Of Free Speech, Illegal Immigration and Border Wars

As all of my friends, relatives and acquaintances know, I have just returned from Bangkok, Thailand where I have been since January prepping and shooting a film called “Elephant White” with Djimon Hounsou and Kevin Bacon. On the whole, the experience was rewarding. Working with Prachya Pinkaew, the internationally acclaimed Director was both a treat and a learning experience. I know it will continue as such during the post-production period.

However, while in Thailand, I also was a student: A student of free speech and the right of assembly and tolerance. Three items that I used to believe we had here in America. Thailand, the country were a military coup took over control of the government a few years ago is now on the verge of a civil war. Even though it is a military run country, its people have more freedom of expression than we have here in the United States thanks to the PC movement, the ACLU and our friends on the Far Left.

The political situation in Thailand can be considered fragile at best. The two political parties are on the verge of what may be a violent and bloody civil war. When I left there about ten days ago, the Red Shirt Party had taken control of downtown Bangkok and, for all intents and purposes, had occupied it. The party in control, The Yellow Shirts, has allowed this to happen.

What started as a peaceful protest against the government is on the verge of becoming violent. Already, there have been minor skirmishes in which guns have been fired, grenades have been launched and a small group of people on both sides have been killed.

However, for the most part, the military and local police have exercised restraint and did not permit the situation to get out of control. They were ready to defend the populace by being fully armed and patrolling the streets, but they did not do anything to take away the rights of the protestors. Freedom of Speech and Assembly were respected by both sides.

Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in the United States. The Far Left, as stated in some of my prior articles, has been doing everything in its power to take away these freedoms in our country. In fact, Nancy Pelosi has actually called the Tea Party protestors the equivalent of Nazis. She has stated that she would like them to cease from all activities and simply does not want to give them the right to protest.

The same also seems to be true of a large portion of our country in response to the Arizona Immigration Law. In fact, the City of Los Angeles and other organizations are calling for a boycott of Arizona in response instead of recognizing that Arizona has a right to protect itself if the Federal Government refuses to do such. Arizona is merely exercising its Tenth Amendment Rights.

A careful reading of the Arizona Law shows that it is nothing more than a state codification of the current federal law; all legal immigrants and legal non-immigrants are required to show proof of their right to be in the country if requested by proper authorities. The law is not fascist nor a return to Nazi Germany as has been suggested by those who oppose it. And, it is not an affront on the Hispanic Community. It is simply an affront on illegal aliens. It is an affront on those who have no right to be in the United States, whether they be Hispanic, Eastern European or Asian. I am the grandchild of immigrants. My grandparents came through Ellis Island at the turn of the last century. They followed the law and became American in the proper manner. They did not hold onto the Old Country. In fact, my parents barely spoke any Italian at all. They were told to become American. They were no longer Italian.

Arizona is dealing with a problem that must be dealt with. In fact, the immigration statute is so popular that a number of other states, including Texas and Michigan, that’s right liberal Michigan, are considering similar statutes. A poll released today shows that 64% of the population approves the law.

The illegal immigration situation in Arizona and other states on the Border has reached crisis proportions. Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explains the law and her reason for supporting it in her commentary on why she voted for the statute. You can find a full text of her commentary at: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. In that article, she explains the problems on the Border; the uncontrollable influx of illegals and, drug traffickers using the border in Arizona as the principle means of bringing drugs into the United States.

The facts are clear. Illegal immigrants are filling up both state and federal prisons; they are a drain on federal and state welfare; and, they are a drain on our education system. They are responsible for a large portion of the murders and other felonies throughout the country. In fact, the situation on the Arizona Border has gotten so bad that it can almost be considered a war zone. People are being murdered on both sides of the border daily. That’s right, daily. The Federal government is doing nothing to stop the situation and would grant illegals amnesty if permitted. The states must take the matter into their own hands. They are going bankrupt and must do whatever is necessary and legal to protect their citizens and budgets.

You may wonder why the Federal Government is not doing anything to curb the tide of illegal immigration. The answered is simple. The party in power sees illegal immigrants as a potential voting block that would support them. If the Democratic Party cannot get votes from naturally born and/or naturalized citizens, then it will get them from wherever it can, especially in Arizona and Texas which lean heavily to the right. Imagine giving illegal immigrants the right to vote in these two states. It could be just enough to tip them to the left.

Cinco de Mayo was celebrated a few days ago. This is a national holiday in Mexico. In some states with large Mexican populations including Arizona and California, it is becoming a day of celebration too. A group of students in a Southern California High School decided that they were going to celebrate America on Cinco de Mayo by wearing shirts with the American Flag on them. The administrators in the school decided that this was inappropriate behavior and demanded that the students change their shirts or turn them inside out. It must have been the administration’s viewpoint that the American Flag should not be displayed on Cinco de Mayo.

The students were then subjected to discipline by the school board when they refused to remove their shirts. When the parents of these students found out what was happening, they went to Fox News with the story. Fox News chose to air it. It was later picked up by both NBC, CBS and @ yahoo. In my opinion, the school district is clearly violating these students Right to Assembly and Free Speech. To date, the school district has not apologized for its actions. However, they have ceased the disciplinary proceedings against the students.

Since when did it become bad to love the United States? Since when did it become in bad taste to be a dissenter? Don’t the Federalist Papers and the Equal Protection Clause state that protection of the minority is one of the guarantees of the Constitution? Apparently, in this school district the non-Mexicans are the minority and they are being disciplined for exercising their Constitutional Rights and showing love for their country.

In similar story, a grammar school student in another part of the country was stopped from drawing an American Flag with the words God Bless America on it by her teacher. The teacher felt that this drawing was inappropriate content. I guess the teacher felt that God shouldn’t bless America or that the American Flag, a symbol that millions have fought and died for, was not a proper art project for a student at the elementary school level.

It appears that the Administrators in the Southern California school district and the grammar school teacher have less tolerance than the military controlled government and people of Thailand. This also appears to be unfortunately true for most of the left leaning people in this country, including our current President. We all need to remember this in November when we cast our votes to take our country back.

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be granted freely upon request.

Obamacare? We Should Have Seen You Coming | Tenth Amendment Center

This is another great Article on Obamacare and Nullification. It seems to be the only way to get rid of this socialistic nightmare that will bankrupt the country.


Obamacare? We Should Have Seen You Coming Tenth Amendment Center

The Course of History by Ira Schwartz

So it’s the day after the day after and you know what? The sun came up on both days just like it’s done for the last 5 million or so years. When the President signed his healthcare bill The United States of America had the first “Universal Healthcare bill” in our history. To all of those people who are celebrating I can only say “You should have been careful what you wished for.” To those who are on the other side of the coin Winston Churchill said it best.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

So the fight will go on. As we speak, at least 13 state attorneys general filed suit against the federal government. The states that are definite are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. One of the things they claim is that the federal government does not have the authority to force its citizens to buy goods and services they do not want. Constitutional scholars are split over this issue. Some say that Federal Law trumps States Rights. Others think that there is a very distinct possibility that the Supreme Court might say that where you have a freedom secured by a state constitution that it might warrant protection, even against a federal statute. Regardless, overall 34 states are lining up to file suit. That’s more than half the Union.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in an interview with the AP compared this to the Medical Marijuana confusion. "To me what that indicates is when there are enough people refusing to comply with the federal government and enough states passing laws that also refuse to comply, it's very difficult for the federal government to enforce their laws."

So even though the Bill has been signed into law, how its statutes will be enforced remains as fuzzy as how it will be paid for. After all they can’t throw all of us in jail.

But this bill is not all bad. There are numerous good things included in the 2000 plus pages of dribble.

1) People may no longer be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

2) There will no longer be a lifetime financial cap on insurance payouts

3) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop policy holders because they get sick

4) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to arbitrarily raise rates.

5) Children will be able to stay on their parents policy until 26.

 

I’m sure those of you who have read the bill can come up with a few more.

Lita Epstein, noted author, has done a well thought out breakdown of winners and losers of this new bill. It cuts through a lot of the minutia and explains it in plain English. The link below will take you there.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/23/health-care-reform-are-you-a-winner-or-a-loser/

It appears now that the mid-term elections in November will be the real litmus test for “We the people”. The Democrats publicly think November will be no big deal. They feel they will lose some seats but keep the majority. Maybe. All I know is here in California, Barbara Boxer, normally a shoe in for re-election is now dead even with her Republican adversary. Is it a sign of things to come? We’ll have to wait to see. As of Monday March 23rd a Rasmussen poll indicates 31% of the nations voters approve of Barack Obama while 41% of the nation disapproves. His approval rating is up 2% from the week before. But it’s still clear a majority of the nation is not happy. The real question is can the Republicans turn this unhappiness into Republican votes? That will depend on how the GOP handles itself in the next 7 months.

For the last few weeks a quote by Thomas Jefferson has been running through my head….

“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.”

And at least all of us can agree on one thing; the size of government has grown under the present administration. Will the course of history show Barack Obama as a dismal failure or the President that started the United States on the path to affordable Universal Healthcare for its people? Will the course of history show Barack Obama as the destroyer or savior of the Democratic Party? I guess only time will answer those questions. But one thing is certain, no president since Abraham Lincoln has divided this great country of ours more than Barack Obama. And if the Republicans do gain the majority in the house and senate on November 2nd you can be sure real legislative grid lock will begin on November 3rd.

As a “post script” I want to add a short note of a personal nature. A good friend and fellow writer Craig Covello has decided it is time for him to lay down his pen and no longer continue his blog “Obama White House Diaries.” He is not giving up the fight just giving his hands a rest from all that typing. You see Craig has managed over the last year to turn out at least an article a day on what’s happening in the present administration. His articles were always fair, insightful and extremely well written. From time to time Craig even allowed Frank and I to publish several of them on our website. They always seemed to ignite a healthy debate.

D.H. Lawrence said it best. "When genuine passion moves you, say what you've got to say, and say it hot." Craig managed to capture that passion in every article. I hope in the near future he decides to pick up the pen again because there appears to still be a lot that needs to be written about. Until then his writings will be missed by fans and friends alike.

The address of his website is http://www.obamawhitehousediaries.com/. Please go there and read some of his work. I promise you will not be disappointed.

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved.

Nullification and Federalism

Occasionally, I like to write an article historically based and not necessarily based upon events of the day. However, the issues addressed in this article are not just historical. The issue of Nullification and its effects on the United States are far reaching and in reality were probably the cause of the Civil War. There is a strong movement in the country now based upon Nullification and The Tenth Amendment. The Tea Party movement and Ron Paul are just a small fraction of the groups which are actively supporting these theories and principles.

To understand Nullification, one must first have a basic understanding of Federalism. The United States is a Federalist country. It has always been so from the beginning. A Federalist country is a group of smaller units, in this case States, which are joined together as a union for the common good. In the case of the United States, Federalism comes from historical roots and is embodied in the Constitution. Another example of a Federalist country is the Federal Republic of Germany. Mexico has states but is not truly Federalist in that all the power is concentrated within the Central Government.

Nullification is based on the principle that the Constitution was ratified by the States not the people. James Madison pointed out that each state was ratifying the Constitution for itself, whereas had it been a truly national endeavor, a binding ratification vote would have been taken among the American people as a whole. Thus, it is the States which control the government and not the people. And, it is the people which, in turn, control the individual States.

So, the Framers of the Constitution understood that they were creating a Federal Government in which the States had ultimate control and the Central Government had limited powers set forth in the Constitution, specifically in Article 1, Section 8. Further evidence of this is found in the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

However, since the drafting and ratifying of The Constitution, the powers of the States have gradually dwindled. The “Alien and Sedition” Acts and the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were some of the first major battlefields involving the power of the Central Government. In both cases, the Central Government won. In the case of the Tariffs, South Carolina nullified the laws and later threatened to secede from the union. A compromise was reached which lowered the tariff thereby ending the crisis before it came to a head.

Unfortunately, this was not the case over the issue of Slavery. From the Missouri Compromise until the election of Abraham Lincoln, the issue of States’ sovereignty came up many times on this issue alone. Prior to the start of Secession in 1860 and the Civil War, many battles were fought in Congress over whether the individual states had the right to be slave or free.

The issue was quite simple. Could a state enter the union based upon its own decision whether it wanted to be slave or free? The South argued that since slavery was guaranteed by the Constitution, any state applying for admission to the Union had the right to declare its choice on this issue. The Northern Abolitionists felt the Federal Government had the right to limit slavery and to eliminate slavery in the Southern states which practiced it. The Republican Party of the time was split on the issue, but mostly believed that Slavery should not cease in the States where it already existed, but could be limited by Federal authority in new states applying for admission.

The whole issue came to a head in 1860 when the initial Southern States seceded from the Union stating that since they had volunteered to join the union, they could also voluntarily secede. We all know the ultimate result: The bloodiest war in the history of the United States. Over 600,000 American lost their lives over this issue.

Eventually, the North won and the South was forced to accept that the Central Government had the power to end slavery and enforce the solidarity of the union. The Tenth Amendment’s claim to power and threats of Nullification and Secession ended. However, it should be noted, that even though the North was victorious, slavery could not have ended and slaves did not become citizens, nor have the right to vote until the passage of the Thirteenth, through Fifteenth Amendments.

States’ rights have dwindled ever since. Most legal precedent for the growth and power of the Central Government come from the clause in Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution which states Congress shall have to power to regulate Interstate Commerce. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give Congress the power to do practically anything provided it affects Interstate Commerce. In fact, the Interstate Commerce Clause is the main reason being used to counter Tenth Amendment arguments on the pending Health Care Legislation.

The theory of Nullification goes back a long way. The Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1798, contained the following which has often been cited as a justification for both nullification and secession:

“ … that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it… “

Now, you may ask, why am I making such a big deal about Nullification? It should be clear. There is a strong minority in the country who believe Nullification should be permitted by the States in regards to the Health Care bill and much other unpopular legislation being proposed by the Obama Administration.

One of the most recent examples of the use of Nullification is Montana’s Nullification of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Montana Legislature Nullified the law under the theory that the Act was unconstitutional and an improper use of Federal Power. Implicit in the argument was The Tenth Amendment.

Further issues of Nullification are coming up now in many states regarding the medical use of marijuana and, in some instances, the legality of recreational use of marijuana. Federal Agents are using Federal Laws against marijuana to arrest proprietors and users under these state statutes, but thus far, no test case has gone far enough for the Nullification and Tenth Amendment arguments to be scrutinized and ruled upon.

However, that day is coming and will probably come soon; especially if the Obama Administration gets its way and continues to increase the power of the Federal Government. If the Health Care bill passes and 1/6 of the US Economy comes under Central Government control, I am sure that some States will be forced by their citizenry to consider Nullification in the same manner that Congress is considering the unconstitutional use of Reconciliation to pass the bill.

The only question really left is whether the use of Nullification is good or bad. People who believe in the Tenth Amendment, of which I am one, feel that Nullification is good. However, it should be used sparingly and only when there is a strong belief that the Act of Congress and/or the Administration are beyond the powers permitted them by the Constitution.

If this power is used too often, there are many potential ramifications. As written in a prior Article, the Texas Governor has already threatened secession. This is not good. We are the United States of America and we must be united forever. However, when the Federal Government goes beyond its Constitutional powers, then Nullification is the answer and the right comes from The Tenth Amendment and the Constitution itself.

For further information about Nullification, its history and legal theories, as well as the Tenth Amendment please see:

www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=57

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

A Matter of Control by Ira Schwartz

“The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Barack Hussein Obama was elected by the winds of change which swept across the United States like a Kansas twister. We were tired of 8 years of the Bush Administrations and wanted something new, something different. Barack Obama exploded on the scene and immediately caught our attention. He was charismatic, a good speaker and had a definite plan that would change America for the better. Such quotes as, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek” only fueled our excitement further.

This was what we wanted to hear, this was what we had hoped for. So where did everything go so terribly wrong?

It started when we the people became content. Obama was the man we wanted so we over looked a lot of the early warning signs. After all he wanted change just like the rest of us. What we didn’t understand was to get to this land of milk and honey we would have to trust that our government knew what was good for us. We would have to surrender some of our “freedom”; we would have to surrender “control”.

“Freedom” and “control” are important words to us Americans. This country was born because our founders wanted to be in control of their own lives and the freedom to live them as they saw fit. Almost every war the United States has ever participated in involved some element of “control” or “Freedom”. Let’s face it, we Americans like to be in control of things. When we’re not we become very agitated and angry. That’s just who we are and that is what made this country great. It is also what pisses off a lot of other countries. But that’s their problem and if they don’t like it they can get money and protection from someone else. But I fear I stray too far.

“Control” and “Freedom” are the cornerstones of our society. These are the building blocks on which this great country of ours was built. These are two of the things most Americans would be willing to shed their blood to protect. So when the present administration began to erode our “Freedom” and “control” many of us stood up and took notice. Healthcare reform, Cap and Trade, Cyber Security to name a few. At first we were confused, those that were speaking against this legislation must surely be wrong. Obama wouldn’t do this to us. But as the realization of what was really happening set in we became agitated, then angry, very angry.

So we began to fight back. The more “control” the Administration tried to gain the louder we complained. In the beginning our cries of protest were largely ignored. With control of the House and the Senate they were certain they could pass whatever legislation they wanted. If history teaches us anything it teaches that nothing in life is a certainty. It also teaches that Americans rarely do what you expect us to do as displayed by the Republican win in Massachusetts last week.

Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States, fell into the same trap as did the British, the Germans, the Japanese and the Iraqi’s, he underestimated the American peoples will not to be controlled by anyone, not even our own government. I’m sure President Obama is confused by our reaction and angry because he is no longer in control. But he of all people should know that any control he thought he had was granted to him by us, the American people and it could be revoked as quickly as it was given.

Slowly the control is moving back to where it belongs, with us….the people. And hopefully those in our government are learning a lesson that that is where it will always belong. Those that don’t will learn a harsher lesson in November; it will never be the American government that has the final word…..it will always be the American people.

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Constitutional Government is Small Government by Michael Cochrane

In the past few weeks, I have had numerous discussions with my friends and colleagues regarding the powers of the Federal Government and whether the Obama Administration was stepping beyond the boundaries of the powers given the Central Government in the Constitution.  In fact, a number of people in my office had very little understanding of how American Federalism works.  Just by coincidence my friend Michael Cochrane had recently written a column that explains it pretty clearly and lays out the arguments for smaller government.  It also shows indirectly how far the Obama Administration is stretching the boundaries and destroying the Tenth Amendment.  With the permission of Mr. Cochrane, I now present his article to you for review and comment.

Constitutional Government is Small Government

by

Michael F. Cochrane

I carry around with me a little copy of the Constitution of the United States. It’s easy to do, since it’s very small document. Even with all of the amendments, a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence) is only about sixty pages in length. It is the supreme law of the land, and contains within its various articles the framework and specified powers for the Federal government of this country. The reason this document is so small is because there are actually very few powers specifically given to the national government. For example, Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers of the Congress. They are limited to: taxation, providing for the common defense (raising an Army and Navy) and declaring war, regulating commerce with foreign nations, establishing naturalization laws, coining (and borrowing) money, establishing post offices and post roads, granting patents, and other various duties such as protecting the nation from piracy and calling up the militia. The tenth amendment states in its entirety, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Why then, do we have a Federal government involved in every aspect of our daily life, from education, to health care, to dictating to private corporations? It’s a very long story, but we now live in a country where the unbridled power of the Federal government overshadows every aspect of government. Is this what the founders of our nation envisioned? We have become so used to the influence of Washington in our everyday lives that we take it for granted. But the Constitution does not authorize the kind of power our national government has appropriated for itself.

I’ve frequently asked myself what our country would be like if we actually had a Federal government that existed within the proscriptions of the Constitution. Would we be able to function? Wouldn’t many things just not get done? What is the role of the Federal government, the governments of the various States, local municipalities, and the private sector in providing the necessary services we need to have a functional and thriving society? I’ll try to walk through a few examples of areas where both government and the private sector are involved and do a thought experiment about what “small government” might look like.

Transportation. We have a system of Federal highways that culminated with the Interstate highway system that was essentially completed in the 1960s. Would we have been able to build such a system without Federal tax money or incentives? I suspect that such a system could have been suggested and planned at the Federal level, but the administration of its construction could clearly have been carried out with the States raising the revenue and overseeing the construction. The only real role for the Federal government (according to the Constitution) would be to regulate the commerce those roads carried between the States.

Education. We have a long history and tradition of local schools in this country; public schools financed by local taxes. The role of the Federal government in education of our nation’s youth is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the selective granting of Federal money to States and localities to support education has encouraged them to depend on the Federal government and look to it for revenue. It also makes it much easier for the Federal government to dictate to the States in areas of regulation of schools.

Social Welfare. It began with the passage of the Social Security act in the 1930s, but has grown to include Medicare, Medicaid, and Aid to Families With Dependent Children, commonly known as “welfare”. What was viewed initially as a step toward providing a minimum level of financial security to those unable to work either through old age or disability has become a huge system of Federal taxes that find their way into the general revenue fund and have not kept pace with the changing demographics of the nation. It can be argued that welfare programs have actually encouraged the breakup of families, when women are compensated by the Federal government for raising children out of wedlock. The current push to “reform” health care by setting up a so-called “public” insurance option and then mandating that all Americans purchase it or be guilty of breaking the law will only exacerbate the problem, raising Federal taxes and further limiting the ability of the States and the private sector to provide a vital marketplace for medical treatment and catastrophic medical insurance coverage.

The only constitutionally authorized Federal agency still providing services is the U.S. Postal Service. But do we even need a Federal Post Office? Why can’t FedEx, UPS, or any number of other private delivery companies bid on regional postal contracts for the delivery of mail? Could we eliminate the Department of Education? What would be the effect on our schools? I suspect it would not be negative. One might argue that there are Federal agencies, the elimination of which could be detrimental to the welfare and safety of the nation. The Federal Aviation Administration comes to mind. But I think it is a worthwhile exercise to systematically work one’s way through the Federal bureaucracy and analyze the degree to which an agency’s function is either 1) necessary, 2) could be performed by a State or municipal government, or 3) could be addressed through free market competition in the private sector. At the very least, such an analysis must be performed before rushing to the conclusion that every perceived problem must be solved through Federal legislation and the subsequent establishment of another Federal agency.

The size of our Federal government is largely our own fault. Part of the problem is that we continue to elect representatives to Congress whom we reward with reelection when they bring Federal dollars to their home districts. This is classic “pork barrel politics”, and it does nothing except make the problem worse. Until we begin to disassociate Federal representation with Federal largesse, government will continue to grow. A Constitutional amendment limiting terms of Federal representatives and Senators would go a long way toward relocating governmental power in the United States to where it primarily belongs: to the States and the People.

© 2009 by Michael F. Cochrane. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.

Lucky Ties

Chris Christie was obviously wearing his; as was Robert McDonnell. The GOP is officially breathing again. It was a great day for Republicans yesterday. It happened exactly one year after we took our worst shellacking since the 1960’s. And, what did President Obama do while his party was getting whooped in two states which voted for him last year? He sat at home and watched a special on HBO about His election victory last year. The official statement from the White House is that he did not even bother to watch any of the results as “they just didn’t matter and didn’t reflect on him: They were locally driven.”

For the past year I have been saying the current President is one of the biggest megalomaniacs in history. And, last night, he just proved it again. While the state of New Jersey which is one of the bluest was falling and the State of Virginia was being swept by Republicans which has not happened since Reconstruction, the President was watching a TV show about His grandiose victory last year. His ego is completely out of control. I wonder if he was wearing his lucky tie last night.

However, we all know who definitely was not: Doug Hoffman. This is the man that ran on the Conservative ticket in NY-23 which is a district in Upstate New York that has been Republican since the Civil War. Well, in the immortal words of Jacques Clousseau, “Not Anymore!” Doug Hoffman was defeated yesterday garnering only 46% of the vote. The projected winner, the Democrat Bill Owens, garnered 49% and the liberal Republican who withdrew last week received 5%. She proved to be he spoiler.

I find this race in NY-23 to be very disturbing. It is a race that garnered national attention when Sarah Palin, the Queen of the Far Right, decided to support the Conservative Candidate and not the Republican. Before that, the race was hardly being looked at by anybody.

NY-23 is a district in Upstate New York which borders on Canada and Vermont. It is more than 90% white and skews Republican by a margin of more than five percentage points. The area has been Republican for as far as anyone can remember. But, last night, it elected a Democrat. Why?

The Republican Party nominated Dede Scozzafava to run in this district without a primary. Ms. Scozzafava is one of the most liberal Republicans in the history of the Party. She is not pro-life, supports same-sex marriage and has strong ties to Labor, positions which are opposed by the majority of the Party. She does support the Bush tax cuts and is against Cap-And-Trade. It was rumored during the election that she hinted she might caucus with the Democrats if elected.

Obviously the nomination of Ms. Scozzafava was a big mistake. By nominating her, the Party allowed a three way race to occur thereby guaranteeing a Democratic victory. Of course, it did not help, that upon quitting the race five days ago, Ms. Scozzafava gave her support, not to the Conservative Hoffman, but to the Democrat Owens. The Party should have run a primary before nominating Scozzafava or, at the least, seen the power of the Right movement and nominated someone more in line with the mainstream Republican platform.

But, that is not really what disturbs me about the race in NY-23. What disturbs me the most is the ramification of what happened there to the rest of the country and to the elections in 2010. The Republican Party seems to be splintering into two halves, the conservatives and the moderates. The Conservatives are being supported by Ms. Palin and a large group of Right Wing pundits. They are represented by the Tea Party Organizations and the States’ Rights Groups. I am probably one of them.

However, without the moderates; the center of the political spectrum, the Party will not regain control of the federal government. There is simply not enough of the Far Right to support a majority anywhere in the country. The moderates and independents win elections. And, boy was that clear last night.

All of the exit polling shows that McDonnell and Christie won because there was a major swing in the independent voter to the Republicans. These swing voters stated they were against the huge government spending, the failed stimulus package and were in fear for the future of their children. The majority of these independents voted for Obama in the last election.

We need them these independents. We must do whatever is necessary to maintain their support. We cannot swing to the far right and expect to do anything in 2010. If we do, there will be a lot of Democrats that will be wearing their lucky ties. If we continue to attract the moderates and independents as happened yesterday, it will be a large group of Republicans wearing theirs.

©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini

Health Reform and The Tenth Amendment

To begin with, I would like to thank Ira Schwartz for his contribution to the blog this week. The article was very informative and directly to the point on HR 3200 which in my opinion, is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to be considered by Congress. It, not only, would lead us down the path of socialism, but, in the process, would bankrupt the entire country. Mr. Schwartz gave a very succinct and direct critique of the bill. However, I would just like to state, that if you read the bill, you will find many more problems. The issue of space just did not allow Mr. Schwartz to write more.

I am very happy to see that citizens are showing up at Town Hall meetings throughout the country and voicing their complaints about that bill and health care reform in general. It is actually quite funny watching Congressmen squirm when the tough questions are asked. And, it is even more interesting when they cannot respond to the tough questions because they have not read the bill or are even familiar with its contents.

I suggest you continue going to the Town Hall meetings and voice your concerns. And, do not be afraid to get angry. The Democrat and Republican Congressmen must know they will not be reelected if HR 3200 passes as it is currently written. But, please, do not get violent. Violence at these meetings will do nothing except make the opposition look weak and dumb, and hurt the path of Democracy. Violence at these meetings is similar to me being called a racist this week because I stated on a public forum that HR 3200 should not pay for medical services for illegal immigrants. Remember, the protest ways of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

The attendance at the Town Halls is working! Within the past twenty-four hours, a few Senate and House Members, including one Democrat, stated they will not pass a bill with the current language regarding even the possibility of the so called death panels. Keep up the good work America! The people are winning!

The power of the people brings to mind the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which is very short, but is also one of the most controversial sections of the document. There are many people who believe that it is the primary cause of the Civil War: i.e. did the states, not the Federal Government have the right to determine whether to be slave or free? Ronald Reagan believed in the amendment more than anything else, as did Thomas Jefferson. It simply states in its entirety: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There are many people that feel that the Constitution was already clear on this issue and that the Tenth Amendment is actually, a redundancy. However, the Supreme Court has, within the last 25 years, actually used the Tenth Amendment as a rationale in deciding a few cases. See, e.g. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). Prior to these cases, the rationale used exclusively by the Supreme Court for limiting States’ rights was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which is very simple on its face. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “[The Congress shall have power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This simple phrase as interpreted by the Supreme Court has given Congress the authority to slowly strip away powers granted to the States specifically in the Constitution and through the Tenth Amendment. In its most simplistic form, the Supreme Court has determined that everything legislated by Congress has some effect on Interstate Commerce and therefore, is within the power of the Federal Government. Maybe, the Supreme Court is now changing its analysis?

So, will power come back to the States or the people in the future? If Ron Paul had been elected President, the answer would have definitely been yes. In fact, we would be looking at the end of the Federal Reserve too which is probably a good thing. But, unfortunately the answer is currently “no”. President Obama, through his executive powers and the use of Congress, is turning the Federal Government into the ultimate power. Health Care is just one example.

Any normal interpretation of the Tenth Amendment would imply that health care and its regulation should be a power reserved to the states and/or the people. This is also the case with marriage and other personal issues. However, by the power of the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government will be able to regulate it unless the Supreme Court radically changes precedent.

I wonder why no one is bringing up the Tenth Amendment at these town hall meetings. Maybe, people should start arguing it while they are mentioning the other problems with HR 3200. Give the power back to the people in deciding personal issues, including, but not limited to health care.

A few closing thoughts. In the last week, my favorite target, Nancy Pelosi, put her foot in her mouth again. How dare she say that citizens protesting HR 3200 are Un-American. If anything, she is being Un-American for making that statement. Remember, Freedom of Speech and Assembly is a right in this country. I suggest her arrogance, Ms. Pelosi, read the Constitution before she opens her mouth in the future. We already know she is not going to read HR 3200 even though she allegedly drafted it. The least she can do is read the Constitution. In fact, it should be a requirement that all Congressmen have a copy of that little document in their pocket 24 hours a day. It is good reference material, especially when they are thinking of violating it.

Lastly, I would like to state that one of the main proponents of the HR 3200 is Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania. For all of my readers in his district and surrounding districts in Pennsylvania, let him know his job is on the line. This man is thinking of running against Arlen Spector and has delusions of even greater power. I have seen him speak. He is a true liberal and must be stopped in the same way Nancy Pelosi and her other cronies must be stopped by voting them out of office.

On the economy, do not let the President’s propaganda machine fool you, but this recession is definitely not over. In fact, it appears that we are in the first deflationary spiral in this country since the Great Depression. Based upon the CPI announcement this morning, consumer prices have fallen 2.1% over the past twelve months. The last time that happened was 1950. And, it has not happened this extensively since the Great Depression. And, I do not know if it has ever happened at a time when the government is printing so much paper money. If we were not printing paper money, how low would prices have fallen; ten percent, twenty percent or more?

Last week, I failed to mention that the Jekyll Island book about the Federal Reserve which I recommended was referred to me by my good friend Robert Spaeth. It is also recommended reading by Ron Paul. Again, check it out.

In closing, I would like to repeat. Keep up the good work at the Town Hall meetings. Let us destroy HR 3200 and hopefully, the Senate will be able to write a true bipartisan health care reform bill. It is the only chance we have as the Senate might try to stop the Democratic onslaught in the House.

©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely given upon request.