U.S. Senator Kit Bond

Today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch is singing the praises of U.S. Senator "Kit" Bond's recent vote of confirmation for Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor in an article entitled:"Bond gets points for principle" and as usual as with most things the Post-Dispatch reports nothing could be farther from the truth. Principle is something Senator Bond through out the window long ago.

The Missouri Senator explains his decision in today's Post-Dispatch as follows:

"I have always looked to the Constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent. It is an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator, when I vote for or against legislation before this body."

If Senator Bond was looking to the Constitution for advice, perhaps he should have remembered his Oath of Office which states:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "

Did Senator Bond really look to the Constitution when making his decision to vote in favor of Sonia Sotomayor's comfirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court? Did he remember his Oath of Office?

A review of the facts will reveal that he did not.

On May 27,2009 World Net Daily reported that:

"Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police"

If Senator Bond really consulted the Constitution when making his decision about Judge Sonia Sotomayor he would have known she was a member of the National Council of LaRaza, and what their views are concerning illegal immigration.

If Senator Bond really consulted the Constitution he would have read Article I , Section 8 which grants congress the authority to:

"provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Groups like the National Council of LaRaza promote illegal immigration to {according to World Net Daily}:

"advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America."

Secession discussed by the legal citizens of a sovereign state is one matter but when it is being promoted by radical groups planning to use illegal immigrants to give the Southwest United States back to Mexico, it becomes INSURRECTION !

Perhaps Senator Bond should have pondered Sotomayor's views on the 2'cd Amendment as well before voting to confirm her. In an article posted June 3, 2009 at the Heritage Foundation's 'The Foundry' blog {entitled "Sonia Sotomayor's Second Amendment Problem'} Sotomayor's views on the 2'cd Amendment are crystal clear:

"In light of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in NRA v. City of Chicago, holding that Supreme Court precedent binds the court to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it is useful to note a key distinction between that case and Sotomayor’s in Maloney v. Cuomo. Notably, in Maloney, Sotomayor joined an opinion finding that New York’s weapons law did not “interfere[] with a fundamental right.” (She had expressed similar views pre-Heller, when she joined an unpublished opinion stating that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”)

If Senator Bond had consulted the Constitution he would have read that:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Senator Bond took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution which among other things calls for our government to protect its citizens from insurrection and protects the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

Sonia Sotomayor belongs to an organizations that promotes insurrection and she believes that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental right!

If Kit Bond even glanced at the U.S. Constitution he would have known that Sotomayor is not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice but Mr. Bond, who hails from Missouri's "Little Dixie" area said in 2003 following Governor Bob Holden's removal of Missouri's Confederate flags:

"flags flying over official government property should be symbols of unity, not symbols of division"

U.S. Senator Kit Bond chose "unity" instead of "oath", "convenience" over "constitution" but "principle" had nothing to do with his decision regarding Sotomayor thus I am happy knowing that he is not running for reelection. However; the damage is already done.

Clint, Missouri Bushwhacker

 

Once again...hard hitting, to the point and true Mr. Lacy. Keep up your good work. PG

When has Bond ever consulted the Constitution before casting ANY vote in the US Senate?

Unfortunately the GOP is just going to prop up another Bond Republican as his sucessor.

Thank You for your comments gentlemen. Lumpy, you are correct the elephants plan on running Roy Blunt from the "Old Regime". So the question is this: What is our best strategy here?

Do we vote for Robin Carnahan?

Or do we vote Third Party?

Kit, let's get real. You and "flimsy" Graham, so-called Southern "conservatives" decided to vote for Ms Sotomayor because you are afraid someone will call you a "racist" if you don't. News flash! when your back is turned they call you a racist anyway.

Right on Dave! Even worse, he is racist against his own heritage.

Does anyone know anything about Chuck Purgason? He is seeking the GOP nomination for Bond's Senate seat. I have contacted him via MO Senate's e-messaging system, but he has not answered.