Weiner,46, has been a member of the House of Representatives from New York’s 9th congressional district since 1999, served on the New York City Council from 1992 to 1998, and was an aide to former U.S. Representative Schumer from 1985 to 1991. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from State University of New York at Plattsburgh. Anthony Weiner has lived off taxpayer money since graduating college, is devoid of any functional, usable, or demanded skill, and has never produced, created, or contributed anything of constructive value, and thus had no choice other than to resist resigning.

As with all liberals, other than committing crimes of such a nature as cutting taxes, budgeting, and following the Constitution, he can count on supporters. Perennial nihilist Richard Cohen, scrivener for the propagandist Washington Post, compares the Jewish Weiner to Christians and lions: “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian’ in this case is a Jew, and the lions are the news media but the general idea is the same.” Cohen’s statement is contemptible, incoherent, and offensive as he, and is no different than if he had stated the following: “Another black man has been lynched in the South, but the ‘black man’ in this case was a white man, and the rope was a refrigerator but the general idea is the same.”

Charlie Rangel was quick to assess the situation with his usual Socrates-esque philosophy:”He wasn’t going out with little boys. Other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner.” At which point, Barney Frank, with his back to Rangel, but within earshot, did a flawless pirouette, and before he could open his mouth, Rangel said, “It wasn’t about you.”

Understanding Weiner’s nemesis and the agent of morality:

The crusader of morality, Ginger Lee, was able to resist Weiner’s sophisticated coercion and the graphic description of the instrument that had recently been complicit in impregnating his wife, to respond in kind. She was able to re-direct the conversations toward a more genteel and intellectual nature–a refined and cultivated characteristic she probably acquired in finishing school and continues to display with her current occupation. Ms. Lee, through the facilitation of her attorney Gloria Allred–the representative of the ignoble and plebeian–was able to present her apologia via a turnkey press conference. Once Weiner-gate went viral, Ginger Lee was compelled to speak, but only for the sanctity of the truth and definitely not for the media exposure for her “featured performer” artistic tour: “I think Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week. It might never have turned into this if he had told the truth, but he kept lying.”

The only thing incredulous about her statement is she had the courage to go on record alleging a career politician lied to the public and the press for more than a week.

Lee continued:

We exchanged about 100 messages or so, and anytime that he would take our communication in a sexual direction, I did not reciprocate. I couldn’t. How could I? I knew that I couldn’t lie for him, but I couldn’t be the one who kicked him under the bus. I had not yet met Gloria. Once it got to a point that he lied on national television, then I knew that anything I said after that would have to be either a lie or an admission. I didn’t want to do either. It’s not like, you know, I’m doing that now. So once my names became public and I was associated with a dirty sex scandal, I received like a 100 phone calls, messages, flowers, and a $500 gift card to Walmart from Gloria Allred. I finally just called her back, and we just hit it off. It was like we just had so much in common.

Ginger Lee came into this world November 25, 1983 as Tonya Short. One of the characteristics of most Americans of stature and elite social hierarchy is to have a trail of aliases. Tonya Short, aka Ginger Lee, aka Abbie Lebon, aka Ginger Vicious, aka Candace Raines, and aka Tonya Trzebny, is no exception.

In her selfless quest to spread morality and education to a specific segment of the populace, she has sacrificed her time, effort, and body to make films of an educational and public awareness genre. She has been a “featured performer” dealing with various subject matters in her 50+-filmography career. Although I have never personally reviewed any of her films, the titles and the depth of her character manifest the content. A truncated list of her contributions, film titles, and their subject matter:

My Dirty Angel. Tonya Trzebny is able to put to use the Doctor of Divinity degree, or Divinitatis Doctor–as she refers to it when exercising her Latin–she received from The University of Oxford, which she acquired during her stay in England. This is obviously a reference about stumbling upon an angel, dirty and disheveled from being disoriented and lost and wandering the mean streets of Macon, Georgia. In the mode of the movie Splash, and the television series Mork and Mindy, family-friendly hijinks ensue.

Beaver Hunt 4. Ginger Vicious’ master’s degree in Zoology and ethological training comes in handy in this heartwarming family-friendly documentary about a group of young and socially conscience scientists who have their physical and emotional limits tested while studying a family of beavers that have erected a damn blocking a crucial water supply for a small town. To save the town, they would have to ravage the beaver’s dam, and to save the beavers and their damn, they would have to leave the town impotent without water.

Swallow This. Candace Raines is able to use her advanced degree in Ornithology and her Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in this documentary about the quest to capture and administer oral antibiotics to a family of barn swallows suffering from a rare form of an avian bacterial infection (Allredebus famehorebus), which is causing the swallows to migrate to a Los Angeles television station, forsaking their natural habitat and breeding grounds.

Stuffin Young Muffins 5. Abbie Lebon is documented just days from earning her Master of Liberal Arts at the Le Cordon Bleu School of Culinary Arts. Her culinary magnum opus is a delectable and savory serving of muffins stuffed with various sweets and a dash of forbidden fruit. It takes a very adventurous palate to appreciate a freshly stuffed muffin, as revealed in this charming and enlightening documentary.

Gloria Allred can serve two immediate and necessary functions for Ginger Lee, aka Abbie Lebon, Ginger Vicious, Candace Raines, and Tonya Trzebny: first, to act as a firewall between the above group of legitimate personalities Tonya Short has cultivated through the years, and the undeserved pejoratives being associated with the various entities, such as “porn star,” “stripper,” and “prostitute,” and second, to broker and negotiate film and appearance deals so the group can cash-in before the customary 15 minutes are up, and 15 minutes of infamy is Gloria Allred’s specialty.

Ginger Lee is a performer and refused to call herself a stripper during one of Gloria Allred’s turnkey news conferences. A “featured performer” is what she insists on being referred as–just as one would refer to a professional ballerina. During her non-sexual and purely political messages to Weiner, Lee referred to herself as the “most famous stripper in America right now.” But as Allred countered, “That is just hearsay and should be disregarded and stricken from the record.”

The entire entourage of Ginger Lee, Abbie Lebon, Ginger Vicious, Candace Raines, and Tonya Trzebny will be taking their morality show on the road, as should all sophisticated moralists, by performing in a nude, writhing, and gyrating non-sexual manner in a room of inebriated men with fists full of dollars. They made their first appearance at the most cosmopolitan and elegant of establishments in Atlanta, Georgia, the Pink Pony gentleman’s club. They were the “featured performer.” Tony Short and her band of morally crippled “performers” will do fine until relegated to the dustbin of irrelevance, as have all of Allred’s 15 minutes of notoriety clientele.

Ginger Lee has a website/blog that lists the various urbane performing arts she will perform for money: “Feature Dancing, Fashion Nudes, Art Nudes, Glamour and Glamour Nudes, Interviews, Lingerie. Please don’t send me media/interview/press questions through this profile, contact my attorney, Gloria Allred.”

And for poor under-qualified Weiner, no sooner than he had pulled his pants back up, he had a job offer. He received a legitimate letter from Larry Flynt: “After having learned of your sudden and compelled resignation from your Congressional post, I would like to make you an offer of employment at Flynt Management Group, LLC in our internet group.”

Flynt elaborated, “This offer is not made in jest,” and he is “willing to pay twenty percent more than your former Congressional salary, ensuring that your medical benefits would be equal to what you were previously receiving.”

So a very happy ending for all. Ginger Lee et al. are able to perform in her chosen field of artistry, Anthony Weiner has received a generous job offer for what may be the only job a career politician is qualified for outside prison or the mafia, and the preeminent headline-seeking attorney was once again in the national spotlight, and again was able to demonstrate that she can be seedier than any client she represents.

The second is through unadulterated and pathological stupidity, which brings us to the esteemed Steny Hoyer (D-MD). When a bill comes before Congress for a vote and is antithetical to the Constitution, Hoyer’s bleat is the first aye to pierce the air. Hoyer, coincidentally, has a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University of Law. Hoyer has a lot in common with Barack Obama in that they both have law degrees, work in legislative and administrative branches of the government, respectively, and any canonical knowledge they possess regarding the Constitution cannot be substantiated beyond myth. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) deserves an honorable mention for not even pretending to know the contents of the Constitution.

When asked by CNSNews.com, “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?” Leahy gave the following series of answers: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” and “Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

The contentious debates surrounding the dismantling of America’s health care system have accentuated Hoyer’s intellectual deficiency. Hoyer, in his own words, has substantiated his abysmal and vacuous comprehension of the Constitution, which for a sitting Congressman, is felonious. During Hoyer’s weekly press conference, he was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress was granted the power to mandate that a person must purchase a health insurance policy. Hoyer responded with an incoherent interpretation of the “welfare clause” of the Constitution that was unsophisticated, fraudulent, and nakedly preposterous. His justification for Congressional power grabbing:

The General Welfare Clause empowers Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.” In providing for the general welfare, Congress had “broad authority.” The insurance mandate is constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.

The general welfare clause to which Hoyer is referring can be found at the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Three primary components are required to have a legitimate understanding of the United States Constitution: 1) the Constitution did not grant rights; its purpose was to restrict the federal government’s ability to infringe upon existing unalienable rights, 2) the original meaning of the text, 3) the original intent of the text. Both the original meaning and intent of the “welfare clause” are contradictory to Hoyer’s assessment, and the limit of the federal government’s power to infringe upon individual rights is a non-factor in the process of crafting laws by the Democratic Party.

Elaboration on the three components:

The Constitution did not grant rights. Regardless of how hard one could– as Jefferson said–try “what meaning may be squeezed out of the text,” a granted right cannot be found in the Constitution. The rights, God-given or natural rights, already existed, as noted in the Declaration of Independence: We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even though certain unalienable rights already existed, and were protected by the Constitution from infringement by the federal government, an accompanying Bill of Rights was necessary to consummate ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not grant the rights contained within the first ten amendments; it merely enumerated those rights, already protected by the Constitution, to assuage the concerns of the states about the ten rights most important to the states. The legislature, conversely, was only granted a limited and enumerated set of powers as manifested in the first sentence of Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution: All legislative Powers herein granted….

The original meaning of the “welfare clause” can be ascertained with perfunctory effort. The word “welfare” has evolved to have a different meaning and connotation since the ratification of the Constitution. Noah Webster’s Dictionary, the contemporary dictionary existing during ratification of the Constitution, defined “welfare” as thus:

WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

Considering that the federal government was rendered virtually powerless regarding individual rights by the Constitution, the second definition’s application to the states would unarguably have been the guiding spirit and application of the “welfare clause.” This stands in stark contrast with Hoyer’s constitutional right of power statement to force Americans to purchase.

The original intent of the “welfare clause” can be established simply by the purpose of the Constitution: to establish a federal government for the United States created by the states to serve the states, and enumerate a set of limited powers and parameters within which the federal government would be required to operate. The establishment that the term “welfare” implied that its application was limited to the states, and the limited enumerated powers granted to the legislature, produces a very narrow application of the “welfare clause.”

If using a broad interpretation of the “welfare clause,” as Hoyer deems applicable, Congress would possess absolute and unlimited powers. This is antithetical to the animus of the Constitution’s limiting the powers of the federal government, and the two cannot be reconciled. Also substantiating the argument of a narrow interpretation of the “welfare clause” is the fact that contained within Article 1, Section 8, directly following the “welfare clause,” is the enumeration of the limits on the powers of the legislature. As structured in Article 1, Section 8, the “welfare clause” is not a separate enumerated power, but a functional component of the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and thus is confined within very narrow parameters as a limiter on the taxing and spending powers of Congress.

If, for argument’s sake, the broad approach to the “welfare clause” was legitimate, as espoused by Alexander Hamilton, the proposed method of reforming health care would still be unconstitutional. See Hamilton’s definition of a broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause: “…spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country….” The guideline of the promotion of general welfare is for all persons, and not the general welfare of a narrow and circumscribed section of the population, as in the case of healthcare reform, it would promote the general welfare of only .066 % of the population, while systematically punishing the remaining 93%.

The United States Constitution was uniquely created based on the principle of enumerated powers. When Congress spends money, as dictated by Article 1, Section 8, the expenditure should be tangentially tied to one of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress. According to Madison, “The General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.”

Sometimes, after traveling the road of centuries, words, as well as their meanings and their relevance, become corrupted and lost within the vortex of ideological arguments, and contorted from the philosophical tug-of-wars of laying claim to their meanings. Most chasms of interpretation can be resolved by simply having the author, in his own words, explain what he meant. And in this particular case, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, will explain the meaning of the General Welfare Clause. In Madison’s own words:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

And for good measure, Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

What is the harm of a little chipping away here and there of the Constitution for the betterment of the American people? George Washington summed it best in his farewell speech: “Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

So in conclusion, to be an American, a true patriot, one must understand and respect the character and intelligence of these great men who fought, sacrificed, and created this country out of a cataclysmic tribulation, and constructed the greatest nomothetic foundation, the United States Constitution, that mankind has employed as a governmental system to date. The audacity of Steny Hoyer, this inconsequential Congressman, barren of the virtues of patriotism, pregnant with the malignancy of statism, to purport that Congress has the power to force the American people to purchase anything in the name of the Constitution. A Congressman, a protector of the Constitution, a representative of the American people, indeed.