Inependence Day - 2010

July Fourth marks the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; the announcement that the British colonies established in the new continent would no longer yield to the edicts of Great Britain and would establish a new system of self rule based on the principals that their freedoms were ordained by God and not granted by the British crown.

Like many, I received a mass e-mail signed by Barack Obama and sent through democraticparty@democrats.org; the official e-mail link to the Democratic National Committee to commemorate the 4th. I will reprint that e-mail below for the benefit of those that may not have received one:

Paul --
The Fourth of July is especially dear to my family. For us, it is not just our nation's birthday. It is the day Michelle and I became parents 12 years ago. And I can't wait to watch the fireworks with Malia on her birthday tonight, as we do every year.

As we celebrate the profound pride of being American, today is a time to honor the women and men in our armed forces, whose immeasurable bravery and sacrifice have made our country what it is today.That sacrifice is shared with husbands and wives, with sons and daughters, with fathers and mothers, who are asked to wait at home as their loved ones protect our nation. Their heroism, too, has helped pave the path of our freedom.

Even before we moved into the White House, Michelle was a champion for those military families. She has witnessed their struggles, and she has made it her personal mission to fight for them. On this Fourth of July, she recorded a personal message, commemorating our nation's birthday and paying tribute to these families.

Please take a minute to watch Michelle's video -- and join us as we honor our military families here and abroad.

:http://my.democrats.org/page/m/4052b0db/51f4b9d/6b18329e/74b960b9/1130136430/VEsE/.

From all of us, happy Independence Day.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

President Barack Obama
July 4th, 2010


The President’s message mentions family and fireworks or more specifically, his family and fireworks. Yes, just as any confirmed narcissist would do, he has even managed to make Independence Day about him. It’s not just our nation’s birthday…it’s the day that he became a parent twelve years ago. In all fairness he did mention the brave men and women serving in America’s armed forces and I have no issue with that except to say that he failed to mention the real reason we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Considering the President has a staff of speech writers, advisors and special advisors, I doubt that failure was an oversight. Perhaps the President fears that drawing attention to the Declaration of Independence would create additional impediments for his radical Progressive (Socialist) agenda. Let’s face it; the Declaration of Independence was more than just a document that announced our intention to sever ties with Great Britain. The Declaration also included a list of grievances that the colonists noted as justification for their actions. Many of the grievances written into the Declaration of Independence are once again becoming issues in the United States but this time the oppressor is not the King of England, it is the Federal Government itself. Don’t believe me?

Well, the Declaration begins, in part, by saying that “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It is clear to most that the passage of TARP, Healthcare Reform and the current drive to pass the cap and trade and immigration reform legislation has all happened without the consent of the governed. In fact, the polls against such legislation and the massive public outcry witnessed throughout the process displays that this administration has not only sought to forward their agenda without the consent of public but in spite of it.

One of the grievances listed in the Declaration says: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Doesn’t that sound like the entire argument behind Federal opposition to the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law (SB1070). The Governor signed a bill into law presented to her by the duly elected State Legislature to address the immediate and pressing need of reigning in illegal immigration and the crime that accompanies it. Once signed into law, the Federal Government is now prepared to sue Arizona because Immigration policy, in their interpretation, is the sole responsibility of the Federal government; a responsibility that the Federal Government has chosen to ignore for political expedience.

How about this one? “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” No, I’m not making this up…it’s in the original document. There are hundreds of agencies and panels created by the new healthcare bill alone. Let’s not forget the debt reduction panel that is now meeting in secret to figure out how the American Tax payer is going to resolve the trillions this President intends to add to our already massive public debt. Of course their findings will not be released until December 2010, well after the mid-term elections. We have a gulf oil spill commission to study the effects and suggestions to effect remediation of the leak but just this past week, the President established a second commission to oversee the operations of the first commission. The EPA under the Obama administration is using their newly expanded powers to threaten Congress to vote for Cap and Trade or else. If Cap and trade is not passed, the EPA warned Congress, the nation will face dire economic consequences as the administration unilaterally enacts carbon restrictions that will bring American businesses to a halt.

How about: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”. What is Cap and Trade, Climate Accords and the U.N. Small Arms agreement other than allowing a commission of foreign powers to exact controlling power over the citizens of America without our consent or representation"? Yes, it can be argued that there is representation because those agreements must be ratified by the Senate, but we have all seen the coercion and bribery used to gain Senate support for other items in the President’s agenda so can we be absolutely certain that the rights of free American’s are being protected if the process allows any meetings to be held in secret? Do we really have representation if we are bound to foreign agreements once they are ratified and have no power to rescind bad agreements through our electoral process?

Then there is: “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” The Federal Government may not have suspended the State legislatures but the actions of the Federal Government since the inception of the Progressive Era have rendered them increasingly impotent. The Federal Government has gained control of millions of acres of State lands and in some cases, lands equal to 90% of the State’s entire land mass. Those lands can not be exploited for their rich mineral deposits nor can they be used for private purposes that could generate billions in revenues for the afflicted States. States that have enacted legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens to own guns for hunting and for their own protection have received letters from Federal authorities reminding them that Federal Law supersedes State law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. States that have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from having to purchase healthcare insurance because of the unlawful mandates in the healthcare bill are facing court challenges under that same Supremacy Clause.

Of course, to have that supremacy, the Federal law in question must be constitutional but now that we have adopted a policy that allows ideologues with no judicial qualifications to be seated in the Supreme Court simply because their politics favor the President’s agenda, is there any doubt that the highest court in the land is now as completely corrupted as the Federal Government is?

No, the President will not mention the founders or the actual Declaration of Independence on Independence Day. He knows full well that if more people actually read this incredibly important document or took an interest in the Founding Fathers that not only his agenda, but the Democratic Party as well as the Progressive movement would be brought to their knees. Do not be fooled by the Obama’s feigned respect of the armed forces. Progressives know all to well that everyone in the military has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and that this oath takes precedent over the orders issued by the commander in chief. Obama’s glowing admiration of the military is meant simply to hold them at bay while he continues to “transform America” little by little; hoping they won’t notice until he’s done.

Paul

Mythbusters

The discussions we just had on the Constitution will be useful as we gauge what is happening now, against what should be happening within the framework of the Constitution but as we enter the 2010 campaign season, I also want to expose some myths surrounding modern “political speak” in that context to begin our next segment.

Myth one – FDR’s policies and programs ended the Great Depression.

False - Since President Obama’s proponents are touting him as the new FDR, this myth is the first that needs to be debunked. Nothing can be further from the truth. FDR’s programs were nothing more than keep busy government works projects that kept most at or below the poverty level; actually very similar to today’s Stimulus bill. World War Two sent millions of American men to war taking them off home relief and placing them on the front lines to defend the nation and during the war years, the country’s economy shifted to war production. Since general provisions were limited by the war, a combination of rationing and the tax structure were used to prevent runaway inflation. At the conclusion of the war, nearly every manufacturing center around the world had been destroyed in the fighting except for those located safely within the borders of the United States. From 1945 through the late 1050’s, if you wanted to buy anything, you had to buy it here and that is what ended the Great Depression.

Myth two – Reagan’s tax cuts and policies of “trickle down economics” failed and ultimately quadrupled the National Debt.

Partially true - First of all, to gain the tax cuts Reagan wanted to stimulate the economy, Reagan had to agree to the TEFRA act (Tax Equity and Reform Act) of 1986. Before the Reagan tax cuts, the tax on the wealthiest Americans were roughly 50% (already down from the top marginal tax rates of 80% to 95% during the world war two years). TEFRA eliminated many of the deductions that high earning American’s used to reduce their taxable income. You may want to note that even after the marginal tax rates for the top earners began to climb during the first Bush administration, none of the deductions eliminated under TEFRA had been restored. The only mistake Reagan made was in phasing in his tax cuts over a period of a few years. This stalled the economy for a further two years as business held back, waiting for the goodies that were coming.

Now to the bare facts: OMB figures indicate that the explosion of the economy directly related the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a tripling of revenues to the United States Treasury. Unfortunately, the Congress immediately wrote legislation that spent $1.34 for every new dollar they received. Admittedly, part of that was to fund the military expansion that Reagan insisted was necessary for the security of the nation; but a great deal were pork barrel projects injected into the legislation. Don’t forget, Reagan asked for the line item veto to be able to weed that reckless spending out of the legislation but Congress refused to offer him that power. If he were to move forward on the agenda he felt was vital to the nation, Reagan was given no alternative but to sign these pork laden bills into law. President Clinton was eventually given the power of the line item veto and never used it to weed out frivolous spending. In all fairness, neither did the second Bush administration.

Myth three - Deregulation created the mortgage crisis of 2007.

Partially true - Deregulation certainly allowed for the lapse in accountability that made this possible but to find the roots of the crisis, we need to travel back in time to the Clinton administration. During the Clinton administration there was a push to expand the “American Dream” of home ownership to a segment of the population where it had never existed before. That “push” was in the form of the Federal government fining banks that would not issue what were traditionally considered high risk loans to allow low income people access to home mortgages.

That practice drove the median prices of homes skyward since the law of supply and demand was now challenged by an artificially created marketplace. Those that already owned homes took advantage of the lenient lending terms and free flow of cash to refinance their mortgages based on the inflated value of the property, in essence turning their homes into an ATM machine with a garage and two and a half baths. Many took adjustable rate or interest only loans because they were cheaper thinking they would get into a conventional loan later. They took the difference in cash with some, purchasing additional properties with the idea that property values would continue to go nowhere but up.

Well, you knew it would happen sooner or later but an awful lot of those high risk loans started going sour. Banks that saw trouble on the horizon packaged these loans and sold them to investors. They sold them as securities thinking that the good paper would offset the bad paper, because property values always go up. Well that might have worked if property values weren’t artificially inflated and if property owners hadn’t already cashed in on that.

The net result was due to the high rate of loan failures (the high risk ones the government had forced on lenders) property values plummeted. When it came time for the ATM people to refinance, their home were worth substantially less that the principal they already owed. Unfortunately, the cash they withdrew from the “ATM” was already spent. You already know the story from there.

Myth four - The Stimulus plan (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) is responsible for the creation of millions of jobs.

False - Again, no; only a portion of the $800 billion allocated in the stimulus bill has actually been distributed. As opposed to The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which consisted of tax rebate checks put into the hands of tax payers, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 doled out money to the States and Cities. As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 consisted of roughly $152 billion given back to the tax payers while The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 scripted over $800 billion to fund projects administrated through the States and Cities. They still haven’t figured out that we spend money far better than they do.

In my home town of Phoenix, the stimulus money they received was used to purchase additional traffic enforcement cameras; cameras that will likely be voted out of existence in the next few years as referendum ballots opposing them gain ground. Well that put a lot of people to work, now didn’t it? Much of the stimulus money in other areas was used to fund other previously committed spending like roads or transportation projects.

The facts: much of the stimulus money was used to fund projects that were already awarded to contractors (no new jobs) or was used for “make work” jobs, some of which lasted a total of 36 hours, less than a full work week, before these people were once again, unemployed. The “new jobs” were far less than temporary and the balance of what they claimed credit for, were jobs that had already existed.

As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 only failed because people used the money they received to satisfy existing personal debt. In essence, the government had already taken too much and waited too long only to give too little back.

So where am I going with this and is there a common thread? Those of you that have read my work before already know there must be something that ties all of this together. That “thread” is the Federal government’s inability to affect positive change through the manipulation of the free market system. Every time they have tried they have failed and failed miserably. Partly, because they are following an ideology that mainstream America does not share and partly, because they have still been divided amongst themselves for years.

The nation’s capitol has become nothing more that a battlefield of the extreme right and the radical left with the bulk of the nation, meaning you and me, caught in the crossfire. Accusation is met with counter-accusation and whatever party is in control tries to force their agenda through while accusing the other of having no vision and no alternatives.

Since there is apparently a lack of common sense solutions in Congress, let’s see if we can’t frame the real issues and identify some reasonable solutions for them. I know, I know….we are just regular people. Truthfully, I can’t think of any better reason to try since the “professional” legislators have made such an unholy mess of things already. Besides, this is still our country….isn’t it?Paul

Reagan Was The Real President of Hope and Change

There are so many assaults on one’s senses today, where can you reasonably begin without feeling that you’ve left something out? For a President that promised hope, I don’t think I have ever seen an atmosphere as thick with hopelessness as I see in America today. Even during the darkest days of the Carter administration when American hostages were being held in Iran and the economy was in turmoil, people still believed there was something that could be done with the right leader at the helm.

Maybe that is where Reagan really made his mark. People not only believed in his abilities, but because of his inspiration we could believe in our own abilities as a nation again. The hostages held in Iran for nearly four-hundred and fifty days were released as Reagan took the oath of office which we took as a clear indication that the world knew this President was not going to allow America to be disgraced by petty dictators and radical theocracies. The economy rebounded as Reagan released the restraints of regulation and the shackles of punitive taxation; the military took on the shine and precision of well oiled and meticulously cared for machine and our cities began to shed the decay after decades of neglect.

Critics would later criticize Reagan for quadrupling the National Debt but the numbers speak for themselves. Under Reagan’s policies, revenues to the Treasury had tripled. Not because of tax increases but because of the economic expansion brought on by tax relief that rewarded entrepreneurs for the risks they took reinvesting in America. The debt did quadruple but only because of congressional fiscal mismanagement which according to OMB records, spent $1.34 for every new dollar in revenue the treasury collected. Reagan continually asked for the line-item veto to enable him to eliminate the pork that bloated every spending bill but that was something Congress would not grant to Reagan. In the end, if Reagan wanted the appropriations he felt were critical to the nation’s well being, then he had to sign the bills and accept the additional spending Congress had irresponsibly sewn into them.

The line item veto was eventually granted to President Clinton in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which he signed into law and put to the test at least eighty-one times throughout eleven pieces of legislation. We will never know the full value of the line item veto as it was struck down by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in February of 1998. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in June of that year. Similar legislation was requested by President George W. Bush in 2006 but failed to pass a vote in the Senate. A recent move to reinstate the line item veto was begun by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold in 2009, but never gained the support it needed to move forward. So much for the conscience of Congress.

After Reagan’s second term, the National Debt had climbed to $3.2 trillion dollars which represented 55% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, inflation had dropped from 13.9% under Jimmy Carter, to 4.67% when Regan left office in 1989. When 1990 began, we had a six-hundred ship navy, an air force that guaranteed superiority in any theater it would be tested and the best equipped and trained military that the world had ever seen. The economy was vibrant with every indicator showing steady gains. The Soviet Union was straining under the weight of trying to compete with capitalism in an open arms competition and would fail only a year later. From every gauge I use to measure success, it appears that America got an awful lot in return for its three trillion dollar investment.

I truly believe that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents this country had ever had the good fortune to elect. That is, unless the same revisionists that have slandered Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus have the opportunity to re-write his accomplishments as well. Beyond the economic and military legacy he left, I still insist that his greatest gift to this nation was the faith he instilled in us. He spoke from the heart and I can’t remember a time that I had cause to question his words. He was truly, the “Great Communicator”. Is there anyone under the age of forty that doesn’t recall the challenge he shouted out in Berlin? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” echoed through the hearts and minds of the world. Is there anyone that doubted his sincerity as he eulogized the crew of the ill-fated Challenger spacecraft? For all his critics, was there anyone that has ever doubted his loyalty and love for the United States?

What has changed? I remember when I was a boy, we went to the World’s Fair and the biggest attraction was the “World of Tomorrow”. We clamored for a glimpse into an amazing future and the wonders that technology and innovation promised us. We saw the Space Program grow from a single man perched precariously atop what was in fact, a ballistic missile, to the towering Saturn V rocket that brought America to the moon and back. Movies like “2001 a Space Odyssey” took us to explore the outer planets and Carl Sagan’s documentary “Cosmos” introduced us to the wonders of the Universe. Technological advances had taken the cords off our phones and put the power of computers on our desk tops. To all appearances, the promises of the future were coming true. But what did we give our children?

It began with the television shows of the late 1980’s. As if Hollywood were revolting against Reagan for ruining their vision of utopia as capitalism rebounded and communism fell, the youth were targeted with one show after another. Father didn’t know best anymore, now parents were portrayed as witless idiots while their children kept the family on track. Actually, that began back in the ‘70s but those shows were directed at adults in an attempt to show them the evil of their bigoted and selfish ways. This was different. These were shows for kids, about kids. Then the disaster movies came; the post apocalyptic adventures of Mad Max and Robo-Cop. One film after another that told our young adults that their future would be a barren wasteland in which survival itself, was their only job. Now we have the “environment-gone-wild” movies where the adults have finally destroyed the planet and now mother earth was revolting against us.

No wonder our kids are disillusioned. No wonder they have no interest in school or responsibility. After all, why bother? The earth is doomed and according to the latest big screen calamity, we won’t make it past 2012 anyway. Now they are completing the picture by telling school children that the earth is in peril because of global warming. Oops! I meant Climate Change. Ever since the data has been showing a cooling trend they changed the name or people might actually question the science behind the claims. Why would anyone want to do this to our children?

The only reason I can think of is to complete the work of demoralization that began decades ago. Those misguided students of socialist doctrine that have now become the teachers, still believe that utopia lies just beyond the greed of capitalism. If the youth can be shaped early enough then it isn’t just a thought, it is a core belief; nearly a religion. The climate crisis is being presented to them in such a way that we don’t have the luxury of thinking about what to do. We must follow the only clear path and that is the complete reversal of our industrial society or we face certain doom. I intend to take that apart tomorrow piece by piece but first there is a more pressing need.

Despite everything we are being told, there is hope. Sane and reasonable actions can bring America out of financial crisis but it will take hard work, a lot more Reagan Republicans and solid capitalistic principals. We can ill afford more progressives in our government regardless of whether their names are suffixed with a “D”, an “R” or an “I”. Those principals have already given us a national debt that is about to top twelve-trillion dollars, which is 98% of the GDP. For perspective, the next largest debtor nation is China and their debt is at 23.5% of their GDP. Our greatest challenge is that the progressives in Congress coupled with the Marxists in the White House have placed America up for sale. It is critical that nothing passes this legislative session until the system of checks and balances are safely restored.

Most important is the time you invest with your children. Restore their sense of wonder for the future and encourage a courageous desire to explore the unknown. Give them the knowledge and hope that their future is not written for them but by them. Empower them with free thought and for God’s sake, break down the rote memorization of social doctrine that the left has been brainwashing them with. Be understanding; they have been using our children’s worst fears to obtain their devotion. You must be their “Reagan”. You must give them the hope and faith that Reagan gave you and your words must have the same weight of truth because above all else, that is really what made Reagan the great communicator.

Paul

Real Un-American Activities

With Tea Parties and Conservative programming now being called seditious and un-American, I thought it would be a good time to discuss true un-American activity and its history. With roots established as far back as 1918, The House Un-American Activities Committee has provided the means for Congressional investigations of subversive activities conducted within or against, the United States. The direct precursors to The House Un-American Activities Committee can be found in the Overman Committee of 1918, the Fish Committee of 1930, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of 1934-1937 and the Special Investigations Committee of 1938-1944.

The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Senator Lee Slater Overman of North Carolina. The Overman Committee operated from September 1918 to June 1919 and investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States. Originally tasked with investigation pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry, the priority shifted after the conclusion of World War One to focus on the affects of Communist Bolshevism in America after the Russian Revolution of 1917. This Committee had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to America during the First Red Scare.

Similarly, the Fish Committee of 1930 pursued the same interests. NY Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, investigated people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster. The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.

In May 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee. It was chaired by Texas Representative Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee. Its work was aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity but the committee's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project.

Representative Dies, who was a supporter of the New Deal, eventually withdrew his support for FDR’s far reaching social programs in 1937. The Committee fell under attack by members of the Roosevelt administration after their investigations were found to involve child actress Shirley Temple, who was ten years old at the time. The attacks were an intentional misrepresentation of the Committees work since Miss Temple’s name was only mentioned as it had appeared on a list of Hollywood figures that sent greetings to the Communist-owned French newspaper, Ce Soir. Mr. Dies tried to appear before the public to address this deliberate attempt to discredit the Committee but was curiously refused air time by both CBS and NBC as they feared reprisal from the Roosevelt Administration through use of the FCC.

In 1945, The House Un-American Activities Committee became a standing or “permanent” committee. The Un-American Activities Committee has often been mistakenly identified with the anti-communist investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953-1954. Although the goals were the same where subversive activities were concerned, Senator McCarthy chaired the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and had no direct involvement with The House Un-American Activities Committee.

After the House Un-American Activities Committee achieved status as a permanent committee, it became more focused on Communist subversive activities. Ironically, Democratic Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, would eventually be named in Soviet NKVD (precursor to the KGB) documents as a Soviet agent. Congressmen Dickstein, who had actually assisted in forming this committee to root out German fascists, apparently had not anticipated the change in the targets of committee’s investigations. The allegations remained unproven at that time and Dickstein later served as a Justice on the New York Supreme Court until his death in 1954.

In an interesting development, documents discovered in 1990s in the Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD, the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. Whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is uncertain and when he left the Committee, the Soviets dropped him from their payroll.

Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 until his death in 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. Through his position as Chairman of The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator McCarthy made numerous claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere.

His subcommittee held 169 hearings throughout 1953 and 1954. Of the 653 people called by the Committee during a 15 month period, 83 refused to answer questions about espionage and subversive activities on constitutional grounds and their names were made public. Nine additional witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment in executive session, and their names were not made public. Some of the 83 were working or had worked for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the Government Printing Office, the Treasury Department, the Office of War Information, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Veterans Administration. Others were or had been employed at the Federal Telecommunications Laboratories in New Jersey, the secret radar laboratories of the Army Signal Corps in New Jersey, and General Electric defense plants in Massachusetts and New York.

Ultimately, McCarthy's tactics and his inability to substantiate his claims led him to be censured by the United States Senate. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. It is clear that Joe McCarthy faced the same opposition that the House Un-American Activities Committee did but was he wrong?

Recent disclosures point to a Soviet program of demoralization that infused money into key areas of our society to fund groups that would reduce the American resistance to socialist ideals. The Soviets funded labor movements in the 1920’s and ‘30s, which infiltrated the film industry and print news. They also established socialist professors in American universities and funded the anti-war movement against American involvement in Viet Nam.

Periodically, the news is still punctuated with names like Robert Hanson and Aldrich Ames, both if which were convicted of espionage and conspiracy, both of which are currently serving life sentences and both of which were in the employ of the Soviet Union and later, Russia, which serves to prove that this program of demoralization is still being practiced today.

The protests in Pittsburg that erupted into violence at the G20 conference were mostly anti-capitalist factions that acquired their left leaning tilt at the hands of radical professors that are still spreading the disease of socialism. You already know many of the colleges that are famous for this indoctrination by name, such as UCLA Berkeley, Columbia University, Bard College, etc, etc. Just the names invoke a response because the radical teachings in these schools are common knowledge.

Now we have new threats to our society. Since blatant socialism is still met with resistance the new communist social engineers have found a new host to infect; the environmental or “green” movement. Have you noticed that their message has recently changed from fighting pollution to “creating a green economy”? The new environmentalists (Marxist globalists) have presented their earth-saving agenda to the newest generation of indoctrinates with the added urgency that we must do this now or all is lost. What these clandestinely co-opted college students don’t realize is that these plans will do little to improve the environment since they are really crafted to destroy the U.S. economy and food supply; hence, destroying the American citizen’s resistance to socialism as it becomes their only hope for food and warmth.

No, Joe McCarthy isn’t rolling over in his grave and I doubt he would say “I told you so” even if he could. People like Joe McCarthy would have loved nothing more than to have been wrong and to know the nation he loved was safe and sound. If he were alive today he would probably be leading the charge to expose these threats just as he did then. He would be leading the charge to expel those that mean harm to our country not only from the schools, but from all facets of government as well.

Paul

Why Don't We Teach Civics Anymore?

Today we are embarking on an entirely new path. Not that discussing current issues aren’t important, but what good is discussing politics when the nation is facing a crisis of far more serious consequence. When I went to school a million years ago, we not only learned about American History but we also took the required civics classes that taught us about our Constitution and how our government is supposed to work. Today, civics is no longer taught in grade schools and American History, in fact, all of history, seems to be under a constant state of revision with the passing of each successive year. As George Orwell said “He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future.” That lesson was not lost on the new generation of progressives.

Colleges focus on political science studies which for the most part, spend their days dissecting and interpreting the Constitution through the lens of societal change, or worse, social justice. Even though the Federalist papers tell us the exact intent of the founding fathers, weaving them into the studies would deny the social architects that teach these courses the ability to convince the students that the Constitution is dynamic and should be interpreted to meet modern political conditions. Let’s not forget that a good number of today’s college professors were the same people that “turned on, tuned in and dropped out” back in the 60’s; never having left their beliefs that America could in fact, become a social utopia if only the right people were in charge.

Considering today’s political climate I felt it was beneficial to revisit the documents that founded this country and the principals of the men who drafted them and that is why we did our series on the original Bill of Rights. Only through a complete understanding of the times in which they were written and the true intentions of the founders of this nation can we begin to steer the ship of state safely back to her intended course.

Why go so far back in time? After all, this is the twenty-first century. Because it was the genius of men like Thomas Jefferson, John Addams and Benjamin Franklin to name just a few, that created a completely new promise of a fair and just government. A nation, self-governed by its own citizens and not by a monarch or an emperor; a nation where free men wrote the laws that guaranteed the liberties of all and for the first time, imposed those laws on their own leaders so that no man would be exempt.

Agreeably, there were times in our history that were not quite so idealistic. The men that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were aware that grave social issues such as slavery, had to be addressed for this nation to aspire to the goals they had set for themselves. They met fierce opposition from the Southern states who would kill the motion for independence if the document dared interfere with their sovereignty on such issues. Rather than lose the moment, they yielded to the Southern states so that the nation could be formed knowing that they could revisit the issue at a later date once the United States was actually united and the Bill of Rights already contained that language that would leave that door open for later discussion.

We must go back in time today, because those laws and principals are being tested by an administration that believes the Constitution is an inconvenience to the “work” they insist needs to be done and they have already taken steps to alter the understanding of that precious document until it resembles something that is convenient to their cause.

You know, I won’t apologize. I voted for McCain. Not because I thought he was some blazing example of what I wanted to see in a President, but honestly, I felt he was the lesser of two evils and none of the independent candidates were in a position to be considered serious contenders. When Obama won, I threw my hands up and said “Oh well, here comes another four years, or eight years of tax and spend policies, especially with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. At that moment, I had no idea what his election really meant.

This President has been engaged in the business of cultivating powers within the White House that have provided him the means to elude Congressional oversight. Of the dozens of “Special Advisors” (Czars) that he has appointed, to date very few have actually been vetted by Congress through the required Senate Confirmation Process. The Czars have been given powers to act without Congressional guidance and have even been accused of withholding information from Congress in what some critics have begun to call a “Shadow Government”.

There are wide and disturbing connections between the President, his advisors and people outside of the Federal Government that have a long history of affiliations with radical organizations and groups that can only be described as domestic terror cells. At least one of the President’s closest advisors is a self-avowed communist and many more are radical social engineers, some with ties to groups that in the past actively sought to cripple the government in favor of a Marxist regime.

One of those “affiliates” is Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones was one of the co-founders of the Weather Underground, a domestic terror group. Mr. Jones, having served his debt to society now sits as the NY Chairman of the Apollo Alliance. This is the group that has been credited for writing key portions of the stimulus bill that earmarked nearly eight-hundred billion dollars to revive the economy. $5.2 billion dollars of that money is scheduled to be distributed to non-profit community based organizations such as ACORN and The Apollo Alliance. Van Jones, the self proclaimed communist and former “green jobs” Czar is also a member of the board of the Apollo Alliance. That is quite a coincidence and one of those things that just makes you go Hmmmmm?

Jeff Immelt is the CEO of General Electric, a company that stands to make billions by providing smart grid technology that is a key infrastructure component of the climate bill. As it turns out, Mr. Immelt, who was recently appointed by President Obama to the board of the NY Federal Reserve, also wrote parts of both the healthcare and the climate bill.

Excuse me? Since when do we allow private citizens to take part in the writing of legislation, especially when they stand to profit from the provisions contained in that legislation? That used to be called a conflict of interest when I was growing up. When you look at the enormity of the bills and the trillions of dollars these will cost the American tax payer I have a far better name for it. It is nothing less than the wholesale looting of the United States Treasury.

Senator John Conyers (D-MI) was quoted talking about the people that are shouting "read the bill, read the bill" at the town hall meetings and said they make him laugh; then added "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" Well Senator, if Congress is not writing the bills, and Congress is not reading the bills then how can you claim to honor the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution when you blindly vote on the bills with little or no understanding of what is in them?

Fortunately, the Constitution is still intact at least for the time being, so the ship of state still has a rudder. However, the wrong hands are now holding the wheel. This is a rare opportunity that we have been given. If reasonable people shed the light of truth on this assault on our Republic, we can bring our nation together again. The factions that seek to dilute the Constitution and usurp power from the American people are a dangerous and focused group but they are still small in number. Our Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. Speak boldly and demand answers while we still have our authority as citizens of a nation that is of, by and for the people. Do it now, while the Congress is still required to answer to us and while the President is still required to answer to Congress.

The petty partisanship that has kept the political parties at each other’s throats needs to end if we are to face this crisis and endure. We must all realize that disagreements on policy are the discussions that take place in any democracy and those discussions are far different than the “change” these people are trying to slip in under the radar. This is an insidious and vile attack at the very core of our country and should be treated no differently than if it were a direct assault on our land by a belligerent nation. We must unify to possess the strength to defeat them. Our nation, like an oak tree, can withstand nearly any assault from the outside. It is when disease penetrates the bark and rot takes hold from within that the mighty oak falls.

Paul

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment
Powers of the States and People.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“The 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.”

We are addressing the Tenth Amendment on The Vigilance Project with the same alacrity that we did the First and Second Amendments. Not because of what it is, but rather, because of how badly it has been ignored. This amendment, more than any other, has been diluted and intentionally misinterpreted by many administrations and those administrations have, to date, found willing coconspirators in the nation’s courts.

Since President Obama has taken the oath of office it appears to anyone outside of his inner circle that they have embarked on the course of massively increasing the scope and power of the Federal Government. The new powers they seek are being highly contested and the speed at which they are attempting to force legislation through Congress suggests that those that are opposed to this “fattening of the Federal hog” do not have the luxury of waiting until the mid-term Congressional elections to seek reasonable restraints. They are seeking to move their agenda forward before the challenges to the Constitutionality of these power grabs can even be launched.

The Tenth Amendment has been looked at by many as the only hope we currently have to restore balance to the union. We created this lumbering giant through our own ignorance and complacency and we are fast approaching a point of no return. If several new and extremely large bills such as Financial Reform, Immigration Reform or the Climate Bill actually pass, the Federal government will be so big and their powers so all encompassing that the chains of the U.S. Constitution may no longer be strong enough to restrain this super agency.

Why did that just sound like I blamed the average American for this? It sounds like I did because I did. Thomas Jefferson warned that Democracy can only work with an informed and educated electorate. Most of the electorate in this nation are not only poorly informed but have been educated with Marxist ideals by Socialists hidden within the education system. We watched the evening news transform from the daily reporting of important events into a scripted endorsement of the political views of the editor at large and we did nothing. We watched as our schools systems began the teaching of revisionist history and promoted the ignorance of the civil legislative process and we did nothing. We watched as Congress passed one questionable law after another and still did nothing. We did nothing and for our efforts, we got what we paid for.

The Federal Government has been engaged in the practice of siphoning powers from the states through random acts of legislation that were ‘tweaked” into existence through a loose interpretation of the enumerated powers that the Federal Government was originally entrusted with. FDR continued Wilson’s legacy and had sweeping powers granted to the Federal government during the Great Depression to empower his attempts to stabilize the economy during a time of crisis. To gain those powers, FDR and the Supreme Court had to stretch reason and the Constitution to the breaking point.

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only those matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). The Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section 8 is one of the powers specifically delegated to Congress and how it is interpreted is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

In the twentieth century the complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court. This reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause gave the Federal government the ability to act outside of the enumerated powers in an attempt to correct a faltering national economy. It was after all, a crisis of international proportion. Of course, once you allow a breach of the Constitution for one thing, it sets the stage for further transgressions in the name of precedence.

During the Second World War (1942), the Court ruled that in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm; that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The government’s argument was that a farmer growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers exceeded their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market of wheat which justified government regulation under the commerce clause.

After Wickard v. Filburn, many such cases were decided solely on the precedent established in this case. In 2009, the Federal government is confidently using this precedent to declare the constitutionality of its pursuit of regulatory control of the healthcare industry. To say that a man in Peoria visiting a doctor in Peoria to arrange for a medical treatment that will be administered in Peoria somehow falls under the auspices of interstate commerce requires the same stretch of the imagination that was used to regulate wheat grown for personal consumption; wheat that not only did not leave the state, but didn’t even leave the farm it was grown on. Worse yet is the individual mandate in the healthcare bill that would require all Americans to purchase health insurance. For the first time in the history of this country, the Federal government is attempting to force people to purchase a private good against their will; that the act of not buying something is being perverted into a description of commerce that can be regulated by the Federal government.

The school of thought that justifies these actions is to say the least, a gross misinterpretation of the commerce clause and to say the most, a criminal attempt on the part of the Federal government to harvest powers that were clearly denied to them in the Constitution. Now that many States are considering or have already passed legislation to reaffirm their status as sovereign States, the first logical step is to revisit the decisions that give precedence to the Federal government’s drive to obfuscate even more powers belonging to the States and the people under the guise of interstate commerce. That is now under way and cases like Wickard v. Filburn are being tested again to determine if the decisions in those cases were in fact, correct and appropriate.

Another method used extensively by the Federal government to garner State participation in Federal mandates is through the use of funding. This tactic is widely used to obtain compliance for federal mandates where there is no Constitutional authority to enact the legislation in question.

The Federal government had issued directives that would change the maximum allowable blood alcohol level to .08 in an effort to create a uniform legal statute for intoxicated driving nationwide. States that would not adhere to this statutory change would lose eligibility for part or all of the Federal highway funds for road maintenance and expansion as the adoption of this standard became a requirement of the application for funds.

The same tactic was used to enforce the national 55 mph speed limit in an effort to conserve fuel after the fuel crisis of the early 70’s. The National Maximum Speed Law was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act signed into law by Richard Nixon. It was revised in 1987 to allow certain highway speeds to rise to 65 mph and was eventually repealed in 1995. During the period of time that it was in force, the maximum allowable speed limit set by the Federal government was written into the requirements for eligibility for any State seeking Federal highway funds.

Now that the Federal government has had such wide ranging success in forcing even unconstitutional legislation upon the States through these tactics they have become bolder through the years. The States are being increasingly burdened by partially funded and even totally unfunded mandates. The legislation may have funding allocated for only the first few years leaving the states to figure out how to pay for the projects after the allocated funds have been exhausted. Some mandates, the high risk pools the States would be required to form by the healthcare bill, do not even pay the total cost to enact the legislation let alone the operating budget to maintain them. The States, like the people living in them have reached a turning point and are now seeking relief from these unfair and unconstitutional practices.

Since August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in November of 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.

While the Federal ATF has issued a letter to State officials in Tennessee reminding them that Federal law supersedes State law and that has the net effect of rendering the Firearms Freedom act invalid, no court challenges have yet to occur. I am sure that once the Federal government carries through with their threat of enacting restrictive legislation of the retail sale of ammunition, Tennessee and the Federal government will be seeking their day in the Supreme Court to settle the matter.

I pray that Tennessee wins that case because that will be the first swing of the axe that will begin to whittle the Federal government back to an acceptable size. In the end, if we cannot deflate the Federal government until it fits back into the box it came in, the budgets will continue to climb, the deficits will continue to defy logic, and the national debt will eventually attain a weight that will crush this nation.

Paul

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Many of the constraints placed upon the government by the bill of rights stem from English Common Law which itself, can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215. In fact, the phrases “Due Process of Law” and “Grand Jury” both have their origin in the Magna Carta. Part of those legal protections were discussed yesterday in the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unlawful search and seizure.

To arrive at matters covered by the Fifth Amendment, we can hope that law enforcement has fulfilled their obligation under the Fourth Amendment and enough evidence has been lawfully gathered to proceed to trial. Minor offenses of the law are tried at the local level, or at the State level for more serious charges. While the provisions of double jeopardy, due process of law and self incrimination apply to all criminal proceedings, the requirement for a Grand Jury only applies to special circumstances involving capital crimes or other Federal offences. Curiously, the rules of evidence gathering are not a factor in a Grand Jury hearing which may hear all evidence before determining if is there is cause to recommend indictment. It is only during the trial phase where the admissibility of evidence is actually determined.

Only the most grievous crimes and capital offences are tried at the Federal level and the Fifth Amendment requires a special process because of the severity of the punishments associated with crimes of that nature. Except in cases of military tribunals during a time of war, the Fifth Amendment requires that a Grand Jury be convened to determine cause to bring charges in a capital offence. The common thread that binds all of the amendments together is once again, a deep distrust of a strong central government. Since it was natural in early law to use the legal system to dispose of one’s political enemies, the founding fathers felt it was critical that the charges leading to a capital trial were well founded and appropriate. The use of a Grand Jury would then place a jury of peers into the process of determining if sufficient cause existed to pursue charges, thus preventing the abuse of governmental power from corrupting the process.

Double Jeopardy is probably the most confusing of the stipulations in the Fifth Amendment. “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” You may in fact, be tried multiple times for the same crime but not under the same charge. For instance, a person that has been acquitted of first degree murder may not be tried a second time for first degree murder. In rare instances however, if sufficient evidence of guilt exists, he can be subsequently tried for second degree murder or any lesser associated charge. This provision was evidenced in the trials of the officers accused in the Rodney King case. The officers were charged with use of excessive force with one of the officers, Sergeant Koon, also charged with willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault because he was the supervisory officer on the scene. The 1992 acquittal of the officers resulted in the Los Angeles riots of the same year. After the riots, the Department of Justice reinstated investigation and obtained an indictment of violations of federal civil rights against the four officers.

The federal trial focused more on the evidence as to the training of officers instead of just relying on the videotape of the incident. As a result of the 1993 Federal trial, the jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were eventually sentenced to 30 months in prison. The remaining two officers were acquitted of all charges.

An acquittal by jury is final and may not be appealed by the prosecution. Also, acquittal by a judge is generally final and prosecution is normally barred from seeking an appeal in that case as well. However, in cases where a conviction by jury has been overturned by a judge, the prosecution may appeal that reversal if they feel strongly that the judge is in error. Double Jeopardy also does not apply in cases where a mistrial has occurred.

The Fifth Amendment also bars the Federal government from taking private property for public use without adequate compensation.

The most famous provision of the Fifth Amendment is of course, that a defendant in a criminal trial cannot be compelled or forced to testify against himself. Out of all the protections in the bill of rights I am sure this will survive as long as Congress does regardless of the political winds. After all, Congress has probably used this provision of law far more often than we have. At last count there were:

29 members of Congress accused of spousal abuse7 members of Congress arrested for fraud19 members of Congress accused of writing bad checks117 members of Congress either directly or indirectly bankrupted 2 businesses3 members of Congress have served time for assault71 members of Congress cannot obtain a credit card due to bad credit14 members of Congress have been arrested on drug-related charges8 members of Congress have been arrested for shoplifting21 members of Congress are currently defendants in lawsuits and84 members of Congress have been arrested for drunk driving.

No, I am not going to claim that I am “holier than thou”. We are human and we all have our bumps, bruises and warts. I probably wouldn’t taken the time to point out these human frailties if Congress had not taken to acting as though they are the elite of society and have begun to blatantly ignored the laws they have written for the rest of us to follow. When Bill Clinton lied to a Grand Jury, did it really matter what question he lied about? The point is that he lied under oath and if he were not the President he would have suffered greatly for that. Wait, let me rephrase that...If he were the President and was not a member of the controlling party of Congress, he would have suffered greatly for that. But no, once again they invoked their elitist mantra that the ruling class is exempt from such frivolous exercises as obeying a law that was obviously meant for the peasants alone.

Some argue that his marital fidelity was not a matter for the Grand Jury and I could agree with that to a point. However, the laws regarding perjury are not followed by an asterisk that point to an exclusion for questions about personal relationships, or for that matter, sitting Presidents. If there is cause to believe that the alleged relationship may have been at least partly funded with public money or was the result of the abuse of power, then it certainly becomes a question that needs to be asked. The fact is Mr. Clinton not only lied, but he lied under oath and to a Grand Jury; that is inexcusable. He could have followed the lawful path and invoked his rights under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self incrimination. I just don’t think he could have used his country charm and boyish giggle with that one and that would not have appealed to a man like him at all.

Paul

The First Amendment - Part Three

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The third and final part of the First Amendment is the freedom to assemble.

"Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the… right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


The freedom to peaceably assemble has been openly exercised throughout the history of this nation. Since Labor Day is one of the left's favorite holidays, is it worthy to note that most legislation that offered protection for unions and for striking workers has been inextricably tied to the First Amendment. It was recognized by the courts that the union busting tactics used by employers and local law enforcement during the height of the industrial revolution denied striking workers their constitutional right to assemble; therefore it was the obligation of government to enact legislation that would prevent these violent reprisals against striking workers.

Prior to the inception of the United States, people still gathered to air grievances, usually with catastrophic consequences. Without the right to assemble most would grumble quietly to themselves until things had become so unbearable that the consequences for public dissent were all but meaningless. We have all seen the images in old movies that show the town folk marching through the night carrying pitch forks and burning torches to protest one thing or another. We also saw that those protests were usually met with armed reprisal by whatever authority existed in that time period. The clash resulted in the deaths of the protestors and within a short period of time, the protests would turn to open and violent insurrection with towns and cities burned to the ground by enraged citizens.

The Boston Massacre was another instance of a protest quelled by the Kings soldiers. That massacre was still fresh in the memories of the colonists when the Constitution was drafted. Since the United States was a government formed by free people, they naturally held their God given rights as paramount over the authority of government. I’m sure people are tired if hearing this from me at this point but it is a critical philosophy if one is to understand the Constitution. The founding fathers recognized that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The States and the people wanted a Federal government that would unite the States and would govern maters of commerce and law between the States; a government that would insure that all would provide for the common defense of the Union in the event that any one of the sister States were assaulted by an outside force. What they did not want was to give unbridled power to that same Federal government or allow it the ability to seize power from the States or the people.

The colonies had just fought a bloody war against the British Crown to obtain their liberty and they were not about to surrender that liberty to a centralized government. With that in mind they established strong constraints over the power the Federal government would be allowed to wield. The bill of rights are the chains that prevent the Federal government from becoming oppressive. After freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the freedom to peacefully assemble is the logical next step to secure the ideals of a democratic republic. After all, if Congress is pledged to represent the will of the people then there had better be a mechanism in place for the people to make themselves heard when they feel their representatives are not adequately addressing their concerns.

Every major event in American history is punctuated by the marches and protests that shook government into action. Unfortunately, the history of this nation says that our government doesn’t act until the protests are large enough and loud enough so that the voice of the people can be heard through the thick walls of the Capitol building not to mention the equally thick skulls of the occupants of that building.

We don’t like to be ignored, especially by our government. We recently saw proof of this at the recent town hall meetings. Once again, the Congress wants to pass legislation that will explode the National Debt and eventually, implode our economy. The American people are already frustrated that the Federal government has accrued a national debt of 12 trillion dollars. Americans want that debt paid and the spending deficits turned into a surplus before we will even consider establishing more spending to grease the so-called social consciousness of the liberal arm of Congress. We are angry and we are obviously not being heard. Since they are not reaching out to us, we are once again using our guaranteed right under the first amendment to bring the message to them.

The people that shouted out their concerns at the town hall meetings were denigrated by the press and by the Congressmen they met with. The protestors were called manufactured and fraudulent and the concerns they brought with them were swept away as these Representatives, Senators and journalists turned the discussion away from the message and instead made it about the people that brought the message to them. How foolish.

Unlike the left that uses bricks, bottles and fire to make their point, teabags were being used to punctuate these protests and the “tea parties” that took place on September 12, 2009, with the largest happening in Washington DC. Even though the protests were peaceful, Congress, Democratic organizations and special interests started up their machines to drown out the voice of these people by calling them “tea baggers” and Nazis” in an attempt to make them seem vile and dangerous. Have they forgotten the lessons that for every person that actually makes the time to protest that there are a hundred more that believe the same thing?

The message is clear and sensible. No more massive spending bills, no government control of healthcare and we do not want a climate bill that will decimate what is left of our economy. This nation is in a recession with more that 200,000 additional jobs being lost every month. Thanks to the spending practices of Congress we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and that equals over $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bailout programs and stimulus plan will add another $80,000 a piece to that and the unfunded liabilities of the social programs given to us by Roosevelt and Johnson mean that we are all pledged to cover the future debt associated with those programs to the tune of an additional $190,000 a piece. To put it simply, the reckless spending of Congress has seen to it that every child born into this nation already owes more than $350,000 in nationally accrued debt before the umbilical cord is even cut.

I hope Congress stops this foolish practice of dismissing the American people. Let’s face it, the colonists revolted and engaged the British in a bloody war because Parliament placed a 2% tax on their breakfast drink. We are the descendents of those brave men and women and we possess the same intolerance of government abuse. We have already passed the point where taxation has become oppressive and burdensome. We were told that there is a healthcare crisis and something had to be done. Once again, the only portion of the healthcare system that is in crisis was the portion that the Federal government already controlled before this disasterous healthcare bill passed.

The climate bill is nothing more than a cleverly disguised energy tax that will yield no benefit to the environment and most Americans know that the Federal government is simply incapable of managing the healthcare system without turning it into an unholy mess. The proof lies in their gross mismanagement of the government social programs that are already bankrupting this nation. Congress must not ignore the cries of the American people. If history has taught us anything it should be that once the words of the governed fail to persuade the leaders of government, it won’t be long before the pitchforks and torches are taken out of storage again.

Join me tomorrow for the guardian of the First Amendment: The Second Amendment.

Paul

Target 2010 - Phil Hare (D-IL)

Phil Hare was elected to Congress as part of the 2006 Democratic sweep brought on by America’s general dissatisfaction with George Bush’s policies. The anti-war movement aided by liberals in the main stream media had certainly strived to make Bush toxic by linking him with the rising number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the allegations of US mistreatment of terror suspects. While that certainly didn’t help Bush, his downfall, like his father, had more to do with fiscal policies and the perception that he was disconnected from the true concerns of the American people.

Phil Hare came from a blue-collar family which is a plus to anyone running for public office in Illinois. He worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory in Rock Island where he spent thirteen years. During the time he worked at the Seaford Clothing Factory, Phil served as a union leader and as President of the Unite Here Local 617, an offshoot of the AFL-CIO. He also served six years as an Army reservist.

Proving that Illinois really doesn’t ask much of their elected officials, Mr. Hare is a product of Alleman High School in Rock Island and had earned an Associates Degree from Black Hawk College in Moline. An Associates Degree is an undergraduate academic degree awarded by community colleges, junior colleges and some four year colleges after completion of a course of study usually lasting two years. Since Hare doesn’t expand on the studies he completed to earn his degree, I can only assume it was Liberal Arts, P.E. or perhaps underwater basket weaving; the favored subject of limited achievers.

Hare began dabbling in politics when he ran as an Alternate Delegate to the Democratic Presidential Convention in support of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts in 1980. One of the three delegates for Kennedy, Hare and his fellow Kennedy supporters were defeated by the delegates running in support of Jimmy Carter. In 1982 Phil left his union position to help Lane Evans, who was running for the US Congress against Republican incumbent, Tom Railsback. Hare and Evans had been close friends since 1976 when they worked together as volunteers for Senator Fred R. Harris' campaign for President. Surprisingly, Tom Railsback was defeated in the Republican primary by conservative challenger, State Senator Kenneth McMillan forcing Evans and Hare to shift gears and turn their attention to McMillan. Evans would defeat McMillan in November, and in appreciation, appointed Hare as district director.

For the next twenty-four years, Hare worked as an aide to Evans and assisted him mostly in the areas of constituent issues and labor problems. As an aide to Evans, Phil Hare oversaw the closings of Case International Harvestor plant in East Moline and the Maytag plant in Galesburg. The closings of these major businesses and many others resulted in a loss of more than 2,200 jobs in the 17th district as US companies began to flee over-regulation and high taxes in the US for countries that were a little more appreciative of the role successful corporations play in the health of an economy.

After Evans announced his retirement in March of 2006, Hare announced his candidacy to succeed Evans. Hare received the endorsement of Lane Evans and in a special Democratic caucus of precinct committee members from the 17th Congressional District, Hare defeated the four other candidates and became the district’s Democratic candidate for the 2006 Congressional race where Hare focused much of his campaign on labor issues. Since Illinois is not a right to work State, many people of the 17th district are union members (whether they like it or not) and let’s face it, labor issues in a State that loves to drive business away with union interference is an important issue for the people left looking for work. Apparently his promises worked and Hare defeated Republican Andrea Zinga in the general election of 2006 and ran unopposed in 2008 counting on America’s dissatisfaction with Bush and an easy ride on Obama’s coat tails.

Hare has followed Evans’s lead and his voting record is not just Liberal, it is very Liberal. That shouldn’t surprise anyone; especially since the mask came off shortly after the election and people found that Hare was not merely a Democrat, a Liberal or a union man….he was a Progressive and would become one of the founding members of the of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and an ardent supporter of the Progressive Caucus’s Socialist agenda.

Hare is an unapologetic supporter of Labor Unions and unfortunately, Labor Unions are for the most part, unapologetic supporters of Socialist ideology. Curiously, Hare doesn’t appear to be an unapologetic supporter of the actual union members and has openly supported Card Check, a provision in a recently proposed bill that would strip union members of the right to cast a secret ballot in union elections. The secret ballot was the membership’s only protection against intimidation and scare tactics used by corrupt and violent union leaders and while this maybe something a former union President would love to offer his “friends” as a gift, it is certainly something the rank and file is overwhelmingly opposed to.

Hare also voted for the recent healthcare bill even though he had previously stated that he would never support healthcare legislation that did not include, in his words, “a robust public option”. In a recent interview, Hare was asked about the Constitutionality of the healthcare legislation to which he replied: “I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest…I worry about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have health insurance." As video clips of his dismissive comments about our Constitution made their way across the internet and onto the news, Hare responded saying that his statement was taken out of context and what he really meant was that he was not concerned about the constitutional challenge to the legislation. I’m not so sure about his explanation because as the questioning continued, the interview started to ask what part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to require people to purchase health insurance but Hare interrupted him and blurted out "I don't know! I don't know!... But at the end of the day I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country."

Hare mistakenly added that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An unidentified voice on the tape reminded Congressman Hare that the line he just quoted was from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution but that didn’t matter much either. He waved his hand and said “either one.” Either one? This may come as a shock to the Black Hawk doctor of underwater basket weaving but he swore an oath to support and defend one of those documents when he became a Congressman and most of us think it would be a really good idea if he knew which one it was and what it actually says.

Why would we expect Mr. Hare would have actually read the Constitution when he obviously hasn’t read the bill he had just voted for? When asked if he had read the bill he told the interviewer that he had read the bill three times. Really? To have read the 8100 pages of the bill and the corresponding documents that would have to be read for the bill to make sense in the time the House leadership allowed before the vote, one would have to read one page each minute and then comprehend what it means in totality. That, my friends, would be a feat for a bona fide speed reader let alone a union boss with a two year degree in arts and crafts (or whatever it was).

Clearly Mr. Hare has no respect for the Constitution; no respect for union members and even less respect for his constituents if he can vote for a bill that he could not possibly have read. In fact, to vote for a bill that he openly opposed on principal simply because Nancy Pelosi told him to, Phil Hare must have very little respect for his own convictions and that is something that worries me most of all.

Paul

The Commerce Clause Hoax

The other day I hinted that the President and Progressive members of Congress secretly fear the constitutional challenge to the healthcare bill. It has nothing to do with actually negating that healthcare bill per se, but rather the spill over affects of challenging the liberal use of the Commerce Clause that has given, or rather, that has allowed the Federal government to seize powers that were reserved for the States and the People when the Constitution was enacted.

Much of what the Federal government has done over the past one-hundred years has been justified through an interpretation of the Constitution and not what is actually written in the law. Since the Congress and President see fit to invoke the Commerce Clause as their justification lets take a look at that clause.

The United States Constitution
Article One
Section Eight
The Powers of Congress (third paragraph)

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

While seemingly innocuous, the Commerce Clause has been intentionally manipulated ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. To derive the power needed to create massive agencies and oppressive regulations using this simple statement one must first ignore or conceal the words and intentions of the founding fathers. “To Regulate”, at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant “to make regular” and the authority to regulate was never meant to imply that the Federal government would have any powers beyond those that were enumerated in Article one, Section Eight. There are numerous examples that prove this interpretation in both the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers and it doesn’t take very long to find them.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions for “regulate” which are”:
1- To govern or direct according to rule: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority: to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)2- To bring order, method, or uniformity (to regulate one's habits)3- To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)

Congress loves to use the first definition of “regulate” to justify their actions through the use of the Commerce Clause but is that really appropriate? The Commerce Clause gives Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign nations but we all know that foreign nations are sovereign and will only recognize the rule and authority of law within the framework of their own governmental processes. Can Congress claim the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to negate the lawful structure of government in a foreign nation and burden that nation with laws and controlling regulations simply because we have trade with that nation? Of course not! As much as Congress may love that definition of regulate, it is clear that since the Commerce Clause also uses the word regulate in conjunction with commerce between the US and foreign nations; the definition that best applies would be the second “To bring order, method, or uniformity.”

In Article one, Section Eight, Congress also has the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. Money is an object, so clearly one cannot control the actions of money through legislative regulation. The regulation of the value of currency can only make sense in the context of insuring that the value of money was uniform throughout the United States and that the exchange rate with foreign currency was equally uniform; that a dollar in Massachusetts was worth the same as a dollar in Georgia and both of those dollars could be exchanged for an equal amount in British Pounds.

In the Madison debates staged during the August meetings of the Federal Convention of 1787, Representative John Mason of Maryland argued the point of regulating the militia. In fact, his motion was for the “…power to make laws regulating and disciplining the militia...” Since discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity using regulation to imply control through legislative regulation would be redundant and redundancy was not something our founders were famous for. Therefore, the word regulate in that case also referred to insuring a basic uniformity of standards for the militia. Many examples exist within the Federalist papers and each time the word “regulate” appeared, it could only have meant to guarantee a degree of uniformity.

Since the inception of the Federal government and most especially, over the last hundred years, Congress has routinely overstepped its authority and in doing so, has slowly diluted the rights of the States that were clearly denied to the Federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal legislation resulting from this seizure of power is now challenging the rights of all American citizens. For the Federal government to assume a power that is not clearly enunciated as one of the enumerated powers, they must first take that power away from the States, the people or both and the Commerce Clause is what has been most often used to achieve that. The President and the Congressional Democrats will fight tooth and nail in the defense of their new healthcare legislation but much of that fight will be waged to prevent the toppling of the healthcare bill from being used as a springboard by a coalition of States intent on restoring their Tenth Amendment rights and the Constitutional balance of power.

In addition to the actions taken by the States to block the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, a number of States have already enacted legislation or have legislation pending, designed to bolster the rights of gun owners in response to the threat of new Federal legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These same States are considering measures to protect the rights of those that hunt and fish now that there are threats of Federal interference with those activities as well. As the Federal government attempts to cultivate more power in Washington, the States have finally realized the danger and are taking action themselves. Eventually the cases questioning the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will find their way to the Supreme Court and a defeat for Obama there may open the door for the States to question the authority of the Federal government in other areas where the definition of commerce is in question or where the interstate activity of that commerce has not been firmly established.

This reigning in of the Federal government is long overdue and if these measures fail, there may be no way to restrain the Washington leviathan the States created through their own complacency. If however, the individual mandate to purchase insurance fails to pass muster for constitutionality, the healthcare bill will fall with it and that failure will set the stage for a reevaluation of other, equally intrusive Federal agencies, programs and regulations. Federal law may supersede State law as the law of the land but not if the Federal laws, are themselves, unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Federal government authority to enact any and all laws needed to fulfill their lawful obligations under the Constitution but those obligations are few and limited. I have a feeling they are about to find out how few and how limited their powers will be and they aren’t going to like it very much.

Paul

Political Violence? Conservatives Don't Throw Bricks.

I find it mildly amusing after decades of violence from the left over everything from war to the environment that they are so fearful of flag waving patriots at Tea Party Protests. There has been a concerted effort to liken Tea Party protests to the actions of an angry mob but those that have attended those rallies know who and what the Tea Party is. Most Tea Party groups know that the main stream media has been scouring these events so they can hand pick a few pictures of the more extreme protestors to impugn the movement as a whole and it would do well to treat those reporters with suspicion whenever they are present.

The power of the media comes into its own once they have an audio conversation of more than a few words. The less scrupulous of these media organs have absolutely no problem dissecting a five minute conversation and using snippets of your comments to craft a controversial answer to a question you were never asked. Those in the public eye know this and most are savvy enough to skirt these traps by crafting their answers to avoid particular statements that could be inflammatory when taken out of context. Still, a few slip through the cracks such as Sarah Palin’s comment on reloading or that she was putting a “sight” on Democrats she was “targeting” in the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin was the subject of numerous jokes during the 2008 campaign because she is an avid hunter in her home State of Alaska. He references to weapons and hunting terminology was meant to be an “in your face” swipe at those who tried to use her love of hunting against her and rather than submit to the criticisms, she decided to wear it as a badge of courage. The left however, seized the opportunity to claim her statements were meant to incite violence against Democrats and attempted to link the post-healthcare bill brick throwing incidents at her feet and at the feet of her Tea Party followers.

I really do have to wonder about all these claims of violence anyway. During the heated healthcare debates in August of 2009, multiple windows at the Democratic offices in Denver Colorado were smashed adding up to more than eleven thousand dollars in damages. Since the windows that were targeted held posters praising Obama’s efforts to reform healthcare, Democrats were quick to accuse right wing zealots and Tea Partiers claiming they were trying to invoke fear and foment hatred against supporters of the President’s healthcare initiative.

Days later, Denver Police arrested 24 year-old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack but Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

While the motives for Maurice Schwenkler’s acts of vandalism were never disclosed, it is clear that this was not someone that had been angered over the Democrat’s push to pass Healthcare Reform. Could it be that this was an idea he and his other radical friends came up with to discredit Tea Party opposition to his beloved President? Could this have been a contrived act perpetrated with the hope that the Republicans and Tea Parties would be blamed?

One can never be certain but since their list of heroes include Marxists, Socialists and some very radical thinkers, it is a credible possibility. This is curiously reminiscent to the 1933 blaze that gutted the German Reichstag building. The fire was deemed arson and there was an outcry from Hitler’s loyal party that Dutch Communists were responsible. Several Dutch Communists were arrested but just one, Marinus van der Lubbe, would be tried and executed for the act. The fire was then used by Adolf Hitler to suspend many of the German Republic’s civil rights and to disperse the various Communist opposition Parties present in Germany at the time. It was not until years later that Gestapo Archives seized by Russian forces during World War II were rediscovered in Moscow. These archives show that the fire was actually the work of Hitler’s loyal SA or Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers), the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party. The work of several modern day researchers claim that the fire was intentionally set by SA commandos so that the Nazis, under Hitler’s command, could create a crisis that would radically broaden his powers.

The reality of the situation is there is an understanding among Democrats that most Tea Party activists are law abiding members of society that abhor violence and ignorance. I believe their hope is that if they can connect the Tea Party or Republican supporters with random acts of violence that it will fracture the Tea Party and render it impotent; that independents and conservatives will flee if they believe the Party has been taken over by dangerous factions.

We saw this strategy employed during the Tea Party protest that gathered in Washington before the final House vote on the Healthcare bill. Instead of entering the Capitol Building through their usual underground passageway, House Democrats lead by Nancy Pelosi challenged the crowd as they walked to the Capitol Building. There were reports that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen and that some were even spat upon. Really? Well, despite hundreds of news cameras, microphones and security agents, not one of them actually witnessed these alleged events; there were no arrests made and none of the so-called victims of these horrendous acts would agree to appear on a single news show to tell America what happened to them.

Is that even possible? Do you doubt for one moment that if a Congressman were assaulted, threatened or spat on that the perpetrators wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot? The films I saw of the Congressional Democrats walking to the Capitol Building showed that their security people had cleared the path for them and maintained a comfortable distance between the crowd and the Congressmen. I clearly heard security personnel tell people to move back but I didn’t hear one racial remark. The cameras didn’t capture a single image of anyone spitting and neither did any of the other news networks that were present.

House Democrats equated their walk through the Tea Party protest with the historic civil rights marches of the 1960’s when in reality; it was far more similar to the marches staged by American Nazis, Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Like those marches, this little walk was designed to challenge the protestors. They were hoping that someone, anyone, would do something that would bring shame and scrutiny upon the Tea Party movement. When they couldn’t incite the response they wanted, I believe they made it up as they went along. That is why none of them would appear on the news programs. It is one thing to have Nancy Pelosi tell us that she heard that this had happened, its quite another to convince someone to stand before news cameras and lie to the American people that you were the victim of an assault that never happened; an assault that not one of the hundreds of cameras that were present had filmed.

Now we have windows being broken again; a few Democrats here and a few Republicans there. Even though the perpetrators have not been apprehended, we are being told that it is the acts of right wing zealots and angry Tea Partiers again. Has anyone even asked where Maurice Schwenkler has been lately? No I don’t actually believe he is responsible this time but considering what did happen this past August and the unsubstantiated nature of the alleged assault on House Democrats earlier this month, I am more inclined to believe in Elvis sightings than I am in their claims that Tea Partiers are suddenly throwing bricks again. Let’s face facts. Acts of violence and vandalism are the calling card of the left; not the Tea Party. Conservatives don’t throw bricks and we don’t make pipe bombs. We don’t incite violence and we don’t get arrested at protests. In fact, we even pick up our trash when we leave, something that the left never does; ironically, not even at a protest for the environment.

Paul

Deem and Pass Wasn't Used - This Time

The use of “deem and pass” was narrowly averted when two Democrats sitting on the House Rules Committee voted against the use of the “Slaughter Solution” that was intended to forward the Senate Bill through the House of Representative without requiring members to actually vote on the Bill. While the deem and pass rule has been around since the 1930’s, it has never been used to forward legislation of this magnitude through the House without an actual vote. Deem and pass was dubbed the “Slaughter Solution” after Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee that proposed its use to move the Healthcare Bill out of the House.

Louise Slaughter, that ironically represents Erie and Niagara Counties in New York, expected fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee to climb into their own barrels and follow her over the “falls” by approving the use of this legislative trick. Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and another, yet unnamed Democrat on the Rules Committee realized that this was tantamount to political suicide and voted against the measure. This reduced the vote in favor of deem and pass to the slightest margin of seven for and six against, making it’s use politically dangerous as each one would be seen as the deciding vote in their own district.

America may be a diverse culture with a vast chasm between the political ideologies of the people but they all agree that our government should act with honor. To use this rule would be seen as a corruption of the legitimate process of government. It’s true that deem and pass has been used by both Parties over the past eighty years and pretty much for the same reasons; to pass unpopular or costly legislation while still providing more cowardly members of Congress the ability to go home and tell their constituents they didn’t vote for the Bill. This time, the healthcare bill is so widely despised and has been so closely followed that even deem and pass would not provide the cover that nervous Democrats had hoped for. In fact, once the light of day had been shown on this process, the American people issued a thunderous rejection of the apparent misuse of power so loud that even the Rules Committee thought twice about the consequences.

What I found disturbing is the media’s ready acceptance of this incredibly deceitful process. Except for right wing TV and talk radio, the main stream press had no problem with using deem and pass; citing the historical use of the process. I said I found it disturbing, but does not mean I found it surprising. After all, there are many versions of deem and pass that can be found all over America. The press itself is guilty of similar practices; writing entire stories based solely on damaging quotes by unreliable sources. Since they were merely quoting someone else, they could run with a story that would politically hobble someone they considered an enemy without actually having to bear the responsibility of slandering them. “Hey…I didn’t say it…I just reported on someone that did!” Of course if the subject screamed loud enough, had proof that the accusations were false or threatened a law suit, the press could always bury a single sentence retraction in a rarely read section of the paper that would satisfy the legal world that they corrected the misstatement.

A perfect example of the use of a deem and pass look alike can be found in the global warming / climate change debate. The UN climate panel relied heavily on reports issued by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia; the same CRU that has recently been exposed willingly manipulating climate data, thwarting the release of information under the British equivalent to the Freedom of information act and conspiring with other global warming proponents to hide information that was contradictory to their claims. The UN climate panel had also created alarming climate reports warning of catastrophic consequences if CO2 levels were not drastically reduced. As it turns out, the UN climate panel used an article about melting glacial ice from a rock climbing magazine and a non-professional paper on the subject authored by a college student. When confronted with these damaging facts, the UN climate panel shrugged it off saying that they apologize for the errors but there is still overwhelming evidence to support climate change (and the U.N.’s global money grab to fight it) but they would conduct further study into the materials they use for their reports. In other words, they deem the crisis is real and passed the blame.

I wonder if I can use deem and pass myself? I could pay sales tax on a new home entertainment system and “deem” that my Federal taxes have been paid as well. No, that wouldn’t work because the Federal government really doesn’t like competition where criminal acts are concerned. I could have a sugar free coke with six slices of pizza and “deem” that I am on a diet or perhaps I could throw out one of the cigarettes in my newest carton of 200 and “deem” that I am cutting back. Yes, we could all use some version of deem and pass but somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to an honest person and it shouldn’t feel right to our elected officials.

Congressional procedure has become so corrupted by lawyers and modern politicians that nearly anything seems possible and the only justification they offer these days is “Well, they did it!” Have things descended that low? Has the Congress become so corrupt that they no longer think about whether or not it is the right thing to do but instead rationalize their actions on what someone else has already gotten away with? If that is true, then what will the future hold? Will we leave morality out of the equation and clone humans to use their bits and pieces for organ transplants or medical experiments? After all, what makes us human? We have already cloned chickens and sheep so cloning is possible and can it really be murder if these unwilling donors were never born? Impossible? Well, the abortion argument has already cheapened our conception of human existence and turned that into a question of when is a person really a person? What would happen if lawmakers began to deem people “non-people”?

As it stands now, our society’s view on the rights of the unborn are left entirely up to the woman that is carrying the unborn. The right to choose is based on the sovereignty of one’s own body and those that choose life have in essence, chosen to deem their unborn child a person worthy of protection. While pro-choice advocates fear that a woman’s right to choose abortion is threatened by the religious right, what they should fear more is the radical left. John Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar” has already weighed in on the right to choose and it is truly frightening. In the 1970’s, Holdren was one of the eco-kooks that believed the greatest threat to the earth was the explosion of human population. In a book Holdren co-authored with Anne H. Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” the pair proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to stave off an impending overpopulation crisis. Holdren and his Hench-woman actually went as far as suggesting retroactive abortion where children below the age of two that faced severe physical or mental disabilities could be “deemed” to be unviable and in fact, unborn since they were incapable of life independent of special means. Children deemed “unborn” could be disposed of neatly and legally within the framework of existing abortion legislation once they were lawfully considered unborn.

Oh yes, there are number of ways that deem and pass have made it beyond our legislature and into everyday life. It is the ways that it could be used in the future that should make rational people very nervous indeed. Just because the Congress didn’t have the nerve to use it this time does not mean it won’t rear its ugly head later when the public is too occupied with something else to notice. After all, that’s how it was used before and with great success. Whatever the political landscape is after the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is clear that the Democrats have provided us with some valuable insights. These devious rules and procedures must be routed out with strong enough language that they can never be used again. While the Party in control may be tempted to used the same rules to move their agenda forward, those temptations must be resisted and these rules must be forever retired if we are ever to return to a lawful, honorable and pure constitutional Republic.

Paul