.  Which is why you will be voted out this November.  This health care bill and any other crap you manage to sneak through in closed-door deals will be repealed.

Who knew that it would take a violation of Constitutional principles by our leaders for America to stand united in a way we haven’t for generations?  Wonders never cease.

Tim Tebow is a Heisman trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida.  As a home-schooled kid from a Christian family, he shatters the stereotype that kids taught by their parents at the kitchen table grow up to be abnormal, socially stunted adults.  Arguably the best college football player in the country, Tebow remains centered in his faith and family.

Pam Tebow was serving as a missionary in an orphanage in the Philippines with her husband Bob and Tim’s older siblings when she was pregnant with Tim.  She suffered from a parasitic infection, and doctors predicted a still birth and advised Pam to abort the baby for her own health.  She refused, and gave birth to a healthy, full term baby boy.

Focus on the Family has sponsored a 30 second add to appear during Superbowl XLIV, which features the Tebows and include some sort of “choose life” message.  And you know how pro-women groups feel about people choosing life.  They really can’t stand it, can they?  It’s interesting to me that they get so angry about it.  I mean, if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why do they get so upset about women choosing not to do it?

The Women’s Media Center and the National Organization for Women are going absolutely bonkers, accusing Focus on the Family of being “extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,” and pushing an “anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients.”  Whoa, that’s harsh.

So what does Tim Tebow have to say about the ad and about his mother’s decision to choose life?

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe…[T]hat’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

Bravo to the Tebow family for standing firm in their beliefs in the face of tough opposition.  I applaud you for not being afraid to exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech.  Even if that speech is difficult for some people to hear.  And to those that would deny the Tebows, Focus on the Family, and CBS the 30 second advertisement, I have two words for you: mute button.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court lifted those restrictions.  Which means that companies will be able to run ads for candidates they like.  You know what kinds of candidates companies like?  The ones that make it easier for them to actually run their businesses, instead of trying to bankrupt them with mandated health care requirements and cap and trade.  If they can successful run a company, they can expand operations… and create jobs!  Remember, it’s better to have a job and no health care than no job and no health care.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

This from Mr. Closed Door himself. Obama doesn’t care about everyday Americans.  We’re all just serfs to him, here only to fund his playground of policies and bailouts.  Well we’re done Mr. President.  We’re picking up our toys, packing up our trucks, and going home to the Constitution. Don’t let the sand hit you in the teeth.

Not only is the health care bill so stellar that Senators had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it, but it’s going to be voted on at 1 o’clock in the morning, four days before Christmas.  Some perspective for you- no one will see any benefits from this bill until 2013 (if ever), yet it’s being rushed through in the middle of the night during a time when most Americans have turned off their TVs and put down their newspapers in the hopes of having a joyful holiday season with their friends and family.  I understand doing what we have to do, but this is NOT something that couldn’t easily wait until January.

During debate on the Senate floor today, Senator Tom Coburn made some excellent points and observations on why this health care bill is not a health care reform bill, but only an unsustainable health care coverage expansion.  Sen. Coburn is one of only two practicing physicians in the Senate (the other is Senator John Barrasso), so he speaks from the unique perspective of being both a doctor and a politician.

Sen. Coburn pointed out that there are zero guarantees that taxpayers won’t finance abortions, zero prohibitions on the rationing of health care, and zero Senators required to enroll in either Medicaid  or another government run option.  The Republicans proposed amendments to disallow the use of federal funds to finance abortions or the rationing of health care, but the Democrats voted down the measure.  Let me ask you this: If funding for abortions and rationing of care aren’t part of the plan for this bill, why wouldn’t the Democrats put those amendments in?  That’s like a bookie betting on a game to get others to bet as well, without actually putting any money into the pot.  The bookie ends up making money, and I’ve read enough crime dramas to be pretty sure that that’s highly illegal, not to mention immoral.

What does this health care bill do besides use tax payer money to provide abortions and limit care to those the government deems “unworthy” due to age or lifestyle or previous health?  It creates ten new taxes, and seventy-one new government programs.  There are 1,697 times that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will write regulations, and 15,000-20,000 new government jobs will be created to carry out this legislation.  That’s funny, I thought the idea was to create more DOCTORS to treat more patients at an affordable price, but I guess a job-is-a-job-is-a-job, right?  Maybe those four out of ten doctors that said they’d consider quitting the practice of medicine if this bill passes can apply for a job with the government.

Another thing in the bill is the word shall.  It’s in there a lot- 3,607 times at last count.  What’s significant about the word shall?  It takes away your options.  The bill does not say, “You may choose to purchase health care insurance in the event that you become ill or injured,” it says, “You shall purchase health care insurance, whether you want it or not!”

That’s the individual mandate that you’ve been hearing about.  It is the first tax in United States history that will tax you for simply existing.  It’s not based on your work or purchases or decision as to whether to take the toll road or surface streets.  It’s a tax that you can choose not to pay by choosing not to breathe.  And even though I’m not a doctor, I’m fairly certain that breathing is pretty important.

That’s not right! You may be saying to yourself.  No, it isn’t right. It’s completely unconstitutional. And more likely than not, it will be completely unenforceable in court.  Which means that no one will buy health insurance until they are sick or injured. And given that the bill will require health insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and place limits on how much they may charge their customers, they will inevitably go bankrupt.  Leaving the only option the government option.  That, my friends, is called socialized health care, and it has never worked well.

The government is not compassionate. We already see rationing in government run health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The government already comes between elderly and/or underprivileged patients and their doctors, deciding what treatments and procedures may be done, regardless of the patient’s personal history or the doctor’s recommendation.  Why on Earth would it be a good idea to expand government control of health care, when Medicare and Medicaid are inarguablly broken and on the verge of bankruptcy?

People are compassionate. Doctors are compassionate. Neighbors and family and benefactors are compassionate.  Let’s focus on incentivizing the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, creating transparency so that we can choose and purchase our own health care insurance based on value and quality, and assisting those facing tough times that need some extra help.  That’s true reform.  This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lead our once liberty-loving country into a single-payer health care system.

In the words of Ronald Reagan during a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

The government is not compassionate.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

I bolded the part that’s relevant to this post.  That bold part?  “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  That is what we call eminent domain.  It sounds boring, but it’s not.  One of the things that makes American uniquely America is our right to our property.  Hopefully you only know from watching shows like CSI (or my favorite of the moment- Castle) and not from experience, but cops need a warrant to search someone’s private property.  That’s the due process part of the amendment.  Can you imagine the violation and abuse of power if any law enforcement agent could come into your home and search it for whatever, whenever?  Hopefully, we’d still have some good guys in law enforcement, but don’t you think that sort of job would attract criminals?  That’s why we have due process of the law.

What about the private property being taken for public use?  That means that if a local government needs to build a courthouse, a school, a road, or some other public facility, and the best place to do it is on property owned by a private citizen, the government may not seize that land without just compensation.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined what constituted “public use” of property in the landmark Kelo versus City of New London case.

Ms. Susette Kelo was a divorcee living in New London, CT, in a century old home that she had bought after her divorce and fixed up herself.  In 1998, she read in the newspaper that Pfizer Corp, the privately owned pharmaceutical company, was going to build a $300 million global research and development center in the area, and that her home would be bought out for a municipal redevelopment plan.  She said, “I read that residents in Fort Trumbull were going to be bought out of their properties and that those who refused to sell were going to be taken by eminent domain. That’s how it all started. I read about it in the newspaper.”

Ms. Kelo’s neighbor’s eventually accepted the money and moved out, and one by one, their houses were torn down.  But Ms. Kelo refused to be bullied by a government that would take her property for the benefit of a giant corporation.  Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of New London.  The majority opinion of the case was that, ” a city may claim private property under the Fifth Amendment so long as it does so as part of a clear economic development plan intended to benefit the community as a whole.”

So basically, the Supreme Court ruled that a government may seize the property of individual citizens whenever they feel like it’s a good idea.  I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution after winning a revolutionary war against the oppressive British government (insert sarcasm here).

That was in 2005.  There has been more than enough time to see the dramatic economic improvements promised by the Pfizer Corp and the city of New London.  So what’s going on in New London these days?  Has it prospered with the redevelopment?  The city and state spent $78 million of tax-payer money to bulldoze the area in preparation for the hotels, condos, and strip malls that were to bring job creation and economic prosperity to the area.  Four years later, the site sits undeveloped.

In November 2009, Pfizer Corp. announced that it would be shutting its R & D center in New London, and transferring the 1,400 people working there to another facility.  The promised economic boom fell flat before it ever even got off the ground.  Ms. Kelo was forced to leave her home so it could be bulldozed and redeveloped into a wasteland of weeds and broken dreams.

What does this prove?  I don’t know if it proves anything, but it is yet another example of the Midas touch of government when it messes with the affairs of private citizens.  That is if Midas had turned everything he touched to chicken manure instead of gold.  I take that back.  At least chicken manure is good fertilizer.  What good is a vacant parking lot where Ms. Kelo’s home once stood?

Everyone knows that third party candidates don’t stand a chance of winning elections, right?  Right?  Maybe not.  Mr. Hoffman picked up steam quickly, even though the odds were stacked against him.  He was operating on a shoestring budget, and the Republican machine (specifically Newt Gingrich and the National Republican Congressional Committee) endorsed Ms. Scozzafava, the Republican candidate.

This has been fascinating to watch, because it’s the first time that we’re seeing Tea Party Principles being put into practice.  MSNBC can dismiss us with crude name-calling comments.  The Speaker of the House, the 2nd in line for the Presidency, can call the movement AstroTurf, not real grassroots activism.  The President himself can tell us to get out of his way.  The media can completely ignore a 9/12 March on Washington, which was attended by at least 8 people.  Or maybe over a million.  Counting is hard!

The race in New York is proof that us liberty loving Americans are not in the minority.  We are not Democrat haters who only care about having Republicans in office.  We are simply sick of our elected officials trying to run our lives for us.  They do not give us our rights, God does that.  The government can only protect those rights.  Doug Hoffman is an ordinary man, but he understands that the Constitutional principles of limited government.  After all, a government that can give you everything can also take it all away.  When Doug Hoffman began getting substantial numbers in the polls, it showed Washington that Conservatism is not a fringe movement.  It is a snowball, and baby, it has just begun to roll down the hill.

The Washington Elite are getting scared.  I think the liberals hiding in our GOP closet are the most terrified, and they should be.  Dede Scozzafava has certainly been acting like a scared mess of a person.  She called the cops on a reporter that had the audacity to ask her about some of her liberal positions.  She set up a ridiculous press conference in front of one of Hoffman’s campaign offices, which ended up as a horrendous photo-op that did her no favors.

Yesterday, October 31st, she finally picked up her toys and went home. She officially withdrew herself from the election, saying,

It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.

You know, I actually grew a little bit of respect for the lady.  She seemed to understand that due to some of her liberal positions, many of the Republicans voting in the election would be forced to choose between her or the more conservative Doug Hoffman.  She took one for the team when her numbers kept slipping, removing herself from the race and almost ensuring a win for Hoffman.

That respect lasted almost 24 hours, right up until  she endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

Halloween is over.  I guess Dede Scozzafava has finally taken off her Republican costume.