Wednesday, March 31, 2010

John Hood's Daily Journal -- Life of the Party

John Hood's Daily Journal

Life of the Party, By John Hood

March 30, 2010

RALEIGH – If the Tea Party movement consists of a bunch of extremists, prone to violence and potty mouths as Obama partisans and the clueless news media have been trying to assert over the past week, then I guess that means most Americans are extremists, too.

You see, most voters agree with the tenets and activism of the Tea Party movement. They think ObamaCare will be disastrous and want it repealed and replaced with a real reform plan. They think taxes are too high, not too low. They think the federal government’s massive operating deficits and its nearly $100 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities are not an economic stimulus, as liberals apparently believe, but represent a clear and present danger to American prosperity and to representative government itself.

Tea Party activists believe that members of Congress are secretive, corrupt, and out of touch. According to a new Rasmussen Research survey, the American public agrees. While only 30 percent of respondents believe that the average member of Congress has a better understanding of the issues facing the country than the average Tea Party activist, 52 percent of likely U.S. voters see it the other way – that the average Tea Party activist has a better understanding of the issues than the average member of Congress.

If you think that average Americans informing themselves, exercising their rights, and challenging the pretensions of an unpopular class of reckless politicians are properly thought of as extremists, that says more about you than it says about them. It suggest that you are the extremist.

As for the rest of us, we see the Tea Party movement as a grassroots explosion of righteous anger and resolute activism. We see it as a portent of the political future. We see it as a last, great hope for preventing America from abandoning its constitutional traditions of individual liberty and limited government – and descending into a European-style welfare state that will sap our economic vitality and curtail our freedom.

Whether you like the Tea Party movement or not, you’re going to hear more about it in the coming weeks. Last April, dozens of spontaneously organized Tea Party organizations held rallies in communities across North Carolina to protest the fiscal irresponsibility of their elected officials in Raleigh and Washington. This year, from what I’m hearing and seeing, there will be another round of Tea Party protests on or around April 15th – sending the message that ObamaCare is unacceptable, that spending America into bankruptcy is unacceptable, and that we will not let the political activism of millions of concerned Americans be smeared by biased and credulous news reporting.

Here in North Carolina, the steps necessary to restrain and reform our government aren’t hard to formulate:

• No more job-killing taxes. Policymakers need to balance state and local budgets by setting firm priorities and focusing scarce resources on government’s core responsibilities.

• No more job-killing regulations. North Carolina should impose new rules on private economic activity only when the expected health or safety benefits exceed the expected costs, and when there is no less-restrictive alternative that can accomplish the same goal.

• Subject services to competition. Rather than throwing more money into government education or health care monopolies, North Carolina should give its citizens more power to choose the services that best meet their needs – and private firms more freedom to compete for willing business without undue burdens and restrictions.

• Embrace innovation. Rather than assuming that North Carolina needs to do the same old things the same old way, we should welcome new technologies and organizational forms – including the consolidation of state agencies, the expansion of distance learning, and the use of new ways to design, build, operate, and pay for the infrastructure North Carolina needs to sustain growth.

Be it at the federal, state, or local levels, the problems that currently plague us cannot be solved simply by taxing more, spending more, and borrowing more. In the coming weeks, thousands of North Carolinians will take to the streets – both in their own communities and in their state and national capitals – to send this message clearly to the political class.

Perhaps this time the message will be heard.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Why the Health Care Bill Could Be Repealed

March 30, 2010

Why the Health Care Bill Could Be Repealed

By Sean TrendeThe punditocracy has recently been consumed with a debate over whether or not the Republicans will be able to repeal the recently-passed health care bill. Outside of self-professed conservative pundits, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the odds are prohibitively against repeal (or significant modification).

This Politico article typifies the attitude of those who doubt that repeal can be effectuated. It argues that the current outrage over the health care bill is merely a part of a "familiar pattern since New Deal days: Government programs from Social Security to Medicare that were launched amid incendiary arguments within a short time became sacrosanct - protected by a bipartisan consensus that was nowhere to be found at passage."

This is certainly one possible outcome for the President's health care bill, but it isn't the only one. Here is why repeal is a real possibility.

1. This bill is substantively different than Social Security and Medicare.

My colleague Jay Cost made a critical point a few days ago:

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made use of an ingenious social insurance system - promoting the idea that we all pay in today to take out tomorrow. It was consistent with American individualism. It was simple. It was intuitive. It was bipartisan. Obama's new system has none of those virtues.

This feature is what makes repealing or substantially modifying Social Security and/or Medicare so difficult. They are entitlements that are broadly given to the middle class, who also pays for them. To the extent these programs are redistributive, that redistribution is largely hidden. Everyone, from the poorest member of society to Bill Gates, has some stake in Social Security and Medicare.

By the time a member of the middle class retires at age 65, he will have likely paid tens of thousands of dollars into the Social Security system. He expects to get that money back. The same goes for Medicare, which is funded by a smaller tax than Social Security (though unlike Social Security, that tax is not subject to an annual income cap), and is similarly available to all elderly Americans. In other words, cutting Social Security or Medicare requires taking something away from the middle class that they've already paid for. That's obviously hard to do.

While this bill was intended to be a broad middle class entitlement in the mold of Social Security and Medicare, it is fundamentally different. It is funded by a variety of mechanisms that target specific stakeholders. It is paid for primarily by Medicare beneficiaries and the wealthy, neither of whom are likely to receive the benefits. While beneficiaries will have a stake in the program, it will not be as substantial as their stake in their Medicare or Social Security benefits, which they have already essentially "bought" by the time they approach retirement.

Moreover, this bill will have a smaller number of beneficiaries, especially at first. Democrats like to brag that in the weeks after the bill has passed, the ban on pre-existing conditions will be lifted for children, adults with pre-existing conditions will be allowed to participate in high-risk insurance pools, and adults will be able to maintain their children on their insurance until those children turn twenty-six.

These are popular features of the bill, but I'm not certain how broad their appeal is. Most people do not have pre-existing conditions that they know of, nor do they have children with pre-existing conditions (for whatever it is worth, I fall personally in the former category, and via my son into the latter). I've not seen statistics on the number of parents who would like to keep their children on their insurance policies, but I imagine the number is relatively small compared to the vast number of people who are eligible for Medicare or Social Security.

Indeed, the central difficulty that the bill will run up against is the same one it has run up against all along: most people already have health insurance, and most people are basically happy with their insurance. While a number of Americans will enjoy receiving subsidies for purchasing health care on the exchanges (in 2014), many of the 30 million Americans who will be covered by this bill are Americans who could buy health insurance today, but choose not to.

For a comparatively small number of obvious beneficiaries, the bill creates a number of real losers as well: People who participate in Medicare Advantage, healthy people who would rather not purchase insurance, and people whose employers stop providing health insurance as a result of the bill, to name a few examples.

2. This bill is more similar to government programs that Congresses have repealed.

Programs that are perceived as broad middle class entitlements do tend to become untouchable. With programs that are perceived as social insurance or redistribution mechanisms, though, the track record is spottier. The idea that Congress never repeals programs once they have begun is unsupported by history. Congress repealed a large portion of the New Deal in the 1940s, and substantial portions of the Great Society were gutted as well; there is a reason that the WPA, CCC, and OEO are referred to only in history books.

Indeed, even the idea that Medicare is sacrosanct is belied by the substantial cuts to Medicare Advantage to fund the present health bill. Congress also substantially transformed a relatively unpopular redistributive entitlement program in 1996, when it reworked AFDC.

But the biggest elephant in the room is alluded to at the end of the Politico article: The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. It passed 360 to 66 in the House and by a similarly large margin in the Senate. It was signed into law by President Reagan in June of 1988.

The problems with the bill were many. There wasn't much real demand for the bill, nor was there substantial demand for the benefits it offered, such as a ceiling on doctor bills, larger payments for nursing home care, and a prescription drug benefit. Many people on Medicare already had plans offering these benefits. It was paid for by a surtax on elderly people with incomes over $35,000, thus removing the traditional Medicare hook that recipients had already paid for the benefit their entire lives. And it was the subject of an intense disinformation campaign by opponents.

The results are legendary. 6,000 members resigned from the AARP in protest of its support of the bill. Congressmen returned home to hordes of angry elderly voters in town hall meetings. Congressman Dan Rostenkowski was chased down the street outside of his office by a mob of angry voters. Members blamed the disinformation campaign, the complexity of the bill, and their failure to explain it well. Regardless, they ultimately repealed the bill in 1989.

While no analogy is perfect, this health care bill more closely resembles the 1988 bill than it does original Medicare or Social Security. It is amazingly complex, is not understood well by its purported beneficiaries, and many, if not most, of its intended beneficiaries already receive benefits in one form or another. It creates real losers as well, as described above. Unlike the 1988 legislation, there is little bipartisan support for the present bill; there is some bipartisan opposition. Most importantly, there is no overwhelming demand for today's particular legislation. People want health care reform, but it polls fairly low on most people's priority list, and most polling shows that voters are more concerned with controlling costs than with expanding coverage. Today's bill focuses on the former and indeed will increase costs for a substantial number of voters.

3. This bill starts on a different footing than Social Security or Medicare.

Perhaps most importantly, the premise that Social Security and Medicare started out as extremely controversial programs is incorrect. Social Security and Medicare had their detractors, to be certain, but they were nowhere near as controversial as the present bill. Both programs passed with significant support from the minority party. I have yet to read stories of Congressmen being assailed at town hall meetings by angry constituents after voting for Social Security or Medicare. I know of no major push in Congress to repeal either program in subsequent Congresses, notwithstanding major gains by the opposition party shortly after their passage.

The American people didn't grow to love Social Security or Medicare. Those programs had the people at "hello." That is certainly not the case with the recent health care bill.

4. Conservatives may have the votes to repeal the bill.

Finally, there is a substantial chance that Republicans will have the votes in the next few years to make significant changes to the programs, before the real benefits become payable in 2014. While control of the Senate remains a long shot for Republicans in 2010, Republicans should be favored to take that body over in 2012. If the political environment remains toxic for Democrats, the Republicans could even gain a filibuster-proof majority in 2012 or 2014. And while it is far too early to pass judgment on Barack Obama's re-election prospects, Republicans probably have no worse than a 40% chance of defeating him in 2012; if they do they will probably control the House and have a substantial majority in the Senate in 2013.

But even if they don't gain control of the government, a coalition to repeal the bill or (more likely) effectuate major changes to the legislation is not out of the question. There are twenty-three Democrats up for re-election in 2012, and twenty in 2014. Of those forty-three Senators (almost 2/3 of the total seats up), ten are from states John McCain carried, and additional eleven are from states George W. Bush carried at least once, while seven more are from states Bush came four points or less from carrying. That is a huge number of potentially vulnerable Senators up in the next two cycles; it eclipses the two Senators from McCain states up this cycle (three more are from Bush states, and an additional three are from Bush-near-miss states).

These Senators could afford to vote for the bill in 2010 partly because their elections were a long way off. They also did so because the White House could argue that the bill's popularity would turn around, and that the White House could pull vulnerable Senators and Congressmen over the finish line. But if the Republicans have an outstanding 2010, the White House's argument will have been tested and will have failed. There will be substantial pressure on these Senators to modify the bill. Could the Republicans put together a coalition in 2010 or 2011 to effectuate major changes? It would be a long shot, but if Obama's popularity remains below fifty percent going into 2012, I would not think it impossible.

None of this is to say that the Republicans will succeed in repealing the health care bill. It is just to say that their hand is considerably stronger than many make it out to be. It will be up to the voters in 2010 to determine just how strong the Republicans' hand is.

Sean Trende can be reached at

Page Printed from: at March 30, 2010 - 06:19:47 AM PDT

Monday, March 29, 2010

American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper ://

From a Russian Newspaper

The irony of this article appearing in the English edition of Pravda (Russian on-line newspaper) defies description. Why can a Russian newspaper print the following yet the American media can't/won't see it?

American Capitalism Gone With A Whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, losses, and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties, and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more than a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self-given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "free man" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance, and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest, and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

© 1999-2009.. PRAVDA.Ru. When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.


Source: Pravda.Ru


'Representing' al-Qaeda

'Representing' al-Qaeda

by Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review Online, March 29, 2010

Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?

Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."

Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...

For The Public Good?

In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.

The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.

And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...

Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."

Meaning of Flag Draped Coffin

Meaning of Flag Draped Coffin

All Americans should be given this lesson. Those who think that America is an arrogant nation should really reconsider that thought. Our founding fathers used GOD's word and teachings to establish our Great Nation and I think it's high time Americans get re-educated about this Nation's history.

Pass it along and be proud of the country we live in and even more proud of those who serve to protect our 'GOD GIVEN' rights and freedoms.

I hope you take the time to read this ... To understand what the flag draped coffin really means ... Here is how to understand the flag that laid upon it and is surrendered to so many widows and widowers.

Do you know that at military funerals, the 21-gun salute stands for the sum of the numbers in the year 1776?

Have you ever noticed the honor guard pays meticulous attention to correctly folding the United States of America Flag 13 times? You probably thought it was to symbolize the original 13 colonies, but we learn something new every day!

The 1st fold of the flag is a symbol of life.

The 2nd fold is a symbol of the belief in eternal life.

The 3rd fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veterans departing the ranks who gave a portion of their lives for the defense of the country to attain peace throughout the world.

The 4th fold represents the weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in time of war for His divine guidance.

The 5th fold is a tribute to the country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, 'Our Country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.'

The 6th fold is for where people's hearts lie. It is with their heart that they pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States Of America, and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

The 7th fold is a tribute to its Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that they protect their country and their flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of their republic.

The 8th fold is a tribute to the one who entered into the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day.

The 9th fold is a tribute to womanhood, and Mothers. For it has been through their faith, their love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great has been molded.

The 10th fold is a tribute to the father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of their country since they were first born.

The 11th fold represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon and glorifies in the Hebrews eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The 12th fold represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in the Christians eyes, God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

The 13th fold, or when the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost reminding them of their nations motto, 'In God We Trust.'

After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington, and the Sailors and Marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones, who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for them the rights, privileges and freedoms they enjoy today.

There are some traditions and ways of doing things that have deep meaning.

In the future, you'll see flags folded and now you will know why.

Share this with the children you love and all others who love what is referred to, the symbol of 'Liberty and Freedom.'







I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,

one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?


* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.



Saturday, March 27, 2010

Who are the Middle Class and Why we must protect them?

By Cheryl Lee Switzer, Author, Patriot

Today the middle class are the worker bees between the poor and the rich. They are constantly busily buzzing around their family, their community, and their work. They plan and dream; they take risks through innovation and entrepreneurial endeavors and they work extremely hard. They, by their inherent abilities and spirit, are what make our country great.

Now, stop and think about that for a moment – “their inherent abilities and spirit” – what do you think that means? It means that the majority of Americans are free to choose their professions, they are free to make decisions concerning their families, and they are free to take risks with their capital. They are slow to anger; fast to donate to those in need; believe in the law of the land established by our Constitution, and until now trusted government. Middle Class citizens are the backbone of the United States. Why? They hire more workers than anyone, they buy more, they produce more, and they are budget conscious and dependable.

The lower class – the poorest of our society for the most part – are on welfare, food stamps, and other government funded assistance and housing. They know a check is coming every month. So why should they work? Why should they try to get ahead? A small percentage of them break out of the mold, but most do not. They have become entrenched in an endless cycle of dependency on government. Their inherent abilities and spirit have been squashed. The same thing happens in the public school system through the teaching down to our students and the changes made to the grading system from A to F to Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Competition is healthy and encourages children to reach higher and higher. These are all classic examples of government interference, nonsensical political correctness, and a progressive government that believes it knows best. They control the poor.

Another example of government dependency and injudicious behavior comes from the government’s inability to downsize within its own ranks or to be fiscally responsible. Short of a felony, the government rarely fires an employee. If you work for the government, unless you voluntarily quit, it’s a job for life. Government agencies are budgeted a certain amount of money annually and they will never spend less than the amount allocated even if they have to purchase items not needed or hire people for nonsensical positions. If a department is frugal, they get less the following year; consequently, they gobble up taxpayer money in an irresponsible fashion. The government cannot even govern themselves as seen with years of Medicare fraud and abuse.

When the government establishes a welfare state through the largest health care dependency program in the world; one in which gobbles up one-sixth of our economy, it will then control the middle class. The elitist, socialist progressives in government and their greedy supporters will control many new aspects of the lives of the middle class citizens. The taxes alone that will be placed on the middle class will prevent them from hiring new employees, prevent them from opening new businesses, and increase the unemployment rate as companies are forced to let workers go. The intrusion into their businesses and personal lives, and the government’s creation of “economic crisis” to move unpopular legislation into law will in time bankrupt our country, but not before the middle class suffers. The “We’ll take care of you from cradle to grave,” means “Now we own you.” They will eventually tax the middle class into submission – taxed already too high – there’s more to come. The government’s take over of the auto industry is an example along with the newest “we are better than you” take over of the student loan program. Heads up! The student loan take over will cost college students approximately $1700 more with the government take over of the student loan business. The government will now make money on student loans and the profits which were taken away from the private sector and students will now go to help pay for health care. Bite the bullet because Medicare reductions to providers and citizens will be over a trillion dollars.

Are you getting the picture now? We must protect the middle class and by doing so, we will save our great nation.

Our founding fathers never intended this republic to become a welfare state and they were mindful that men in power will abuse that power. We have witnessed unabashed behavior and taxation without representation as our elected representatives refuse to listen to the will of the people. A revolution ensued 1773-1776 over that very same issue. This writer’s opinion is that the middle class will not allow government control over their lives and they will not succumb to the will of an elitist, progressive mind-set. Take that anyway you want!

Don’t Tread On Me! States Explore the Tenth Amendment

Don’t Tread On Me! States Explore the Tenth Amendment
By Debbie Morgan, staff writer,, March 26, 2010

Watching the debate on healthcare was like having a nightmare while living in the circus. The clowns never hear those they “entertain,” yet they continue to throw nasty legislation at the public. In one of the better moments from the debate, a Representative said the bill was totally unconstitutional, as the Federal Government does not have the authority to force the public to purchase anything. In an online forum, one gentleman stated that the bill is tantamount to extortion. It is apparent that we are down to the only peaceful recourse available…Support local State Sovereignty bills; the only way to overturn the healthcare nightmare, as well as all other over-reaching federal legislation!

When the subject of the Tenth Amendment has been raised in past conversation, some have laughed and some have said, “Oh, that will never work.” Since its passage, many States have tried to invoke their Tenth Amendment rights on several occasions. The largest combined effort, before now, was during the Civil War, when eleven states sought to secede from the united States. Interestingly enough, the last time people got truly fired up about their States rights was during the Roosevelt Administration’s “New Deal.” Why do we have such a magnificent amendment to protect the states if we are not going to use it?

The February 2008 CRS Report for Congress, after quoting the Tenth Amendment, states, “While this language would appear to represent one of the most clear examples of a federalist principle in the Constitution, it has not had a significant impact in limiting federal powers. Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment to have substantive content, so that certain ‘core’ state functions would be beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.” Yet, in the past, as now, the Federal Government continues to take what it wants, expecting the states to bow down in servitude.

Shortly after that Constitutional Convention, lawmakers saw the vague language and the need to recognize the rights of the States and their citizens. The Tenth Amendment was added, along with nine other defining amendments. Federal legislators, derelict in their duties, still see the Tenth Amendment as very vague and pass laws they are not truly authorized to pass. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights expressly states it’s purpose, “…the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” Since the Federal government overlooks this, I propose that, for clarity, it would be prudent to turn to the state-level debates that ensued during the formation of the State’s Rights Amendment.

The book The Complete Bill of Rights gives us a much-needed glance at the thoughts of our legislators at the time. Eight states proposed clarification for the Tenth Amendment. It is interesting that all these states were clear about not allowing the Federal Government any extra flexibility from its Constitutional boundaries. Of those, a few stand out.

From New York: “That the Powers of the Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…”

From North Carolina: “That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers, be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress...”

From Pennsylvania: “That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained...”

From South Carolina: “…that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.”

From Virginia: “…That all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived from the people; that Magestrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents at all times amenable to them…”

In the upcoming film Don’t Tread On Me, Constitutional Expert Dr Edwin Vieira makes a striking observation, “We-the-People do ordain and establish…Public officials didn’t do that, judges didn’t do that…that is a statement that We-the-People have the authority; we are the ultimate law-givers…” This statement echoes the thoughts, opinions and written words of our early State legislators, as well as many citizens of today.

James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers and chief author of our Constitution, made several defining statements about the States and government. These two stand out.

From Federalist Paper #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

In regards to state sovereignty and the compact theory: Our governmental system is established by compact, not between the Government of the United States and the State Governments but between the STATES AS SOVEREIGN COMMUNITIES, stipulating EACH with the OTHER…” from the Dictionary of American History.

There are other references, as well. Under the subject Reserved Powers of States in the 1940 Dictionary of American History Vol. IV, it states of the Tenth Amendment that it “…securely established the United States as a Federal state composed of a central government and a number of constituent state governments each possessing powers independent of the other.” It also confesses that the “Supreme Court has, by a consistent policy of broad construction, added many implied powers.”In Vol. V of the same Dictionary, the States’ Rights heading conveys “states’ rights has meant different things at different times” further stating that, as Jefferson envisioned State’s Rights, it was a “rule of strict construction applied to the powers of the central government…”There are more references, to be sure. It is clear by the above exactly what our legislators at the time meant by the Tenth Amendment…the individual States will, indeed, keep their sovereignty. The Federal Government will be limited from over-reaching its bounds and converting the united States in to a dictatorial government under the Federal government. I heard someone say, and it makes sense, that our Founding Fathers had just fought a war to win our country’s freedom from a tyrannical government (England) so why would they “create” a government with the same agenda? Why would they “win” their freedom just to give it up, again, to a central power?

Several states are drafting legislation to assert their sovereignty. Some of the more recent laws that have driven states to seek their Tenth Amendment rights are: the USA PATRIOT Act (which treads on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 13th Amendments) and its extensions, the Real ID Act (not passing on its own, it was attached as a rider to an appropriations bill), the John Warner Defense Act (ending Posse Comitatus), the Military Commissions Act (ending Habeas Corpus), the FISA Amendment Act (ending, then redefining, privacy), the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and, most recently, the newly passed healthcare disaster. No one is playing favorites. The last several administrations have been guilty of treading over the rights of the states and their citizens.

Charles Key, State Representative from Oklahoma and one of the most outspoken on the State Sovereignty issue, said in an exclusive interview for Don’t Tread On Me, “The whole reason we have the Second Amendment in there…is to protect ourselves against an out-of-control government, a tyrannical government, a government that is violating the rights of the citizens…violates the law.” Filmmaker William Lewis says, “Throughout history, tyrants don’t give up their power willingly.”

So what do we do? In a March 16, 2010 Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, fifty percent of the people said they would “replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative,” while forty-seven percent said they would not. It may be time to “start kicking ass and taking names,” according to film producer Gary Franchi. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer’s stand is clear, “The Federal Government says we want to be your daddy. We want to tell you how to live your life. That’s where we draw the line and say, whoa, not here in Montana.” It is evident that other states are drawing their proverbial “line in the sand,” as well.

What will it take for people across the United States to get angry enough to stand up and take back what is rightfully theirs; rights given to them by their Creator, NOT Congress? It didn’t happen when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act way back in 1913, or any of the other encroaching pieces of legislation since. Now we have the Federal Government mandating that we, as sovereign, individual citizens, purchase government approved health care! Can we not see that with each passing of an egregious piece of legislation the people are becoming more and more enslaved? What is it going to take to make people shout, “Stop treading on me”?

Endnotes: CRS Report for Congress, Federalism, State Sovereignty and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power, Kenneth R Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Updated February 1, 2008

The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources and Origins, Edited by Neil H Cogan, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1997

Dictionary of American History, James Truslow Adams, Editor in Chief, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1940, Volumes II, IV, V

For more information on the upcoming film, Don’t Tread On Me, please visit

States Rights

Nullification Legislation

13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul

Governors Rise Up Against Federal Takeover of Health Care

Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll: Throw Them All Out

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me

...because, divided we fall...

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Income Tax, The Patriot Act, Obamacare

The Income Tax, The Patriot Act, Obamacare By Chuck Baldwin

Dates That Destroyed America

Passage of the so-called "health care reform" bill in the House of Representatives this past Sunday, March 21 (I won't even address the inferred unconstitutionality of Congress doing business on the Lord's Day. See Article. I. Section. 7. Paragraph. 2.) drove yet another stake into the heart of America. For all intents and purposes, it is the health of the United States that is in dire need of healing. In fact, the US has been on extended life-support for decades. With its condition being rendered critical, and absent major surgery, its days are numbered. The passage of this bill only serves to further weaken an already frail Constitution. In fact, this one may prove to be the fatal blow. Lady Liberty may never recover.

The decision by Congress to socialize medicine in the US ranks among the most draconian, most egregious, most horrific actions ever taken by the central government in Washington, D.C. This bill rocks the principles of liberty and constitutional government to the core. It changes fundamental foundations; it repudiates historical principle. Oh! The same flag may fly on our flagpoles, the same monuments may grace our landscape, and the same National Anthem may be sung during our public ceremonies, but it is not the same America. The Congress of the United States has now officially turned America into a socialist state.

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law, and as such, this date -- along with March 21 -- joins a list of dates that have each inflicted unconstitutional, socialistic, and sometimes even tyrannical action against the States United and have, therefore, contributed to the destruction of a free America.

April 9, 1865
This is the date when General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Regardless of where one comes down on the subject of the Civil War, one fact is undeniable: Abraham Lincoln forever destroyed the Jeffersonian model of federalism in America. Ever since, virtually every battle that free men have fought for the principles of limited government, State sovereignty, etc., have all stemmed directly from Lincoln's usurpation of power, which resulted in the subjugation and forced union of what used to be "Free and Independent States" (the Declaration of Independence). In fact, the philosophical battles being waged today regarding the recent health care debacle (and every other encroachment upon liberty and State power by the central government) have their roots in Lincoln's tyranny.

July 9, 1868
This is the date when the 14th Amendment was ratified. This amendment codified into law what Lincoln had forced at bayonet point. Until then, people were only deemed citizens of their respective states. The Constitution nowhere referred to people as "US citizens." It only recognized "the Citizens of each State." Notice also that citizenship was only recognized among the "several States," not among people living in non-State territories. Until the 14th Amendment, people were "Citizens of each State." (Article. IV. Section. 2. Paragraph. 1.) The 14th Amendment created a whole new class of persons: "citizens of the United States." This false notion of "one nation" overturned the Jeffersonian principle that our nation was a confederated republic, a voluntary union of states.

February 3, 1913
This is the date when the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the direct income tax and IRS were instituted. This was a flagrant repudiation of freedom principles! What began as a temporary measure to support the War of Northern Aggression became a permanent income revenue stream for an unconstitutional -- and ever-growing -- central government.

April 8, 1913
This is the date when the 17th Amendment was ratified. This amendment overturned the power of the State legislatures to elect their own senators and replaced it with a direct, popular vote. This was another serious blow against State sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution desired that the influence and power in Washington, D.C., be kept as close to the people and states as possible. For example, the number of representatives in the House of Representatives was to be decided by a limited number of voters. In the original Constitution, the ratio of "people of the several States" deciding their House member could not exceed "one for every thirty thousand." (Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3.) And when it came to the US Senate, the framers also recognized the authority of each State legislature to select its own senators, thereby keeping power and influence from aggregating in Washington, D.C. The 17th Amendment seriously damaged the influence and power of the states by forcing them to elect their US senators by popular vote. The bigger the State, the less influence the State legislature has in determining its US senator. Senators who answered to State legislators, each answering to a limited number of voters, are much more accountable to the "citizens of the several States" than those who are elected by a large number (many times numbering into the millions) of people. For all intents and purposes (at least in the larger states), US Senators are more like "mini-Presidents" than they are representatives of sovereign states.

December 23, 1913
This is the date when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. This Act placed oversight of America's financial matters into the hands of a cabal of private international bankers, who have completely destroyed the constitutional principles of sound money and (for the most part) free enterprise. No longer would the marketplace (private consumption, thrift, growth, etc.) be the determinant of the US economy (which is what freedom is all about), but now a private, unaccountable international banking cartel would have total power and authority to micromanage (for their own private, parochial purposes) America's financial sector. Virtually every recession, depression, and downturn (including the one we are now experiencing) has been the direct result of the Fed's manipulation (again, for its own purposes and with Washington's cooperation) of the market.

June 26, 1945
This is the date when the United Nations Charter was signed and America joined the push for global government. Ever since, US forces have spilled untold amounts of blood and sacrificed thousands of lives promoting the UN's agenda. Since the end of World War II, in virtually every war in which US military forces have been engaged, it has been at the behest of the UN. And it is also no accident that America has not fought a constitutionally declared war since we entered the UN -- and neither have we won one. Furthermore, it is America's involvement in the United Nations that has spearheaded this draconian push for a New World Order that George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, et al., have talked so much about. The United Nations is an evil institution that has completely co-opted our US State Department and much of our Defense Department. It is an anti-American institution that works aggressively and constantly against the interests and principles of the United States. But it is an institution that is ensconced in the American political infrastructure. Like a cancer, the UN eats away at our liberties and values, and both major political parties in Washington, D.C., are culpable in allowing it to exert so much influence upon our country.

June 25, 1962, and June 17, 1963
These are the dates when the US Supreme Court removed prayer (�62) and Bible reading (�63) from public schools. At this point, these two Supreme Court decisions were the most serious affront to the First Amendment in US history. Think of it: from before a union of states was established in 1787, children had been free to pray and read the Scriptures in school. We're talking about a period of more than 300 years! Of course, the various State legislatures -- and myriad city and county governmental meetings -- still open their sessions in prayer, as do the US House and Senate, and even the US Supreme Court. But this same liberty is denied the children of America. There is no question that America has not recovered from these two horrific Supreme Court decisions. In effect, the federal government has expelled God not only from our public schools, but also from our public life! And America has not been the same since.

October 22, 1968
This is the date when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before this Act, the 2nd Amendment was alive and well in the United States. The Gun Control Act of 1968 turned a right into a privilege and forever forced the American people to bow to the altar of government when seeking to arm themselves. Interestingly enough, this Gun Control Act mirrored Nazi Germany's Gun Control Act of 1938. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is almost a verbatim copy of Hitler's Gun Control Act of 1938.Our Founding Fathers could never have imagined that governments within the "several States" would ever be allowed to deny the people's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it was the attempted confiscation of the firearms stored at Concord, Massachusetts, that triggered the War of Independence in 1775. That the people of Massachusetts would be denied their right to keep and bear arms, as they are today, could not have been foreseen -- and would never have been tolerated -- by America's founders.Yet, most of the hundreds of draconian gun control laws that have been inflicted upon the American people have all come about as a result of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

January 22, 1973
This is the date when the US Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand. These two decisions expunged the Jeffersonian principle that all men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life (Declaration). Since then, more than 50 million unborn babies have been legally murdered in their mothers' wombs. Abortion is, without a doubt, America's national holocaust. It has opened the door to a host of Big Government programs and policies that have resulted in the wanton destruction of human life both in the United States and overseas. It has created an entire industry whose express purpose for existing is the destruction of human life. It has desensitized the conscience and soul of America. Furthermore, it has forced men of decency and good will to finance -- with their tax dollars -- the unconscionable act of killing unborn children.And once again, another Jeffersonian principle was eviscerated. He said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." The Roe and Doe decisions violate this principle in the most egregious manner possible.

October 26, 2001
This is the date when President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, and the federal government's war against individual liberty began in earnest. Most of the unconstitutional eavesdropping, snooping, wiretapping, phone call intercepting, email reading, prying, financial records tracking, travel watching, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, by federal police agencies began with the implementation of the Patriot Act. The Department of Homeland Security and the "war on terrorism," which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people worldwide, and the usurpation of federal power at home, have all come about as an outgrowth of the Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act has forever shifted the focus of American law and jurisprudence against constitutional government and individual liberty, toward a police-state mentality. The Patriot Act is even turning our local and State law enforcement agencies into military-style "Jackboots," where police officers see themselves not necessarily as guardians of the citizenry, but, as often as not, as adversaries, where citizens are deemed to be the "enemy."

October 17, 2006, and October 9, 2009
These are the dates when President G.W. Bush signed and re-signed the Military Commissions Act. This Act is the outgrowth of the Patriot Act but has, in effect, terminated the fundamental protections of individual liberty, which are found in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act eviscerated the 4th and 5th Amendments, and do serious injury to several others. The Military Commissions Act also expunges the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.

March 21 and 23, 2010
These are the dates when Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the so-called "health care reform" bill that we spoke about at the beginning of this column. While Social Security and various Welfare programs have toyed with socialism in the United States, this bill is the largest and most expansive endorsement of socialism in American history. This bill socializes some 18% of the US economy by socializing the health care industry in America. The fallout and ramifications of this bill are going to be horrific. When future historians review the demise of our once-great republic, they will observe that the above dates, including March 21 and March 23, 2010, were the dates that destroyed America. The American people have been far too tolerant for far too long.People concerned about the future of freedom and prosperity in America should line up quickly and demand that their respective State legislatures and governors resist this new health care bill, even to the point of refusing to implement it in their states. More than 30 states are threatening to take the health care bill to court. But states must do more than that. They must follow the lead of the State of Virginia and pass legislation refusing to comply with it. Yes, I'm saying it: it is time for another State rebellion! If states do not stand up and draw their lines in the sand now, it will be forever too late.

© 2010 Chuck Baldwin
Also by Chuck Baldwin:John McCain's Attack on Liberty 03/17/10Hooray for Starbucks! 03/03/10Is America Becoming a Police State? 02/27/10It Is A Madhouse Out There 01/14/10Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Were Anti-Slavery 01/11/10View all 17 articles by Chuck Baldwin

Reprinted from:

Obama Just Got His Private Army

Obama Just Got His Private Army

By: Nancy Matthis at American Daughter

Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force?” Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.

Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these “Hitler youth” type young men talk about health care!

Obama just got his private army…
…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps. Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.(a) ESTABLISHMENT–(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you, dear readers, were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army?

See more:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center

State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm posted by Brett Bittner

I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:

“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”

The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States…is hereby declared to be invalid…shall not be recognized…is specifically rejected…and shall be considered null and void and of no effect” within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it “shall be the duty” of the State’s legislature “to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement.”

“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorney’s General for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized,” said Boldin. “The real question we must ask is this,” he continued, “Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?”

“Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified,” said Boldin. “The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.

“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong…close to home.”
About the Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance.

If the ideas this proposal interest you, I STRONGLY recommend seeking out work done by Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute with regard to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Also, he will be releasing a book on the subjects of nullification and interposition this year.


Congressmen and other elected officials on both sides, sometimes get angry or nasty messages, calls and letters. It is a fact of life. As a matter of fact, I got a nasty, nasty phone call from a liberal myself recently. Bush’s administration got plenty! So why is it such a big deal now, when it is the Democrats? Guilt for pushing this country into socialism? Shock that people don’t agree? Nah, we been telling em! I am sorry folks, but telling someone who just funded the murder of children and set this country on a path of destruction, that they are a piece of sh%& and that there are people who wish them ill, -- is not the same as threatening them harm!

Now I don’t condone threats or violence, even in cases of ignorance. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters -- "Clearly our democracy is about participation. Our democracy is about differing and debate, and animated debate and passionate debate -- but it is not about violence," he added. "It is about making sure that everybody in America feels free to express their opinion ... without subjecting themselves their family or others to behavior, and frankly criminal behavior, in some respects, that undermines our democracy."

How about we all contact Hoyer’s office and explain to him that we are a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. A Republic is governed by law, a Democracy by majority.

Lynn Childs

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Constitutional Awakening

Constitutional Awakening
by Walter E. Williams

If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.

While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?

One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.

Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.

The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.

Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Reconciliation Bill Adds Even More Taxes

Reconciliation Bill Adds Even More Taxes
Reposted from:

A jubilant President Obama put his signature on health care legislation yesterday, but the work isn’t done quite yet. The U.S. Senate must pass the Reconciliation Act of 2010, making a number of tax changes to current law.

By signing the legislation, Obama already broke his campaign promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year. The reconciliation bill adds even more taxes for Americans — an estimated $52.3 billion over 10 years, according to a new analysis from Americans for Tax Reform.

ATR’s Ryan Ellis spoke at The Bloggers Briefing yesterday about the reconciliation measure: ”We lost a major fight on Sunday. That fight is lost; President Obama has signed it into law. Rather than wallowing … and waiting until the election, we have a fight this week on the floor in the Senate. Do we want to have an additional tax increase on top of the tax increase that has just been signed into law?”

Heritage’s Robert Book, Guinevere Nell and Paul Winfree have been documenting these tax changes, noting how the legislation imposes new taxes on employers, the sick, and low-income and moderate-income workers.

Below is a table showing taxes that apply to everyone regardless of income. See table:

By Sherry Peel Jackson -- Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth

Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth

How many times do you hear, "Boy, I wish someone would have the gall to stand up to these people!" Well, there have been a few and we have IGNORED THEM! They have taken their lumps all ALONE! This gal is a HERO and she has been ignored by patriots! We need to REALLY get behind those brave enough to stand up and say, "NO"!!!!

By Sherry Peel Jackson --

Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth. I will tell you the answers that I gave after each question:

1. If we don't pay the income tax how would the country function? The answer to this question is very simple - the income tax revenue does not go towards running the country. On January 15, 1984, the Grace Commission, which is a private sector committee impaneled by President Ronald Regan to find ways to cut government spending found the following: "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt - all individual income tax revenues are gone before one dime is spent on the service taxpayers expect from government." This money actually goes to pay interest on our federal debt. The federal debt is paid to the Federal Reserve, which is not a part of the government but is a privately owned non-auditable banking cartel. To make it plain, your hard earned money is paid to the Federal Reserve to maintain control over your lives and the lives of countless other human beings on this earth. You can find several Internet sites that clock the federal debt as it rises per second. We currently pay the Federal Reserve over 36 million dollars per hour in interest. Obviously this money isn't going to current owners, but is being put in trust for children that are not even born yet - while you slave away trying to make ends meet. In addition, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, addressed the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II. The title of his speech was "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete."

2. Why doesn't my accountant or lawyer know this? If your accountant or lawyer does not know about the income tax hoax it is because they were not taught. I went all the way through high school, college and IRS training without this knowledge. The colleges and universities teach only what the textbooks contain. These same colleges and universities receive large sums of money from foundations - some of which may be directly or indirectly owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve banks. Concerning text books: There was a CBS 20/20 special hosted by Sam Donaldson that proved outright fraud and deception in the textbooks of primary and secondary schools. One example was given where there were over 100 factual errors in the textbook. The most disturbing revelation from this show, however, was the fact that one high school history book contained three lines twice about George Washington, but six and a half pages of information on Marilyn Monroe. Since when did Marilyn Monroe carry more clout than the founding fathers? (Answer) Since those with the cash to pay for the books started manipulating the content of the books. It can be concluded that the same re-writing of history is present in the textbooks at colleges and universities also. In addition, I personally talk to some tax preparers that do know about these issues. They acknowledge that the information that I present to them may be correct, but they state that tax preparation is their source of income. These people imply that they would rather not research the issue. They would rather continue to operate in error and perpetuate the system by keeping the truth from their clients in fear of loosing this income, instead of finding other sources of income. Personally, I would rather dig ditches.

3. Why as the media not telling us about this issue? It has been stated that it only requires about 5% or 6% ownership in a large corporation to significantly influence that corporation. Rockefeller is one of the original shareholders of the Federal Reserve. In July 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS and the bank gained interlocking directorates with ABC in 1974. Through other companies, it appears that "the powers that be" control the major television stations, as well as the major newspapers and radio stations. In other words, the power of the air. It has been reported that in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New York Press Club. It is obvious that he believed that the concept of an "independent press" was a farce that he no longer wished to be a party to. The following is reported to be a quote from his monumentally revealing toast: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know before hand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalist is to destroy the truth: to lie outright: to pervert; to vilify: to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. What folly is this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassal of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

4. I believe you, Sherry, but I am too afraid to fight against the IRS. My response to this comment mirrors that of Ms. Devvy Kidd. It may be harsh, but when does fear become cowardice? What if the founding fathers had been too afraid to stand against the British Troops? What if the Quakers were too afraid to stand up against slavery? What if the American troops had been too afraid to advance at Normandy? Are your golf clubs, your Lexus and your fine clothes a fair trade for the future of our children? Are you willing to be a slave in order to remain in your comfort zone? Pause and think about that.

5. Well, the Bible says give unto Caesar what is Caesars and that we are to obey authority. The response to that comment is this: The Bible actually goes on to say, "therefore, IF you owe taxes, pay taxes. IF you owe tribute, pay tribute. If is a very important word, and there is a credible body of evidence that says most American citizens do not owe income taxes. In other words, it's not Caesar's! Also, concerning authority, God is to be obeyed over man. God put authority in place and expected them to have his best interest at heart, not their own selfish interest. If we are supposed to obey all authority then answer this: Where did Paul write most of the Epistles? In JAIL! He disobeyed the authorities of the day and chose to obey God. From Genesis through the New Testament are several instances where citizens disobeyed the authority of their time because that authority worked against the mandates of God. If the government told you that you must kill your first born because we are overpopulated would you? Of course not! That hopefully shows you that people will not just obey anything that comes down from Washington or the courts. They realize that people that go totally against the word of God should not be obeyed - no matter what. Please go back and read about Paul, the Hebrew midwives and Rahab the harlot, the three Hebrew boys.

6. Well, this all sounds like some kind of conspiracy, do you have proof that this was done by design? The response to that comment is this: If you check your history you will note something very compelling. Karl Marx wrote what is called the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. This plan is a design for the government to rule over the people. In my research, I have noted that we currently have a legislatively enacted counterpart for each of the ten planks of the communist manifesto. The second plank is a heavy graduated income tax. We have the Internal Revenue Service to make the people fearful and hand over the fruit of their labor. As Ambassador Alan Keyes exclaimed recently, " If the government has the power to tax even 1% of a man's labor, it has the power to tax 100% of a man's labor and that man is then a slave." We are all salves by design, and if you doubt it you need to do your research.

11/19/2007 - Sherry Peel Jackson, a former IRS revenue agent and certified public accountant, told a federal jury Tuesday she was sure she did not have to file income tax returns. But after less than 30 minutes of deliberations, the jury convicted Jackson of failing to file income tax returns for four years, despite the alleged fact that no such law mandating the payment of income tax even exists. NOW HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION: Where is Sherry Peel Jackson today? Does anyone know? Have you seen her? Have you heard from her? Is she still in prison? If so, which one? How can we reach her? IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW!