Get America Back (Fed)

Interview with Senator Jim DeMint

2010-08-30T11:13:00.000-07:00

From The Wall Street Journal
THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
AUGUST 28, 2010

A Senator and His 'Disciples'

The Senate's stalwart opponent of big government is intent on electing some allies this year. His new PAC and growing anti-Obama sentiment mean he just might succeed.

By STEVE MOORE
'I'd rather lose with Pat Toomey than win with Arlen Specter any day." That's South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint defending his Senate Conservatives Fund, a new PAC that has taken Washington by storm.

The fund-raising group has already helped eight underdog Reaganite candidates win Republican Senate primaries this year. In two years, the fund has raised and spent nearly $2 million from nearly 50,000 individual contributors.

Mr. DeMint's mission is to bring more Jim DeMints to the Senate-that is, people with an unfailing antagonism to big government. But his string of victories, often against establishment candidates, has many of his Republican colleagues grumbling. They say Mr. DeMint is pushing candidates through the primaries who are too far to the right to take back vulnerable seats from Democrats in November. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently spoke for many in the party when he said it didn't need anymore "Jim DeMint disciples."

Over the past five years, Mr. DeMint has established himself as the pre-eminent conservative in Congress-he has a near perfect National Taxpayer Union rating-with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma a close second. As we eat lunch at Mr. DeMint's favorite restaurant in his hometown of Greenville, our conversation is often interrupted by well-wishers thrilled to see their senator in person and all with pretty much the same message: "Keep fighting those big spenders."

Mary O'Grady and Stephen Moore give President Obama the roadmap for moving to the center, analyze today's economic report, and respond to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's speech this morning in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Mr. DeMint savors his PAC's most recent victory in Colorado, where $141,000 in radio ads and direct contributions helped Ken Buck defeat Jane Norton, the choice of Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn. Mr. DeMint grouses that Mr. Buck was never even presented to his colleagues as a "viable alternative, which seemed unfair." He adds, only half-kiddingly, that what did in Ms. Norton was that she was "endorsed by 25 Republican senators, which made her the establishment candidate." These days, that's the kiss of death.

Other victors helped by Mr. DeMint include Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mike Lee of Utah (but only after incumbent Sen. Robert Bennett was knocked out at the Utah GOP convention). He says his goal is to raise $5 million this cycle. That's a pittance in big-money politics, but Mr. DeMint's strategic, targeted spending has flipped more races than even he thought possible.

"I'm not a kingmaker," he insists, even though that's precisely what many political pros call him. "And these guys don't want to be kings. We've got too many kings in Washington already."

A year ago, Mr. DeMint was demoralized and considered not running for re-election. "Why do I want to beat my head against the wall for another six years?" he recalls thinking. "I called my wife in December and said I'm ready to give it up. I'm not making any headway and most of my own colleagues are against me up here. I don't even like playing a contentious role. I like to be a strategic policy guy."

How many Republicans can be counted on to follow him into these budget battles? "Well, there's Coburn, who has got the courage to go out and make a scene on the floor or to stand up in a conference meeting and stand up to the appropriators. We don't have anyone else." Hence the PAC, which he says is the culmination of years of frustration from working within the system to fix Washington.

"When I got to Congress in 1999, instead of working on the reforms that I ran on-wealth-creating personal accounts and individually owned health insurance and some simple tax, the things that I thought all of us believed in-instead we worked on redistricting and getting the vulnerables on the right committees and getting earmarks to the people who needed them. Everything was about numbers and electing more Republicans. We'd always promise to get to the principles later." He shakes his head: "I just thought maybe there's something I don't understand."

He even admits: "I played along for a while. I asked for earmarks. I thought that following [longtime South Carolina Sens.] Fritz Hollings and Strom Thurmond, part of my job was getting a fair share for South Carolina. But we spent most of each year directing appropriations for parochial projects and it undermined our brand as Republicans and our entire anti-big government agenda."

In 2006 and 2007, he tried to fund raise for the GOP and the official Senate campaign committee. "I discovered that people were just so frustrated with the Republicans. I was over there at the Senate committee making fund-raising calls and so many people were saying, 'I'm not giving you guys another dime until you start acting like Republicans.' That's when I got the idea of starting a committee to just help conservative candidates."

His frustration boiled over in 2009 when the Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist, neither of whom is a Republican one year later. Mr. DeMint was the first major political figure to endorse Marco Rubio against Mr. Crist in Florida. Although Mr. Rubio is embraced now as a rising star of the Republican Party, at the time people laughed. "Yeah, many of my Senate colleagues weren't too happy. I think in the beginning they thought what I was doing was such a small thing that it would not threaten them." How wrong they were.

As the midterms approach, Mr. DeMint is also up for re-election, but his hapless Democratic opponent, Alvin Greene, is fighting a felony pornography charge. So most of his focus is on the five to eight stalwart conservatives who might be joining him in the Senate next year, and in the fight for limited government.

He tells me the story of a meeting that Republican senators had with Ron Johnson, the businessman and GOP senatorial candidate in Wisconsin. "He was asked why he's running for Senate and he stood up, and I hadn't met him yet, he looked straight at me and he said, 'I just want to quote DeMint here. I'm coming here to join the fight, not the club.' And I laughed and said, 'Well, this is the club.'"

That club got disrupted further last week when incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski apparently lost to firebrand challenger Joe Miller in Alaska's Republican primary. (Absentee votes are still being counted.) "It's encouraging to me what happened in Alaska with Miller," Mr. DeMint told me yesterday. "It should be a wake-up call to Republicans that politicians who go to Washington to bring home the bacon aren't wanted-even in a state like Alaska that has gotten so much pork under senators like Ted Stevens. Voters are saying 'We're not willing to bankrupt the country to benefit ourselves.'"

The Alaska race highlights the tensions that are taking hold within the Republican Party. Can moderates and conservatives co-exist? At the moment, it seems that such unity would be necessary for taking back majorities from the Democrats. Mr. DeMint believes that "sure, numbers matter, I understand that, but not if we have to cave in our principles."

Sen. Tom Coburn 'The Conscience' of the US Senate

2010-08-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

This is from his speech in the Senate. "We are going in exactly the wrong direction. We ought to be standing on the principles that made this country great." There ought to be a review of every program in the Federal Government that is not effective, that is not efficient, that is wasteful or fraudulent, and we ought to get rid of it right now. We ought to say, you're gone, to be able to pay for a real stimulus plan that might, in fact, have some impact.

I would be remiss if I didn't remind everybody that next week we are going to hear from the Obama administration wanting another $500 billion. Outside of this, they are going to want another $500 billion to handle the banking system. Still not fixing the real disease-the pneumonia-we are going to treat the fever or treat the cough, but we are not going to treat the real disease.

Until we treat the real disease, this is pure waste. It is worse than pure waste. It is morally reprehensible, because it steals the future of the next two generations.

I am going to wind up here and finish, but I wanted to spend some time to make sure the American people know what is in this bill. I think once they know what is in this bill, they would reject it out of hand.

Let me read for my colleagues some of the things that are in this bill..

The biggest earmark in history is in this bill. There is $2 billion in this bill to build a coal plant with zero emissions. That would be great, maybe, if we had the technology, but the greatest brains in the world sitting at MIT say we don't have the technology yet to do that. Why would we build a $2 billion power plant we don't have the technology for that we know will come back and ask for another $2 billion and another $2 billion and another $2 billion when we could build a demonstration project that might cost $150 million or $200 million? There is nothing wrong with having coal-fired plants that don't produce pollution; I am not against that. Even the Washington Post said the technology isn't there. It is a boondoggle. Why would we do that?

We eliminated tonight a $246 million payback for the large movie studios in Hollywood .

We are going to spend 88 Million to study whether we ought to buy a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard. You know what. The Coast Guard needs a new ice breaker. Why do we need to spend $88 million? They have two ice breakers now that they could retrofit and fix and come up with equivalent to what they needed to and not spend the $1 billion they are going to come back and ask for, for another ice breaker, so why would we spend $88 million doing that?

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we can't sell them, we can't raze them, we can't do anything, but we are going to spend money on a new building here in Washington .

We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now? These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use what they have. They wouldn't go out and spend $248 million on furniture.

How about buying $600 million worth of hybrid vehicles? Do you know what I would say? Right now times are tough; I would rather Americans have new cars than Federal employees have new cars. What is wrong with the cars we have? Dumping $600 million worth of used vehicles on the used vehicle market right now is one of the worst things we could do. Instead, we are going to spend $600 million buying new cars for Federal employees..

There is $400 million in here to prevent STDs .. I have a lot of experience on that. I have delivered 4,000 babies. We don't need to spend $400 million on STDs. What we need to do is properly educate about the infection rates and the effectiveness of methods of prevention. That doesn't take a penny more. You can write that on one piece of paper and teach every kid in this country, but we don't need to spend $400 million on it. It is not a priority.

How about $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs? That might even be somewhat stimulative. New sewers. That might create jobs.

How about $150 million for a Smithsonian museum? Tell me how that helps get us out of a recession. Tell me how that is a priority. Would the average American think that is a priority that we ought to be mortgaging our kids' future to spend another $150 million at the Smithsonian?

How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost twice-in 2010 is going to cost twice what it cost
10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired, no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.

We have $75 million for smoking cessation activities, which probably is a great idea, but we just passed a bill-the SCHIP bill-that we need to get 21 million more Americans smoking to be able to pay for that bill. That doesn't make sense.

How about $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges? Since when is a community college in my State a recipient of Federal largesse? Is that our responsibility? I mean, did we talk with Dell and Hewlett-Packard and say, How do we make you all do better? Is there not a market force that could make that better?

Will we actually buy on a true competitive bid? No, because there is nothing that requires competitive bidding in anything in this bill. There is nothing that requires it. It is one of the things President Obama said he wasgoing to mandate the Federal Government, but there is no competitive bidding in this bill at all.

We have $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. Well, that will put 10 or 15 people to work. Is that a priority for us right now?

There is $6 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings. That is a priority, versus somebody getting a job outside of Washington , a job that actually produces something, that actually increases wealth?

How about $500 million for State and local fire stations? Where do you find in the Constitution us paying for local fire stations within our realm of prerogatives? None of it is competitively bid - not a grant program.

Next is $1.2 billion for youth activities. Who does that employ? What does that mean?

How about $88 million for renovating the public health service building? You know, if we could sell half of the $1.3 trillion worth of properties we have, we could take care of every Federal building requirement and backlog we have.

Then there's $412 million for CDC buildings and property. We spent billions on a new center and headquarters for CDC. Is that a priority? Building another Government building instead of - if we are going to spend $412 million on building buildings, let's build one that will produce something, one that will give us something.

How about $850 million for that most "efficient'' Amtrak that hasn't made any money since 1976 and continues to have $2 billion or $3 billion a year in subsidies?

Here is one of my favorites: $75 million to construct a new "security training'' facility for State Department security officers, and we have four other facilities already available to train them. But it is not theirs. They want theirs. By the way, it is going to be in West Virginia ... I wonder how that got there? So we are going to build a new training facility that duplicates four others that we already have that could easily do what we need to do. But because we have a stimulus package, we are going to add in oink pork.

How about $200 million in funding for a lease-not buying, but a lease of alternative energy vehicles on military installations?

We are going to bail out the States on Medicaid. Total all of the health programs in this, and we are going to transfer $150 billion out of the private sector and we are going to move it to the Federal Government. You talk about back dooring national health care. Henry Waxman has to be smiling big today. He wants a single-payer Government-run health care system. We are going to move another $150 billion to the Federal Government from the private sector.

We are going to eliminate fees on loans from the Small Business Administration. You know what that does? That pushes productive capital to unproductive projects. It is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Then there is $160 million to the Job Corps Program-but not for
20 jobs and not to put more people in the Job Corps but to construct or repair buildings.

We are going to spend $524 million for information technology upgrades that the Appropriations Committee claims will create
388 jobs. If you do the math on that, that is $1.5 million a job. Don't you love the efficiency of Washington thinking?

We are going to create $79 billion in additional money for the States, a "slush fund,'' to bail out States and provide millions of dollars for education costs. How many of you think that will ever go away? Once the State education programs get $79 billion over 2 years, do you think that will ever go away? The cry and hue of taking our money away - even though it was a stimulus and supposed to be limited, it will never go away. So we will continue putting that forward until our kids have grand kids of their own.

There is about $47 billion for a variety of energy programs that are primarily focused on renewable energy. I am fine with spending that. But we ought to get something for it. There ought to be metrics. There are no metrics. I t is pie in the sky, saying we will throw some money at it..

Let me conclude by saying we are at a seminal moment in our country. We will either start living within the confines of realism and responsibility or we will blow it and we will create the downfall of the greatest Nation that ever lived. This bill is the start of that downfall. To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of freedom in this country.

I hope the American people know what is in this bill. I am doing everything I can to make sure they know. But more important, I hope somebody is listening who will treat the pneumonia we are faced with today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn't matter how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless we fix that problem first. Failing that, we will go down in history as the Congress that undermined the future and vitality of this country. Let it not be so."

Cavuto: Would You Pay More For A Lousy Government?

2010-08-14T18:17:00.000-07:00

Neil Cavuto is right on with his Common Sense. Think about what Neil is saying after you go to his Common Sense Video.

Reporters vs. Conservative Black Leaders at Press Conference 8 4 2010

2010-08-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Check out these conservatives. They are true Patriots.
Hopefully more blacks will see the light and come around to their way of thinking. This is a video worth watching.

Manhattan Declaration

2010-08-08T17:18:00.000-07:00

There is hope that the judge who ruled that the ban against same sex marriage in California is unconstitutional will be overturned. There are very good reasons and links on the Manhattan Declaration web site

Pro-Life!!!

2010-08-08T17:08:00.000-07:00

So, what is the difference in those of us who have already been born compared to those that are in the womb?

Four things: S – L – E – D

1) Size. Is a smaller person less human than a larger person? If so, where do we draw the line between small and large? Because I am over 6’ tall does that make me more human than my wife who is less than 5’ tall?

2) Level of Development. The unborn are not as developed as the rest of us. Their livers don’t function as well as ours, they don’t have the reasoning capacity that we do, and they can’t see very well. Because I have a doctorate am I more human than someone with a high school diploma? Doesn’t my degree make me more developed?

3) Environment. Does a person become more or less human as they change their environment? If you are in a swimming pool are you less human than when you are in your home? The unborn is covered in fluid.

4) Degree of Dependency. The unborn is completely dependent upon his/her mother. The ‘just-born’ baby is as well. Throughout our lives we are dependent upon others to varying degrees. We begin completely dependent, progress to less dependence (at least hopefully) then go back to being more dependent as we age.

In order to justify abortion I must make a decision about how small or large a person must be before they can be killed. I must determine what level of development is acceptable and not acceptable. I must also determine which environment is conducive to living and in which it is permissible to kill someone. And finally I must determine what degree of dependency is too much dependency.

As you can see, we have more similarities with the unborn than we do differences. The bottom line is this; if the unborn child can be killed, anyone can be killed. It’s just a matter of definition.

(The SLED acronym is not mine and I do not remember the original author. I heard it several years ago and it made such an impact I’ve never forgotten it.)

Charles Thompson, DVM

U.S. Congress, 2010

918-316-1452

The Coming Constitutional Debate: A Citizen’s Guide

2010-05-25T11:31:00.000-07:00

You really must read the Executive Summary. If you are interested in the whole article and want to know details that you can argue about click on the Title.

Stephen J. Markman
Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court
Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law,
Hillsdale College
ALLAN P. KIRBY, JR.
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES AND CITIZENSHIP
thekirbycenter.org

Executive Summary
The coming debate over the future of the American Constitution hinges upon one critical question: Who will decide questions of public policy—citizens acting through their elected and accountable representatives, or unelected and unaccountable judges? This paper argues that unless citizens, those to whom this paper is addressed, engage the constitutional debate, it will be settled—without their participation—by judges. To be decided, whether through debate or by judicial imposition, is whether “we the people” will live under the Constitution of James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln, or under what is called here the “twenty-first century constitution.” Under the twenty-first century constitution, the forms of the Founders’ Constitution would remain—a bicameral legislature, periodic elections, state governments—but important decisions, those determining the nature and direction of the American experiment, would increasingly be undertaken by federal courts. Rather than merely defining broad “rules of the game” for the three branches of government, the twenty-first century constitution would compel specific policy outcomes. In 1988, Justice Stephen J. Markman, then Assistant Attorney General in the administration of Ronald Reagan, prepared a report for Attorney General Edwin Meese titled “The Constitution in the Year 2000: Choices Ahead.” Identifying major areas of coming constitutional controversy, the report charted an understanding of the proper role of the judiciary. In 2009, The Constitution in 2020 was published. Featuring essays from a large group of progressive-minded legal academics, the book sought what it calls “redemptive constitutionalism”—a twenty-first century constitutionalism. Engaging the proponents of the twenty-first century constitution, this paper focuses on eight of the most salient issues in the debate: privileges or immunities, positive rights, state action, political questions, the Ninth Amendment, full faith and credit, transnationalism, and judicial restraint. The paper also outlines other important issues pertaining broadly to federalism, separation of powers, and limited government and rights. It concludes with a consideration of the federal judicial selection process, with special focus on how the United States Senate might attune its “advice and consent” role in the process to a careful consideration of the Constitution’s future. If successful, twenty-first century constitutionalism will entail the diminishment of deliberative and representative government. The twenty-first century constitutional debate has already been engaged; the only question is whether ordinary citizens, and their representatives, will be participants in this debate, or whether it will take place within the exclusive province of judges and lawyers.

American Suicide

2010-05-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

It is crucial that you read this. It is sobering. Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it should wake you from your careless slumber on this important truth.

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context this thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington,DC , filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia, " explaining how immigration - both legal and
illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, to self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great
civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset , put it this way: 'The histories
of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims."

Lamm went on:

"Second, to destroy America , invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds."

"Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrcity and what it meant to be an
American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their
differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority placation."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precept. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks
believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From
many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will " Balkanize " America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural country, having established multi-cultum, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even
barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and " Ignorance is
strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Ronald Reagan

A Torch With No Flame

2010-05-01T15:13:00.000-07:00

Although Charleston Heston was president of the NRA. This is not just about the 2nd Amendment. This clearly points out that we are losing the next generation of patriots. We must change our educational system by electing conservatives such as candidate for State Superintendent of Schools Janet Barresi. She is a true conservative. Everywhere we turn we are under attack by Liberals and Progressives. They have been at it for a long time, while we have been going about our daily lives not realizing how much progress they have made and how far they have come. It is going to be a long, slow, hard row to GET AMERICA BACK, but we start in November 2010. Let's continue to work. We can defeat them.

The Power to Tax ... and Revolt

2010-04-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

By Mark Alexander-- Patriot Post· Thursday, April 15, 2010
"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.
This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.

Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townsend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, "No taxation without representation."

The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.

In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the "Intolerable Acts," in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown's countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.

Near midnight on April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere departed Charlestown (near Boston)for Lexington and Concord in order to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty that the British army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches. While Revere was captured after reaching Lexington, his friend, Samuel Prescott, was able to evade the Red Coats and took word to the militiamen at Concord.

In the early dawn of that first Patriots' Day, April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the Lexington militia, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." That it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting British Regulars on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.

Thus, by the time the Second Continental Congress convened on May 10th, 1775, the young nation was in open war for liberty and independence, which would not be won until a full decade later.

Today, the tax burden borne by most Americans, even those who pay no direct federal taxes but at the least pay a great hidden cost in federal regulation, is far greater than that which incited our Founders to revolution.

Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.

Those at the helm of the federal government, by way of generations of overreaching executive orders, legislative malfeasance and judicial diktat, have abandoned their sacred oaths2 to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Although our Constitution provides the People with an authentic means for amendment as prescribed in Article V, successive generations of leftists have, by way of legislation, regulation and activist courts, altered that august founding convention well beyond any semblance of its original intent.

Consequently, they have undermined constitutional Rule of Law, supplanting it with the rule of men.

They have done so in order to win the allegiance of special interest constituencies, which then ensure perpetual re-election of their sponsors in return for political and economic agendas structured on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

How have leftist politicians succeeded in this assault?

They accomplished this through direct taxation on an ever-smaller number of Americans for the benefit of an ever-larger number of Americans -- "progressive taxation" and "social justice" as the Left so self-righteously calls it.

So, shouldn't those who have more give to those who have less?

Well, yes, in my humble opinion, but individuals should rightly be left to decide how best to use their resources for the benefit of others. And in this respect, Americans are the most generous people on earth and from any time of human history.

However, Barack Hussein Obama, an ideological Marxist, believes that government should be the ultimate arbiter for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, he said as much on the campaign trail in 2008.

Obama claims our economy is "out of balance," and our tax policies "badly skewed."

To resolve this, he says we need a "tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly..."

"Fair distribution"?

By this, of course, he means "redistribution."

It's not enough that 20 percent of Americans are already forced to fund 80 percent of the cost of bloated government largess; if Obama can saddle them with 100 percent of this cost, then he could anoint himself king.

Never mind that progressive taxation constitutes, in effect, a "Bill of Attainder" as outlawed by Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution. Who in Washington these days pays that venerable old parchment any mind?

As devoted socialist George Bernard Shaw acknowledged, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," which is the template for a bloodless socialist revolution.

Further, Obama asserts that free enterprise is nothing more than "Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself ... [a] tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity."

Free enterprise "doesn't require much thought or ingenuity"?

Only in the distorted worldview of a "community organizer" and lifelong adherent of Marxist doctrine could such an absurd assertion originate.

The current debacle of progressive taxation is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

We beg to differ. Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Obama's. Roosevelt was merely paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

At the time Marx was formulating his collectivist manifesto, classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat, a prominent 19th-century political economist, wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybodyendeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ... Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another... Then abolish that law without delay; No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."

Now, according to Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependence on Government3, "Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits -- which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program. Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes -- and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government." (Also see How the Tax Code is Expanding Government4.)

Perversely, almost half of all American workers pay no income tax per the current tax code scheme, though under the Obama plot many now qualify for a tax refund.

Once a majority of Americans can be "protected" from a tax burden, they will ignore the constitutional, moral and civic implications of "progressive taxation."

The fact is that the only way to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level is to directly spread the cost of government to a much broader number of taxpayers so all Americans "feel the pain." Of course, the Left understands that in order to escape any fiscal accountability, they need only ensure that the cost of government is borne by a targeted minority of income earners.

Obama is now poised to propose the implementation of a supplemental value-added tax, a national sales tax. Though this would seemingly spread the cost of government to all Americans (precisely what liberals want to avoid), Obama's VAT coupled with the myriad proposed exempt products and "rebates" to the "poor," would most assuredly be yet another avenue for the central government to use the tax code to bludgeon a minority of consumers in order to expand its authority and constituencies.

Vladimir Lenin asserted, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

And that is precisely Obama's political model.

But the problem with the socialist model is, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "they always run out of other people's money."

If I could emphasize but one point, it would be this: The Left has bankrupted the nation and the bill for freeloading on others is coming due. It will most certainly be paid back in the currency of liberty.

The time is at hand when we must inquire with a unified voice: "If there is no constitutional authority for most laws and regulations enacted by Congress and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?" (See the Patriot Declaration5.)

It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.

Thomas Jefferson declared, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamelyto surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us."

Two centuries later, Ronald Reagan similarly affirmed, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. ... You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

Which will it be?

The cause of, and necessity for, the American Revolution was the violation of fundamental rights, those to which Americans and all peoples are entitled by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

Unjust taxation was the catalyst for the first American Revolution. Today, once again, our fundamental rights are being violated by unjust taxation for purposes not authorized by our Constitution.

There is a groundswell of protest across the nation, which is far more powerful than what Obama dismissed as "malcontents" who are "waving their little teabags."

Millions of American Patriots are, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, mutually pledging to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," in our endeavor to restore our Constitution's integrity and the Rule of Law.

So Help Us God

2010-04-18T06:30:00.000-07:00

April 16,2010 Family Research Center. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, [we] must fall with them (Jedediah Morse, 1799). Yesterday, 223 years to the day after patriots ratified an end the Revolutionary War, a judge in Wisconsin ruled to reintroduce tyranny in America--this time, from the bench. In a decision that is rocking our nation to its very core, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb determined that a national day of prayer--a tradition as old as the country itself--is unconstitutional. "...[R]ecognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it..." With all due respect, the government may do exactly that under the very documents that established it. "[The] sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records," Alexander Hamilton insisted. "They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased by mortal power."Had Judge Crabb consulted the Constitution she was sworn to uphold, she might notice that Americans enjoy religious freedom--not by virtue of the courts, but in spite of them. Furthermore, setting aside a day of corporate prayer is more than compatible with our nation's heritage; it is a responsibility assigned to every American by George Washington himself. "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God... and humbly implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789).
Contrary to Judge Crabb's opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it. Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. To imply otherwise is to suggest that the Constitution is unconstitutional! Religion cannot be banned in America because it was never imposed--not by the Founding Fathers, and certainly not by the National Day of Prayer. While this is one of many instances in which the courts have tried to banish God from the public square, this case reveals a level of supreme arrogance. Ultimately, Judge Crabb is inferring that she found something in the Constitution that every President and Congress since 1775 has not: a hostile treatment of religion in public life.Make no mistake. This judicial mutiny lies directly at the feet of the Left, including President Obama, who has created an atmosphere in which the Constitution is silly putty in the hands of liberal activists. Slowly but surely, he is making American soil more fertile for the radical redefinition of society. This cannot be tolerated. We must ensure that the President's bench nominees have a reverence for the Constitution that this judge lacks. In the meantime, we call on Congress to start the impeachment proceedings for Barbara Crabb, as she violated of her sacred oath of "administering justice... under the Constitution and laws of the United States." What she has done to repress, we will use to revive. What she meant to undermine prayer, we will use as the reason why it's necessary. When the great men and women of our past bent their knees to God on behalf of the "sacred fire of liberty," it was often during the nation's darkest days. My friends, it is time we join them.

Patriots A Must Read

2010-03-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

I hope we are all willing to support, defend, and work to see that this declaration from the The Patriot Post is implemented. This is what we need to Get America Back (GAB). I am committed to support and work toward the implementation of this declaration for as long as it takes.

Patriot Declaration

We the People, blessed with the inheritance of Liberty paid for with the lives and fortunes of Patriots before us, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

WHEREAS, our nation is at a critical historic juncture, where we must choose between Rule of Law and rule of men; and

WHEREAS, our nation is confronting significant political threats to Liberty from within our borders and from enemies abroad; and

WHEREAS, our national Constitution is the singular guidance for Rule of Law and the defense of liberty; and

WHEREAS, our elected leaders have forsaken their oath to support and defend our Constitution, placing the future of American Liberty at
great peril;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, We the People of these United States, in order to restore a more perfect Union, re-establish Justice, re-insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, as established at great cost in lives
and treasure by our Founders and defended by generations since, and commit to undertake the following actions to restore constitutional integrity and Rule of Law, or be subject to expulsion:

FIRST, that constitutional authority be established for any national legislation entered before Congress, citing the specific authority enumerated in our Constitution empowering Congress to enact such legislation, thus ensuring that such legislation does not amend the plain language of our Constitution, which prescribes its own method for amendment in Article V, or be subject to a point of order;

SECOND, that all legislation explicitly cite its compliance with the Tenth Amendment to our Bill of Rights, "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," thus ensuring that the central government does not usurp the powers reserved to the States or the People, or be subject to a point of order;

THIRD, that all legislation and regulation imposed upon the nation apply equally to all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government;

FOURTH, that fiscal responsibility be enumerated in our Constitution by way of a Balanced Budget Amendment, including zero base-line accounting principles, to be put before the states and the people;

FIFTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision requiring a three-fifths majority of votes by members of Congress to raise direct or indirect taxes, and acknowledgment that the legislature has no authority to raise taxes for purposes that are not expressly authorized by the Constitution;

SIXTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that direct taxes be levied at an equal ratio to all Americans, ensuring that the cost-burden of government is shared equally by all, and consistent with Article I, Section 9, which provides "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" which would unduly single out individuals or minority groups for undue punishment;

SEVENTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment contain a provision that the withholding of taxes by an employer is the option of the taxpayer;

EIGHTH, that said Balanced Budget Amendment acknowledge the interdependence of economic freedom and political freedom by provision that any bill before Congress must enumerate its implications against the exercise of free enterprise, or be subject to a point of order;

NINTH, that a Legislature Accountability Amendment to establish term limits for all members of Congress, similar to that of the 22nd Amendment, Section 1, limiting terms for the Executive, be put before the states and the people; and,

TENTH, that Rule of Law as established through the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, entitles the People to unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and severely limits the government from any infringement upon those rights.

THUS, be it known that for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Fellow Patriots, throughout history the burden of ensuring that the flame of liberty burns bright has fallen upon the shoulders of a few patriotic men and women. But as Founding Patriot Samuel Adams noted, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men."

Through this Declaration, we, the tireless minority, publicly deliver hope and inspiration to our countrymen and, indeed, the world, and we send a message to those who have forsaken their oaths to support and defend our Constitution, who have abandoned Rule of Law for selfish pursuits: Don't Tread on Us, or you will surely suffer the political consequences.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Proprosed Constitutional Amendment

2009-11-21T08:55:00.000-08:00

Senator Jim DeMint has proposed an amendment to the Constitution to limit the terms of Congress.
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. J. RES.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COBURN, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on ___________

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
2

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section,
the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than one year.
‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election
or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy for more than three years.
‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility for election or appointment under this article.’’.

State Rights

2009-11-16T10:45:00.000-08:00

The U. S. Congress is totally out of control. They have gone way beyond the Constitution. What good is a Constitution if the Congress chooses to create a new one in their own image of corruption and power. The Constitution is almost shattered beyond saving UNLESS Patriots stand up now and defend her.One way we can curb the Congress is by reasserting State Rights. Nullification is the best way to begin to restore the Constitution to its rightfully place as the Supreme law of the land. The principal behind nullification is when a state 'nullifies' or defies a federal law, stating that the law in question is null and void and non-effective within the state.

Several states are beginning to take action against the abuse of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd amendment. Some of those are Montana, Kentucky, and Texas. We need to pressure our politicians in Oklahoma to stand up and be counted. Hopefully the legislature will reintroduce HJR1003 which states that the state of Oklahoma claims sovereignty. This was voted by the Governor. Let us make sure that our next Governor will sign it.

The Congress has no right to mandate Health Care and Oklahoma should 'nullify' it. There is a long history in America for states to affirm their right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. The States have slowly but surely allowed the Congress to take away their (our)power and freedoms. The Congress uses our tax dollars to bribe and intimidate the states by threatening to withhold funds for projects such as highways unless the states accept federal mandates (seatbelt laws are an example).

Once freedom is lost it is hard to get it back. Too many people love the nanny state. The States should Call a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th amendment (income tax). This will starve the Congress and help get them back under control. Another amendment should impose term limits on Congress.

A little history of nullification:
In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. More by Thomas E Woods

IMMIGRATION

2009-07-30T12:51:00.000-07:00

In 2005 the Congress assured the masses and the mobs
that they would close the border first BEFORE they
attempted comprehensive (amnesty) immigration
reform. How many times are we going to believe their
lies? Are we going to again let them get away with
new promises? We have to be adamant about holding
all politicians (Democrats, Republicans, and
Independents) accountable. They have lied to us so
many times that we should fire at least 90% of them
and limit all of their terms in office.
Immigration Amnesties in the United States: The
first United States amnesty was in 1986, and it
allowed millions of illegal immigrants to receive
a Green Card which could then lead to U.S.
citizenship in later years. Before this first
amnesty was granted, the United States government
had only given amnesty on a case by case basis.
In the cases where the government gave amnesty to
illegal immigrants, it was only done on a small
scale. For a period of over 200 years this was
how the government granted amnesty, but in 1986
Congress introduced new immigration legislature.
They passed the Immigration Reform and Control
Act or IRCA which gave approximately 2.8 million
illegal immigrants legal status in the United
States. In addition, their immediate relatives
or dependents which included about 143,000
individuals also qualified for the same status.
The result of the amnesty introduced by
Congress was that illegal immigration grew
in significant numbers.
Congress is now working on the 8th amnesty
for illegal's since 1987. Let's STOP it Call,
call, call. Contacts:

Judiciary
Chair: Patrick J. Leahy
Phone: 202-224-4242 Fax: 202-228-3479
Ranking: Jeff Sessions
Phone: 202-224-4124 Fax: 202-224-3149
Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
Chair: Charles E. Schumer
Phone: 202-224-6542 Fax: 202-224-3027
Ranking: John Cornyn
Phone: 202-224-2934 Fax: 202-224-2856
Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Chair: Joe Lieberman
Phone: 202-224-4041 Fax: 202-224-9750
Ranking: Susan M. Collins
Phone: 202-224-2523 Fax: 202-224-2693
Judiciary Subcommittee Jurisdiction
Phone: 202-225-3951
Chair: John Conyers Jr.
Phone: 202-225-5126 Fax: 202-225-0072
Ranking: Lamar Smith
Phone: 202-225-4236 Fax: 202-225-8628
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, etc.
Chair: Zoe Lofgren
Phone: 202-225-3072 Fax: 202-225-3336
Ranking: Steve King
Phone: 202-225-4426 Fax: 202-225-3193