krott5333
01-11-2008, 06:14 PM
perhaps this can be passed along via the grassroots-to-campaign ambassador or whatever you folks have going.. this was posted on a gun forum I frequent.
He should make the effort, EVERY time he gets face time on the tube, or in a debate, to bluntly articulate that his position is simply that the federal government has ignored, trampled, twisted and lied about the Constitution and that they have usurped power FAR beyond the 17 or 18 enumerated, delegated or specific duties that the Constitution allows the Fed to exercise any power or authority over.
After this short, direct articulation, he should challenge the moderator, the questioner, or the other candidates on where their authority to do the things they wish to do comes from. He should further challenge them as to their specific stance on the meaning of the US Constitution and if they believe it means what it says, how they reconcile their positions and the actions of the Fed with the Constitution.
Direct challenge, at least once, EVERY time. If they take the bait and say they support it, he can easily show them to be liars. If they dodge the question/challenge, they look like liars and hypocrites. If they directly challenge his views, he can eat their lunch by maintaining the position that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and following it is mandated by the oath each has sworn, or would swear if they were elected.
He should be that direct and that blunt. Everything else just confuses most because they are clueless of what the constitution reads, means and the restraint on the Fed that it is intended to be, period.
He should make the effort, EVERY time he gets face time on the tube, or in a debate, to bluntly articulate that his position is simply that the federal government has ignored, trampled, twisted and lied about the Constitution and that they have usurped power FAR beyond the 17 or 18 enumerated, delegated or specific duties that the Constitution allows the Fed to exercise any power or authority over.
After this short, direct articulation, he should challenge the moderator, the questioner, or the other candidates on where their authority to do the things they wish to do comes from. He should further challenge them as to their specific stance on the meaning of the US Constitution and if they believe it means what it says, how they reconcile their positions and the actions of the Fed with the Constitution.
Direct challenge, at least once, EVERY time. If they take the bait and say they support it, he can easily show them to be liars. If they dodge the question/challenge, they look like liars and hypocrites. If they directly challenge his views, he can eat their lunch by maintaining the position that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and following it is mandated by the oath each has sworn, or would swear if they were elected.
He should be that direct and that blunt. Everything else just confuses most because they are clueless of what the constitution reads, means and the restraint on the Fed that it is intended to be, period.