Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Ronald Reagan & The Heritage Foundation

It is often said that a man's character and core beliefs may be judged by the company he keeps. To wit; When Ronald Regan became the 40th President of the United States he immediately surrounded himself with a close group of advisers, many of whom were members or affiliates of the Heritage Foundation. Founded in 1973 and according to the their website (, the Heritage Foundation " a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."* Seeing as these were President Reagan's goals it's not difficult to understand why he sought the counsel of these venerable men and women.

At first blush it may appear that Reagan possessed the ideology while the Foundation provided the bricks and mortar, but that would be a simplistic conclusion. Among the first things Reagan strove for as President was to free the United States from our national sense of pessimism and hopelessness following years of racial strife, recession, war, a crippling energy crisis, Watergate, the utter failure of the Carter administration, unemployment...

He was not the first or the last to use the parable of America as a Shining City on a Hill. He is however, the man most closely associated with it's modern usage. Ronald Wilson Reagan saw America's potential when others saw only our faults. He told us, "Its morning again in America," and we believed him. In our darkest hour Reagan foretold of the dawn.

In 1980 the Foundation published an 1,100 page "Mandate for Leadership" containing detailed policy descriptions spanning everything from tax, regulation and trade reform to national defence. The United Press International (UPI) described it as a "a blueprint for grabbing the government by its frayed New Deal lapels and shaking out 48 years of liberal policy." President Reagan was so taken by the "Mandate's" recommendations that copies were given to every member of his Cabinet and nearly two-thirds of its recommendations were adopted or attempted.

According to conservative writer William F.Buckley, Jr, Reagan acted upon approximately sixty percent of the three volumes of "Mandates" awaiting him when he took office which is why his Presidency was about sixty percent successful. Debatable.

In Reagan's second inaugural speech he cited twenty-two specific proposals from "Mandate for Leadership II" perhaps not verbatim, but the meat and potatoes were certainly on the table.

I am in no way asserting that Reagan was a puppet or mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation, I am simply pointing out that that organization's principles mirrored the President's. Anyone who knows anything of Ronald Reagan knows he was his own man; guided by faith in God and the Republican principles of the Founders. In that sense the Heritage Foundation was a valuable ally.

Ronald Reagan never shied away from pointing out the important influence that The Heritage Foundation had on his Presidency and the United States' relationship with the rest of the world. This is an organization that if you are not familiar with it perhaps you should be.

I began this piece to compare and contrast President Reagan's advisers to those of our current Commander-in-Chief.
Next up: A closer look at some of the people President Obama has chosen to surround himself with.
George Soros
Bill Ayers
Van Jones
Reverend Wright

*I strongly urge my readers to visit the Heritage Foundation Website.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

More Attacks on the Constitution

My apologies to my readers for my unforeseen hiatus. You may or may not be pleased to read that I am working on a book, perhaps even two books if the two topics I am attempting to write about prove too divergent or if the volume of material dictates separating it into two tomes. Anyone interested in more information can contact me here in the comments section. Anyway, enough about me.

It's been an interesting week, more accurately a frightening week for those of us watching the current administration continue to consolidate power and marginalize the Constitution.

I began to take notice back in January of this year, when, during President Obama's State of the Union Address, he berated the Supreme Court over a ruling while the Democratic lawmakers present stood and applauded. This sort of browbeating is banana-republic stuff. It's also a clear violation of the separation of powers as laid out in Articles I-III of the Constitution. The purpose of having three branches of government is that they are able to check and balance each other. When the Chief Executive and the majority of Congress are in ideological lockstep and attempt to bully the Supreme Court the system is circumvented. It's also a violation of the Principle of Judicial Independence, which is supposed to insulate the courts from political pressure. The Supreme Court generally attends State of the Union Addresses as a courtesy to the President, they are however, bound by protocol to remain silent. In my opinion, regardless of the President's ideological differences with some of the Justices, the Court deserved better.

On to more recent events:

In a new law purported to increase transparency within the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Dodd-Frank bill (now law) contains a section declaring that the SEC "shall not be compelled to disclose records or information obtained" in pursuit of its "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." It goes on to specifically exempt those records from the Freedom of Information Act.

The SEC was established by Congress in 1934 in response to the stock market crash of 1929 as a quasi-judicial body to regulate the stock exchanges, the companies whose securities traded on them, as well as the brokers and dealers who conducted the trading. The SEC is vested by Congress with the power to investigate and levy civil penalties against companies or traders suspected of insider trading and other securities violations as well as referring cases for criminal prosecution where warranted. Toward this end, the commission requires publicly traded companies to file quarterly, annual and other periodical reports for examination. These reports often contain proprietary information that is exempted from the Freedom of Information Act.
Conclusion: The new law provides a secondary layer of insulation from the public where one already existed. Considering the enormous unpopularity of much of what the administration is doing out in the open, the thought of what they're trying to conceal makes my head spin.


In a Washington Post article dated July 29th, 2010, Ellen Nakashima wrote that the Obama administration is seeking to broaden the scope of the FBI's ability to seize companies' electronic records without a warrant. The expansion would come with the addition of four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. According to government lawyers the category of information referred to in the proposed expanded search and seizure regulations includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, according to the attorneys, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication. All of this is based on an agent's suspicion that the information might be relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation. No need to trouble a judge for a warrant, no need to consult with a higher-up. Big Brother is watching YOU.

Why does this trouble me so? Does anyone remember the 4th Amendment? (Constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure without probable cause AND a warrant). But what really concerns me is this: President Nixon's enemies list is legendary; Obama's list probably makes Nixon look like a rank amateur. In the 2008 campaign Obama promised to fundamentally change America and he is doing just that. There's just one problem, those pesky Tea Parties, (well, them and FOX News). You know those people that believe in traditional American values, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, restoring the Constitution, etc.

The President has surrounded himself with '60s radicals and former avowed Communists. His ideals run counter to ours. Something needed to be done. Well, the once proud and respectable NAACP has come out and branded the Tea Parties racists without a shred of evidence. Now, I am not saying this originated in the Oval Office, but I am not in the business of underestimating people either. I very seriously doubt that the President didn't have a heads up and could not have stopped it if he chose. He chose not to stop it or admonish the NAACP; their decree served his purposes.

Sadly, you can't prove a negative. When you label someone a racist,it is like any other distasteful accusation. Even if the person or organization is cleared, the taint of disreputability remains. With the smear campaign underway, the thing that keeps me up at night is the fear that some misguided lunatic or group of the same will commit some heinous act a la Timothy Mc Veigh or Ted Kaczynski. Such an event would give the government an excuse to label the Tea Parties terrorist organizations across the board and allow the FBI to come down full-force on those righteous Americans trying to SAVE the Constitution.

And now, follow me further into conspiracy theory land if you dare..

But first a little history.

On January 30th, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and asked by President Paul von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. With many National Socialists (Nazis) already in prominent positions within the German Government, Hitler agreed, but with one caveat; Hitler wanted the Reichstag (the Lower House of Parliament), dissolved with special elections to be held on March 5th. Hitler wanted to replace Communists in the Reichstag with Nazis in order to consolidate power. Campaigning on both sides was violent and fierce. What the ultimate results of the election might have been could not be guessed at. However, on February 27th, six days before the scheduled elections, a fire broke out in the Reichstag chamber. The National Socialists' reaction was swift and overwhelming. Hitler quickly blamed the German Communist Party (KPD) and convinced the increasingly senile von Hindenburg to declare martial law, stripping German citizens and especially Communists and foreigners of most basic civil rights.

The 'ORDER of the REICH PRESIDENT for the PROTECTION of PEOPLE and STATE', more commonly known as the 'REICHSTAG FIRE DECREE' consisted of six articles. Article 1.) suspended most of the civil liberties set forth in the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the privacy of the mail and telephone, as well as protection of property and home. Articles 2.) and 3.) allowed the Reich government to assume powers normally reserved for the federal states. Articles 4.) and 5.) established severe penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings. Article 6.) simply stated that the decree took effect on the day of its proclamation.

With KPD members being detained by the thousands and many others fleeing the country, the Nazi Party gained a clear majority within the German government which allowed them to pass the 'ENABLING ACT' effectively turning Germany into a dictatorship in Adolf Hitler's hands.

The Reichstag Fire Trial began in July of 1933 with indictments on charges of arson against Marinus van der Lubbe and complicity against Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vassil Tanev. The trial ran through December 23rd of that year. Surprisingly only van der Lubbe was found guilty. He was beheaded in prison shortly thereafter.

Many people in and outside of Germany have long believed that van der Lubbe was guilty of nothing more than being a communist and that the whole event was orchestrated by the Nazis to get everyday Germans who were living under the crushing economic burden caused by the reparations to France outlined in the Treaty of Versailles to line up behind Hitler and the National Socialists. The Reichstag fire was a crystallizing moment, Germans were led to believe that their anti-Communist, anti-Semitic and generally xenophobic feelings had a home in the Third Reich and that they had found their pride again. It does not really matter who really set the physical fire, the existential one has a much greater place in the history of propaganda, or as President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying,"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Thanks, Mr. Emanuel for stating succinctly what I, in my verbosity could never do. Thank you you also for a peek into the mindset of the current administration.

What concerns me here (and feel free to ask me about my tin-foil hat), is that perhaps the "New" Democratic Party might get tired of waiting for some lone nut or hate-group to commit some act(s) of terrorism in the name of the Tea Parties and stage its own Reichstag incident. Fifteen months ago I would have laughed at the idea, but I have seen too much and I am dedicating myself to bringing it to your attention. The enemy we're facing isn't a person, a group or party or even a political ideology. No, the real enemy is apathy. How can we know that the Constitution and the principles of the Founders are being marginalized every day if we don't even know the rights we are losing every day, or the principles men fought and died for to create and protect this nation. Do the research, the information is out there. If you find me to be in error, I will THANK you.

Stay tuned folks. Coming soon:

George Soros
The current status of President Obama's deep-water drilling moratorium.
Where the idle rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are going and if we can expect to see them again.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Illegal to be Illegal?


Its amazing just how many people have deep, heart-felt convictions concerning the SUPPORT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT passed in Arizona recently. Imagine how strong their convictions might be if they actually read the bill. Count our president among those with plenty to say about unconstitutionality and racial profiling; civil rights and sensitivities without ever claiming to have read it himself.

The fact that the new anti-illegal immigration law is a virtual mirror image of existing federal law hasn't stopped President Obama, members of congress, various pundits and even Mexican President Felipe Calderón from criticizing Arizona. In his address to Congess yesterday, Calderon said, "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," which was met by an approxmately fifteen second long standing ovation from mostly Democratic lawmakers while most Republicans present remained seated. Joining in the adulation also were Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Vice President Joe Biden. (To his credit, the seemingly flummoxed Biden appeared to join the ovation with a great deal less enthusiasm and seemed to take his lead from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been seated to his left.

When the furvor died down, the Mexican President went on to say, "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." Unfortunately for President Calderon, (whom I suspect hasn't read the law either); the original act was amended by Arizona House Bill 2162, which specifically prohibits targeting suspected illegals based on race, sex or national origin.

In an interview with KPNX Channel 12 on Friday morning, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said, "There's hysteria out there, and people need to take a breath and see what our laws actually say, read them and understand them. Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don't get it. It's spin."

On Friday, April 30 Governor Brewer signed SB1070 into law to a chorus of boos from approximately 2,000 protesters at a state auditorium near the Capitol complex; Saying afterwards, "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act, but decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation." Slated to go into effect in late July or early August, Governor Brewer ordered Arizona's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement it without violating civil rights.

What the new law effectively does is make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Right. That is a dispatch directly from the Department of Redundancy Department. Why does Arizona need a state law that makes an illegal act illegal? Because the Federal Government refuses to enforce Federal law and has thus far refused to seriously entertain the idea of comprehensive immigration law reform. President Bush tried in 2007 and Congressional Republicans were less than enthusiastic; offering little support.

The amended act also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

The backlash against Arizona was immediate: The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund indicated through it's president William Sanchez that the group will file a lawsuit against Arizona to prevent implementation of the law.

Also on Friday President Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

In another of a series of pre-emptory apologies issued to the international community by the Obama administration, State Department Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner said in a press briefing on Friday that Arizona's stand was an example of a “troubling trend” in the United States and an indication of “discrimination or potential discrimination” in American society. Posner seemed to be using the 'See, we're not perfect either' icebreaker with the Chinese in a series of human rights talks held at various locations in Washington last week.

Even more outrageous are statements from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief John Morton intimating that ICE will not "not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials." During a visit to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Morton said that Arizona's new law is not "good government," Morton went on to say, "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution."

Interestingly enough, Arizona's new SUPPORT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT contains language reserving to the state the right to file lawsuits against those hindering enforcement of the law.

And then there is... PLANET CALIFORNIA

Lame duck Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joked during his keynote commencement speech at Emory University in Atlanta that, "I was also to go and give a commencement speech in Arizona, but with my accent I was worried they were going to deport me back to Austria."

The Goveror could easily be the poster child for legal immigration, having gone as far politically as a foreign national can go under the Constitution. There were even some ripples of support for a Constitutional amendment allowing foreign-born citizens of the United States to serve as president. Although the idea never gained much traction, it would have cleared the way for Schwarzenegger to make a presidential run. Not bad for a guy worried about being deported.

Planet California
tee shirts, che, mao, pot leaf


See a pdf copy of the bill here:

Tuesday, May 18, 2010


"There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,"
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2005

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2003

Friday, April 23, 2010

Permanent TARP?

The $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) faced enormous public opposition prior to being signed into law by President Bush on October 3, 2008. Slated to end December 31, 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner extended the TARP program until October 3, 2010.

Although one of the goals of the bailouts was to jump start lending, a January 30, 2010 report to Congress by TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky says that, “Lending continues to decrease, month after month,” and that a separate TARP program announced in March designed specifically to boost loans to small businesses “has still not been implemented by Treasury.”

The U.S. Government now owns 61 percent of General Motors as a result of the company exchanging stock for $52 billion in TARP money. $6.7 billion of that total was considered a loan and has been repaid with interest, but that figure is misleading. The Treasury Department is still in possession of $45.3 billion in GM stock.
The government also holds 9.9 percent of Chrysler on a $12.5 billion investment,
GMAC: 56.3 percent after investing $17.2 billion.
Citigroup: 27 percent after investing $25 billion.
Small banks: $69.1 billion invested in 641 small banks.
AIG: 79.8 percent in return for $47.5 billion invested, plus an additional $63 billion in loans from the Federal Reserve.
Fannie Mae: 79.9 percent after providing $75 billion.
Freddie Mac: 79.9 percent after providing $57 billion.
(Above table appears at

What these amount to are low-interest U.S Treasury (taxpayer) loans to institutions with irresponsible lending and accounting practices. The 'Too big to fail' mentality allows America's largest financial institutions to engage in overly risky behavior knowing that they will be rescued by the federal government should things go badly. A taxpayer-funded safety net does little to discourage such behavior.

Now Congress is seeking to make bailouts a permanent function of the federal government.

On Thursday, April 22 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D Nev.) filed for cloture ( a parliamentary procedure effectively blocking filibuster) of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S 3217). Cloture carried and the bill will now move through the Senate for amendment.

The law would create a permanent $50 billion 'Orderly Resolution Fund' within the Treasury. The fund, stewarded by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would, "make available…funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.”

The administration argues that it doesn't amount to a bailout because shareholders in a distressed institution would not be compensated, but the failing firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. Another argument touted by the bill's sponsor Senator Chris Dodd (D CT.) and other Congressional Democrats is that the fund would come from fees charged to big banks, not new or increased taxes. The difference here is in terminology only; Ultimately the cost will be borne by depositors.

Meaningful reform is needed on Wall Street, but legislation should be created in a bi-partisan manner. Inclusion of Republican and Independent lawmakers with everyone acting in the interest of American taxpayers will help to ensure that we don't have a repeat of the health care debacle.

Call, fax or email your Senator today. Let them know where you stand on this issue.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Add Alaska and Oklahoma to the List

(Apologies to my readers for the multiple edits and revisions to my posts concerning health care reform. The story is a fluid one, with developments cropping up as quickly as I can report on them.)

Alaska's Governor Sean Parnell and state Attorney General Dan Sullivan indicated Tuesday that the 'Last Frontier State' will be next to join Florida and twelve other plaintiff states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of recently passed health care reform legislation.

Also on Tuesday, leaders of both legislative houses in Oklahoma announced that they too will be filing a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the new law. President Pro Tempore of the State Senate Glenn Coffee along with Speaker of the State House of Representatives Chris Benge are filing their own suit instead of attempting to pass legislation that would force State Attorney General Drew Edmondson to file on the state's behalf.
Edmondson, who has thus far refused to file said on Friday, April ninth, (that) "The health care bill is the flawed result of a flawed process, but that alone does not make the law unconstitutional."
Senator Coffee said he plans to find a lawyer who will take the case pro-bono, stating also, "It's not conclusive we will be successful, but I think it's important for us to try."

Whether the Oklahoma lawsuit will seek an injunction is unknown at this time, but it is unlikely. The preceding lawsuits filed by Florida and Virginia do not ask for an injunction.

According to a press release dated April seventh on Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum's official website: Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona will join Florida and twelve other states in the first lawsuit filed that challenges the new law.

In another press release dated April twentieth, McCollum commended Alaska's decision to join the battle. The unofficial total stands at twenty, with some websites reporting as many as twenty-two litigant states. At the time of this post I am still attempting to find evidence of any new lawsuits being filed or any additional plaintiffs being added to existing suits. Rest assured I'll post that information as soon as I can verify it. Like I said...fluid.

On the leading with your chin front:
According to CBS News, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during an April twenty-first press briefing in Singapore concerning Iran's nuclear program, "Military force is an option of last resort. It's off the table in the near term."
We must reserve the right to protect ourselves and our allies. Placing more of our best and brightest young people into harm's way is difficult; promising our enemies we won't do it is stupid.

Then there is Jon Stewart.
Mr. Stewart, you are not a journalist, but you play one on TV. The distinction is an important one. Unfortunately, people over sixteen that still laugh hysterically at the f-word might take you seriously. Even less fortunate is the fact that many of these uninformed miscreants can and will vote for whomever their idiot-box tells them to vote for.
This is the first and last time that I'll legitimize Stewart's pseudo-journalism by mentioning him here.


Thanks to a promptly returned phone call from the Office of the Florida Attorney General I was able to ascertain that Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona have committed to join the Florida lawsuit. The additional states are expected to officially add their names to the complaint some time in May.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has retained Michael B. Wallace of Wise Carter, Child and Caraway, P.A., to represent the state after Attorney General Jim Hood declined repeated requests to do so. Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons faced similar stonewalling from State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. A press release dated April sixth stated that Governor Gibbons signed an Executive Order naming Mark Hutchison from the Las Vegas law firm of Hutchison & Steffen as Special Legal Counsel to the Governor. The firm will represent the interests of the people of Nevada without compensation.
In Arizona, the state legislature in a special session passed a law permitting Governor Jan Brewer to initiate a legal proceeding or appear on behalf of the State to challenge the health care reform law. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard declined in March to file a complaint on the state's behalf.

Links to the websites of all attorneys general and/or governors of participating states can be found here:

Sunday, April 18, 2010


"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
Thomas Jefferson

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced on April ninth that five more states are joining the thirteen states suing the federal government alleging that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (H.R. 3590) is unconstitutional. In addition Virginia filed a separate lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This brings the current total of litigant states to nineteen. Although they are not named as plaintiffs, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona have joined the fight, sparking partisan battles to erupt in several states between governors and attorneys general. In some cases Republican governors are insisting that their state's Democratic attorneys general file, in others the exact opposite is occurring; Democratic governors are seeking to prevent filings by Republican attorneys general. Also unnamed as a plaintiff in the Florida lawsuit is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. According to the Washington Examiner, Virginia filed a separate lawsuit because "we have a different standing," in that "federal law directly conflicts with our law," spokesman Brian Gottstein said

South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota had previously joined the lawsuit initiated by Florida and filed in United States District Court Northern District of Florida in Pensacola. According to the Associated Press the suit was filed just seven minutes after President Obama signed the health care reform bill into law on March 23rd.

Defendants named in the Florida suit are:
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services;
GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the United States Department
of the Treasury; UNITED STATES
L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Labor

The Virginia lawsuit names as a defendant only:
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services

Among the illegalities alleged in the lawsuits are:
The perversion of the constitutionally enumerated power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The law will require all adults to purchase qualifying health insurance by 2014, stipulating fines and penalties for non-compliance. For the first time in American history a law will compel citizens to purchase a product. Even compulsory auto insurance laws are contingent upon the affected person's decision to own and operate a motor vehicle. Oddly enough, the law forbids the purchase of health care insurance across state lines.
(1)It (the law) violates the rights of individuals requiring them to purchase health insurance;
(2) the constitution does not empower Congress to require individuals to purchase health insurance;
(The specific powers of congress [the enumerated powers] are spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18 of the constitution).
(3) the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fee constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax which is beyond the power of Congress to enact;
(Expressly forbiden to congress in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).
(4) the federal law invades the sovereignty of the states by forcing the states to expand their Medicaid rolls without offering sufficient federal funding to cover the costs.
(See number 2 above).

See the links below for copies of the lawsuits and the articulated allegations.

The government contends that the health care reform law is constitutional, citing the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), which states (that) "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Citing the supremacy clause is a spurious and thin argument whose logical conclusions are that any bill passed by congress and signed by the president is constitutional and supersedes state law by the simple virtue of having been passed. Fortunately, it is not that simple. The acid-test here is whether or not the federal government has the authority to enact such legislation as enumerated in the constitution (Article I, Section 8, Entire). Powers not enumerated as belonging to the federal government (whether provided for in a state's constitution or not), if not expressly forbidden are retained by the states and the people. (Amendments IX and X).
States' rights versus an over-reaching federal government is the issue here.
Stay tuned,

See a copy of the 2,400+ page bill here:

See a copy of the Florida lawsuit here:

See a copy of the Virginia lawsuit here:

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Initial Post

Hello Friends,

If you have found your way here I think I can safely assume that you are concerned about out-of-control spending, out-of-touch legislators and the shameless dissemination of misinformation concerning the Tea Party.
I plan to post as often as possible and would like to invite everyone to comment. Dissenting opinions are welcome. Feel free to correct me if you can cite sources. Civilized discourse is the goal of this blog.
I had planned to at least attempt to assemble my complaints with the current administation chronologically, but there are two rather heinous affronts to common decency that I would like to address now.
First; The unconscionable use of the so-called race card by the mainstream media. Has anyone on the left (not the ruling aristocracy, but rank and file party members) considered how utterly ridiculous it is to accuse a person (or group) of racism because they disagree with the democratically elected president? (I disagree with the majority of the Patriot Act, does that make me prejudiced against Texans?) Racism is the smearing, discrediting brush that ends discourse by changing the topic of conversation from the issue at hand to defense of one's character. No more are we talking about the fact that the United States elected a president of African-American descent. Shameless liberals are decrying 'racists' that would oppose anything President Obama would attempt to accomplish.
Who are the real racists here? Are liberal idealogues really so simple-minded as to believe that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with the president is because he is black? Is there absolutely no chance that our disenchantment is based upon policy and not prejudice? Unfortunately I expect to revisit this topic often.
Second; Shame on Former-President Clinton for comparing the Tea Party to right-wing extremists, (i.e. Timothy McVeigh). This is a smear campaign based on fear tactics that is beneath an American president. Unfortunately, it would seem that 'The ends justify the means' is the battle-cry of an administration that has and will continue to legislate 'for our own good' against the clear will of the majority.
Back soon,