WE MOVED CLICK BELOW
Great job confronting this empty suit. Hold their feet to the fire.
Nice. Sad, but nice. Keep up the good work.
I'm in Hare's district -- No surprise but glad it's on tape. We'll see if MSNBC reports this one. My calls, emails, letters get these generic "I know better" politically correct 'we care' canned responses..... BLA BLA he is just another corrupt Illinois player that needs to get voted out on his a**... a Durbin/Obama wannabe. csmith
yeah that's some good journalism. really without folks like you how would we get the facts?
Fox and Friends mentioned your name and ran this story in the 7 o'clock hour this morning. Good catch, Mr. Sharp!!
Adam,Saw a clip of your Phil Hare video on Fox and Friends this morning, about 7:10 am. Mentioned your name, blogger, Adam Sharp. Good job!
It is amazing, and keep in mind, it isn't confined to our representatives in the Federal Govt, I I pointed out in a recent post, that our Missouri State legislators are just as uninformed and unconcerned about Missouri's constitution. In debating the Mo Sovereignty amendment SJR25, my jaw was dropped the other week by several statements made by several senators during extended 'discussions', one of which was:Sen. Green: "What is the use of so called 'Sovereignty', didn't we deal with that in the Civil War?", they had no problem whatsoever with the Fed Govt inserting itself into what should be their prime concern, at least according to the state constitution they swore to uphold, such as:"Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people. "Both constitutions were casually swatted aside as Sen's Green, Bray, Justus, Callahan and Days all chimed in on how sovereignty and states rights and the constitution were beside the point, they just wanted to help people - which really ought to make them outlaws... or at the very least, unemployed.
Great work.I'm in Hare's district and this is the sort of crap we have to deal with from him. Some of my questions get ignored, others receive the standard Pelosi form response. I'm doing everything I can to oust him and put Bobby Schilling in. Time for a fresh new Constitution loving approach. It more than anything else is responsible for the 5000 YEAR LEAP our country made in 200 years.
Awesome job, Adam! I'm glad you were there to capture his shockingly candid disdain for that annoying little Constitution thing.
Wow, Sharp, way to go! This is exactly what has to happen--out these guys, show them up for what they are. Excellent job.
Keep up the great work, SharpElbows! It is people like you who are going to save this country.
Nice job on FoxNews!!!!Roger Sharp
Just saw you with Neal. It's good to know that the generation behind me is so well represented. You guys keep it up and keep the pressure on. We just might be able to fix this mess yet.
Just saw Adam on Cavuto. God bless you man!!!
Good work. The people in my neighborhood are glad that someone is willing and able to accomplish such things. For truly, the beliefs of these people need to be exposed. Otherwise we would still be trusting them to uphold the constitution as they swore to do. Sincerely, Warren Morris
Just saw you on Fox. Oustanding job Adam. Keep up the great work. You give me hope for the future. Thanks.
Excellent. Hopefully this footage will get over to the other news networks but it's likely only Fox will cover it.
Great work; keep it up. Also the Tea Party contract is a great start but I believe it is "only rhetoric" unless you connect it to real doable actions. No politician can succeed with such a corrupt system but they will not police themselves. Please spread the word: find a way to get an initiative on the 2012 ballot that (1) outlaws earmarks, (2) sets term limits, maybe 20 years max on all elected officials, and 4 year max for committee members on those powerful corrupt committees, and (3) make all of them subject to the same health care, pay raise policies as the private sector, and outlaw gov pensions. They are no better than the rest of us. (4) Every spending bill that is passed MUST have an expiration date maybe 10 or 20 years down the road so the next generation can be part of the evaluation to see if the program still benefits society. If they like it they vote it back in otherwise it dies on the vine. History has demonstrated that there has been few actions taken that actually get real results as to scaling back gov. on both sides of the isle. You need to identify real actions not just lip service that can be accomplished and bypass the entire congressional system through a national initiative. Thank you for your great efforts. You give us real hope for the future. Please spread the word.Nancy
Adam, congratulations, great job. Just caught your interview on Neil Cavuto. Keep up the good work!
Adam,I just saw the clip during your appearance on Cavuto.Well done!!You got the right surname, dude.Go get 'em!!For the most part. the lovey, dovey generation that came of age in the 1960's and that hat the best of the sacrifices of the WWII generation have trashed and bankrupt the USA during there stewardship of the levers of power of the USA.It's going to have to be YOUR generation that gets the USA back on track. There are no free lunches. Entitlements for votes and liberalism/Obama socialism is killing us.Where can I donate to your efforts?Dane Wayne'58
Keep up the good work. A lot of us are trying.Great on Fox today with Neil.
Adam...DITTO to 'David''s comments (above). I believe your going to be approached for interviews from many venues. Stay focused and informed...and...Good Luck.
Just saw you on Cavuto. You came across as serious and knowlegeable--as someone who obviously knew what he was talking about. I sent Cavuto an email to thank him for having you on the show and to let him know what solid, excellent work you've done for the past year--not just this video, but months and months worth of hard work. Today you put a face on young conservatism. Great job.
Hare is a pompous ass! So, he's Catholic when it's convenient, but as a legislator, he has a different job to do. His own words!I weep for this country...
I understand where you are coming from and it's good to show the people whom they've elected. The problem is that this is now a law. The process in this country to remove a law from the books is to repeal it or have it found unconstitutional by the supreme court - they are the final authority after all.To answer your question, there is another enumerated power "to provide" ... "for the general welfare" in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. If you look into the writings of the founding fathers you will see that they did believe that providing 'halfway houses' that take care of those who did not or could not do so themselves should be part of the government. Some believe because of these writings that when they wrote "general welfare" they were referring to this type of help for the citizenry.I believe if you truly want to know more about the constitution and its origins you should do your homework and read not only the letters between lawmakers but also the state constitutions and the federalist papers.I applaud your activity in politics and passion to take politicians to task when they need to be. I just hope you take that passion and channel it in a less angry and aggressive way.
DOn't see why the tighty rightys are upset about this after all..."It's just a godd@mned piece of paper" - GW Bush
Good for you! The more these know-nothing Congress people are shown for what they are the better!
You Da Man!Keep up the good work and the good fight. KC
Wow, you call this jounalism? Catcalling and heckling from behind a camera is punk level stuff. Good job getting a guy on tape saying he cares about the health of poor and middle class people more than an old piece of paper.
Great questions all in the video. I only wish you got him on cam being a sellout for not being compelled to pay for the same type of so called Heath care they are going to shove down our throats.
I know you are not educated but you would only have to read the preamble. We have be trampling on the constitution since it was ratified. "Promote The General Welfare". Your daughter would be better off if you had been aborted.
TC said "The process in this country to remove a law from the books is to repeal it or have it found unconstitutional by the supreme court - they are the final authority after all."No, in fact, they are not, the people are, even when doing something dead wrong. See the Income Tax efforts at legislation, being struck down, and then passed with a constitutional amendment (16th), and even passing and repealing prohibition with the 18th and the 21st amendments.We The People are the first and last word on what is to be constitutional, those in govt are only those who see to it that the process stays on track and works smoothly.(Oh... uh... wait a minute....)Hint.
TC said "there is another enumerated power "to provide" ... "for the general welfare" in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. If you look into the writings of the founding fathers you will see that they did believe that providing 'halfway houses' that take care of those who did not or could not do so themselves should be part of the government. "Gotta call BS on you again TC, I've read, not all, but a sizeable amount of the Founders personal letters and comments, as well as the sources for the ideas they had in mind when they wrote and debated the constitution, and Madison's notes for the debates, Federalist & Anti-Federalist papers, and early Supreme Court judgments and rulings - the notion of 'welfare' pertaining to anything such as we use the term today, that wasn't a popular, if even known, concept back then.You can find the relevant portion of several of those materials (Locke, Blackstone, States Declaration of Rights, etc) on this link as it pertains to the General Welfare clause in the Preamble, and can easily find your way to numerous other sources with but a few clicks... you let me know if you find what you're talking about, ok? From my reading, the meaning that was understood was that by uniting to form a union, securing the blessings of peace by virtue of unity and a common, stable rule of law, that was understood to be what immeasurably promoted the General Welfare.
Here's how Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his excellent commentaries on the constitution put it (linked to at the bottom of the page linked to above),"496. We pass, in the next place, to the clause to "promote the general welfare." And it may be asked, as the state governments are formed for the same purpose by the people, why should this be set forth, as a peculiar or prominent object of the constitution of the United States? To such an inquiry two general answers may be given. The states, separately, would not possess the means. If they did possess the means, they would not possess the power to carry the appropriate measures into operation.§ 497... Now, it is obvious, from the remarks already made, that no permanent revenue can be raised from this source, when the states are separated. The evasions of the laws, which will constantly take place from the rivalries, and various interests of the neighbouring states; the facilities afforded by the numerous harbours, rivers, and bays, which indent and intersect our coasts... What could any single state on the Mississippi do to force a steady trade for itself with adequate protecting duties? In short, turn to whichever part of the continent we may, the difficulties of maintaining an adequate system of revenue would be insurmountable, and the expenses of collecting it enormous...... If a system of regulations, on the other hand, is prepared by a general government, the inequalities of one part may, and ordinarily will, under the guidance of wise councils, correct and meliorate those of another. ... The navigation and commerce, the agriculture and manufactures of all the states, have received an advancement in every direction by the union, which has far exceeded the most sanguine expectation of its warmest friends.§ 501. But the fact alone of an unlimited intercourse, without duty or restriction, between all the states, is of itself a blessing of almost inconceivable value. It makes it an object with each permanently to look to the interests of all, and to withdraw its operations from the narrow sphere of its own exclusive territory.... "Ladies and Gents of the Tea Parties, I've snipped out a lot of text at those ellipses folks, it is important that YOU read the whole commentary for yourself, as well as that of those Founders who were for AND against the Constitution (see the link above), it is going to be important that we grasp the lay of the land in the coming battles. Van
For relevant commentary on Article 1, Section 8, assuming you meant Clause 1 ("...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."), try here.You let me know if you find what you were hoping to read into it.
Great Work!!! Keep it up!!!Ayn Rand....men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun.
Why aren't you concerned with the constitutionality of the selective service? Where does it say in the constitution that the government can force me to register to be drafted into war? If the health care bill is indeed unconstitutional you have nothing to worry about because it is going to be challenged in the courts. I'm fairly certain you have never studied constitutional law. And yes your daughter is going to pay for it. That is the system that has been in place for quite a while now. What's the alternative? Are you also questioning the constitutionality of both social security and medicare? Last time I checked I didn't have the choice to pay for other peoples retirement and healthcare.
From Story's comments on that instance of the 'General Welfare', after lancing the goodie bag view of the constitution that had "been maintained by some minds of great ingenuity, and liberality of views. The latter has been the generally received sense of the nation, and seems supported by reasoning at once solid and impregnable", he says,"...The reading, therefore, which will be maintained in these commentaries, is that, which makes the latter words a qualification of the former; and this will be best illustrated by supplying the words, which are necessarily to be understood in this interpretation. They will then stand thus: "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;" that is, for the purpose of paying the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. In this sense, congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but it is limited to specific objects,--the payment of the public debts, and providing for the common defence and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objects, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legislative authority. ..."
Great job Adam,I am an 82 year old man,I now have renewed hope for the future of thiscountry,Thank YouJRC
jb said "yes your daughter is going to pay for it. That is the system that has been in place for quite a while now."Sounds similar to Justice Taney's argument in Dred Scott... are you arguing that because the supreme court made a farsical argument in supporting slavery, and since it had been in place for quite awhile, then it should have remained standing?"Are you also questioning the constitutionality of both social security and medicare?"Speaking for myself? Yep.But maybe that's just me.
BTW Adam, just finished seeing your spot on Cavuto (DVR), well done.
great job Adam!
You are being awfully tough on a decent common man who does not have an advanced education, but who sincerely wants to relieve the plight of those unfortunate souls without healthcare, and who stood strong with Obama and millions of other Americans who support reform. He did not say he didn't "care" about the Consititution, those were your words. You insulted him, called him a liar. Shame on you! As you will see when the question comes to court, there is ample power in the Constitution to deal with healthcare and the insurance mandate under the tax clause and the commerce clause of the Constitution. Years from now you will look back on these troubled times and realize that healthcare reform was one of the primary legislative achievements of all time.
"Slow Ride Hare" just crapped all over his thrift store suit when you really pressed him about his responsibilities. He is a total fraud, nail all of these rats. Lars
Hope you rot in hell you facist pig! Stay the hell out of Illinois you piece of crap!!!! Stay in STL where you are just dumb enough to have right wing morons like yourself believe this crap! You are what is wrong with America, we need to revoke your citizenship along others of your unintelligent ilk!
aninnymouse said "...ope you rot in hell you facist p..."Always nice to see a leftist express themselves to the best of their ability.
Hey great video, I blogged about it as well as other constitutional issues regarding Health Care Reform at Is Health Care Bill Constitutional?
Adam, I've just finished watching as many of your vids as I can. Up 'til 3:00 a.m. last night. You are awesome. "Intelligent mischief" is your forte!By the way, here are a few catchphrases that might be useful in criticizing President Narcissus's policies: Since people think Obama is "The One" and "The Messiah", why not call him "GodBama" LOL! And of course, what about "Nazi Pelosi..." Soft-fascism in a San Francisco wrapper.How you nailed "Phil Hare" was truly priceless! Note how he had to whip out a worn-out typical liberal "Victimology 101" technique: Throw an indignant huff when someone rightly calls you a liar. He IS a liar because there's no way he read the full text of the bill 3 times!
It won't be much longer and Phil Hare will be out!!!! Thank goodness!!! Great job catching him before he tried to get bigger like Obama and Quinn!!
" JACK POT BRUDDER!" I love It
Thank you Adam Sharp... for getting involve and being well prepared to under cover what many people already know. The Democrats didn't do the real work and do not even realize what they have done. they will talk about the crumbs this bill has, but do not talk about the bad it will do to our liberty. Stay at it and let them pay in november.
Hmmm.....He started to say, "I believe a woman has a right..." What were you going to say Mr. Hare? maybe... "a woman has a right to CHOOSE her own reproductive HEALTH CARE?"Awesome interview Mr. Sharp! Thank you.
MR. HARE'S PAW, POO-POO'S REPORTER!I felt on his behalf, the shame meter rising with every word he couldn't untie his tongue to utter. 5:52 "I believe in pro-choice."7:02 "I don't believe Congress has the right to tell a woman..."I guess the Wegime faiwed to wemind Mista' Wabbit to wead the "Wules for Wadicals."A bit of a buffoon.
Found you via Bernie Shoenburg's column in the SJ-R today which called you a "tea party blogger." Mentioned you and the conflict in my blog at getdclu.com (http://wp.me/pLu72-tn) & look forward to more "conflicts" from you. Long live the Constitution!
Stay in your own state and don't be rude when visiting others. Jackpot jackass!
Jackpot Jackass! Stay in MO and worry about your own state!
You man handled that congressman. What a crook he is just like the White House sitter we have now.
"Jackpot brother?" Please, no reputable AG or Constitutional scholar believes HC reform is unconstitutional.You're beating a dead horse and embarrassing yourselves.
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!!!Keep up the excellent work~!Stevecommon centshttp://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Phil Hair sucks. He should be fired
very very niceblog have written. nice blog