Emotions are the drivers of all kinds of evil on both sides of the isle, the issue of same sex marriage can be solved wile keeping all parties happy and without sacrificeing liberty. The only stipulation is we need to put liberty before equality. In the words of Milton Friedman, “Those who are willing to put equality before freedom will have neither, those who put liberty before equality will find wind up with a great deal of both.”

Back in the 60′s there was a very similar political battle taking place between liberty and equality, the premise was the same only it wasn’t over gay marriage but so called, ‘civil rights’. In many ways the issue defined the 1964 presidential election, President Johnson supported and later passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a bill that essentually made it a crime for anyone in the government and in private business to discriminate against a person of color. Barry Goldwater was a very vocal opponent of this legislation, not on the grounds that he favored discrimination, or was against equality, in fact Goldwater was in favor of telling the government that they could not discriminate. After all the government has but one role, to protect your rights, and there fore they can not discriminate against people who poses the same rights on public property. But Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was fundamentally against the notion that the government could interfear with the affairs of a private business, which would be a violation of the owners property rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentually eliminated all property rights of business men and women. Based on the implications of this law, it is illegal for private businesses to, “discriminate” or freely choose who they will or will not serve. Following that same government logic, the church has no right, (even though a private orginization) to, “discriminate” or choose criteria that its subjects must live up to. Similarly to how a resteraunt owner can’t turn away a consumer on the grounds of their color, nor can the church cant turn away people who don’t meet the qualifications to enter into a Holy and private contract that they established.

A society that truly recognises and respects liberty and justice holds a private business mans property rights as highly as they hold a homeowners private property rights. Any red blooded American would be outraged if the government told them who they could allow or disallow onto their property with out their permission. Which is why we should all be upset reguardless of skin color or sexual preference when we see the government telling the church who can and can’t get married. It is not the role of government to permit anyone reguardless of sexual preferance or color to get married, anymore then they have the right to permit a stranger into your houce for your childs birthday party.

“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.”
-Martin Niemöller

Commenting on the controversial Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act — which many contend gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge — Sen. Lindsey Graham made clear this week that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

The entire world is now a “battlefield”? “Including the homeland”?

There have been serious constitutional questions raised recently concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely uncharted legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?

This is a new and unprecedented government power that should scare the living hell out of every last American. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) rightly called it “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor and chairman of the Congressional Panel on Terrorism, roundly denounced it: “The provisions of this bill undermine the basic safeguards that we enjoy as Americans. It is dangerous, and should not be supported by anyone: Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, citizen or non-citizen.”

Added Gilmore: “This ill-considered bill is one of those dangers to our liberties by an unwise extension of military power in the homeland contrary to all law, precedent and history.”

As Amash and Gilmore note — and Graham ignores — the basic constitutional principle of protecting individual liberties through due process is not some negotiable piece of historical trivia. It is the bedrock of the most rudimentary American and Western law dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Accepting this legislation blindly — as the majority of both parties seem entirely comfortable with — is to surrender the most basic of American liberties. Said Sen. Rand Paul, who fought hard and mostly alone to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of this terrifying provision: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.”

And the terrorists have won. If a primary purpose of terrorism is to induce fear, and Americans are willing to give up their most precious freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, how is this anything less than a monumental victory for our enemies?

The super committee was supposed to figure out how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it failed, the result was supposed to be $1.2 trillion in “automatic cuts” over the next decade, with about $600 billion of that coming from the defense budget. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any such cuts would be “devastating” to our military. Many prominent Republicans agreed with Panetta. Mitt Romney said: “We cannot put America’s safety in jeopardy by virtue of the failure of this committee.” Michele Bachmann echoed that sentiment: “We can’t do that to our brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.”

When conservative Republicans say they want to cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or anything else, liberal Democrats shriek that Republicans will “devastate” education, energy and any other part of our government that does not remain 100% intact. Conservatives rightly recognize this as a liberal scare tactic designed to prevent anyone from downsizing a federal government that so desperately needs downsizing. What separates liberals from conservatives is that whereas liberals love big government and will tell any lie to protect it, conservatives hate big government and will cut it at every opportunity they get — or at least this has long been perceived as the divide in American politics.

I stress the word “perceived,” because when it comes to Pentagon spending, too many Republicans still behave exactly like liberal Democrats.

The truth is that we don’t need to spend as much on defense as we’re spending now. We’re spending more on defense than at any time since World War II and almost as much as every other nation combined. Senator Tom Coburn has suggested that if we are going to start cutting, the Pentagon is the most logical place to start precisely because it is the most wasteful. But even more importantly, these “devastating” automatic cuts that are supposed to happen aren’t really cuts. As Senator Rand Paul explained on CNN the day the super committee failed:

This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.

The problem is there’s simply no way to actually do what every Republican loves to talk about — limiting government, balancing budgets, cutting waste — without reducing defense spending. After entitlement spending, defense spending is the second largest part of our budget. You could feasibly gut the entire entitlement system and not touch Pentagon spending, but what politician is going to tell America’s seniors they must do without so Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God-knows-where-else can have more?

If given the opportunity to change the constitution I wouldn’t do it, I believe all of our politicians do enough changes to the constitution as is when they take oaths of office to preserve, protect and defend it. I am not quite sure how someone can take an oath to preserve something and then turn around and change it without violating their oath. But there are a few things I wish our founders had done differently when drafting this amazing document that has served our country so well for about 100 years*. The first thing actually pertains to the first amendment, it starts off strong saying, “Congress shall make no law… ” It would have been nice if they had just put a period. Ha-ha only kidding, I am no anarchist. But seriously, the first thing I wish they had done differently can be found in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 it reads: “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the national debts, and provide for a common defense and general welfare of the United States: but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The rest on Section 8 spells out everything else congress has the authority to do. Now I understand what our founders meant by this clause, but what they wrote down has been debated and misinterpreted so often that its not even funny. I simply wish the founders would have never included the line, “provide for… the general welfare of the United States.” this line is taken out of context all the time for liberals to excuse their reckless spending and ramped out of control social programs. They interpret this to mean that congress can raise taxes to fund welfare programs to help people in poverty. When in all actuality his is a perversion of logic and the English language.

If you were to ask me where I go out to eat and I tell you that generally I go to the Olive Garden, that implies that the vast majority of the time that I go out to eat, if not every time I go to the Olive Garden. General means the overwhelming vast majority of the time. It would be untruthful of me to say I generally go to the Olive Garden, if in reality I only go there five times out of one hundred.

And the word welfare does not mean poverty; it is defined as the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity etc… Knowing this, congress does not have the authority to lay and collect taxes for the minority of the people which is who social programs seek to cater to the most.

I wish the founders had never included the phrase “general welfare” because it is one of the most misunderstood clauses in the constitution. After all why would they mean for it to be an open door to raise taxes for anything they could think of and then list 18 specific things that congress can raise taxes for and do after it. It makes no sense to me.

*I say over one hundred years because right around the turn of the 20th century we began paying the constitution little mind.

The problem is that SB1 boils down to school choice for some kids, not all, under certain qualifying circumstances, but not all–in fact, not most. Under the current plan, SB1 provides for school choice only where schools are determined to be “failing” and only to enrolled students with a qualifying income.

What about students enrolled in schools that fall just a hair above “failing?” Under SB1 those students do not qualify for school choice. If the school is in fact failing, but a student’s household income is just one dollar more than the qualifying income, is it fair that this student will be ineligible for school choice? Does that extra dollar render this child unworthy of a choice in education? Ah…the debate takes shape.

School choice is an age-old battle with its soldiers insisting it’s a “right,” not something to be granted by government. Along comes Senate Bill one offering up the concept of ”school choice” as something to be granted discriminatively. School choice, under SB1 is not regarded as a right, but rather as something for which one must “qualify.” By a more appropriate name, perhaps even “school choice for some” or “school choice with strings” SB1 would be far more accurately depicted.

In a recent statement, Pennsylvania State Director for Americans for Prosperity, Sam Rohrer, weighed in on the issue with typical principled accuracy, saying, ”The concept that children are a gift of God, not a grant by government, forms the underpinning of parental choice.” Amen to that.

Vonne Andring, a former Pennsylvania public educator turned entrepreneur, is an activist for principles in Pennsylvania politics and government. More information about Vonne can be found at her blog http://vonneandring.wordpress.com/author/vonneandring/.

To operate these agencies, Governor Corbett has established a $63.6 billion dollar budget. The money to fund this budget comes from four different sources–with much of those four sources funded by you, the taxpayer. For the sake of perspective on public welfare, I’d like to break that $63.6 billion dollars down.

$27.3 billion dollars of this budget are funds collected from Pennsylvania taxpayers including state sales tax, state income tax and other taxes. These tax revenues go into what’s called Pennsylvania’s “General Fund.” $11.2 billion dollars of the General Fund is allocated for Public Welfare. That’s 43%.

Another portion of the money for Pennsylvania’s operating budget comes from the Federal Government or “Federal Funds.” The Federal Government will give $22 billion dollars to Pennsylvania for 2011-12. $14.5 billion of those funds are specifically earmarked for Public Welfare. That’s 70% of the return on your federal tax dollars, going to Public Welfare.

$9.8 billion dollars comes from what is called “Other Funds.” “Other Funds” are dedicated for specific programs such as Workers Compensation and Unemployment Compensation. $1.8 billion dollars of Other Funds are dedicated to Public Welfare. That’s 18%.

Lastly, $4.34 billion dollars comes from collection of other taxes and fees, such as gasoline tax and motor licensing fees. The monies collected from sources like these are part of what is called “Special Funds.” $121.3 million dollars of Special Funds is allocated for Public Welfare. That’s 3%.

There is great debate over how much each agency should require in funding, and much debate over whether each agency fulfills its mission, whether or not its mission is necessary at all, and whether or not there is waste and abuse within the ranks.

For one single agency, PUBLIC WELFARE, Governor Corbett will allocate 43% of the General Fund, 70% of Federal Funds, 18% of Other Funds, and 3% of Special Funds. That’s 43% of Governor Corbett’s $63.6 billion dollar operating budget, a budget funded by hard-working Pennsylvanians, that is allocated to just one agency.

There are 39 other agencies that do not receive such unprecedented priority, and many would argue that surely on one of these other agencies, perhaps Higher Education, or Economic Development, the priority would be better placed and bring greater return on the hard work that generates all those tax dollars.

Those are the facts. Where my opinion is welcome, I would offer that there is a clear message in these numbers. The message, in my humble opinion, is that toward those who do not demonstrate ability to contribute, the Government communicates an attitude of superiority that suggests these people are worth little, they are “uneducatable” and too stupid to realize their Government is cheating them by appeasing them with meager rations rather than giving a true helping hand. They laugh at these people who think they’re making out on the deal, and in some cases, they laugh even harder at those who think they’re getting one over on the system.

Toward those of us who have demonstrated ability to contribute, the Government communicates an attitude of arrogance and indifference that suggests we are not smart enough to realize our Government has cheated us as well. Rather than assist them in becoming fellow thinkers and contributors, they have insulted and forsaken our fellow citizens and us–and have done so at taxpayer expense. They have saddled on our back the resulting burden which is called “43%,” and they laugh as, like pack mules, we carry the load. I suppose we do look silly.

Mention Public Welfare and you’ll no doubt hear lament about the people who refuse to work, or illegal aliens who collect at the expense of legal citizens who will work. But this is not the real story of Public Welfare. These are just the symptoms.

Yes, people cheat the system, but the biggest, most egregious cheater is the Government who allows it, and their constituents to pay for it, because it’s more convenient than being honest and responsible. To focus collective anger toward those who collect from this bogus system serves only to misdirect the focus and absolve an irresponsible Government. Public Welfare tells a story, not about abuse by the people, but about abuse of the people.

Vonne Andring, a former Pennsylvania public educator turned entrepreneur, is an activist for principles in Pennsylvania politics and government. More information about Vonne can be found at her blog http://vonneandring.wordpress.com/author/vonneandring/.

Welfare spending saw a proposed 2.4 billion dollar increase—apparently in order to offset a two billion dollar decrease in federal funding. It’s about priorities at the end of the day, and Corbett’s are clear. After all, the feds also decreased education funding—in this case by 1.5 billion. But there was no move on Corbett’s part to offset that decrease. In fact, Corbett further decreased spending on education by cutting an additional billion from the general fund—freeing the funds for increased public welfare.

But there will be haters and non-appreciators who will take issue no matter how generous is their Government. These people always find fault. They’ll probably try to imply that Government favors welfare growth and spending over education because the former provides them job security while the latter threatens it. Let me guess–they want to keep us dumb too right? What imagination. Good thing welfare is the heavy priority. Prioritizing education would only serve to encourage such radical, uppity thinking—which would no doubt threaten our guaranteed rations! Way to look a gift horse in the mouth.

In any case, it was good to see an increase in the Lt. Governor’s office budget. God knows that was long overdue.

alt=”" title=”rohrer write in” width=”199″ height=”517″ class=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1519″ /> Highly controversial has become the idea of a Sam Rohrer write-in this November. On one side are staunch party supporters that insist we must have a Republican in the Governor’s mansion–even if it’s Tom Corbett. They say, “vote for Corbett, the lesser of two evils” because a write-in campaign would split the Republican ticket potentially resulting in a win for the Democrats. They say a write-in for Rohrer does more harm than good.

On the other side of the issue, are loyal Sam Rohrer supporters who are invigorated and energized by the movement his message set into motion. These folks say they are done voting for the lesser of two evils, and that if they can write-in Rohrer, there exists no rationale for choosing between evils. They say they’re voting their conscience, and at the same time sending a powerful message to the Republican Party hi-jackers. This group feels they are taking a stand that is necessary and valuable even if the result is a win for the Democrats. This side feels a write-in for Rohrer will do more good than harm.

What’s your opinion?

Vonne Andring, a former Pennsylvania public educator turned entrepreneur, is an activist for principles in Pennsylvania politics and government. More information about Vonne can be found at her blog http://vonneandring.wordpress.com/author/vonneandring/.

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

And it’s true, Ben Bernanke and the rest of the cronies working for the Federal Reserve Bank are not going to voluntarily throw in the towel and close up shop. But it is still possible to do away with them. One way to get rid of them is for the people to elect a constitutionalist president who promises to end the fed, similarly to what Ron Paul campaigned on in his 2008 bid for president.

Paul took the position that since there is no authority in the constitution for the government to establish a central banking institution that as President he would abolish the Federal Reserve system and thus allow the free market to decide what our new currency would be.

This is one option, but with the single issue voters of today controlling the elections I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Another great option for eliminating the fed is to flat out boycott it. This may sound crazy but there is a state lawmaker from the state of South Carolina who has an infamous track record of sticking it to the man who is trying to get legislation passed that will allow the sovereign state to coin its own currency out of nothing but silver and gold as the constitution requires.

State Senator Lee Bright is leading in this battle and wants SC to have its own currency to protect its people from the hyper inflation and a falling US dollar that is a result of the Federal Reserve bank. Senator Bright has said that, “If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup,” his plan is scarce across the nation just like precious metals, however, it is not one of a kind. Others have and continue to petition such legislation in the states of Georgia and Virginia. A bill being petitioned in Georgia right now seeks to have all the states debts paid in pre-1965 gold and silver coins. Virginia lawmakers are trying to get their state to print their own paper fiat money and in Utah there is a representative of the people trying to get the government to protect citizens right to establish their own private mints. Currently private mints are frowned upon by the government and if and when they begin growing in popularity they try to snuff them out. This is what happened to the Liberty Dollar in 2009 when the Federal Government came in and forced them out of existence.

These bills and their representatives may not get very far and they often get rubbed out by the fed but they are, if nothing else, an encouragement that people are starting to wake up and starting to make a ruckus about the illegal and detrimental agency that is known as the Federal Reserve.

For more on the fed check out these Conservative Declaration original articles and shows…

• Ev’ryone Wishes for Silver and Gold
• Episode #112 – Silver & Gold, or, Real Money
• $100,000 Bills?
• Sound Money
• Counterfeiting is on the rise, and the criminals aren’t just the ones you think!
• Episode #34 – Counterfeiting – Or, the Policy of The Federal Reserve System

Rep. McCarthy’s home state of New York already has a statewide ban on such magazines and the states most well-known city, New York City, has even harsher gun laws. The proof is in the numbers and New York City still has plenty of gun violence with under-armed, responsible citizens sitting as targets.

This is just Democrats using a tragedy for political opportunism. The libs in the mainstream media were having a field day with reports on the shooting in Arizona. It is obvious these lib anchors and columnists have absolutely no knowledge about guns, calling Jared Loughner’s Glock 19, as Newsweek did, a quote, “police-style assault weapon.” And then there’s the Democrat congresswoman who said she doesn’t understand why we need guns that shoot this many rounds so quickly. She thinks handguns should be restricted to the “type that were used to assassinate Robert Kennedy or John Lennon,” because can’t hold as many rounds and “less people get hurt.” The guns used to assassinate Kennedy and Lennon were revolvers rather than a pistol. Revolvers traditionally hold 5-6 rounds instead of 10-19 rounds that are common with pistols. The congresswoman however destroys her own point with her analogy – Lennon and Kennedy were assassinated! If the only problem the congresswoman has with events like the one we saw in Tuscon where many innocent bystanders were hit prior to hitting Rep. Gifford, perhaps instead of writing a bill to ban certain firearm accessories she should write a bill that requires pistol owners to take marksmanship classes so they are skilled enough to hit their target without spraying bullets all over the place.

I mean honestly, not to sound insensitive to the events that took place in Arizona, but if a wacko wants to spray 30 bullets into a crowd, he can bring three preloaded 10-round magazines. It takes literally less than three seconds to drop a magazine, pop in new one in and rack the slide before the firing can continue.

Banning magazines with 11+ capacity will not prevent events like this from happening in the future, it will just piss off a lot of honest, law abiding gun owners. The solution to preventing events like this is getting people involved at their workplaces or schools in reporting coworkers or other students who clearly have psychological issues or who they’ve overheard planning an event. Jared Loughner, the Arizona gunman, had been kicked out of his community college because of his behavior and because of concerns about other students’ safety. Why was this characters’ mental health not followed up on? That is the real issue, not guns or magazines or even firearm accuracy.

There’s basically no chance of this bill passing the House with the 242-193 majority that the Republicans have. However, when an aide to Speaker Boehner was asked about the legislation he replied, “it is unlikely that he would support it.” Unlikely? It shouldn’t just be an unlikely event. The response should have been, “under no circumstances will Speaker Boehner support this legislation as it is an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights and he will do everything in his power to see to it that all of the Republicans in the House vote this measure down.” Hmmm, maybe I should be Boehners’ aide.

Twas’ the night before Christmas Eve and all through the House of Representatives not many Christians were peasant as many of them were at home with their families. Congress was voting on a bill that was known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and passed the through congress with a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not present to vote or debate on the matter.

The act was later signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson. But what is the significance of this act you may be wondering, well essentially this act gave the Federal Reserve bank nearly complete control over our nations’ currency.

Not long ago a friend of mine was debating the constitutionality of this bill with me. My friend, a self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar declared boldly that the act was in fact constitutional because the constitution states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, that congress has the authority:

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”

A valid observation, I was to some degree impressed that my friend knew what the Constitution had to say in regards to coining money, and regulating its value. But there is a few problems with this argument. The first problem anyone with half a brain could detect. The Constitution gives Congress the privilege to “coin” money, but for the most part the Federal Reserve does not coin money, anything over the value of a ($1) dollar they print via a printing press, which is not to be mistaken for a coin press or forge, that actually stamps precious metals.

The thing that is often overlooked about the Constitution is that every word was very carefully chosen. When our founding fathers said that the congress could coin money they were intentional about it. They didn’t want them to print money because they knew paper was not a valued commodity. Paper is not a rare resource, if you run out of paper you can always cut down another tree, and if you’re running low on trees you can always plant more and within 50 years or so you have some huge trees.

People wonder why gas is so expensive, its because we only have so much oil and unlike trees, it takes more than 50 years to reproduce. Gold and silver on the other hand can not be reproduced. There is only so much of it in existence and you can’t just make more, and since it is scarce it has always been a great standard of currency. Silver and gold have always been desired, Burl Ives knew this in the 60′s when he wrote the now Christmas favorite, Silver and Gold.

“Silver and gold, silver and gold Ev’ryone wishes for silver and gold How do you measure its worth? Just by the pleasure it gives here on earth.”

That’s the first problem with the Federal Reserve. You may say that I am nitpicking, which is what this Constitutional Scholar assured me I was doing. He must have over looked Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the constitution which says:

“No State shall… make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”

Play on words? I think not!

But when you really boil this problem down the overwhelming problem with the FEDeral Reserve is that it is not congress. The Federal Reserve is and always was a private bank. Most people believe that it’s an agency of the federal government because the word federal is in the name. But the word federal is also in the name of Federal Express, but FedEx is a private business. Just like FedEx the Federal Reserve is not run by the federal government. And Congress has not been recognizing their responsibility to:

“…provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;”

This can be found in 1:8:6 of the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve is printing paper money and they are printing more of it that we have worth of gold and silver in the United States Treasury! People often wonder why the cost of living is so high, a large part of that is because our money decreases in value every time the FED prints more money. There are a few good examples of this that I can offer you to demonstrate how our money supply has become so watered down.

In 1789 when George Washington was president a loaf of bread cost the same amount of money as it did in 1861 when Abraham Lincoln was president. Today a loaf of bread costs a few dollars depending on where you get it and what brand you get, but you will not find it on sale for the price Lincoln and Washington dished out for it.

Not long ago I purchased a silver coin that was pressed in 1881. The tails side of this coin clearly states “One Dollar”. In the year 1881 this silver dollar was worth, one dollar, because it weighs 26.73 g just over one troy ounce and is composed of 90.0% fine silver. I bought this coin for more than $35.00.The value of this coin has little to do with the rarity of the coin as it is a pretty popular coin. The coin itself when minted was worth only one dollar, but as a result of the falling dollar since President Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard makes the coin worth more because of its actual silver content.

This Christmas if you are thinking of giving your children or grandchildren money be sure not to give them federal reserve notes, an IOU from a private bank is not tangible, do not insult their intelligence, instead follow the advice of that old Christmas favorite and get them what they really want – silver and gold. And while you’re at it get them plenty of cheap lead to protect that hard money.

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
-Woodrow Wilson

Yesterday, public servant Paul introduced this legislation to the congress that essentially says that if we the people can’t do something without being arrested, than neither can the government. Paul said that the bill will, “remove the immunity from anyone in the federal government that does anything that you or I can’t do.” Paul continued in saying,

“If you can’t grope another person, and if you can’t x-ray people, and endanger them with possible x-rays, you can’t take nude photographs of individuals, why do we allow the government to do it? We would go to jail. We would be immediately arrested If an individual went up and did these things…”

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head and I have been saying this stuff for a long time now. In a blog I wrote back in July about our tax system, I gave an illustration that if I came and demanded money from you to help pay for my brothers’ rent you would likely tell me what I am and where I can go. But then I said hypothetically if, “my Dad works for the government and he tells you ‘My son needs $500 a week from your paycheck so hand it over,’ will you oblige him just because he works for the government? Or will you say ‘Hell no that’s my money I need it to pay my bills, I worked for it, I earned it, you can’t have it!?”

It’s time that we the people, the sovereign people, start treating the government the same way as we treat others. You wouldn’t negotiate with a stranger demanding money in a dark alley, so why should you cooperate with the government to pay for a strangers’ bills. If a stranger approaches you in the city and requests a nude photo of you or tells you he’s going to feel you up unless you’re a liberal* you would probably introduce him to your .45 and send him on his way. Ron Paul is 100% correct because we the sovereign people have rights and the government has privileges. The government cannot posses rights because they are not real, they are an abstract fictitious entity that we the people invented. Government is nothing more that a collective group of individuals who we hired on to protect our rights. They have no more authority over you than a stranger in a dark alley.

Ron Paul went on to say that we have become too accepting of this behavior, we go along under the delusion that they are just doing their jobs to keep us safe. The problem with this myth is that it is not the governments’ sole responsibility to keep us safe, the governments role is to protect our rights namely the ones expressed in the Bill of Rights, which is the other bill congress didn’t read. Because if they did they would realize that the fourth amendment says,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

We have rights to be secure in our persons in our physical beings and we have rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means the government has no privilege to search or seize our property without warrens, that are not legal without a probable cause. They need more than a sneaking suspicion. If the us department of homeland security wants to search me they need someone to take an oath or affirmation swearing that they have reason to believe I am not only an ill designing man but that I have a weapon of sorts and wish to use it to take over a plane. Then and only then can they search my body, and if they find me innocent of the accusation the man who took the oath is held accountable to any damages potentially lost, it’s about accountability, which is something we have lost in government.

It is important to be safe and secure but at what cost? Patrick Henry once questioned, “is life so dear or peace so sweet to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Shall we surrender all out our rights and live as slave but only for the most basic and simple of our rights? Our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and shed many pints of blood so that we could be liberated. They traded their safety for our our liberty. It’s no wonder the great Pennsylvanian Ben Franklin said:

“Those who are willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither, and will lose both”

H.R. 6416 – The American Traveler Dignity Act

A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

Who does this guy think he’s fooling? After the $700 billion TARP bailout, the auto manufacturer bailout, and an $800 billion stimulus, does this president actually think a measly $50 billion is going to successfully turn around an economy where greater sums have failed? But the president and his party have a ready reply for such naysayers: “Imagine if we did nothing?” This open-ended question will undoubtedly continue to provide cover for stimulus-loving liberals, no matter how often conservatives insist that their government intervention simply doesn’t work.

When my commentary on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 was broadcast on WTMA, a number of callers were angry I suggested that our policy of foreign intervention does not work. No matter how much I explained how our incompetent government does more damage than good abroad, my critics sounded pretty much like Obama: “But Jack, imagine if we did nothing?”

So yes, let’s imagine these scenarios. What if the Federal Reserve had never artificially lowered interest rates and created a housing bubble? What if the Fed had not printed literally countless dollars out of thin air, further weakening our currency? What if we never had borrowed money from China to pay for bailouts and stimulus? Would we be worse off financially than if the government had never done any of these things? Any conservative worth his salt recognizes the absurdity of these arguments and also recognizes that such fear-mongering is typically used as an excuse for more statism.

But such fear-mongering is also used by those on the Right to support our equally statist foreign policy, particularly when they portray radical Islam as somehow a threat on par with the Soviet Union or talk radio’s favorite comparison, the Nazis. Although I agreed with some callers that there probably is a uniquely medieval aspect to Islam not present or as prominent in other major religions, I asked, “Why did Americans not have to worry about Islamic terrorism in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s? What has changed? Islam? Or our foreign policy?” The question answers itself in the sense that we don’t have to “imagine” what might happen if we “did nothing” in the Middle East today, precisely because when we did little to nothing decades ago, there was no terrorist threat to the United States.

A few of my critics immediately and predictably called me an “isolationist” in much the same way Obama now chides conservative Republicans as belonging to the “Party of No” for opposing every new government intervention the Democrats come up with. Government must do something, you see, and no doubt Obama would readily paint anti-stimulus Republicans as some sort of domestic, economic “isolationists” if such jargon came into fashion. Luckily for conservative hawks, such jargon is well-established but is no less absurd. Compared to how engaged we are today in the Middle East, did the U.S. have an “isolationist” policy toward that region in the first half of the 20th century? Is Switzerland asking for trouble due to their long history of neutrality or isolationism? Are 99 percent of nations “isolationist” for not mimicking the foreign policy of the U.S., arguably the most ambitious imperial power in world history?

When conservatives suggest that we should apply free market solutions to financial crises, liberals dismiss those who make such proposals as libertarian wackos who don’t realize that it was the lack of government regulation that led to such problems in the first place. This is similar to the claim many conservatives make concerning foreign policy: that if the U.S. does not drop bombs on certain Third World countries indefinitely, station troops in some Mideast sand pit for decades on end, and regulate the world stage, our refusal to do all this will somehow put Americans at risk.

It’s time for both sides to start imagining what they fear most: What if we did nothing? What if our federal government didn’t spend or borrow beyond its means or constantly meddle domestically? What if our federal government did not constantly intervene overseas, spending and borrowing well beyond its means to do so?

We used to have a Constitution which restricted our federal government from doing such damage, and if we could only return to that charter, this entire column would be a moot point. Yet the prevailing belief that government must always do something both domestically and abroad will not be discarded by the Left or Right anytime soon. Both sides have an enduring attachment to statism, born not only of their particular ideologies but political identities, and they will continue to create new problems using government intervention in the name of solving old ones, blind to the fact that the larger mess is almost entirely of their own making.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

Those in opposition (which include 99.99% of the elected Republican leaders in the state) of the initiative that would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana think it would be a travesty and would lead to more drug use. Newsflash – 79,000 Californians were arrested in 2008 alone for an offense related to marijuana. I think CA already has a drug problem.

Those in support (majority of which are registered Democrats) think that decriminalizing and regulating and taxing marijuana would be a great way to raise money for the states depleted coffers. Yeah, the answer to California’s over-bloated, nanny government problem is adding more taxes to a small group of consumers. If they were really worried about the budget deficit they would cut back on some of their asinine spending habits and elect a governor with a background in finance and economics not someone who pretends to be someone he’s not for a living.

You may be confused at this point, “Adam doesn’t believe that legalizing marijuana will destroy our morality and go in the history books as another loss in the ‘Culture War’. He also doesn’t believe that regulating and taxing it much like alcohol is good idea either. What does he believe?”

I thought you’d never ask. I believe that we should find common ground between the two positions. I purpose that we decriminalize marijuana and end it at that. No regulation. No taxes. Crazy right? Legalize something for the sole purpose of freedom instead of trying to make a buck.

I don’t support CA’s Proposition 19, I favor a more extreme end to the war on drugs. And no, I don’t think that Californians should support Prop. 19 as a proverbial stepping stone towards unregulated and untaxed marijuana in the future – that will never happen if this initiative goes through. The name of the act is the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010″. When the government gets “control of” and “tax from” a product, they don’t give it up. Just read about Pennsylvania’s Liquor Control Board if you don’t believe me.

As stupid as marijuana use is, citizens own their body and therefore can do with it whatever they please, including killing the few brain cells they have by putting toxins into the bloodstream. My view is not very popular I know, it just happens to be the option that is most reflective of freedom.

So? You want proof that we are making changes for the better? It appears that the state legislators in Georgia have seen the light, and are taking steps to reverse a small part of the tyranny that Americans take for granted. In my Constitution classes I explain that we have a right to travel, and that we do not require a “drivers license” to get in our automobiles and travel to the store. Several people have scoffed at this idea, but it appears that the idea may be vindicated by enacted laws to that effect. (The Georgia legislature hasn’t voted on this issue, yet.)

I’m wondering how many of my readers:
a) already travel without a license;
b) would consider doing so if/when this law passes in Georgia.
c) would not do so until this was approved by the President and/or the Pope

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

“And 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.”
-The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

A homeowners association is a group of stuck-up people living in a community who make all the decisions as far as what you can and can not do on, and to, your property. For instance many gated communities have rules that say you can not park your RV in front of your house because it is considered to be an eye sore. They also have rules that say you don’t have a right to paint your house pink because it’s not an approved “neutral color.” These committees violate the unalienable rights to property of the people living in the respective communities. Fortunately, most of the time their rules and regulations prohibit things most people wouldn’t do, or have no desire to do anyway, which means they don’t usually step on any toes. But recently an Arizona man by the name of Andy McDonel has been in the news after he received a letter from his homeowners’ association that read:

“please remove debris from the front/side of your home”

. Upon further investigation McDonel learned that the “debris” that his homeowners association was referring to was his 3′x5′ Gadsden flag that he had been flying from the front of his house since January of this year.

The Gadsden flag, more commonly known as the “Don’t tread on me” flag, was a flag named after its designer Christopher Gadsden who was an American general in the time period of the American War for Independence. The flag features a yellow field with a coiled rattlesnake in the striking position and the bold text below reading, “DON’T TREAD ON ME” as a warning to British troops to back off. This historical flag was then used by the United States Marine Corps as an early motto flag and has now been frequently associated with the current tea party movement, which is why McDonel believes his homeowners association wants the flag removed from his property. McDonel said:

“I think they are associating it with the political movement going around, but the history and the significance of this flag far supersedes any political movement that’s going on.”

Avalon Village Community Association, which is his homeowners association, is claiming the flag does not fit their criteria for permitted flags, even though their flag requirements says that people living in the development can fly “the Stars and Stripes, the state flag, flags representing Indian nations as well as the official flags of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard” as long as it is no larger than a 3′x5′. Which raises the question, why is this 3′ x 5′ early United States Marine Corps flag not acceptable?

McDonel has said that he is not flying this flag for any political purposes but rather “to honor the founding fathers and their percerverences they went through… they sacrificed their honor, their lives and their fortunes to establish this great nation.” Isn’t flying this flag, the very least that he can do?

So this commercial was more of a brief mention that ‘today’s program is brought to you in part by Custom Blends.’ But the thing that struck me about this commercial, besides the fact that they did allow it to air, was that at the end of the commercial they had a tag line that said, “If you don’t smoke, don’t start. If you do smoke, smoke smart.” No doubt a government mandate that all tobacco ads must come with now similar to the Surgeon Generals warnings that are strategically placed on every pack of smokes sold in the US.

I don’t care what your personal opinion is on tobacco, I don’t care if you smoke or not, these mandates and restrictions are attacks on individual liberties and they spit in the face of free market capitalism. Imagine a commercial for Ford Motor Company that ended in the line, “If you don’t drive a Ford don’t start. If you do drive, drive smart.” It’s insanity. Ford is the company, automobiles are their product. Who is going to buy a product if the advertisement tells you NOT to buy the product. When are people going to learn that this is not the role of government to save you from yourself!

I know these requirements are designed to prevent kids from starting a non-healthy habit, but it’s not the government’s role! Here’s a foreign concept for you to pack into your pipe and smoke on, Sherlock. If you’re a parent and don’t want your kids smoking how about YOU tell them not to smoke! I think it would come as more of a meaningful conversation than some tag line at the end of a tobacco ad. I am not a big fan of Abraham Lincoln but when he said,

“You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

The same goes for parenting. When the government assumes the role of parent then parents neglect their role as parents.

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Just this week at a Money Fair in Boston, a rare sheets of $100,000 bills was on display that dates back to the early to mid 1900′s. These bills are no longer in circulation and much like the money that still is in circulation it is not worth any legal tender. However coin and vintage bill collectors say that it is worth nearly $1.6 million today because of its rarity. These bills are the largest bills the Federal Reserve ever printed, is it any wonder why they placed president Woodrow Wilson’s portrait on it?

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”
Amsel Rothschild 1838

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes”

Translation: the Constitution should not be amended for every stupid little thing you can think of.

The preamble to the bill of Rights states:

“The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

A constitutional amendment defining marriage is not a restrictive clause on government, neither is an amendment defining marriage between any loving individuals. These are all light and transient causes. As a libertarian thinking person I want to keep the government out of every aspect of my private life as possible. I want the government to promote individual liberty – banning same sex marriage does not promote anything. Conservatives who have a problem with the government violating the sanctity of marriage need to get back to the old drawing board and come up with a new tactic. The problematic question is not whether or not the government should be recognizing same sex marriages, the problem is that the government got involved with marriage in the first place! Back in 1776 if I wanted to get married, I would propose to my lady and find a priest to officiate the ceremony. I didn’t have to go to the government to tell them, or get their permission, or anything!

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times – marriage is an issue of church and not state. Period. The only reason we have marriage licenses is because the government got its filthy hands on the institute in the first place. Back in the early part of the twentieth century, the US government used these to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattoes, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. Now I must say this kind of racial discrimination I disagree with. There is nothing in all of scripture prohibiting such a thing and therefore there should have never been a law restricting it either.

Although marriage is a privilege and not a right, it is not the governments’ place to grant that privilege, it is the church’s and the church’s alone. Time after time the state has bastardized the meaning of marriage and by allowing the state to decide who can and can’t marry they can permit anything they so choose – gay marriage, polygamy, etc. They can even chang the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman to two people, places or things who love each other. IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, STOP trying to make the government fix the problem, they are only making it worse!

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
Ephesians 5:31

This must have been pushed primarily by the Religious Right-wingers…no, it was pushed by ultra-liberal Democrat and Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, who comes from a state where I’m betting 85% of the world’s pot brownies are consumed. Her “Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act” targets any drug either blended with a “candy product” or disguised to look like one.

“Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act?” Who is Feinstein – who are any of these politicians – to think they can “save” children simply by making more laws? This is the same mindset that created “Drug-Free Zones” and “Bully-Free Zones”. Look how successful they were! Since their inception, no child has ever been bullied nor have any drugs ever been possessed on school property (note sarcasm)!

It’s high time that the nanny-state liberals and the moral crusaders realize that spending taxpayer’s dollars to implement regulative laws won’t change a thing about our culture.

The Supreme court ruled yesterday that the measure that required officers of the law to check immigration status on routine traffic stops was unconstitutional. But how does an officer check one’s “immigration status”? Do they say, “are you an illegal”? No, they ask for your “license and registration please.” If someone is pulled over without a license then the officer has probable cause that this person may be an illegal, for lack of proper identification.

Now that the courts have said that officers cannot ask a man to prove his citizenship, that means that they can move about the country without the documentation to prove their citizenship. Meanwhile Americans are required to carry all sorts of papers to verify themselves legal. Sounds to me the people here illegally are freer in our country than the people here legally.

Never the less, let’s take my opening statement at the top and break it down line for line and reword it a little and see what we come up with…

“President Obama has forbidden Jan Brewer to pass an immigration law known as SB1070″ So what this comes down to is, He has forbidden his governors to pass laws.

“law of immediate and pressing importance to the citizens of the State of Arizona.” So not just any laws but, laws of immediate and pressing importance.

“The president filed a lawsuit against the state putting that bill on hold until he was able to have it edited to meet his approval.” In other words, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained.

“Last time I checked, SB1070 was the spitting image of the Federal Immigration law that the president has neglected to enforce.” Translation: and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Put this information all together and what do you get?

“He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

Does this sound familiar to you? It should, these famous words are an excerpt from “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united States of America” and these words were chosen intentionally and deliberately by Thomas Jefferson to prove to a candid world just how much of an absolute tyranny King George had established over the 13 colonies. In fact that line in particular was the second of twenty seven other facts that Jefferson submitted, something tells me it it was of high importance, and he didn’t have to think very long to come up with it. If that doesn’t spell tyranny I don’t know what does!

Read SB1070 and come to your own conclusion on weather it is unconstitutional and or racist: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The Articles of Freedom produced by the Continental Congress 2009 was presented to public officials on the South steps of the Texas Capitol. Speakers included Michael Badnarik, Jon Roland, and Barbara Harless.

Presentation of Articles of Freedom, Austin, Texas, April 19, 2010 from Jon Roland on Vimeo.

Upon reading the four page bill it became apparent to me why Paul voted against it. The first two and a half pages of the bill sounds pretty good. Congressmen Smith of New Jersey explains why human trafficking is a problem and expresses gratitude to South Africa for successfully convicting their first two human traffickers. The bill explains that with the 2010 FIFA World Cup in full swing and an estimated 2,700,000 locals and 350,000 visitors will be out and thus potential victims. The first resolution even follows the format of the title of the bill and does in fact say “congratulate the government of South Africa upon its first tow successful convictions for human trafficking.”

I believe had it ended with that Paul probably would have voted in favor of the bill. However this bill carried a certain taint of an ulterior motive. Have you ever gotten an e-mail or letter from someone out of the blue that you haven’t talked to in a while and they act all buddy-buddy with you and say they want to get together with you to hang out and then you do and you find out they just want to sell you something or get you to do something for them. Well that’s essentially what this bill was. Only one of the resolutions actually congratulated them. The next six resolutions start with the words “Calls on the Government of South Africa to…”, and the provision goes above and beyond simply calling on them to it actually “urges the government of South Africa to…” This is the kind of foreign policy Ron Paul has consistently voted against. The United States Government should not be in the business of telling other individuals and or governments what they should or should not, can or can not do. This type of nosy arrogance is annoying and gives our country a bad name. You don’t like it when people suck up to you then try to tell you what to do and other countries feel the same way. It is not a proper role of our government to tell other governments how they ought to conduct their nation. Ron Paul did not vote in favor of human trafficking he voted against telling South Africa how to run their government. Read the bill in its entirety and come to your own conclusion.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f%3Ahr1412ih.txt.pdf

There’s been a flurry of new web activity this year as representatives at the state and federal levels have rolled out attractive, fancy websites that allow you (yes, YOU) to submit and vote on changes that you’d like to see made to government.

Isn’t that sweet.

(note: sarcasm)

Let’s see…the first one I bumped into was www.AmericaSpeakingOut.com. The disclaimer on this site is pretty spectacular:

This site was developed as part of an official effort to increase the dialogue between Americans and their Congress. Here, Americans are provided a new platform to share their priorities and ideas for a national policy agenda. As House Republicans, we are committed to our principles of limited, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for strong national security. This is an open forum, however, where all Americans are welcome to respectfully offer their opinions, regardless of party affiliation and whether we endorse them or not. It is our hope the active engagement of the American people will produce a robust debate that will aid in the construction of a new American agenda. This website is paid for with official funds of the Office of the House Minority Leader – no political or campaign funds have been used for any portion of the America Speaking Out project.

Where…to…start…

1. An “effort to increase the dialogue”…okay. Sounds good, although I feel like it might be too little too late. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
2. Apparently, House Republicans support the principles of limited government and the Constitution, among other things. That sort of surprises me, because that’s not the Republican party that I’m familiar with. Whatever happened to the Patriot Act, or unjustified wars overseas, or all those other Bush-era policies that had no basis whatsoever in principles of limited government or the Constitution?
3. What sort of “new American agenda” are House Republicans looking for? That sounds devious to me. What happened to our “old American agenda”, a.k.a. preserving the right of the individual to enjoy and defend life, liberty and property?
4. And lasty, the brilliant disclaimer that no political or campaign funds have been used for any portion of the project. Well, okay, so…where did the money come from? Isn’t the Office of the House Minority Leader funded with public monies? Maybe I’m wrong. It’s just suspect.

So yeah, visit this website and earn some badges. Yup, badges.

Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges!

The second website that I ran into this year was set up by several Democratic state representatives here in Pennsylvania. Jesse White, Matt Smith, Josh Shapiro, Steve Santarsiero and Eugene DePasquale ponied up to create www.YourPABudget.com, which is another means for people to submit and vote on ideas related to the oft-past-deadline Pennsylvania government budget. So far there have been 1,349 ideas submitted. Unfortunately, there are only buttons for “Agree” and “Disagree” and there is no way to see how many people have agreed or disagreed with each idea. Perhaps that’s so we can’t see which ones were really popular, and these devious representatives can say that they got their budget ideas “from the people” or something like that.

Smells like those nefarious representatives are up to no good…

Please don’t submit budget ideas while driving.

Anyway, I bumped into a THIRD website today. Apparently America Speaking Out didn’t work so well, so Republican Eric Cantor has introduced You Cut, which is described as follows:

YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project – is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to change Washington’s culture of spending into a culture of savings.

Hrmmmm…let’s see here. If it’s the third website I’ve found this year, then it can’t possibly be the first of its kind. And it offers literally nothing new.

Oh…wait a second. I think I figured it out. Eric Cantor is running for reelection…and he has an opponent…

Three websites. Three flimsy and transparent attempts by representatives from both parties to make it appear as though they give one damn about what you and I think. But what the heck, I submitted my ideas anyway. Maybe somebody…anybody…will listen?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Doug Walters is a proud husband and father living in rural York County, Pennsylvania. He is a Local Coordinator with the York County Campaign for Liberty and was a 2010 candidate for State Representative in PA’s 93rd district. More information about Doug can be found at his website www.walters4pa.com

Well for starters I believe that not securing our borders in a, post 9-11 world is nothing short of suicidal! Statistics show that 30% of our prisoners in our American prisons are illegal immigrants. Every single on of them are criminals from the day they, “illegally” jump the fence or swim into our country. Many of these illegal immigrants are even benefiting from our social programs without contributing a dime to them. This is a serious problem and needs addressed.

But I will not dismiss the racial profiling argument right off the bat. Racial profiling is a serious violation of civil liberties and I will not support it in any way shape or form. I would oppose any immigration bill that does not address this issue in specificity. Unlike Obama and most of those opposed to this bill I have read it and can personally attest to the fact that the verbiage of this law is worded to prevent it. The law specifically says that law enforcement officers can not just approach any person of a different nationality and say, “Papers please!” They have to have them stopped for another offense, such as speeding. Then when they fail to present, a drivers license, green card of proof of citizenship they are to be deported.

Obama and those on the left say that they will do it anyway. Even some on the far right are out there saying, ‘if you give them an inch they will take a mile.’ Generally I would agree with that statement and I am not denying that racial profiling does or will happen, but that is why you fight those specific cases in a court of law. The mentality of, ‘it could be abused so I am against it’ is how fascists have fought to keep drugs illegal since Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in the 70′s. They say, ‘people will abuse drugs and get stoned and do irrational things, violating other peoples property’ So they justify incriminating all people who use, or possess drugs. Conservatives though realize its not the drugs that are the problem, but the abuse of them, which is why I say, ‘legalize them and when someone violates someone else’s rights you prosecute them accordingly.’ Remember there has to be a victim in order for a crime to have taken place.

The same thing goes for the immigration laws. I will not oppose any state or federal immigration laws if there is no victim. But IF and WHEN the laws are violated, and racial profiling does happen, you can bet I will be the first person to stand up and say, “Hell no!”

Don’t take my word for it, question all authority and read the bill for yourself here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

The federal government has started a new program known as “The Car Allowance Rebate System” or “cash for clunkers” that is the latest step towards socialism in the green movement. Working at an automotive dealer, I know all too well the intentions of this program. Here is essentially how it works:

The government is taking tax dollars to bribe citizens into taking their old clunkers off the street and trading them in for newer, cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles. The government will be giving away between $3,500 and $4,500 per vehicle as a voucher that can be used as a down payment on a new car that the government approves of. This is their way of cleaning up the streets and the environment of gas guzzling automobiles at the taxpayers expense. But what of the vehicle that was traded in, you ask? Surely these do-gooders who care so much for the little guy will donate these cars to some sort of charity so people who can’t afford a car can now have one, right? Wrong! The intention is not to save people but save the planet, because it is clearly more important than us. Dealers who accept these trade ins will be required to explode the engines and the rest of the car will be given to a scrap yard to be melted down so that the parts don’t find their way out to repair a similar vehicle! Makes ya kinda wonder, ‘how much of a carbon footprint does an exploding engine have?’

Congressman:

I regret to have to send you this message, but I believe that you have recently voted in a way that is both unconstitutional and un-American! Cap-and-Trade will change America as we know it, then again, President Barack Obama told us there would be change and you, by virtue of your vote in favor of HR 2454, have shown that you agree. Legislation such as this is what Americans have come to expect from Democrats, but you are a Republican and are supposed to be a conservative who votes in unanimity with the Constitution of these united States.

The Republican Party was once a grand old party, the party of smaller government, free markets, and individual liberties; such principles you ran your campaign on and such principles that got you elected to the office that you now hold. However, these principles have not shown in your voting record and on Friday, June 26th your vote in favor of the HR 2454 Cap-and-Trade bill crossed the line. There were 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans who voted against this bill because they understand how this would hurt American citizens both financially and in the manner of restricting their right to choose how to live their lives. You and the seven other Republicans who voted in favor of this should be ashamed of yourselves.. Let me explain…

There are too many problems with the Cap-and-Trade bill for me to address in a few short paragraphs, but alas, I will try. As I understand it, the aforementioned bill is 1,201 pages long and it would take me as many to call out all of the anti-freedom flaws therein. Cap-and-Trade is nothing more than a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, disguised as a method of saving our green Earth by calling it “Cap-and-Trade”. The government has set ungodly low standards that most large companies will exceed and therefore be forced to pay smaller companies to buy “credits”. This is the government’s way of redistributing wealth by forcing big businesses to fund smaller businesses so we are all “equal.” There is a name for this kind of system and it is called socialism. Anywhere socialism exists, capitalism cannot be. Cap-and-Trade will destroy our “free markets” (and I use that term very loosely). As a private citizen, I should not need to explain to members of the House of Representatives how businesses work, but obviously I do, based on your backing of HR 2454.

When the government steps in and penalizes private businesses for success or as in this case, “polluting the environment”, they pass on the taxes to consumer’s by raising prices on their products. This is one of the many ways the government will increase their already gargantuan revenues without directly raising taxes on citizens. I know I don’t need to explain how this is beneficial to government, any eight year old can understand that the more a product costs the more you will need to pay in taxes. This goes to show how out of control government spending is – the government is willing to cripple private industries, the driving force of the American way of life, as well as crippling the financial interests of the citizens of this great country.

Any economist who isn’t a complete fool or partisan tool agrees that in a time of recession, the very last thing the government ought to be doing is raising taxes and increasing spending! The recent bailouts of the auto industry should have been a good enough reason for you to vote against this legislation as it proved to be a waste of money anyway. Penalizing businesses like this, in a time of recession, will guarantee that they will move their manufacturing plants overseas to a country like China who does not have greenhouse gas standards. The Earth will still be “polluted” and the American people are the ones who will suffer. It will be the American people who will be loosing their jobs when all the manufacturing jobs are gone and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

Then there’s the drastic rise in energy bills that will force the American people that you were elected to serve, to turn back the thermostat and freeze all winter or cut back on spending on other things, thus taking us deeper into this already out of control recession. By this action, unless changes are made, we will delve into a depression as bad as the “great” depression we had in the 1930′s. With President Obama’s eagerness to reach into American’s already thinning wallets to fund even more un-Constitutional, expensive government programs, this will undoubtedly be the outcome.

Your support for this legislation makes it apparent to me that you are pleased that the government is penalizing big, “evil” corporations for the CO2 they put out, but I ask you, how long until Congress comes up with a tax based on how much CO2 I release by exhaling?

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government”. It is our right; it is our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for future security. And this is not a right or a duty to be taken lightly! As a result of your inability to represent the American people and uphold the Constitution, I would like to make it perfectly clear to you that you can NOT count on the votes of any conservative or the votes of any citizen with a brain, should you seek re-election at the end of your term. I sincerely hope that you will change the way you vote on such crucial issues in the future as there will undoubtedly be much more questionable legislation in the coming months and years.

In Liberty,

Griffin Voorhees and Adam Holtzapple
Co-hosts of The Conservative Declaration Talk Show Program

SEND THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR NAME ATTACHED TO:
Rep. Mary Bono Mack
Rep. Mike Castle
Rep. Mark Kirk
Rep. John McHugh
Rep. Frank LoBiondo
Rep. Leonard Lance
Rep. Dave Reichert
Rep. Chris Smith (NJ)

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-Ronald Reagan

As funny as that quote may be it’s a frightening fact that is more accurate today that when Reagan said those words nearly 20 years ago. If everything our big government leaders wants comes to pass, in 2012 our government is going to begin issuing permits to any company who splooges carbon admissions into the atmosphere as a result of their productivity. The permit will be in form of a restriction on how much they can “pollute” in X amount of time. This is a cap, similar to that of a salary cap in baseball. If any company exceeds the limit they will be required to pay a penalty, i.e. a tax. The only way to avoid the tax would be if they purchase pollution credits from a smaller company who did not reach the limit that had been allotted them by the government.

There are too many problems with cap-and-trade for me to address in a few short paragraphs. This is nothing more than a tax on carbon, but they disguise it as a method of saving our green Earth by calling it “cap-and-trade”. They will set ungodly low standards that most companies will exceed and be forced to pay smaller companies for their lack of emissions. This is the government’s way of redistributing wealth by forcing big business to fund smaller businesses so we are all “equal.” There is a name for this kind of system and it’s called socialism!

Anywhere socialism exists, capitalism cannot be. Cap-and-trade will destroy our “free markets” (and I use that term loosely). For those of you who don’t know how the market works, businesses pass on their savings to you the customer whenever they can afford it, meaning whenever the cost to run their business is minimal. When the Feds step in and penalize big corporations for their success the businesses expenses go up and thus causing rises in prices on products. You’re probably wondering, ‘this helps the government how?’ Well, the higher the products cost the bigger profit they make from the product through sales tax!

Another problem with this cap-and-trade scheme is the loophole the government has been given. The premise is taxing any and all major sources of greenhouse gases, but let us not forget that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. For all of you environmental wackos who haven’t realized this yet, carbon dioxide’s chemical formula on the periodic table is CO2. The very thing your body exhales into the atmosphere when you breathe out. These so-called climate change scientists like Al Gore would have you believe that your very existence is destroying the planet! You may be happy the government is passing legislation to tax or penalize big “evil” corporations for the CO2 they put out, but how long will it be until they come up with a tax based on how much CO2 you release by exhaling. I am not joking, the day may come where every year you will be examined a government physician to report how many breaths you take in a days. Then they will multiply that by 365 days in a year and tax you for the very thing that keeps you alive. And it could happen in your lifetime if we don’t draw the line today!