Investigations, Madame Speaker?

 
The following is a press release from the Hayworth campaign, dated and distributed 18 Aug 2010.

Statement from Dr. Nan Hayworth regarding Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments:

Answering the wrong question

 
President Obama recently made news by announcing that the building of a mosque on private property in lower Manhattan is an exercise in freedom of religion.  Apparently the fact that the private property is within only about 600 feet of 9/11’s Ground Zero took a while to enter the President’s consciousness, because it took him a day to walk back his remarks somewhat.  If he’d thought of it sooner, he might not have generated such a backlash that even New York Democrats have clammed right up when asked for reaction, and his own administration has disavowed his remarks.  Through it all, the President keeps missing why this controversy isn’t dying down.

A tax, except when it isn’t

 
Remember how President Obama swore up and down that a government mandate on individuals to buy health insurance they may or may not even want, under penalty of a hefty sum payable to the IRS, wasn’t a tax?  He was so stubborn on that talking point that even George Stephanopoulos, armed with Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, couldn’t budge him on what constituted a tax.

Amazing what a lawsuit brought by 20-plus states will do for one’s perspective.

John Hall vs. the Constitution, Part III: Constitution wins!

 
Monday the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Second Amendment-rights case McDonald v. Chicago.  The majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, affirmed what many of us have known all along:  that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not to be infringed by any government, whether federal, state, or local.  This elevates the Second Amendment from what law professor Glenn Reynolds calls its status as “a neglected stepchild that has been interpreted out of existence,” and finally restores its rightful standing as full-fledged constitutional law, despite John Hall’s disappointing absence among its defenders.

John Hall vs. the Constitution, Part II

 
Another day, another attack on the Constitution by Congress and John Hall.  Last time it was the Commerce Clause (read about it here); this time your First Amendment freedom of speech is in the Congressional Democrats’ crosshairs, and once again John Hall has chosen the wrong side.  With his vote in favor of the so-called DISCLOSE Act, Rep. Hall is effectively picking and choosing who enjoys freedom of political speech, depending on whether the speech in question favors his friends.
 

There’s No Debating Us (never mind the trackers)!

 
June 15 was a beautiful day in Hopewell Junction. It was a pleasure to hold a small event there with Nan (many thanks to our hosts and friends at the Joe DiMaggio American Legion Lounge 2248). And what a surprise to find not one, but two video stalkers joining us at the behest of John Hall’s campaign! 

John Hall vs. the Constitution

 
On Tuesday the House voted on whether to attach to a small business jobs bill an amendment that would have repealed the wholly unconstitutional “individual mandate” portion of the Democrats’ health care law.  The individual mandate, in short, legally forces every American to buy health insurance from private companies, under threat of a government fine.

Aside from the harmful effects such a measure will have on small businesses, employer-based health insurance, and the economy as a whole, the individual mandate is fundamentally unconstitutional, for two reasons.