Thanks, Doc: But I Will Be Getting A Second Opinion

A commentary piece as read by a Rep. Benishek constituent, via the good folks at MCC.   

U.S. Rep. Dan Benishek speaks out against vague language in legislationBy Rep. Dan Benishek

Imagine government without responsibility toward its citizens — let me give you a hint, it looks a lot like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime.

America is blessed with a Constitution that protects Americans so they are not afraid that each new leader will turn the country into a fascist nation. No matter how much anyone disagrees with a president’s policies, we can take solace in the protections of the Constitution.

The Constitution’s authority is supreme and every piece of legislation must fit within the Constitution’s limits.

Roger that, Doc.  So far, we’re on the same page.  Let’s continue…

OK, please continue, Rep. Benishek. 

This is why I, along with many constituents of Michigan’s 1st District were so worried about the latest National Defense Authorization Act, better known as NDAA. The NDAA is what protects us from terrorist and funds our military. It is essential to keeping America safe.The language of the NDAA was unclear and many worried that it gave the president the right to detain American citizens without due process. As a Constitutional conservative I could not sleep well at night knowing there was ambiguous legislation out there that could, if used improperly, allow the president to thwart the Constitution.

Whoa!  What?  You couldn’t sleep at night?  Then why the hell did you vote for NDAA in the first place?  Fact is, you did, Mr. Constitutional conservative.  C’mon Doc, didn’t mama raise you like everyone else with the question, “if your friends were jumping off cliffs, would you be dumb enough to do it too?”  Look Doc, this isn’t going so swell.  But, Rep. Benishek, tell me that there is something you did in Washington that may redeem yourself with me for November.  I know you can’t mention much about the debt ceiling, you voted to raise that, so I’ll stick completely with the dunderheaded NDAA vote.

 

That is why when it came to a vote I supported an amendment by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, which clarified that the president lacks the ability to unlawfully detain Americans without due process. These rights are guaranteed in Article III of our Constitution, but I wanted to make sure that no American had to worry or fear for their rights.

{facepalm} Uh .. Doc, would you mind going back to what you were talking about at the beginning of your commentary?  You know, it was your third sentence.  To quote,

 

The Constitution’s authority is supreme and every piece of legislation must fit within the Constitution’s limits.

OK, so, you mean to tell your constituents that you believe it was wise to buddy up with Rep. Gohmert, to “reaffirm” the obvious, which is the NDAA that you voted for is in violation of the Constitution?  I’m gobsmacked.  There is no other words that come to my mind to describe what you are telling your constituents.  Doc, let me be frank with you for a moment, I did not put forth my effort in 2010 to send you to DC under the Republican banner just to have you fall inline with the entrenched Tammy Faye Boehner gang.  They are the big spending, Moderate GOP congresscritters that gave us lowly voters the Democrats Pelosi as Speaker in ’06.  Folks are completely tired of the pale pastel incumbent mentality, Doc.  I was led to believe that you would be knowledgeable about that fact Rep. Benishek, as you are a well educated man that carries MD/PhD after your name.  Remember your “Enough Is Enough” campaign?  I do.

I also remember that you, Rep. Benishek, not only went the “reaffirm” pale pastel route, but you also gave your fellow Michigan Representative a face-wash with actually addressing your sleepless nights with legally binding legislation.

 

Republicans opposed to the Smith-Amash amendment proposed a hoax fix that “reaffirms” Americans’ right to habeas corpus. Only the right to habeas was never in question, so their proposal doesn’t actually do anything. It is a complete non-sequitur, a bad-faith attempt to prevent Smith and Amash from closing a gaping “terrorism exception” to Americans’ due process rights. That amendment passed by almost the same overwhelming margin that the Smith-Amash amendment failed, by a vote of 243-173.

Smith and Amash attacked the competing amendment, sponsored by Jeff Landry (R-La.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Scott Rigell (R-Va.).  “The first part of the amendment does nothing,” said Amash, “In other words, if you have constitutional rights, then you have constitutional rights.”

Your vote, Rep. Benishek.

Yannow, Rep. Benishek, it is almost two years after I voted to send you to DC and I’m still being told by you that “I am not a politician, I am doctor,” and am somehow expected to believe that.  Well, Doctor Dan, I just happen to be in complete agreement with the GOP Presidential Nominee when he said, “I like firing people.”  Yes, that is correct, I also like to fire inept people that don’t deliver upon what they boast.  Word is bond, Dr. Benishek.  Yes, we in all parts of Michigan are witnessing in CD-11 now that there are indeed those with integrity who would dare challenge an incumbent Republican such as, Kerry Bentivolio.  Take note, Rep. Benishek, that the monies that could go to your campaign have been reallocated to Mr. Bentivolio, and Rep. Amash.

Rep. Benishek, it is too late this election, but that “Second Opinion” is coming.  That is a promise.  Consider it a standard medical profession thing.

Oh, and just out of curiosity… did Juan’s son scribe your commentary piece for you?  Seriously Doc, it has left leaning holes in it that I, or anyone else for that matter, could drive a Primary sized Mack truck through.  Then again, I never really did understand the whole apple from the tree campaign thing, Mr. Constitutional conservative.

 

You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)

  1 comment for “Thanks, Doc: But I Will Be Getting A Second Opinion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *