Dear Mr. Hargadon:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the newly enacted Transportation Security Administration (TSA) procedures for passengers at U.S. airports. I appreciate the opportunity respond.
These new TSA procedures include arguably invasive pat downs and x-ray scanner images. I understand many American's concerns that these procedures threaten our civil liberties and are inappropriate and embarrassing. Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." There needs to be an appropriate balance between the privacy and freedoms travelers give up and the effectiveness of the security procedures. Moreover, heightened security measures must not infringe on our constitutional liberty.
I do not believe the federal government has proven to Americans' satisfactions that the new intrusive airport screening procedures are necessary to ensure safe air travel. That is why I support Congressman Darrell Issa's (CA-49), the incoming Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, call for stronger evidence that TSA, as currently organized and administered, is competent to ensure air travel security. Furthermore, I support Congressman Issa's Blueprint for Oversight of the Executive Branch. This report details how "the vast expansion of the power and reach of the Executive Branch of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has only increased the need for vigorous, unflinching Congressional oversight."
Thank you for contacting my office. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on federal issues that are important to you. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my Internet website http://www.house.gov/bartlett where you can sign up to receive e-mail updates regarding my legislative activity. It is a privilege to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett
Member of Congress
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Non-responsive Church/State
There seems to be little, if any, separation between Church and State when it comes to answering direct questions concerning essential issues, such as doctrinal application or our constitution, respectively. I attempted to contact both Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland's 6th District, and Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the Baltimore Archdiocese on the 18th of November, on two separate matters, both of which constitute essential policy. Congressman Bartlett's office was was originally contacted by phone, followed by a website e-mail. The Archbishop was contacted by e-mail, and then a personal mail. I have yet to receive a responsive answer to either.
Congressman Bartlett: (I left this e-mail through his website. December 2 at 8:38pm)
"I left a message at your Washington Office over two weeks ago as to why you had not spoken out on the TSA violations of our 4th amendment. Your staffer was unable to tell me where your position was on this critical issue. He also told me that I would be receiving a letter explaining... your position. I am still waiting! Do you support the 4th amendment of our constitution?"
(Summary of phone conversation posted on Facebook November 18th.)
"I called Congressman Bartlett's office to see what his position is on the TSA affront to our 4th amendment. His staffer said, "The Congressman will have to get back to me in a letter." A letter??? I don't need no stinking letter. I need someone to protect the constitution!!!!"
December 7th, 2010
Dear Archbishop O’Brien: (Follow-up letter to the e-mail)
"I sent you an e-mail on November 18th, under the subject of Election Supplement. It addresses my concerns with the presentation of candidate views in the Catholic Review’s, Decision 2010, Special Voter Guide insert. I have not received a reply.
As my party prepares for the next election cycle, my concern as to the political motivations of the diocese’s newspaper continues to fester. The Church preaches the truth on essential issues, and John Paul II the Great admonished the laity to become political. But, when we do, we are ignored and marginalized by the very Church that encouraged us to go forth and defend the essential matters of faith and morals.
It is difficult to defend a Church that preaches one thing, yet does nothing to direct the faithful, while at the same time, only contributes more to the tidal wave of media hype for politicians who promote state funded abortion, state funding of embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I guess you may not have seen my earlier e-mail. Be that what it may, I just needed to have a clear conscience, as I move forward making comments about the sincerity of the Baltimore Archdiocese."
(Original e-mail expressing my election concern.)
Archbishop O’Brien: Nov. 18th, 2010
I attended the dedication of the new chapel at St....
This November, I was on the ballot as the Lieutenant Governor, along with Eric Knowles for Governor under the Constitution Party of Maryland. Our party’s chairman, Mike Dawson requested that the Maryland Catholic Conference resurvey all the candidates before the general election, because the earlier primary survey was only done for the Democrat and Republican candidates. The Catholic Conference agreed. Thank you!
I was not however, appreciative of how the results were presented to the faithful: The Catholic Review’s Election Supplement. This supplement was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Each candidate’s answers were presented in a line, and it was necessary to decode the “A, D, or blank space”, with the questions which were printed earlier in the supplement. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction of ballot access candidates on these non-negotiable issues. This inability to simply state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure.
To promote these non-negotiable principles, and fail to clearly and simply state each candidate’s position of these issues, while at the same time aiding and abetting those who have positions directly opposite of Holy Mother Church, is pure, in your face, dereliction of duty.
Respectfully,
Mike Hargadon
Congressman Bartlett: (I left this e-mail through his website. December 2 at 8:38pm)
"I left a message at your Washington Office over two weeks ago as to why you had not spoken out on the TSA violations of our 4th amendment. Your staffer was unable to tell me where your position was on this critical issue. He also told me that I would be receiving a letter explaining... your position. I am still waiting! Do you support the 4th amendment of our constitution?"
(Summary of phone conversation posted on Facebook November 18th.)
"I called Congressman Bartlett's office to see what his position is on the TSA affront to our 4th amendment. His staffer said, "The Congressman will have to get back to me in a letter." A letter??? I don't need no stinking letter. I need someone to protect the constitution!!!!"
December 7th, 2010
Dear Archbishop O’Brien: (Follow-up letter to the e-mail)
"I sent you an e-mail on November 18th, under the subject of Election Supplement. It addresses my concerns with the presentation of candidate views in the Catholic Review’s, Decision 2010, Special Voter Guide insert. I have not received a reply.
As my party prepares for the next election cycle, my concern as to the political motivations of the diocese’s newspaper continues to fester. The Church preaches the truth on essential issues, and John Paul II the Great admonished the laity to become political. But, when we do, we are ignored and marginalized by the very Church that encouraged us to go forth and defend the essential matters of faith and morals.
It is difficult to defend a Church that preaches one thing, yet does nothing to direct the faithful, while at the same time, only contributes more to the tidal wave of media hype for politicians who promote state funded abortion, state funding of embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
I guess you may not have seen my earlier e-mail. Be that what it may, I just needed to have a clear conscience, as I move forward making comments about the sincerity of the Baltimore Archdiocese."
(Original e-mail expressing my election concern.)
Archbishop O’Brien: Nov. 18th, 2010
I attended the dedication of the new chapel at St....
This November, I was on the ballot as the Lieutenant Governor, along with Eric Knowles for Governor under the Constitution Party of Maryland. Our party’s chairman, Mike Dawson requested that the Maryland Catholic Conference resurvey all the candidates before the general election, because the earlier primary survey was only done for the Democrat and Republican candidates. The Catholic Conference agreed. Thank you!
I was not however, appreciative of how the results were presented to the faithful: The Catholic Review’s Election Supplement. This supplement was given to all Catholic churches in the Baltimore Archdiocese just before the general election. The Catholic Church identifies defense of human Life, opposition to Stem Cell Research, and support of marriage, as being essential issues. The Election Supplement though, did not state in simple prose, that the only ballot access candidate to agree with the Church’s position on these three issues was Eric Knowles. Each candidate’s answers were presented in a line, and it was necessary to decode the “A, D, or blank space”, with the questions which were printed earlier in the supplement. Not one sentence in this eight page special insert stated this pure distinction of ballot access candidates on these non-negotiable issues. This inability to simply state a candidate’s positions was not an issue however, when it came to each of the two major party governor candidates. Both had a record in opposition with the Church’s teaching, yet both were provided a full page of print along with photos. What a deal? This had to be about $2,000.00 worth of print exposure.
To promote these non-negotiable principles, and fail to clearly and simply state each candidate’s position of these issues, while at the same time aiding and abetting those who have positions directly opposite of Holy Mother Church, is pure, in your face, dereliction of duty.
Respectfully,
Mike Hargadon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)