Politics, Constitutional Decline and Government Overreach

By Roger Pilon

This article appeared in the Fall 2013 Issue of the Jewish Policy Center’s inFocus Quarterly.

“What’s the Constitution among friends?” asked Ohio’s John F. Follett in the House in 1884. Still in the offing, constitutional decline was only stirring. In fact, three years later, 100 years after the Constitution was written, President Grover Cleveland would veto a bill appropriating the paltry sum of $10,000 for seeds for Texas farmers suffering from a drought. “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution,” his veto message said.

Cleveland was simply echoing a long settled understanding that ours is a Constitution that authorizes only limited government. Not that calls for more government had not been heard from the start. In 1791, for example, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton unveiled his Report on Manufactures—an early industrial policy scheme. Congress promptly shelved it. And in 1794, the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, finding before him a bill for the relief of French refugees fleeing to Baltimore and Philadelphia from an insurrection in San Domingo, rose on the floor of the House to declare, unremarkably, that he could not “undertake to lay his finger on that article of the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending on objects of benevolence the money of their constituents.”

“How did a nation conceived in and dedicated to individual liberty take on the trappings of the collective mind such that so much of life today is lived through the state?”

How quaint. Is there anything today that is not fit for government’s attention? Large sodas and restaurant menus have lately garnered notice. Retirement, health care, day care, wages, rents, prices, charity, even public radio and television—all that and so much more is the regular business of modern American government because, as President Obama has so often put it, “We’re all in this together.” Indeed, “we sometimes forget,” he told Ohio State graduates last spring, “the larger bonds we share, as one American family.” The family vacation of old springs to mind: Do we go to the mountains or the beach? If we’re all in this together, we can’t go our separate ways.

So how did a nation conceived in and dedicated to individual liberty take on the trappings of the collective mind such that so much of life today is lived through the state, as in the Obama campaign’s much parodied “Life of Julia” cartoon? How did we go from limited government to Leviathan, from the dominance of the private to that of the public sphere? Elements of both have been with us from the beginning, of course, but the presumption at the outset and long thereafter was for private, not public, initiative. That’s no longer true. Got a problem? Washington has a solution. Politics today is ubiquitous.

READ MORE:  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/politics-constitutional-decline-government-overreach?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=9021b700b7-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-9021b700b7-141723190&mc_cid=9021b700b7&mc_eid=2653a08a51

50 Most Dangerous Liberals in America

After less than two years of watching a far-Left administration and Congress show their contempt for the citizenry and pursue a radical agenda that only hyper-liberal-progressive voters could support, the nation woke up and realized the disaster highlighted by the 2008 election of Barack Obama: Liberals had been given way too much power. Americans have witnessed with disgust the progressives' efforts to tear at the very fabric of America. We don't want to "radically transform" the country. We don't want to reject our founding principles of liberty and limited government. We love our Constitution and respect it.


The midterms were a rejection of the Left. But that's where we must be careful -- like a wounded animal, liberals are dangerous when exposed and backed into a corner.


The Townhall editorial staff saw the threat radical liberals are to our country and compiled a list of those who pose the greatest danger to the future of the republic. The toughest part was limiting the list to 50, but we did it. We had two requirements: 1) They had to be living, which is one reason Saul Alinsky didn't make the list; and 2) they had to be based in America, thus no Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame.

One thing subscribers have quickly noted: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton made the list. Tells you something about the people who did, doesn't it?

#1 GEORGE SOROS

Businessman and Billionaire Liberal Financier; Founder and Chairman of Open Society Foundations.

George Soros, the main “money bags” of the Left who is responsible for taking down entire economies on his own by betting against weak currencies, has a disturbing personal history. He grew up in a Jewish, yet anti-Semitic, home in Hungary during the Nazi occupation of Europe and calls it the happiest time of his life.

CONTINUED:
http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2011/01/50-most-dangerous-liberals-in-america.html

Sun Journal New Bern--Letter to the Editor: “Government Limits" by CCTA Vice Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

November 5, 2011


Mr. Fred Pittenger states in his recent letter the solution offered by the right “is to tear down government and allow the free market to roam at will.” I beg to differ.

Only an anarchist believes in no government; but freedom lovers do believe in limited government, especially at the federal level. Limited government is defined as following original principles outlined in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. As for free markets, those have failed to exist in this country some time ago. Unfettered capitalism has not been the problem. Government interference and crony capitalism, with government choosing winners and losers instead of the market, has created an unhealthy economy.

Mr. Pittenger, unknowingly, made my argument that big national government fails time and time again. Yes, people have got sick from eating cantaloupe, spinach and other things. But we have the FDA and the USDA supposedly in charge of making food and drugs safe. How’s that working out?

The banking industry and Wall Street have overseeing agencies galore, but the meddling of the “do-gooders” in the District of Corruption requiring loans for home to those who were incapable of paying destroyed the housing market. In spite of all the regulations, Bernie Madoff still ripped off his customers. Regulations are no better than those enforcing them.

Has no one noticed that the bigger government becomes, the worse off most of us are? Gasoline was over $5 a gallon 10 years ago in Europe, the elite home of socialism and handouts. Instead of learning from their mistakes, like fools we have emulated failure. Is America so arrogant we feel that those economic and cultural failures will work better if our people are in charge? Are we immune to the consequences of bad decisions and poor leadership? Do we really have to become like Greece before we figure out that socialism doesn’t work?

Strong, sound local and state government would be more efficient than the behemoth Federal government now choking our economy. Education would improve and business could once again flourish. Let those states affected make and enforce the laws necessary for their particular circumstances. One size does not fit all.

James Madison said it perfectly, “If men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, no controls on government would be necessary.” I would say there are no more angels in Washington than anywhere else, and the devils there need no more power to control the American people.


Nancy Murdoch, Havelock, NC

© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/letter-101814-offered-pittenger.html

SUN JOURNAL LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Tea Party defined by CCTA Chairman, Raynor James

October 21, 2011 4:40 PM

What is “the Tea Party” anyway?

Since the spring of 2009 when this phenomenon sprang up, there have been many articles and lots of time on TV and radio devoted to the subject, but confusion persists. Is the Tea Party a political party? Are they terrorists? Are they racists? Are they none of these? Some of these? Something else entirely?
I think I can shed light on this. I’m the 2011 chairman of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, or CCTA in short-speak. We’re the group that has given all the Tea Party rallies that have been held in New Bern and Havelock.

We are non-partisan and do not endorse candidates. However, we do have a philosophy of government. In a nutshell, we favor small government, low taxes, adherence to the Constitution, unshackling the free enterprise system so that it can create the opportunity for prosperity for all, and personal freedoms coupled with personal responsibility. Simple. Sound. Solid.
Many of our members (as individuals, not as CCTA members) are very active in political parties. Many of us have worked very hard for candidates we believe are aligned with our philosophy of government.

Racists? No. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard many of our members talking among themselves in social conversations express the notion that they’d like to see Herman Cain become our next president. If this is true, and it most certainly is, where could this racism charge have originated? I believe it comes from groundless charges made by people who use government “charity” (an oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one) to buy votes and in the process convince groups of people that their group cannot possibly fend for itself and prosper. Quite the opposite, their group is ill prepared to look after themselves and their families; they need and must get government aid. What a dastardly thing to do to people, but it happens.

Terrorists? Nope. We want the government off our backs and out of our lives. (I prefer to choose my own light bulbs, thank you.) We express ourselves clearly, but we recognize the right of others to think differently. We do not want to force people to believe as we do. We do work very hard to educate and persuade. Our members tend to be very concerned about children and grandchildren. Most of our members are well educated (some with advanced degrees and some self educated). While we tend to be opinionated, most have very kind hearts and are very generous with their time and talents. Most, perhaps all, are religious.

We are not formally affiliated with other Tea Party groups, but we do have a Tea Party chairman, Lynn Childs, who organizes our rallies and is our “ambassador” to other groups. From time to time, we do a project or take a trip (to Raleigh or D.C., for example) with another group. We have informative speakers at our monthly meetings, sponsor Constitution classes, and conduct candidate forums during election years. Some of our members write letters to the editor from time to time, and one of our members, C.A. Lee, has just had her marvelous book, “Shifting Culture: Revival, Revolution or Ruin,” published.

Some of the other Tea Party groups in North Carolina, Tea Party Patriots and Americans for Prosperity, for example, are affiliated with other groups of the same names. Some are completely individual as we are. Each of the groups I’m aware of has few simple tenants (similar to, but not necessarily exactly the same as ours) that they espouse. Some of these groups do formally endorse candidates.

The real strength of “the Tea Party” is its diversity. These groups have spontaneously grown up all across our country formed by concerned citizens who want to improve our country so that all our citizens have the opportunity to prosper and pursue happiness.
Raynor James, New Bern

CCTA CHAIRMAN

NEW BERN, NC

Republicans announced their "Pledge to America," on Thursday, September 23, 2010.

"A Pledge to America" from the GOP


Republicans announced their "Pledge to America," on Thursday, September 23, 2010. The "new governing agenda" is built on Republican priorities for our country, "the principles we stand for," and "America's founding values." The priorities quoted from the "Pledge to America" are:

1. To create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive

• Emphasize personal choices of a free people in a free market
• Permanently stop all job-killing tax hikes
• Give small businesses a tax deduction
• Rein in the 'Red Tape Factory' in Washington
• Repeal job-killing small business mandates

2. To stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government

• Plan to impose fiscal discipline and cut government down to size
• Act immediately to reduce spending
• Cut government spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout levels
• Establish a hard cap on new discretionary spending
• Cut Congress' budget
• Hold weekly votes on spending cuts
• End TARP [Troubled-Asset Relief Program] once and for all
• End government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• Impose a net federal hiring freeze on non-security employees
• Root out government waste and sunset outdated and duplicative programs
• Reform the budget process to focus on long-term challenges

3. To repeal and replace the government takeover of health care

• Repeal the costly health care takeover of 2010
• Enact medical liability reform
• Purchase health insurance across state lines
• Expand health savings accounts
• Strengthen the doctor-patient relationship
• Ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions
• Permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion

4. To reform Congress and restore trust

• Read the bill
• Adhere to the Constitution
• Make it easier to cut spending
• Advance legislative issues one at a time

5. To keep our nation secure at home and abroad

• Pass clean troop funding bills
• Keep terrorists out of America
• Demand an overarching detention policy [for terrorists]
• Fully fund missile defense
• Require tough enforcement of sanctions against Iran
• Establish operational control of the border
• Work with state and local officials to enforce our immigration laws
• Strengthen Visa security

The pledge also includes a section on "Checks and Balances" in which the GOP Will Fight:

• To "ensure transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout government."
• "The growth of government and oppose new stimulus spending that only puts our nation further in debt."
• "Efforts to fund the costly new health care law."
• "To increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax."

• "For the rights of workers and oppose 'card check' schemes that put Washington union bosses before
    individuals' right to a secret ballot."
• "Efforts to use a national crisis for political gain."

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Republican document "aims to answer critics, targeting Health law and Stimulus but skirting specifics on Social Security, Medicare." The plan includes "giving small businesses a tax deduction equal to 20% of their business income," as well as other provisions such as ending government programs on a date certain to enable evaluation. Of course, Democrat leaders are criticizing the Republican pledge, and using scare tactics as usual. President Obama said the Republicans would "pull popular benefits from consumers."


[Translation: Social Security and Medicare]

Moreover, some Conservatives are critiquing the plan saying that it does not address the greatest threats to fiscal responsibility such as the Healthcare bill, earmarks, and a balanced budget.

The Patriots Contract - Sign Your Declaration of Independence

The Patriots Contract - Sign Your Declaration of Independence

CAROLINA JOURNAL

Carolina Journal Exclusive




Friday Interview: The Valuable Role of Subsidiarity

By CJ Staff

RALEIGH — In the wake of federal stimulus packages, bailouts, and massive overhauls of the nation’s health care and financial sectors, the concept of “limited government” might appear out of date. Still, the American system of government is designed to adhere to constitutionally defined limits. Key to the success of that system is a concept known as subsidiarity. Christopher Wolfe, co-director of the Thomas International Center and professor emeritus of political science at Marquette University, recently discussed subsidiarity with the John Locke Foundation’s Shaftesbury Society. He also spoke with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6792

Join Patriots 28560 as we caravan to Newport for the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America!

PATRIOTS 28560
Celebrate Independence Day with a Rolling Rally!

Join Patriots 28560 as we caravan to Newport for the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America!

When: Saturday, July 3

Time: Gather from 11:00 - 11:15 a.m.

Where: Westbook Shopping Center (near CVS Pharmacy), Havelock, NC

Depart: 11:15 a.m.

Destination: Newport Flea Mall to join the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America celebration

Celebration Events: Reading of The Declaration of Independence, Special Speakers, Sign-Up for 912 March on DC, and join like-minded Patriots as we celebrate the birth of our Nation.

For more information visit Patriots28560.blogspot.com, email Patriots28560@gmail.com or call 252.259.0763.

HOW A ROLLING RALLY WORKS

Our caravan of vehicles from Havelock will roll into Newport together. Don't forget your signs. And you can also purchase window paint (or borrow ours!) and make sure your Independence Day celebration messages are visible as we travel from Havelock to Newport.

IMPACT

Our goal is to have each car display a small (or large, especially if you have a truck) American flag as well as signs and window paint identifying us as Patriots headed to an Independence Day celebration.

YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US

You do not have to be affiliated with any group or organization to join the celebration or to join Patriots 28560. Everyone is welcome, regardless of your zip code, area code or membership in other Patriots groups.


Located in Eastern North Carolina, Patriots 28560 is a group of non-partisan, concerned citizens who have joined together to resist excessive government spending and taxation. We are affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots as well as the 912 Project. We believe in Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Market Principles.

http://patriots28560.blogspot.com/

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are

Reprinted from The Campaing for Liberty.  The Campaign For Liberty promotes and defends the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
Visit us on the Web at www.CampaignForLiberty.com

Usurpation: The Weapon By Which Free Governments Are Destroyed

By Derek Sheriff 06/17/2010
Derek Sheriff  is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center.

What is Usurpation?

If there is a term that I wish would become a household word to be used again by every American in their daily political discussions, it would be the word "usurpation". Yes, I would love it even more if average Americans would add to that list the words: "Nullification", "interposition" and the phrase, "the principles of ‘98". However, in order to understand the meaning of those words in their political context, you have to understand usurpation. Before you can discover an effective solution, you have to correctly identify and understand the problem. 

Usurpation is the unauthorized, unlawful exercise of power. Whenever a person, department or branch of the government (federal, state, or local) usurps, they assume undelegated powers and are therefore acting outside the law.

Our Constitution (the supreme law of the land), created a federal government of strictly limited, enumerated powers when it was ratified by the people's delegates in their respective state conventions. These states were not created by the Constitution, beacuse they already existed.

As part of this new constitutional contract between the people of the several states, their respective state governments and the federal government, the people of each state (as opposed to one American people as a whole), delegated a few, carefully defined powers to the new federal government. They did so with the understanding that these powers could be revoked if necessary.

Furthermore, all the other powers which they did not loan to the federal government, they either retained for themselves or delegated back to their state governments. Each state's constitution differs slightly, but all of them guarantee their citizens a republican form of government.

Whenever the people who make up the federal government, either as individuals, as departments or as branches, exercise power not expressly delegated to them as specified in the Constitution, they are usurping the authority of either the states or the people. Why? Because as the 10th Amendment makes it clear:

"All powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Bane of Free Governments

George Washington warned against the dangers of usurpation. He called it ‘the weapon by which free governments are destroyed". He urged Americans to guard against it and reject it for the evil that it is. In his farewell address, he wrote:

"If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any articular wrong,let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

As Obama likes to say, "Let me be clear". When the federal government steps beyond the boundaries that are specifically drawn around it by the Constitution and its amendments, it isn't abusing powers that it does have, it's usurping powers that it doesn't have.

Question: What should the people of the several states' reaction to federal usurpation be?  Answer: Swift and resolute action in the form of nullification and/or interposition by, with and through our state governments and their county and local subordinates.

In such cases, we must not exercise patience and wait to "Vote the bums out" in 2012 or even as soon as 2010! We should do that when the time comes, yes. But in the meantime, to allow our state governments to wait until the usurpers are removed from office through elections would be to consent to a dangerous dereliction of their duty to protect our constitutional rights.

What is Nullification?

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was one of the federal government's earliest acts of usurpation. An early draft of it began:

"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government" and "where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them"

Nullification is a state's decision to render a particular federal law that it deems unconstitutional void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state. It is a process which can unfold in a variety of ways. It may involve formal legislation, or it may not. I could include court battles, but not necessarily. Interposition by state and local officials, such as your state's Attorney General or elected county sheriff might be required, but not always. A few times in the past, state nullification conventions have even been convened, but this has been the exception, not the rule.

The process of nullification will look different in each state, according to the particular issue and the social and political culture of that state's people. But understand, although it's not a 'silver bullet", nullification does work! Don't let anyone feed you a bunch of phony historical narratives. Do your own study of the history of nullification and see for yourself.

Finally, as George Washington wrote, let there be no change by usurpation! Instead, let us work with our elected state officials to nullify acts of federal usurpation and reclaim the sovereignty that is every American's birthright.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=944

Tea Partiers Get Valuable Lesson from … David Axelrod

He recently let slip the precise nature of his boss.


April 15, 2010 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver


As the Tea Party Express rolls across the country, drawing crowds of thousands at every stop, a golden lesson has dropped in their laps from above.


This priceless gem was delivered by David Axelrod as he did an ObamaCare post-passage interview on the Democrats’ blitzkrieg strategy. Just hours after the House vote, Axelrod gave an interview to the Huffington Post (one of Axelrod’s sons is an editor), and he let his guard down enough to gift all Americans with a glimpse into the true soul of this administration.

Speaking of inside-the-White-House deliberations in the immediate aftermath of the Scott Brown victory, Axelrod noted:

Some of the steam went out of the opposition after that [Brown’s victory]. … I think that people felt like they had made a statement. Perhaps they felt like they had killed health care reform … They thought the fight was over. And that [the president] couldn’t now succeed. I do believe that. And it is almost as if they had made the statement that they thought they had stopped the thing. And so it created a breathing space for us to regroup.

In this brief moment of candor lies the most crucial enlightenment the people are going to get from this administration:

– Barack Obama considers this a revolution against the pillars of American liberty, and nothing short of absolute, ignominious defeat in all branches of the federal government is going to dissuade his revolutionary zeal. Tea partiers winning a battle here and there is a pesky thorn in his side — nothing more. Barack Obama has declared this a fight to the very end.

With this sort of leadership, either liberalism must now suffer a decisive and complete defeat, wherein even its proponents begin to hide their heads in shame and remorse forevermore, or socialism will continue its march. There is no in-between, no compromise, and no turning back.

--The will of the majority means nothing to this president.

Fence-sitting Americans must forcefully rid themselves of the notion that this president believes in majority-rule democracy. By his Chicago-way, thug-tactics victory in the health care battle, he has clearly shown his own stripes, those of a determined revolutionary without regard for the will of the people.

No fight, whether civil or uncivil, has ever been won without knowing one’s enemy and his true objectives. David Axelrod, in his moment of partisan candor (he was speaking to his comrades at the Huffington Post), has just given Americans all they need to know in the coming struggles.

As a true narcissist, Obama believes his glowing press. He seeks to go down in history as the man who delivered the plum of America to the international socialist collective, or at least pushed us past the point of no return. He will stop at nothing less. Liberty is a revolting principle to the president who brings shackles wrapped as gifts.

Liberty? We don’t need no stinkin’ liberty!

Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!

John McCain’s fatal mistake in the election was his failure to see his opponent for the socialist zealot he is, which all of Obama’s prior history and chosen associations revealed. Sarah Palin, to her everlasting credit, did not make this mistake. That Palin sees through Obama, and has from the beginning, would seem to be behind liberals’ shrill fear of her. She evokes spine-tingling, quaking-in-their-Gucci-pumps kind of fear in every big government nanny and in the whole host of media’s leftist pimps.

Tea partiers must cling unflinchingly to this clear revelation about Obama, and never be taken in by seemingly conciliatory moves he might make or speeches he might give, and march all the way to irrevocable victory.

If they are taken in the way John McCain was, then all is truly lost.

Having spent a good deal of time with tea partying patriots, I do not see them as easily fooled, however. A very wise group they appear to be. Whether highly educated or not so much, tea partiers on the whole have the one thing so many on the left, and especially in this particular administration, lack: real-world experience.

Barack Obama and his minions have unleashed and called to rhetorical arms a veritable legion of the kind of folks they probably didn’t even know existed a year ago. These are Americans who prefer liberty over the luxury of a government-guaranteed life of mooching off the labors of others.

Silent majority? Well, not any more.

Dumb rednecks? Now, there’s a laugh.

The only reason this far-left administration and its media mouthpieces don’t respect the tea partiers is that they hold the partiers’ all-American virtues in such virulent disdain.

Among the hundred or so tea partiers I’ve spoken with, many are industrious entrepreneurs, who have built successful small businesses from the very ground up, starting with nothing more than a high school diploma or a state-school bachelor’s degree and a lot of good old-fashioned common sense and a strong work ethic. A sizeable lot of the ones I’ve interviewed have military backgrounds and possess the unfaltering self-discipline that is the everlasting hallmark of time spent in the service.

Many of the tea party leaders I’ve personally met are homemakers. Women who are proficient chief executive officers of the homefront and born to multi-task. One ought never underestimate the power of a woman, who can hold a baby on her hip while making sack lunches with one hand and arranging a venue for her next anti-big-government demonstration using her Bluetooth. These women are so used to juggling three or four important tasks at one time that they ought to be profiled as the unsung heroines of every American success story. The tea parties are only one such success.

All in all, I would have to say that in these armies of all-American patriots, David Axelrod and his president have found the shock of their political lives. And now that Axelrod has given tea partiers a golden glimpse into the true mindset of his president, Americans know the stakes. It’s a contest that will be written about for a hundred years.

A modern King George wannabe vs. the American patriots.

I’m betting on the self-disciplined, overflowing-with-common-sense, determined-down-to-their-bones, hard-working patriots.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

Don't miss this video!  He has summarized what is and has happened in this country under the Obama administration, and why we are fighting to stop it. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4

CCTA APRIL EVENTS -- CANDIDATE FORUM & TEA PARTY

CCTA IS PROUD TO HOST THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE’S FORUM

SATURDAY, APRIL 10TH, 2010, ORRINGER AUDITORIUM

CRAVEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, NB CAMPUS, 800 COLLEGE COURT, NEW BERN, NC

~ LEARN WHO IS THE BEST, AND ELIMINATE THE REST ~

Confirmed to date:  US SENATE: Candidate Susan Harris will participate along with Representatives for Candidate Brad Jones and Sen. Richard Burr

US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1:  Candidate John Carter will participate along with a representative for Congressman G.K. Butterfield

US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3: Representative for Walter B. Jones

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1: Candidates Thomas Mark and Ray Griffin

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2: Candidates John P. Wetherington, Jr., Jeff Taylor & Jeff French

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3: Commissioner Renee Sisk & Candidate Scott Dacey

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE: Representative for Candidate Leto Copeley

AGENDA

4:00 - 5:00 pm ~ MEET THE CANDIDATES ONE-ON-ONE
5:00 - 7:00 pm ~ FORUM

BE INFORMED, TAKE A STAND, VOTE AND BE COUNTED!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCTA INVITES YOU TO JOIN US FOR OUR 2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY

Thursday, April 15th, 2010 in Downtown New Bern

Those who would like to march with us, we will be gathering at the parking area across from the Craven County Courthouse from 4:45pm – 5:15pm. From there we will march at 5:15pm to Union Point Park.

Rally at the Union Point Park Pavilion
Downtown New Bern, NC, 5:00pm –7:00pm.

Vocalist: Jennifer Alcock

Invocation & Remarks: Rev. Walter Leake, Pastor, Praise Assembly Worship Ctr., New Bern

Featured Speaker: Lt. General Harold Blot, USMC (Ret.) -- We will also have Rick Henderson, John Locke Foundation & a speaker from Americans for Prosperity

Music, speakers and lots of noise! Bring friends and family, your sign and a lawn chair if you like. Celebrate our Freedom of Speech and let our Elected Officials know that ‘We the People’ are

“SILENT NO MORE”

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.cctaxpayers.com/

The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association is a grassroots, non-partisan organization which advocates minimum government and maximum freedom. We are dedicated to the preservation of Free Enterprise which, by its nature, requires citizens to reap the benefits of their own labor. Excessive taxing and spending are unconstitutional, immoral, and in complete contradiction of success through the free market system and liberty.

Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare

Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare


by Ann Coulter
 
Wednesday, March 31, 2010


On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.


Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)

At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.

The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.

I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.

True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.

That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!

At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.


Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.

That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."

How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?

The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).

There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.

And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.

These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.

Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)

How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?

How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?

How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?

The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.

Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.

If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.


Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY


________________________________________



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."



SUMMARY

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.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

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.

COMMENTS

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.

________________________________________

MORE LAWNOTES

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

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!

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:

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. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

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.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5375-state-ags-miss-target-with-health-care-lawsuit-says-the-tenth-amendment-center

WE ARE A REPUBLIC!

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.

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
Lynn Childs

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.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=63ef6e7f-29e4-49ac-9c10-299ccac6327d&t=c

Reconciliation Bill Adds Even More Taxes

Reconciliation Bill Adds Even More Taxes
Reposted from: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/reconciliation-bill-adds-even-more-taxes/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

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:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/24/reconciliation-bill-adds-even-more-taxes/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell