Republican lawmakers have repeatedly blasted Obama with blatantly ignoring the United States Constitution with his socialist healthcare legislation and other affronts at the freedom of Americans. Unfortunately, many of these same Republicans repeatedly blatantly ignore the Constitution on a regular basis. Cathy McMorris Rogers, Washington's Fifth Congressional District Representative is one of these Republicans and this article is dedicated to exposing her actual voting record for people voting in the polls on August 17^th and November 2^nd.

Cathy is Washington's is widely considered to be Washington's best Congressional representative (however, after looking at the record, Doc Hastings appears to be slightly more conservative, not voting with Cathy on three of the bills in this article), voting against TARP, the Obama Stimulus Plan, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare. However, I would argue that over 50%-70% of Americans would easily have voted against these plans. You really test the integrity of the representative by the votes they make when no one is looking. Many of these votes you might never have heard about, have given Obama's administration massive powers to suppress the rights of the American people directly against protections existing in the Bill of Rights. These votes matter! I urge you to go through these votes below with prayerful consideration. Most people I tell privately about them are shocked, which is the reason I am writing this for a wider distribution. These represent only a small sample of what I found when going through her voting record from 2005 – 2010. I have also included some votes that are just plain bad public policy.

Remember, you have a choice in August in the top-two primary. Given four weak Democratic candidates this year, a conservative will easily make it to the general election, and perhaps even two could. It is important that the candidate who most upholds the value of the Constitution goes forward. I personally am supporting Randall Yearout because he teaches the Constitution, the way the founders meant it to be interpreted, and I know he is much more likely to uphold the principles of limited government ensconced in that document than Cathy, who has proven by her voting record that either she has not read or understood the Constitution, or just does not care about preserving the government restraints outlined therein.

McMorris Votes That Help Expand Obama's Police State:

H.R. 4614 - Enhanced DNA Collection Act

H.R. 418 - READ ID Act

H.R. 1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 3199 and S. 2271 - Reauthorizations of Patriot Act

H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 5825 - Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act

S. 3930 - Military Commission Act of 2006

Votes Implementing More Government Regulations Which Hurt the Free Market

S. 2120 - Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005

H.R. 5121 - Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006

H.R. 1256 - Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

H.R. 3963 - SCHIP expansion - Welfare to Middle Class!

H.R. 6867 - Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008

Votes on More Unconstitutional Uses of Taxpayer Monies

H.R. 1377 - Obama's Give Act

H.R. 2284 - Targeted Aid to Native Americans

Votes that Destroy United States Sovereignty

H.J. Res. 27 - Withdrawing from World Trade Organization (voted against)

H.R. 3045 - CAFTA Implementation Act

Votes on Unconstitutional Environmental Actions

H.R. 5059 - New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006

H.R. 509 - Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act

Vote on Illegal Foreign Aid (see also Marine Turtle Conservation Act Above)

H.R. 1886 - Foreign Aid to Pakistan

Vote on Unconstitutional Foreign Policy

H. Res. 1146 - Regarding War in Afghanistan (voted against)

Cathy Praises Carbon Taxer

Votes of Other Washington Congress Critters

H.R. 4614 - Enhanced DNA Collection Act

H.R. 4614: Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010. This one in particular really steams me because it is an Orwellian expansion of the modern police state that violates at least three separate provisions of the the Bill of Rights:

4^th amendment – The bill requires the collection of DNA samples to be included in a national database if someone is “arrested for or charged” with certain crimes. In many crimes there is no DNA evidence to match. If there is no DNA evidence to match, there is no reason nor probable cause for the collection of the sample. This is a blatant violation of the unreasonable search and seizures clause in the fourth amendment.

5^th amendment – The bill confiscates a person's DNA to be databased in a national registry prior to application of due process of law. The wording of the bill was not “convicted” but “arrested for or charged.” Because someone is charged or arrested does not mean they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. Thus, this bill requires citizens to give up rights to their personal information prior to due process. Does anyone have any doubts that certain law enforcement officers might have additional incentive to arrest people just to expand their DNA database with this law in effect? After all, Tea Party supporters are now declared by definition to be lawless enemies of the state according to documents like the MIAC report.

10^th amendment – The bill coerces the states into giving up their rights as far as legislation extending to the criminal justice system by giving the states money to implement the “Minimum DNA Collection Process” and even more money for implementing the “Enhanced DNA Collection Process.” Under the general welfare clause all taxes should benefit all states, with none excluded on the basis of one or more of them not implementing a federal guideline. Financial bribery such as this is often used to coerce states into adopting policies that they otherwise would not, most of which end up trampling over the rights of their citizens.

I would also argue that this violates the ninth amendment, as people have an inherent right to keep their DNA records private. I will remind people that this is very sensitive information which can be used to determine susceptibility to various medical conditions. Insurance companies would pay good money to have access to this data on all citizens. Does anyone have any doubt that the government with nationalized healthcare might sell this data to insurance companies at a later date? What about breaches in security of the records? Remember the government's original promise that social security numbers would not be used as identification? This bill is just a further expansion of the individual tracking and surveillance grid which the fabian socialists have been building the last 50 years in order to emulate George Orwell's vision in 1984. And yes, Cathy went along with it along with every other Congress critter from Washington state.

H.R. 418 - READ ID Act

H.R. 418: REAL ID Act of 2005. Another police state tracking program which unlawfully tramples on states' tenth amendment rights, so much so, the states rebelled in mass, which has largely ground implementation to a halt. The legislation in Title II described “minimum document requirements” for state drivers' licenses, essentially creating a national ID system. “Papers Please!!!” The Soviet style citizen tracking grid is closer than you think . . . and Cathy went along with it. What I find really intriguing about this, and a lot of other votes, is the party of “states rights” went blindly along with this federal mandate, while the Democrats correctly overwhelmingly rejected it.

It is ironic that that communism requires the sort of tracking grid technologies that the Republicans are all so eager to give us. This is the reason for the false left/right paradigm – fabian socialism is enacted by restricting economic freedoms using Democrats and restricting personal freedoms using Republicans. Which ever side controls Congress, the socialist agenda moves forward nonetheless. This is not surprising since the large multinational corporations pushing it donate to both sides (it is a myth that large corporations do not like socialism—it destroys their small business competition as they cannot compete with increasing regulations due to lack of economies of scale. Remember large corporations funded Lenin, Hitler, and Chairman Mao) That is the reason it is important which Republican gets elected.

H.R. 1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 1955 [110th]: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is a bill that the Obama administration could have used against the Tea Parties if it had been adopted. The bill in Section 899A defines “violent radicalization” as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” It defines “homegrown terrorism” as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Please note the vague definitions regarding force and violence. Who determines who has a “purpose of facilitating” violence? Facilitating is a particularly troublesome word since just pointing out abuses of power could be argued to facilitate a popular uprising against the government, whether that was the real purpose or not (the government would always claim it was). In fact under the definitions in this section the civil rights movement of the 1960s would have easily been considered “homegrown terrorism” since they were using civil disobedience (which I am sure the government classified as “violence”) to facilitate social change. There is no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would be considered “homegrown terrorists” in the process of “violent radicalization” under these definitions.

If you consider adhering to the Constitution as an “extremist belief system” as most RINOs and progressives do, then Tea Party members who are trying to “advance political...change” would be involved in “violent radicalization” under this bill. This bill establishes a commission to study violent radicalization (i.e. including Tea Parties?) and to come up with better methods to prevent it. The presence of members asking tough questions to their Congress critters on health care seemed to be considered by the mainstream media as “intimidating” and “coercive” in an attempt to “further a political objective.” They have even been implying that protestors have violent intents despite no evidence to that effect. If you read between the lines, this commission would essentially be set up to study and define thought crimes based on the way violent radicalization is defined – George Orwell would be pleased. If you liked the MIAC report, you probably would love the reports generated with this legislation! And yes, Cathy and most of the criminal Congress voted for it!

If Congress wants to study why people might be upset with them, maybe they should actually consider listening to voters for a change and stop trying to targ

H.R. 3199 and S. 2271 - Reauthorizations of Patriot Act

H.R. 3199 [109th]: USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and

S. 2271 [109th]: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act. These were the reauthorizations of the infamous USA Patriot act originally passed in Congress in the midst of fear tactics used subsequent to the 9/11 attacks. Most of Congress was never even given a chance to read the original bill! The reauthorization did make a view minor improvements, but much of the domestic surveillance legislation was left in place. The bill should be better known as “USA Patriots rolling over in their graves act,” as it would be inimical to the values of our founding fathers. According to Benjamin Franklin, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

The Patriot Act was an utter assault on fourth amendment protections giving us “sneak and peak” warrants and roving wiretaps. While Cathy might not realize such violated the Constitution, the sneak and peak provisions were ruled Constitutional on September 26, 2007, more than a year after her vote on the law in the case of Brandon Mayfield who improperly incarcerated because of the illegal searches (only reversed on appeal because of Mayfield's substantial settlement agreement with the government prior to the case). In fact I recommend anyone review the Mayfield case to see the dangers of what happens when the government is given broad powers to hold someone without charging him and violate their privacy without probable cause.

Sneak and peak warrants allow officers to enter into someone's house, breaking and entering, without first presenting the warrant to the individual. As such, there is little opportunity to even challenge the warrant through due process, and a person might never even know their personal privacy has been violated. The roving wiretap provisions allow authorities to wiretap any device a person uses instead of a specific device, violating the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment and inadvertently allowing innocent law-abiding citizens to potentially be targeted if they happen to use the same phone or device a person under surveillance might use (think payphone etc.).

New burdensome business regulations were also included to make businesses (previously it was just financial institutions) report to Big Brother any cash that exceeded $10,000. The most nonsensical part of this regulation is that it made complying with it through “structuring” a crime – if one made multiple payments that just happened to add up to $10,000 that was a crime as well! In fact, many people could be considered to be violating the law just going through the normal course of business without even knowing it (same goes for the pre-existing financial institutions legislation)! The government cannot have people privately paying for goods with cash anymore, I guess . . . then it would not be under the all seeing eye of the Communist in Chief. This was one of numerous police state red tape requirements put on businesses.

I could write an entire book on all that is wrong with USA PATRIOT ACT. I wonder if any Congress critter would read it any more than they read the original bill.

H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 5122: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. Basically, this bill was an authorization to expand the powers of the president (the current one I will call the Communist in Chief) to unilaterally declare martial law. It states in Sec. 333 “

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2)”

This bill essentially destroyed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which kept the standing military from policing U.S. Citizens. Do you realize according to this wording, if another Katrina happened on Obama's watch and this law were in effect, he could just declare martial law and take over over the objection of even the local authorities or governors? There is a word for this – dictatorship.

Senator Leahy put it best when he stated, “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders.” Luckily Congress later repealed these provisions. However, the fact that Cathy ever voted for them in the first place is quite disturbing.

H.R. 5825 - Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act

H.R. 5825: Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. This bill allows for surveillance of U.S. Persons without a court order for up to 60 days or more based on certain circumstances. Why it would take that long to get a court order if there were legitimate probable cause, as required by the fourth amendment, I have no idea. By the way, I remember when Cathy was asked about this bill at a Campaign for Liberty Forum two years ago that she stated it did not authorize surveillance of U.S. Citizens. I would state that is blatantly false. Please read Sec. 102B(i), Sec. 112(e), and Sec. 113(e) which specifically talk about when the surveillance of U.S. Persons are allowed. I wonder if she read the bill. Even though there are some prohibitions on the use of the information gathered from U.S. persons itself, the monitoring of U.S. persons, in fact, is still allowed by the law, without a court order. This is a blatant violation of a U.S. citizen's privacy pursuant to the fourth amendment.

S. 3930 - Military Commission Act of 2006

S. 3930 [109^th]: Military Commissions Act of 2006. Cathy voted for this this on September 29, 2006. This is the famous law on trying enemy combatants. This law completely guts the Geneva Convention, preventing certain parties from even invoking it. This act basically allows the U.S. Government to keep foreign citizens indefinitely without charging them with anything if they are “awaiting determination” as to their enemy combatant status. Now personally, I think it is not wrong to make the government have reason for detaining anyone regardless of who they are. If the person really is a terrorist the government should presumably have evidence, and if they do not, why are they holding them?

Now aside from the fact as to whether the right of due process should apply as a natural law right (one given to all persons by God) if not a Constitutional right to a foreign citizen (especially if there is no declaration of war against their home country!), there are other important issues that effect U.S. citizens. Though controversial, many legal scholars interpret this bill as destroying a U.S. citizen's right to petition for writ of habeas corpus if declared “an enemy combatant.” Specifically, Sec. 948A states:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Notice that while the intent of the legislation was for this to apply to only non-citizens, in the definitions itself, the bill does not actually make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. So if a citizen is just accused of engaging in hostilities agains the US, the government could arbitrarily apply the enemy combatant status to the citizen according to the literal definition in this bill. This should be extremely disturbing to people given the fact that increasingly Tea Party groups are being classified as terrorists in reports such as the MIAC report. I could go on about the severe problems with this act passed in the name of the “War on Terror,” which was partially amended in 2009, but I have other votes to discuss.

S. 2120 - Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005

S. 2120: Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005. Ever hear the Republicans talk about not wanting to interfere with the free market? Well this is a prime case of hypocrisy. This bill supposedly closed a loophole in federal milk handler price controls. It turns out that people who both produce and bottle the milk could technically sell the milk for lower prices under the law. Well Congress could not have that – lower prices based on market forces? No!! I guess the large corporations in competition with these other businesses told their lobbyists to get Congress to fix this situation, and Cathy and Congress did so – further regulating the milk producing industry to artificially keep milk prices higher. Instead, the Republicans should have been voting on a bill to destroy the price controls to create a level playing field. Interesting concept... For a great article on this farce see “Nevada loophole large enough for river of milk; Critics say dairy law fails to create a level field.”

H.R. 5121 - Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006

H.R. 5121: Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006. This is one of the pieces of legislation that at the peak of the bubble made things only worse! It extended the term of permissible FHA mortgages from 35 to 40 years (Section 4) and repealed the minimum cash downpayment requirement of 3% (Section 5). I guess 3% is just too high of a down payment! This encouraged more poor people to buy overpriced homes that everyone should have known they cannot afford. This program also in general expanded the Federal Mortgage Insurance Program as well. What business the United States government has being in the mortgage insurance program? Well good luck finding that in the Constitution (the United States government is to regulate interstate commerce, not set up state sponsored entities engaging in interstate commerce!)

This bill was a clear attempt to continue the housing bubble. Housing prices were way over extended and instead of sitting back and letting the market correct, Congress and Cathy McMorris Rogers wanted to find a way for people who could not afford properties at these insanely high prices to be able to by them. My favorite quote from a release put out on that act was that “FHA's existing down payment requirement does not meet the demands of today's marketplace, where most first-time homebuyers put down two percent or less.” Insane! By the way, as a person who worked on Wall Street professionally, I can tell you that just about every hedge fund manager I knew saw this bubble for what it was. The collapse was not surprising, in light of policies such as the above.

H.R. 1256 - Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

H.R. 1256: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This expanded the powers of the FDA bureaucracy so that it could lawfully regulate tobacco products. Luckily the majority of Republicans who are generally supposed to be for small government voted. The bad news is that Cathy voted with the Democrats on this one to expand the powers of the regulatory bureaucracy. Remember that if you are a smoker and the price of cigarettes have gone up!

H.R. 3963 - SCHIP expansion - Welfare to Middle Class!

H.R. 3963: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. This was a combination of a tax increase of $0.61 a pack on cigarettes (smokers should remember this) and expand the SCHIP program to those whose incomes are, get this, 300% of the federal poverty level! This would essentially provide a welfare benefit to middle class Americans, not just the poor. This was just another incremental government expansion into the field of health care leading up to the Obamacare vote. After all if we are going to start having federal healthcare programs for the middle class, it is only a matter of time before it covers all Americans. This was another one where I have to say Bush actually acted like a fiscal conservative for once vetoing the bill. What does that say about Cathy if serial spender Bush is more of a fiscal conservative than she is?

H.R. 6867 - Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008

H.R. 6867: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008. I find hypocrisy by both political parties interesting. For example, how many Republicans voted for Bush's bailout provisions like TARP (although Cathy did vote against that one), and then object to Obama's, like there is any difference. Well here is another case of the Republicans voting in mass (except for 28 dissenters, none of which being Cathy) for an unemployment extension when their president is in power, but opposing such measures when Obama is in charge. The reality is the worst thing you can do during an economic downturn is incentivize people not to work. If you are going to spend more federal money extending unemployment benefits, it would be better at least to get something out of that money by requiring these people to do something for the compensation. However, ultimately, the most important part is where is the Constitutional authorization via an enumerated power for any sort of federal unemployment insurance program. It does not exist as the government is not regulating commerce in this instance, it is engaging in commerce just as it did when it bought General Motors.

H.R. 1377 - Obama's Give Act

House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1388: Serve America Act. This is also known as Obama's Give Act. This act further expands the liberal AmeriCorps organization set up by Bill Clinton as well as the National Civilian Community Corps. This bill is a pretty comprehensive federal program doling out federal money to promote “national service.” Again, what enumerated power gives Congress the authority to spend money on “national service?” None! This is not even interstate or any form of commerce. At least the Republicans as a whole rejected this Obama funding of what tend to be very liberal organizations; however, Cathy voted for it.

H.R. 2284 - Targeted Aid to Native Americans

H.R. 2284 [110th]: To amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve the assistance provided by Small Business Development Centers to Indian tribe members, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This bill provided for grants to Small Business Development centers to develop small business activities on Indian lands and on the lands of Hawaiian and Alaskan natives. Now, I do not think I have to point out that this is a discriminatory bill. Why do certain ethnic groups deserve subsidies over the average America, especially those specifically in two states? This is a blatant violation of the general welfare clause (of course, which Congress has failed to recognized for a long time). More importantly, why in the heck does the taxpayer need to pay for any small business subsidies? Please show me the enumerated power that covers this. Free flow of capital in functioning markets will find the best home. The idea that we need federal funding of any new startup, particularly small scale ventures, is anathema to every principle of microeconomics. Yes, and Cathy voted on this one.

H.J. Res. 27 - Withdrawing from World Trade Organization (against)

H. J. Res. 27 [109th]: Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization is a dangerous entity which sets an uncomfortable precedent for global governance. Those who have watched the European Union unfold know that it began as a trading block, which eventually morphed into massive European superstate with a central currency and most of the major economic decisions being dictated to the constituent governments by Brussels. Free trade agreements are not just about tariffs and taxation as establishment politicians of both parties will claim; they are about micromanaging the related national policy issues on trade through the harmonization of regulations.

More importantly, the WTO subjects the United States to a World Court which can review U.S. domestic policies such as agricultural subsidies and environmental regulations and enforce sanctions against the United States if Congress does not obey the directives of the World Court. To give you an example, the WTO actually ruled that laws in Europe preventing treatment of beef by hormone treatment are illegal under WTO standards! Now I am not for subsidies or excessive government regulation (although I would point anyone to data showing that hormone-treated beef IS dangerous which has been covered up in the United States); however, the WTO has no right to tell sovereign nations what to do! But then, I guess Cathy does not mind the World Court dictating policy to the United States since she voted against this resolution to withdraw from the WTO.

H.R. 3045 - CAFTA Implementation Act

H.R. 3045: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. A managed trade (these bills go way beyond tariffs, as discussed in the WTO discussion above) agreement between the United States and Central America similar to NAFTA. These agreements are key to the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21, part of which includes removing trade barriers in order to facilitate the redistribution of wealth from the United States to other countries. The key here being the redistribution of this nation's manufacturing capital.

Economists will always cite the microeconomic fact that free trade tends to result in the most productivity to a global economy. However, any tax is a similar negative externality on the productivity of a free market. Income tax and sales taxes which discourage productivity and production, respectively, are actually worse economically than tariffs and duties, which on the other hand have the offsetting benefit of encouraging domestic production. As long as one has to lower economic productivity through taxation, those taxes should be structured to harm the nation as little as possible. If one instituted a system of tariffs and duties and exactly offset the taxes by lowering income taxes, the system would actually benefit the economy in two ways – removing the worse externality on disincentivizing production and reducing foreign dependency.

The other thing that economists miss are the national security concerns from these trade agreements. Other governments do not necessarily respect the freedom and liberty of their people and could actually be enemies of the United States. Can a U.S. worker compete with Chinese slave labor? What about having military components made in a foreign factory of a potential enemy? How about being completely cut off from international shipments in the event of a world war? One of the few things I agree with Alexander Hamilton on is the necessity of ensuring freedom and liberty by making sure that one is not dependent on governments who do not respect freedom and liberty – and he therefore advocated a strong system of protective tariffs and duties which served this country well through the 1800s. Trade agreements should be bilateral agreements based on certain strategic commodities that the U.S. has short supplies of. Blanket free trade agreements do not serve either the economic or national security interests of the United States. If you want to know why our country has an employment crisis with no good jobs – look at the influence of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO and the international corporations which bought off both parties in D.C. to get these agreements passed. Next time your friend gets laid off from a good manufacturing job because they are going to China, remember Cathy's vote on CAFTA, the WTO, and other such agreements.

H.R. 5059 - New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006

H.R. 5059 [109th]: New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006. This bill would designate 23,700 acres in the White Mountain National Forest as a “Wilderness” in accordance with the Wilderness Act. This would provide greater restrictions on the public use of the national forest. Now, who owns the forest, the animals or the people of America? The federal parks should be open to the full enjoyment of all taxpayers as long as they treat it in a responsible fashion. Moreover, where is the constitutional authority to place such properties under restricted use? Surely it is because these are federal lands.

I will submit that all national forests are, in fact, unconstitutional. If you do not believe me, read Article I, Section 8 the enumerated powers section: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

The Constitution is quite clear, the United States can only own land in the states which has been purchased for specific purposes, mainly useful buildings! There are absolutely no needful buildings on most of the land in federal parks! The holding of this land by the government (which is particularly egregious in Western states such as Washington), is blatantly illegal. These parks should be returned to the states and be run as state parks pursuant to state law. Definitely, the feds should not be making rules making access to these public areas in states stricter, as this law that Cathy voted on. What shocked me about this bill, it was mainly the Republicans supporting it (I wonder if the Democrats wanted more land sequestered...this one is puzzling).

Finally, I suggest that everyone lookup the Wildlands Project which is a key component of United Nations Agenda 21. The idea is to increasingly make the areas of land off limit to human use, including continued government purchase of lands and confiscation by regulation, growth management, or eminent domain so that human settlements are concentrated in urban areas where humans can be more readily tracked and monitored.

H.R. 509 - Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act

H.R. 509: Marine Turtle Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2009. Cathy joined the environmentalist movement on this one. Only 70 Republicans voted against it. This bill would reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 which provided foreign aid to protect marine turtles and their habitat. The reauthorization in H.R. 509 would also allow assistance for domestic turtle habitats as well – you gotta love that Congress originally would fund money only to protect overseas turtles and not American turtles! Both provisions are ridiculous. First of all, all foreign aid is unconstitutional. There is no enumerated power whatsoever that authorizes any form of foreign aid. I challenge Cathy or anyone else to point to the clause in the Constitution that would authorize such. Moreover, there is no enumerated power that would authorize any protection of turtles by the federal government. Are we to believe that turtles are engaged in interstate or foreign commerce? This is just another illegal waste of taxpayer money. If people in the country want to help turtles, they can donate their private money to foundations set up for that purpose. The government has no business confiscating money from the public for the same purpose.

H.R. 1495, H.R. 1219, H.R. 637 - Federal Monies for Water Improvement

H.R. 1495: Water Resources Development Act of 2007. This was one of the few acts where Bush actually acted as a conservative and vetoed this piece of legislation. However, that did not stop Cathy and many other Republicans from overriding this veto. This was a big boondoggle for environmental ecofreaks authorizing billions in taxpayer dollars for waterways. These should be expenditures at the state level.

H.R. 1219: Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement and Reclamation Act of 2009. Similar to the above legislation, except this is federal funding for just one project. 43 conservative Republicans voted against this (but Cathy voted for it), but Bush never got a chance to veto this one like the above bill since the Senate never passed it.

H.R. 637: South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act. Ditto to above except only 16 Republicans voted against this one.

H.R. 1886 - Foreign Aid to Pakistan

H.R. 1886: Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009. Provides substantial foreign U.S. taxpayer aid to the nation which delivered $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers right before the attack (see end of this message). Again, as discussed in the marine turtle act, all foreign aid is unconstitutional and an inappropriate theft of U.S. taxpayer money.

H. Res. 1146 - Regarding War in Afghanistan

H. Res. 1146: Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 248) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. This resolution is self-explanatory. Now some people might have issue with my opinion here so I am going to law out some more facts, many of which most people might not be aware of (see below). First of all, it goes without saying that the armed presence in Afghanistan is completely illegal since Congress never enacted a Declaration of War against the country, so Cathy's vote against the move to prevent the unlawful deployment of troops overseas was blatantly unconstitutional.

Any time one enters a conflict, one should have an objective and an exit strategy; that is, unless the goal is imperial control of a region for an indefinite time. What was the original goal of invading Afghanistan, at least the one that was represented to the American people? To get Osama bin Laden. Well we failed on that front and apparently now he is either dead (my belief based on the televised statements of Benazir Bhutto revealing Bin Laden's killer prior to her assassination), in Pakistan, or in Iran. Why are we still in Afghanistan then? We successfully expelled the existing government. Now we are just serving as mercenaries protecting the new government. How long do we have to stay there? Nine years is more than enough time for them to build their military infrastructure. This is now the longest conflict in U.S. history, and I cannot explain why we are still there! It is not the responsibility of the U.S. and their people to provide for the domestic security of any nation. Those we call terrorists are likely just looking to liberate their country from foreign invaders, who promised not to stay, and refuse to leave. What would we be doing if China invaded us? We would be fighting them tooth and nail, all the time they would be calling us terrorists. I have spoken to many former military that tell me that to expect a “stabilization” in Afghanistan which has always been tribal in nature, is totally absurd. So right now we have troops over there “nation building,” instead of on the southern border which has become a warzone where real American citizens are getting killed. The Bush administration has destroyed the moral of the U.S. military by the constant needless rotations in unneeded foreign conflicts, separating families, and bringing words into the vernacular such as “stop loss” which trample on the rights of the very military who volunteered to sever this country.

By the way if you are still defending the neocon faux Republicans who prosecuted this needless war please go to the following sites for some shock and awe:

1. FBI's Ten Most Wanted List – Usama Bin Laden. Please note, he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks. If you do not believe me, read the site! We went to war with a country over this one man, and the FBI does not even want him for these attacks! The reason why? The FBI admits they do not have any hard evidence, nine years later, tying Bin Laden to the attacks! According to Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

2. Why is this important? The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over, if the US provided evidence of his guilt. Do you know how many lives could have been saved, along with Bin Laden “being brought to justice” instead of being protected by the Taliban, if the US just turned over the evidence? Well now we know why Bush rejected this. We had no real evidence of his involvement according to the FBI itself!

3. The money to fund the 9/11 bombings was provided by Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Read this Asia Times article detailing the evidence that Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the then director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta! Instead of invading Pakistan (who funded the attacks) and Saudi Arabia (where most of the hijackers were from) we invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Does this bother anyone but me?

4. Moreover, it appears that the Taliban was in negotiations to turn over Bin Laden to the US prior to 9/11; however, Pakistan's leader Pervez Musharraf vetoed the deal! A senior U.S. Diplomat would later tell the Pakistani foreign minister on July 21, 2001 that the U.S. Would get rid of the Taliban under a “carpet of bombs.” Why were we planning on bombing the Taliban prior to 9/11? If you read the story in the hyperlink, you will get a since of the full horror of this unneeded war.

The real irony is that if the Obama administration at some point wants to attempt to declare martial law to forestall elections using something such as the Gulf Crisis as an excuse, those men and women in uniform who would be most likely obey their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution will not be here to protect us from our own government which would probably call in international troops and private mercenaries to help enforce the provisions of his martial law dictatorship. I told people before the election Obama will never bring troops home because the people who put him in power ultimately want to see the same endgame as those behind the scenes that put Bush in power (note also, Obama has not repealed NAFTA, the Patriot Act, FISA, etc. either contrary to promises made in his campaign).

Cathy Praises Carbon Taxer

One final thing, I was listening to Cathy give her speech at the Republican state convention this year and I heard something very disturbing, praise for Dave Reichert. Specifically,

“Now I want to mention, I have two great partners in Doc Hastings and Dave Reichert. . . .

And for Dave Reichert when it comes to homeland security and fighting bad guys there is no one tougher than the sheriff.” (39 minutes into the morning presentation—you can get the audio off TVU)

Why is this notable. June 26^th, 2009 is a day that might go down in infamy (depending on what happens in the Senate). That is the day the House voted by a slim 219 to 212 majority to pass H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This is better known as the big carbon tax bill, or America's self imposed economic suicide. This could potentially be the worst piece of legislation ever authored in the last 50 years. In fact, every Congressman who voted on this, supporting this illegal takeover of our economy in the name of the fraudulent religion of manmade climate change should in my opinion be guilty of treason. Well on that day Cathy's “great partner,” Republican In Name Only (RINO) Dave Reichert voted for the carbon tax. This is an act that should have inspired a shun from EVERY SINGLE Republican, let alone legislators with common sense.

43 Democrats actually were smart enough to vote against this legislation. Reichert was only one of eight turncoat Republicans who voted for it. What is the use of having a Republican in office if they are not going to vote against the total economic enslavement of America? I have heard it said that he had to do it because of his district. What ever happened to doing the right thing on an important bill, putting the nation's future over one's political career. Every single person who voted for this bill should be shown the exit door this year, and I do not care WHAT party they are from. At least there is a 16% chance a random Democrat would have voted against the bill, we know 100% where Reichert stands.

Remember this is a person Cathy went out of her way to give praise to. I think she has been in the leadership in the party with no moral compass, and a “get Republicans elected at any cost, even if they are really progressives” attitude for too long. Cathy has got to go. We need a grassroots Constitutional conservative who has not buddied up to the likes of Dave Reichert.

Votes of Other Washington Congress Critters

FYI – If you are interested in how the other Washington so-called Republicans voted on these bills, there were only minor differences. Obviously, Dave Reichert as mentioned above was the only Benedict Arnold who voted for the carbon tax. He did vote against H.R. 1886, the bill on foreign aid to Pakistan. Doc Hastings as alluded to earlier was slightly more conservative than Cathy, voting against the Give Act (H.R. 1388) and the targeted taxpayer give aways to Native Americans (H.R. 2284) – basically both bills listed under “Unconstitutional Uses of Taxpayer Monies.” He also was not present for the vote on extending SCHIP coverage to the middle class. On the remainder of the votes, they proceeded in lockstep. This is the reason we have to elect the Constitutional Republicans or Constitutional Independents. Party label means nothing anymore as the George W. Bush administration showed everyone!