
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;"> </p>
<p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">For those who rarely, if ever, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I will include the two most powerful amendments of them all in restraining centralized government and the schemes they would envision to amass power: (My emphasis added in bold print)</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Ninth Amendment</span></p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights <strong style="font-weight: bold;">shall not be construed to deny or disparage</strong> others retained by the people.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Tenth Amendment:</span></p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">“The Powers <strong style="font-weight: bold;">not delegated </strong>to the United States <strong style="font-weight: bold;">by the Constitution </strong>nor <strong style="font-weight: bold;">prohibited by it</strong> to the States <strong style="font-weight: bold;">are reserved to the States </strong>respectively or <strong style="font-weight: bold;">to the people.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">Compare these two short sentences to these remarks uttered by Obama in his speech: (about 29 minutes from the beginning)</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">“How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided (sic) not to support the basic research that led to the internet and the computer chip.”</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;"><strong style="font-weight: bold;">“What kind of a country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security and Medicare just because it <span style="text-decoration: underline;">VIOLATED </span>some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?  How many Americans would have suffered as a result?” ( Emphasis added)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">Comes now Obama, a self-described Constitutional “lecturer” admitting that violations of the Supreme Law of the Land can be justified for any reason if there be benefits to some areas of the economy.  Of course, the socialist/communist theologians and their minions who would destroy our Republic, have historically bemoaned the inconvenience to their schemes posed by the Constitution of the United  States.  Their Machiavellian schemes have used Acts of Congress, judicial activism and the creation of “law” by decree, purposefully misinterpreting the plain language of the Constitution, and the institution of clearly un-Constitutional <strong style="font-weight: bold;">“Administrative Law” </strong>which is that “law” resulting from the millions of pages of regulations emanating from the vast bureaucracy which ignores both the Congress and the Constitution.  This is not to mention illegal “Executive Orders” and “Signing Statements” issued by Presidents for decades—again, clearly un-Constitutional.</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">What struck me most, however, was the complete silence of the press and commentators on the above gaff committed by Obama.  But should we really be surprised when these same apologists for bigger and more intrusive government have been beating the drum for decades in defense of the scoundrels who are perpetrating the destruction of our Republic and our way of life in favor of international socialism, domestic collectivism, and statism?</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">Our people <strong style="font-weight: bold;">MUST </strong>recognize that the <strong style="font-weight: bold;">STATE</strong> is not our friend—it is a fearful force like fire, which, if controlled closely, can accomplish limited and proper functions.  In the case of a true Republic, the “fire” of the state is charged with  protection of life and property rights, protection of individual liberty, and, most of all, protection from government itself.  Like fire, the state, left to its own devices and unrestrained, can burn the whole house down.</p>
<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.8em; padding: 0px;">For Constitutional Government, Liberty, and Accountability,<br />Dick Mills<br />Editor<br />Keep the Republic Newsletter<br />Houston, Texas</p>
</p>