Show PIC Wall

What is the Proper Role of Government? They Don't Have A Clue!

/in /by

What is the proper role of Government? We have witnessed the perspectives of those in government, we have heard the answers in recent presidential debates, but what did those who DESIGNED it envision? Wouldn’t you like to KNOW what government is supposed to be doing? The interesting thing is, we don’t have to guess, we don’t have to make it up, we simply need to look to the framers of our Constitution. It is almost simplistically elegant the way they described the role of the Senate and the House. Yet, even the simplest of explanations seem to have eluded the entire government machine. As the employers of our government, it is essential that we know what government is supposed to be doing and require them to fully accomplish their job description.

What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison said that the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. He lists them as war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce. He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating those few powers he listed. In other words our founders believed in and intended limited government, very limited.

“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.” James Madison

By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.

In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. ~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 24 Oct. 1787

First, the Senate was established to represent the states in the federal government. That is why each state is allotted the same number of Senators, to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all states. The Senate’s primary job description was to protect the states from federal encroachment and ensure each state’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.~Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II September 28, 1788

The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each state. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price.~ Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States III September 29, 1788

But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the states and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress. Remember Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if security was placed above Liberty, we would lose them both.

Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.~ Federalist Paper #33

This is the fundamental principle of state nullification. If Congress understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying Obamacare, UN Treaties, and the myriad of unconstitutional executive orders spewed out by this current administration.

Of course there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” state nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the people. Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each state has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creature of the people. Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s rights is to have to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper ruling? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper ruling and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments irrelevant.

Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist paper #33 that when the government steps outside its constitutional bounds, it is incumbent upon the people to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution, or suffer consequences of our neglect.

Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

2012 Florida Voter Guide

/in /by

By KrisAnne Hall, Constitutional Education & Consulting

Introduction:

This guide is designed to inform the voter on certain aspects that I do not see being presented in other voter guides.  The voter is always ultimately responsible for their vote.  I do not take responsibility for anyone’s vote; we will all answer individually one day for our choices.  With that in mind, be sure that you VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

As a general rule I am opposed to Constitutional Amendments, unless it is a truly Constitutional issue. Our Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the State, establishing guidelines for government, fundamental rights belonging to Floridians, and principles by which we are to govern.  Statutes, on the other hand, are supposed to be the instrument we use to enact laws through legislation in our Republican form of government.  Florida has gotten very lazy about these distinctions.

I had hoped we had learned about cluttering up our Constitution when we passed the “pregnant pig” and the “super train” amendments.   For the rest of the country, yes, Florida did establish constitutionally protected rights for pigs, yet somehow we have a problem establishing constitutionally protected rights for unborn children.  The Constitutional Amendment we passed for a High Speed Rail nearly bankrupted the state.  We established that the people had a constitutional right to a form of transportation that we had no means to fund.  Consequently, we had to pass another Constitutional Amendment to withdraw the previous one, uselessly expending an enormous amount of tax payer dollars on both ends.

With those two examples in mind, I would like those who view this guide to keep in mind a few things:

When you vote YES and pass a Constitutional Amendment you are creating a constitutionally protected RIGHT to something which includes the appropriate protections and assignments.

Constitutionally protected rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination.

If you vote YES, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment.

The amendment process represents a great expense to the tax payers.   Laws should be passed by LEGISLATORS and put into statutes.  That is how Republican Governments work.  Repealing or amending statutory laws are part of the everyday legislative process.  So if legislators forget to put something in a law or the law turns out to be a bad idea, the legislators simply amend or repeal the law through proper legislative measures.  The Constitution provides the basis for the Legislature to create these laws consistent with the Constitution with language such as “The Legislature may, by general law, enact…”  NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THIS BALLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESERVED TO STATUTORY LAW AND NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Why would our legislators want to use the amendment process rather than the proper legislative process? In some of these instances, they tried, but the legislation failed.  They are cluttering up our Constitution to compensate for failed legislation. Perhaps in other instances, by enacting a law through the constitutional amendment process, they can mitigate their responsibility for the law; after all, it was the “will of the people.”  We are a representative government, not a democracy.  Our constituency is not adequately informed to make the necessary decisions on these amendments (e.g. pregnant pigs and bankrupting super trains).

If the Legislators insist on using the amendment process instead of the proper legislative process, I frankly see very little need to continue having legislators.  We could simply move to a pure democracy, fire all those who feel too burdened to do their job and save some money.

 

We currently have 7 volumes of statutory law.  If we are not careful, our Constitution will look the same.

Amendment 1 Health Care Services[1]:  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution)

This legislation is simply the people engaging in the right of the people to nullify unconstitutional federal law. (See Federalist Papers 33 & 64)  If this amendment passes, it could provide the state government with the courage necessary to facilitate the real solution: the governor and legislators to nullify this unconstitutional law through legislation. However, if it fails, it could have the opposite effect, which would be very bad.

 

Let’s look at what a YES vote will accomplish…

  • Would represent the expressed desire of Floridians to opt out of federal health care reform requirements.
  • This would be an expression in support of nullification by the people of Florida.
  • This may serve to embolden the Governor and the legislature to stand against the Healthcare Act as unconstitutional and support Liberty and work toward a state free from federal control.
  • Would add language to the Florida Constitution some could argue is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution if determined by the courts to be in conflict with federal law.
  • This assertion presented in this type of law suit would be based upon an improper interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.  In this circumstance, standing for what is constitutional and what is a true reflection of liberty is worth the chance of a law suit.
  • Would prevent the Florida Legislature from passing health care coverage mandates.

Amendment 2:  Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount:  (This amendment adds another section to the Constitution)

Interestingly, Amendment 2 exemplifies the very argument against legislation through constitutional amendments.  On November 7, 2006, Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment known as Amendment 7.  This amendment provided a property tax discount on homestead property owned by eligible veterans.  To be eligible, a veteran must have an honorable discharge from military service, be at least 65 years old, be partially disabled with a permanent service connected disability all or a portion of which must be combat-related, and must have been a Florida resident at the time of entering military service. Apparently when this amendment was designed, several provisions were left out, for whatever reason.  These omissions have now come to light and the only way to fix them is through the amendment process.  If the original provisions had been passed through the appropriate channels of legislation, a simple amendment to the statute could have been easily passed while the legislature was in session.  Now Floridians will incur not only the cost of employing our legislators to do their job, but the cost of amending the constitution when the legislators don’t want to, or are unable to do their job.

A vote YES on Amendment 2:

  • Would give the existing homestead tax exemption to disabled veterans who were not Florida residents at the time of entering military service.
  • Would reduce property tax revenue for schools and local government services by an estimated $15 million combined over the first three years of its implementation, and by an estimated $7.6 million each year thereafter.
  • Would expand the property tax exemption for some disabled veterans who are not currently eligible for a similar property tax exemption.

Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation (This amendment would add another section to the Constitution)

This amendment is an example of the legislature compensating for failed legislation.  Beginning in 2008, several proposals similar to Amendment 3, and sometimes referred to as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), were defeated in the Legislature.  So once again the tax payers are getting double dipped for something that legislators could not enact.  Not only that, since this is an amendment and NOT legislation, making any necessary adjustments to the formula enacted by this amendment would be slow, costly, and inconvenient.

A vote YES on Amendment 3:

  • Would replace the existing state revenue limitation based on personal income growth with a new limitation based on changes in population and inflation.
  • This appears to be a form of baseline budgeting.  Baseline budgeting is when the budget contains a built in, consistent increase in taxes allotted to the budget.
  • It seems unclear that this would be indeed a “more restrictive” form of taxation.  A tax rate based upon personal income growth is reflective of the prosperity of the state.
  • If the prosperity of the state is in decline, then so must the tax rate.
  • However, the population,statistically, is NEVER in decline but always increasing.  Therefore the legislature would seem to have the ability to increase taxes even when the prosperity of the state would not support it.
  • Would revise the current formula regarding government revenue (taxes, licenses, fees, fines, or charges for services).
  • Other states have attempted this formula through legislation and have had to revise their legislation multiple times in attempts to get the formula right.  Since this is an amendment to the Constitution and NOT legislation, the adjusting of the formula will be slow, ineffective and very costly.  This could cause a significant delay in correcting errors or inadequacies in the formula and cost the tax payers unreasonable inconvenience and possible monetary loss.

Amendment 4:  Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Nonhomestead Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal (This amendment would add TWO new sections to the Constitution)

I must reiterate my concern. Why is this not an issue of legislation? What if some necessary provision is omitted from this amendment and it must be changed?  Are we ready to pay for another constitutional amendment that would be necessary if the formulas incorporated needed adjusting?

A vote YES on Amendment 4:

  • Would reduce local government revenue by cutting in half the taxable rate on non-homestead property, such as commercial income properties and second homes.
  • This amendment is the state government telling the local governments how to assess their taxes.
  • Would reduce local government revenue by prohibiting increases in the assessed value of homestead property and certain non-homestead property in any year where the market value of the property decreases.
  • Would reduce local government revenue by extending an additional homestead tax exemption to some first-time homeowners.

Amendment 5: State Courts

This perhaps is the first amendment that is justifiably an amendment.  However, I believe the drafters have tried to do too much in one bite. In doing so, may have contributed to the amendment’s  defeat. To understand this amendment you must understand the problem that this amendment attempts to fix.   Many argue that the putting the Florida Bar Association, a non-governmental entity built of judges and lawyers, in charge of policing judges and lawyers is much like the patients running the asylum.  This amendment attempts to put proper checks and balances within the court system by placing the people in greater control of their judges through the elected representatives.

 

A vote YES on Amendment 5 would:

  • Require the Florida Senate to vote to confirm or reject a gubernatorial appointment to the state Supreme Court
  • Many states use this process as well as the federal government.
  • It is designed to give the people a say in their Supreme Court appointments through legislative review.
  • It would help ensure a better reflection of the values of the voters, rather than the whim of one person, the governor.
  • Allow the Legislature to repeal statewide judicial rules adopted by the Supreme Court by a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote
  • I believe this provision could be seen as violation of separation of powers and would bring about multiple law suits at the taxpayers’ expense.
  • Expand the ability of the state House of Representatives to review confidential files about judges, even if they are not being considered for impeachment
  • This is an aspect of the model of checks and balances that is in place in our US Constitution.  This will allow the elected representatives of the people to better police the activity of elected and appointed judges.

Amendment 6 Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights (This amendment would add another section to the Constitution)

I understand the intentions of this amendment; however, I do not believe it is effective.  I believe it will cost the tax payers a great deal and perform no relatively significant function.  Federal law prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for most abortions (exceptions include rape, incest and threats to a mother’s life). If passed, Amendment 6 would reiterate those prohibitions in the state constitution.  Florida law already prohibits public funds from being spent on abortion; this amendment would not change current abortion funding practices. This amendment spends tax dollars to simply show a majority of the state’s voters support existing governmental restrictions. We could probably do that with a poll and save some money.  The only amendment that will do what the proponents of this amendment want to do is a “Personhood” amendment.  But “Personhood” amendments are seen as “extreme” by opponents.  This seems to be a compromise of no effect.

A vote YES on Amendment 6:

  • Would mean that Florida’s constitutional right to privacy is not applicable to abortion-related issues.
  • This would open the door to multiple law suits that have a reasonable prospect at success.
  • Removing a person’s right to privacy is a two way street.  Do we want all persons seeking counseling regarding abortion issues to lose their right to privacy, even those seeking pro-life counseling?
  • If we remove the right to privacy for adults in an aspect the world sees as a “medical procedure,” will we be giving the government the authority to expand that loss of privacy to other medical procedures?
  • Could allow more restrictive abortion laws to be found constitutional by Florida courts.
  • Would restate in the Florida Constitution federal and state law that prohibits public funds from being used for abortion or health insurance coverage of abortion.

Amendment 8: Religious Freedom

America offers the greatest protection of religious freedom anywhere in the world.  Florida’s Constitution mirrors those protections. We do not need greater religious freedom, we need greater protection from government intrusion in the church. Amendment 8 is not about religious freedom it is about religious funding and would invite further government control on the church.  Not only that, because all government funds must be used in a nondiscriminatory manner, this amendment would require the government to fund ALL RELIGIONS; Islamic, Satanic, and any other group of people calling themselves a “religion.”  Is that how you want YOUR tax dollars spent? For an in depth explanation, please read this article titled; “Trusting Government Over God.”

A vote YES on Amendment 8:

  • Would repeal the “no aid” provision in the Florida Constitution and allow public money to go to private religious institutions.
  • That means taxpayers will fund ALL religious institutions, allowing the funding of Islam and all extreme cult religions, (do you want to financially support religious actions of those like the Westboro Baptists who protest military funerals?).
  • Would not expand religious freedom, we already have religious freedom in this state and in this nation.
  • This amendment is not about “freedom” it is about “funding.”
  • Would allow for a greater number of religious programs to be supported by taxpayer funding.
  • Opening the door for the government to control these religious programs and institutions through regulation of the tax payers’ funds.
  • Would establish a constitutional right to receive tax dollars for the payment of religious institutions.
  • If a religious educational institution wanted to refuse this funding and avoid government controls, it is feasible that the parent could sue that school for interfering with their constitutionally protected right.

Amendment 9:  Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder (This amendment would add another section to the Constitution)

Again, why is this not an issue of legislation?  What if some necessary provision is omitted from this amendment and it must be changed? Are we ready to pay for another constitutional amendment when this one needs to  be amended or repealed?

A Yes vote for Amendment 9:

  • Would grant full homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.
  • Would enshrine in the state Constitution a law that currently offers full property tax relief to surviving spouses of veterans who die while on active duty.
  • Would allow spouses whose partners died before the passage of the Amendment to be eligible for the tax exemption.

Amendment 10: Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption (This amendment would add another section to the Constitution)

Another legislative issue NOT a constitutional issue.

A vote YES for Amendment 10:

  • Would double the tax exemption on tangible personal property (furniture, fixtures, machinery, tools, shelving, signs and equipment.)
  • Would allow cities and counties to grant additional tangible personal property tax exemptions.
  • Would reduce local property tax revenues across the state by an estimated $61 million combined over the first three years it is implemented.

Amendment 11:  Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value

Another legislative issue NOT a constitutional issue.

A vote YES on Amendment 11:

  • Would authorize cities and counties to grant a full homestead exemption to certain low-income seniors.
  • Would require a super-majority vote by local governments to grant the exemption.
  • Would reduce tax revenues to local governments across the state by an estimated $18.5 million combined over the first two years it is implemented.

Amendment 12: Appointment of Student Body President to Board of Governors of the State University System

Ironically this amendment would create a constitutional requirement that would force the establishment of a bureaucracy.

A vote YES on Amendment 12:

  •  Would create a new council of student body presidents from which the student representative to the Board of Governors would be selected.
  • Would remove the Florida Student Association president from the Board of Governors.
  •  Would require all state university student body presidents to participate in the newly created council.

 

[1] A special “thank you” to the League of Women Voters for their valuable information on some of these amendments.

Celebrating Liberty

/in /by

We are celbrating the 225th Anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution, the Supremen Law of the land, the foundaiton of every governing principle of the country, the greatest human rights statement ever written by men and the very thing that makes Liberty possible and America an exceptional nation.  But it is a bittersweet celebration.  America is still an exceptional nation, built upon exceptional principles and inhabited by exceptional people.  But we are in the midst of times that try men’s souls.  How did we get here?  How did this happen?  Is this the the nation built by people who pledged life, fortune, and sacred honor to establish Liberty?

At our foundation a nation of people sacrificed everything they had to build a government dedicated to the understanding that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now we are a nation of people who are focused upon prosperity, focused upon maintaining the right to acquire stuff. Sacrifice for Americans means getting off the lazy boy, turning off Big Bang or Judge Judy!

Celebrating the adoption of the principles that make our nation great should not be an anniversary; it should be a daily walk, a daily way of life. It is the only way to maintain these principles; it is the only way to ensure that we will secure the Blessings of liberty for our posterity. Americans must reacquaint themselves with the Constitution and its principles if we hope to maintain a free nation.

First, the Constitution is NOT a set of negative rights imposed upon the government. Government has NO rights, neither negative nor positive. In creating the government we did not GIVE anything to the government; we did not give it power, we did not give it rights. Read the 10th Amendment and the writings of our framers. They clearly stated that power was delegated not given. That means governmental structures simply have access to OUR POWER to do the job WE tell them to do. The rights and power belong to the people. When the government misuses that power and tramples our rights, it is the responsibility of the people to be the “maintainers” of this liberty and push back.

The Constitution is a contract among men that created the government, like a business contract creates a business. The business of the government is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The government was not established to regulate the people, or the activities of the people but to be the sure guardian of our liberty, a liberty that belongs to us and not to government. John Adams declared in 1765 thatLiberty must be supported at all hazards; WE have a right to it derived from our maker! It is the people who have the right to liberty as decreed by God. That is why the Constitution is a declaration that the people are the true onwers of those rights and establishes a government to protect and prosper those rights.

In Federalist Paper #33, Alexander Hamilton charges the PEOPLE to stand for the Constitution. When the government oversteps its constitutional bounds, it is up to the people, who created it to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

What Country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? ~ Thomas Jefferson

We must continue to stand against the corruption of government, against the destruction of Liberty, and heal the injury being done to this nation. We are the maintainers of liberty.

We must also understand that the Constitution was made for a moral people. Jefferson said, “The God that gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm foundation, the conviction in the minds of men that Liberty is a gift from God.” Our founders understood that liberty was a gift from God planted in the bosom of every man to be lived out and enjoyed in this world. They knew that this liberty could only be maintained by a shared morality.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams October 11, 1798

Our founders gave their own lives to secure these principles for us. Yet, how could something that was worth the very lives of our founders mean so little to some of us? Statistics show that only 44% of Christians are even registered to vote and of those only 25%-44% of those registered ACTUALLY VOTE! Do you know why this nation no longer reflects a Judeo-Christian world view, no longer reflects the principles of freedom and morality that secure our Liberty, why our elected representatives overwhelmingly lack the understanding of Liberty and the Constitution necessary to preserve it? Because those who are in possession of the meaning and the value of liberty DO NOT VOTE!

Our nation is a reflection of the uninformed voter that votes on personality, on popularity, or who simply wants a handout. Politicians can act immorally by giving lip service at election time about “being conservative”, “defending the Constitution”, “being for the people” and then make decisions contrary to those principles, like voting in favor of indefinite detention, HR347 and the criminalization of our First Amendment, SB1813 and the delegation of power to the IRS to take your passport and your guns, and allow without any response the daily dissolution of separation of powers and destruction of liberty by King Barry I and his imperial executive orders. Many accept the cowardice and immoral acts of our elected politicians because they look good on camera, because they give good patriotic speeches. If Americans UNDERSTOOD the value of Liberty and daily LIVED the value of liberty, voting would be our minimum obligation. We would live our LIVES for the preservation of Liberty. We would demand of our representatives the same dedication and proficiency in the Constitution and its foundational principles.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. John Phillpot Curran

We are charged with the responsibility to be ETERNALLY VIGILLANT. That literally means a daily walk in the keeping the proper purpose of the Constitution, understanding the true meaning of Liberty and then maintaining the proper value of this good and perfect gift from God. Do not despair…Never be discouraged… I have great hope in the giver of that gift and the knowledge that man will not willingly live in slavery for very long.

“Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801

Restoration is coming. The band is being removed, the scales are falling from our eyes. WE will no longer be hoodwinked by immoral and vain promises that work to destroy our liberties. WE will stand against the tyranny that is being perpetrated against us by the enemy within. WE WILL DAILY celebrate the ratification of our Constitution…a document designed to restrain government and guide it in its preservation our Liberty…A Liberty that IS a good and perfect gift from God…A gift that is worthy of our life, fortune, and sacred honor. And although it may have to take a long train of abuses and usurpations, WE THE PEOPLE are going to derail that long black train…We will take a stand in defense of the Constitution. So all you that may be on board in the name of prosperity or national security or entitlement…here is your notice…

We will no longer tamely suffer a lawless attack on liberty. We understand what is at stake and it has nothing to do with government bailouts and special interest groups….It has EVERYTHING to do with Liberty and passing on that gift to our children. We are going to make the celebration of the Constitution a DAILY AFFAIR…We are going to Stand for Liberty as those that framed our nation did and because we know…because we understand…because we truly believe as Thomas Jefferson penned in 1787

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem – I prefer the tumult of Liberty to the quiet of servitude!

Disclose Act (s. 3369) Destroying the First Amendment

/in /by

ALERT: The Disclose Act (s. 3369) has been resurrected and it will further destroy the remnants of our 1st Amendment and diminish the power of our grassroots groups!

It is always shocking to me that those we elect are absolutely clueless to the true government that they were elected to support and defend.  Day in and day out we hear our representatives refer to our government as a “democracy.”  Our founders did not establish a democracy, they established a republic.   At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a women referred to as Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia, “Well, Doctor, what have we, a republic or a monarchy?” It is said that Dr. Franklin, without hesitation, said, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”  Here we are 225 years later and our own representatives do not know the correct answer to this question.

And here we are, once again, with the resurrection of the Disclose Act of 2012, and its title tells us all we need to know to want to bury this tyranny in the ground once and for all.  In his limited wisdom, Sheldon Whitehouse, along with his 28 co-sponsors believe that this government is a democracy and have short titled the Disclose Act, ‘‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012.’’ Yes, Mr. Whitehouse I am sure that Democracy is strengthened, but what about a republic?  Since our government is a Constitutional Republic, built upon the inalienable rights of the people protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

Here is the nuts and bolts of the unconstitutionality of the disclose act. First, in true tyrannical form, the language in this act is so vague and overbroad that it is difficult to actually determine who is required to comply and who is not.  Take, for example, the definition of “political committee” that already exists in 2 USC 441-subchapter I – Disclosure of Federal Campaigns:

(4) The term “political committee” means – (A) any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year; or

Does that include your grassroots group?  How about this wonderful definition of a campaign contribution included in this already existing act?

(8)(A) The term “contribution” includes – (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or (emphasis added)

What about this acts definition of “federal election activity?”

(A) In general. – The term “Federal election activity” means – (iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate);

Has YOUR grassroots engaged in activity that is governed by the Federal Election’s Commission?  How could you possibly know? So, how could the Disclose Act make this any worse? Well, it does, and here is how.

First, the Disclose Act expands the definition of “Electioneering Communication”. The original act allows the FEC to label a communication “electioneering” only within the window of “60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate.”  The Disclose Act would expand that limitation in the case of the non-Presidential or  Vice Presidential candidate to beginning on January 1 of the calendar year in which a general or runoff election is held and ending on the date of the general or runoff election.  Making any communication made 11 months prior to the general election subject to be defined as “federal election activity.”  In the case of the President and Vice-President, this period is extended to “the period beginning 120 days before the first primary election, caucus, or preference election held for the selection of delegates to a national nominating convention of a political party.”  That means that all communications by an eligible group that are made over 1 year before the presidential election can be vaguely defined as “federal election activity.”  This is an unprecedented expansion of the federal government over free speech!

This however, is not the end of this Act’s assault on liberty.  Not only will our groups be required to report activity over a year before a presidential election, but our groups will be required to disclose its membership rolls to the FEC.  This new act requires that any group making an aggregate donation within this period must disclose:

(i) the name and address of each person who made such payment during the period covered by the statement; (ii) the date and amount of such payment; and (iii) the aggregate amount of all such payments made by the person during the period beginning on the first day of the election reporting cycle and ending on the disclosure date.

The proponents of this legislation will tell you that it only affects the rich or the major corporations because disclosure must only be made with an aggregate donation of $10,000.  But watch out.  We must remember the vague language and keep in mind the chilling effect this will have on those willing to participate in our grassroots groups.  Remember your group qualifies for FEC supervision according to section (4) if its members give more than $1,000 per YEAR.  How will the FEC define that term in section 8(A), anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election? And we cannot forget that the legislators love to insert “boilerplate” provisions to cover any opportunity they have missed, and the Disclose Act is no exception.  The FEC will be permitted to request “(G) Such other information as required in rules established by the Commission to promote the purposes of this section.”  That means that the FEC can pass a RULE that will expand this law outside the constitutionally established procedures requiring Congressional approval.  This is the very epitome of an executive agency being given legislative law making power and robs the people of their elective voice.

I am once again reminded of the warnings of our founders.  Alexander Hamilton warned us in Federalist Paper #84, that by enumerating certain rights in the Bill of Rights it would actually INVITE government intrusion upon these rights. Hamilton knew that our federal government was delegated very LIMITED POWERS, and those powers did not include the right to govern our speech.  He reasoned that if we tell the federal government what they cannot do, rather than simply telling them what they can do, it would lead to the ultimate usurpation of those rights:

“[Men disposed to usurp] might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers.”

We now have a government full of men disposed to usurp the liberties of our people. The Disclose Act is just another manifestation of the doctrine of constructive powers used as a tool to destroy our Constitutionally protected rights.  It does not deal with the real issue of corporate corruption.  This Act will turn every statement made in the public forum into a potential campaign contribution.  So if your group stands against something the incumbent is doing, you have potentially made a campaign contribution to his opponent.  And make no mistake, those who have the “government agenda” in mind will continue to get receive the golden “presidential waiver.” I am sure that the “wrong-stream” media, who continue to funnel billions of free add campaigns to their “favorites” will NEVER be held accountable!

The Disclose Act does what it says it will do, promote democracy and defeat the republic our founders established.  It will silence the minority in favor of the majority.  It will allow the federal government to define political speech and penalize it with massive government regulations.

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR NOW AND DEMAND THE DEFEAT OF THE DISCLOSE ACT.

If I Were An Enemy of Liberty

/in , /by

If I were the enemy, I would want you to feel alone.   I would want you to be overwhelmed. I would want you to become hopeless.  It’s the natural law of predator vs. prey. Isolate them, weaken them and make them sink gradually.  It is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.  Make them think they are alone in their passion and beliefs and the rest of the country really wants my way, the way of the enemy.  But that would be a lie.  There is nothing further from the truth.  How do I know this?  Because, I travel this country, see this beautiful land we call America and meet the Patriots; I meet you everywhere I go.

There is a brotherhood among Americans.  It is a heartbeat that cannot be denied.  It says we were born free and cannot be slaves.  It is this sense of Liberty, inherent in the hearts of Americans that makes us the land of the free.  So, be the land of the brave, have no fear, Patriot, you are not alone.

O beautiful for spacious skies for amber waves of grain,

For purple mountains majesty above the fruited plain!

America! America! God shed his grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.

There are ministers throughout this nation, still willing to take a stand for this wonderful gift of Liberty.  They understand as Thomas Jefferson said,

“God who gave us life gave us liberty.  And can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure, if we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of men that these Liberties are the gift of God?”

Jefferson’s quote doesn’t end there, although that is the most repeated line.  And many pastors of our nation, I believe understand the rest of this quote more so than the first. A Patriotic Minister’s true driving force is the love of their flock and the understanding that we serve a just God.

“That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” ~Jefferson

Not every minister is more in love with their 501(c)(3), more in love with the tithed dollar than they are with the gifts of God.  Many still fear God more than the deacons’ wives and are willing to stand and preach to their congregations the truth of the glorious founding of this nation. They remind their flock that God gave us liberty and as children of God we have an obligation to fight for the gifts of God.  Not only do they know this just God will not suffer the mistreatment of His gifts, they also know what Patrick Henry said,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that we possess, are invincible by any force which are enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friend to fight our battles for us.”

How do I know this?  I am invited to teach the truth of our nation in the churches and from their pulpits.  I am currently on my way to New York, invited by your Bishops to teach your Catholic churches, students, and Patriots, the truth about Liberty.  Our Patriotic Ministers know that they fight not on their own; they fight with the spirit of Liberty that comes from God himself. They understand they have a duty to that Fearful Master and fear not when men can do.  They stand as David and cry “Who dare defy the army of the Lord!”

O beautiful for pilgrim feet whose stem impassioned stress

A thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness!

America! America! God shed his grace on thee

Til paths be wrought through wilds of thought by pilgrim foot and knee!

It’s not just the pastors, it’s the truck drivers who honk and waive at the various patriotic messages painted on my back window.  It’s the citizens that I encounter on a daily basis, and when asked what they think is happening in America, resolution flashes in their eyes.  In a land where men are born free, slavery is not seen with love, it is glared at with a firm resolution that men will remain free. It’s the Patriot leaders who give up their jobs, their lives, their fortunes, devoting all remnants of sanity so their children can live somewhat normal lives, while fighting the noble battle for liberty. We are America, and we represent those who know that it is Liberty that makes us different from every other nation.  It is Liberty that brings the immigrant – not healthcare, not welfare, not government grants. And there are citizens in every city, in every backwoods town across this great nation, resolved to see Liberty prosper, whatever the cost.

“Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding;…May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.” ~Mercy Otis Warren letter to John Adams August 2, 1775

We are three million Patrick Henry spoke of, but in modern numbers – many more.  You may not meet them every day, but I do.  And I see the patriot spirit that burns in their hearts, the same spirit that gave our founders the courage and resolution to stand against the most powerful nation on the planet, the very nation they called their parent. Today, I hear phrases like, “cold dead hand” and “not on my watch”.  Make no mistake, America, no matter what you may hear on FOX or CNN, the watchers have become warriors, and we will not serve as slaves.

O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife

When more than self their country loved and mercy more than life

America! America! May God thy God refine

Till all success be nobleness and every gain divine

Put aside the “wrong stream media”.  I am on the street, meeting your brothers and sisters who are dedicated to this battle. I am conducting my own poll and my numbers and testimonies do not lie.  Know Patriot, that you are not alone.  You stand shoulder to shoulder with your brothers and sisters, the tireless warriors in this battle for Liberty.  You may not see each other’s faces, but you share the same heartbeat. You may not see any glory now. You may think you are engaged in a thankless task.  But you know as well as I do, that glory comes in the victory, not in the battle. That thanks comes in the hearts of generations to follow as they live as freemen in STILL the greatest nation on the planet.  We do not look with temporal eyes.  Our vision extends, as our founders did, to “ages and millions yet unborn.”  We know that Liberty is a gift from God that has been purchased with the blood of our fathers, and if God be for us, who can be against us?

“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.” –Samuel Adams, Philadelphia, August 1, 1776

So yes, if I were the enemy, I would want to you to feel alone.  I would give my last breath to make you feel divided.  I would do everything I could possibly do to make you believe a lie; because for me -the enemy- truth is fatal to my mission.  The truth is – we are united in the passion for Liberty, within our hearts and our heritage.  We cannot be divided on this ground and that makes us a fearful foe to tyranny.  Because a thousand years of history proves, when men stand for liberty, they WILL NOT be defeated.  We have much to do, but we will see victory.  Our children will live free.

O beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond the years

Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!

America! America! God shed his grace on thee

And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.

Justice Roberts Gives Some Good Advice

/in /by

In their ruling of the Arizona Immigration laws, the Supreme Court declared the“discretion of the federal agents” to be sovereign over the states.In the ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Supreme Court declared the federal government to be sovereign over the citizens.These rulings have served a nearly fatal blow to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution.Now, more so than ever, or at least since 1830, the citizens of this nation must stand together in defense of the Constitution, as the ultimate protectors of our God given rights.

Our founders did not make the federal government sovereign over the people or the states.The 9th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that all rights belong to the people, enumerated or not.The 10th Amendment makes it clear that aside from the power “delegated” to the federal government, EVERYTHING ELSE belongs to the people through their states.And the Federal government was only delegated very limited powers.James Madison said those powers were limited primarily to external objects and named them specifically as war, peace, foreign commerce and negotiations.What that means for us, is that the federal government has no business what so ever in our health care, or in our businesses, our schools, or any other aspect of daily life, whatsoever!

Over the years, through an absolute dearth of true Constitutional teaching in the government schools, especially our law schools and through the replacement of precedent over the intent of the founders, we have allowed our courts to stray far from the original limitations and purpose of the Constitution. Our founders never intended for the “general welfare” clause to mean the “everything welfare” clause.Madison explains in his 1792 argument against federal subsidies that the general welfare clause was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries.This was not just his opinion, but the opinion of ALL who drafted the Constitution.

“I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived – it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived – that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specific powers –but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792 (emphasis added)

I dare say, James Madison himself would barely recognize the government we have today.Actually, maybe he would, because it looks identical to the one he and his patriot brothers and sisters pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to declare independence FROM and ultimately defeat in the name of Liberty.

Apart from the twisted logic and contortions Chief Justice Roberts uses to justify this tyranny under the tax and spending clause, there are some fascinating and instructive statements in this ruling.Believe it or not, embedded in this ruling, are the instructions for righting the ship, and bringing this nation back to where we need to be.

There are three things that we as a nation must do now.We no longer have the luxury of waiting until November and seeing what will happen.If we do not do these three things, if we fail in our attempts, we will fully establish the totalitarian government our Supreme Court has supported.

First, we must keep the proper perspective.The Supreme Court is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitutionality of a law.The Supreme Court is 1/3 of the federal government, with no more or less power than the other two branches.It is the Constitution that is the Supreme law of the land, not the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all decisions, even ones made by the court must stand before the ultimate judge – the rule of law in the Constitution.The Constitution was written and ratified by“an act of the whole American People” as Thomas Jefferson declared in 1802.Its purpose is to “secure the blessings of Liberty…to our posterity”.To secure that Liberty, “governments were instituted among men”, not over them, and “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”Our founders gave us a government dependent upon OUR consent, not the will of the Supreme Court.They knew that since Liberty belonged to us, we would be the only ones suited to determine when “any form of government became destructive to those ends.”Hamilton articulated this responsibility very well in Federalist Paper #33.

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution…”

Believe it or not, Justice Roberts also gives us this directive in the healthcare ruling.He plainly tells the people of this nation, get off your backsides, stop complaining, accept the consequences of your decisions and do something about it!

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” (emphasis added,)-Justice Roberts.

Therefore, we have a job to do, since WE THE PEOPLE are the ultimate arbiters and guarantors of Liberty.

The next thing that must be done is the states must do their jobs.Madison declared our state legislators to be the “sure guardians of our Liberty.”How many of our state legislators really understand that their primary job description is to protect the people from federal encroachment? Listen to the power in Madison’s exact words.

“the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.”

Our states, especially those who thought it important enough to file a lawsuit, must stand now and say, this law is unconstitutional, this ruling is unconstitutional and we are not bound by it!Basically, our states must have the courage to say, “WE WILL NOT COMPLY”.It is our states that must“redress the injury done to the Constitution.”Once again, Justice Roberts in the very ruling that dealt such a devastating blow to the Republic, points the way.

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923). The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis added) -Justice Roberts.

Not only did he give the directive, but he gave the pathway as well.

“Instead, we determine, first, that §1396c is unconstitutional when applied to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from States that decline to comply with the expansion… As a practical matter, that means States may now choose to reject the expansion; that is the whole point.”-Justice Roberts

Anytime an addict withdraws from a drug, especially with long term use, it will be a painful withdrawal.It is time the people of this nation withdraw from the federal funding drug and discover once again how to function as a normal and healthy republic.The states must have the courage, the strength, and the resolve to lead their people through this process.If they fail to do so, the death of Liberty and enslavement of our children will be on their hands.Press your governors and state legislators to stand against this tyranny. Demand that they do as Justice Roberts has said – DO NOT COMPLY.

Finally, we must do everything necessary to replace our members of the House and the Senate with true Constitutionally-minded patriots that will repeal this law.We must especially fight for the seats in the Senate and then hit the streets like we did in 2010 to pressure them to vote the right way.I am begging; do not to put all faith in one man.Do not lay the burden of repealing this law on the President.He does not have the power to overturn or set aside ANY law.We will be giving permission to the President to set aside the Constitution to achieve an end that we desire.This “ends justify the means” style of government is what got us in this mess.No man can resist the temptation of ultimate power.It is time that we limit the executive branch of government once and for all.The ONLY way we will do that is to have a properly functioning Congress.That does NOT mean a Congress full of men and women who bare the sacred “R”.That means, whatever their letter designation, they are sold out, 100% dedicated to the Constitution and the principle of LIBERTY FIRST!

We must require them to become proficiently trained in the principles of the Constitution and then hold them immediately accountable when they fail to protect it.We cannot “like” a politician so much that we give them a pass.Many will say that Thomas Jefferson was a great patriot.If he were here today, he assuredly would have a sizeable “cult” following.Yet Jefferson himself warned that the people have a duty to ALWAYS keep their politicians in check and accountable.

“If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions;”

No more cult following of politicians.No more passes for personality or past employment or service.Our hired representatives must do their job, the one they took an oath to or they will be fired!No more trading Liberty for Security.No more compromising of Constitutional principles.No more legislation born out of fear or the dreaded “necessity”.We will allow only laws that limit the government and comply with the original intent of our founders.And if they do not know what that means, they are NOT QUALIFIED to do their job.

These Supreme Court rulings are absolutely unconstitutional.There is NO victory within in them.The Constitution and Liberty may have been dealt a nearly fatal blow this week, but Liberty is not dead.This God-given gift burns within our very souls and we must revive it.To whom much is given, much is required.WE must right this ship.WE must rebuild on a firm foundation.WE must take the steps necessary to overcome the consequences of our own negligence…even if it is to the point where we have to exert that ultimate Right of the people, to alter or to abolish a government destructive to those ends, and to institute new one.Independence is our right and our heritage!

This will take courage, this will take resolve, but we are guaranteed by history and experience that if we stand for this noble cause, we will win.Do not falter.Do not retreat.We will not wake up one day and apologize to our children for not doing everything we could humanly and superhumanly do to avoid their chains and slavery.Look these young people in the eye TODAY and Stand.Stand strong.Stand with courage and resolve.Stand together for the holy cause of Liberty for the sake of our posterity.In the immortal words of Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands…for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration~Direct Assault on State Sovereignty

/in /by

Never has an opinion by the Supreme Court been more aptly titled as an “Opinion,” because that is exactly what Justice Kennedy and his cohorts have delivered in Arizona v. United States.  It is nothing more than an open display of judicial activism.  The majority opinion is not a legal explanation on the Constitutionality of Arizona’s laws, but is an ideological dissertation on this current administration’s view of immigration.

Not only is this opinion devoid of any appeal to the Constitution, it is very dangerous.  It is an aberration of fundamental Constitutional principles and a brazen assault on state sovereignty!  Chiefly, Kennedy takes the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, which declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and translates that principle into the supremacy of the Federal government over the states.  There couldn’t be anything more contrary to our founders’ intent.   Let me repeat: this opinion is a monumental assault on the sovereignty of the states.

Article I section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power [t]o establish an uniform rule of naturalization.  The purpose of the federal government in the case of immigration, as Justice Kennedy appropriately acknowledges is “to be a single voice of the nation for foreign relations.”

This external focus is in line with James Madison’s directive that:   “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce…”

Indeed, we must have a single rule of law regarding immigration, else foreign nations will never know what to expect from state to state.  However, this is where Kennedy’s constitutional understanding ends.  He continually remarks throughout this opinion, that the states are not only not allowed, but not capable of enforcing the laws that the federal government codifies.  What is his authority for this opinion?  Not the Constitution itself and certainly not the founders.

Kennedy does not appeal to the Constitution as the standard, but rather the “broad discretion of immigration officers” as the determining factor of how immigration policy should be devised and carried out.  He says, “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.”   The standard for deportation of an illegal immigrant is NOT the law, according to Kennedy, but an arbitrary determination of the Department of Homeland Security, which we all know will reflect Obama’s recent declaration.

Kennedy suggests that the states must submit to lawlessness based upon the whim of federal officials, declaring,“Were §3 to come into force, the State would have the power to bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.”

How does Kennedy justify this arbitrary determination?  “This state authority could be exercised without any input from the Federal Government about whether an arrest is warranted in a particular case. This would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”

According to Kennedy, enforcement of immigration laws are nothing more than a tool to harass illegal aliens.  This is a direct reflection of the policies of the President and not the law established by Congress through the powers delegated by the Constitution.  Simply put, the states must accept violations of the law if the whim of the sovereign decides it is not in their comprehensive scheme to enforce the law.  It is the whim of the sovereign to decide who gets the privilege of citizenship, not the supreme law of the land.

Kennedy further opines that the states are apparently not smart enough to know when to deport and not to deport: “There are significant complexities involved in enforcing federal immigration law, including the determination whether a person is removable…By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.”

It should be apparent by the Federal Government’s refusal to enforce the law, that it is, in fact, the states that have better sense about immigration laws.  The federal government is not interested in following the law of the land, they are only interested in circumventing it to achieve their ideology and now the Supreme Court is aiding and abetting this lawless assault upon Liberty.  I will repeat it, if you have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job, YOU are the criminal.

In true judicial activist form, Kennedy couldn’t resist giving the liberal agenda for immigration as justification for arbitrary enforcement of federal law.  Nearly quoting the president’s position on this law, Kennedy states:

“Immigration policy shapes the destiny of the Nation.  These naturalization ceremonies bring together men and women of different origins who now share a common destiny. They swear a common oath to renounce fidelity to foreign princes, to defend the Constitution, and to bear arms on behalf of the country when required by law.  The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.”

I ask you, what does this have to do with the Constitutionality of these laws?  I believe the key to understanding this opinion lies in knowing the President’s recent determination that DHS will not be enforcing immigration laws and for the court to opine otherwise would allow the states themselves to nullify the president’s order.  Here it is, in Kennedy’s own words:  “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations, “diminish[ing] the [Federal Government]’s control over enforcement”

Ignoring nearly two centuries of the individual state’s role in making these decisions (as outlined cogently in Scalia’s dissent), Kennedy cuts through one of the pillars of the Republic, state sovereignty, like a buzzsaw.   He tramples the separation of powers and wholeheartedly supports just one more example of the executive branch stealing power from Congress.  Any hopes that Congress will do anything about it?

In a statement that can only be classified as patronizing, Kennedy throws the final salt in the wound, by declaring, in spite of the states “frustrations” with enforcement, the federal government is the King, and the states must subject themselves to its authority.  “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The “victory” claimed by some is no victory at all.   The Supreme Court did uphold the ability of law enforcement officers to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they have pulled over someone to verify whether that person is an illegal alien.  Big deal!  Justice Kennedy has informed us:

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez­ Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1038 (1984).” It’s not illegal to be illegal.  Really?

Since being here illegally is not a crime according to the federal government, even if law enforcement is informed that a person is illegally present, that officer will still have to let them go.  The Supreme Court has said any other action by the state is an infringement upon the federal government’s power.  According to Kennedy, state officers are not even allowed to detain illegal aliens: “By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.”

According to Kennedy, the sole authority to determine whether an illegal alien is to be detained or deported rests in the Attorney General:  “[T]he Attorney General can exercise discretion to issue a warrant for an alien’s arrest and detention “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States…the Attorney General will issue a warrant.” Kennedy then reminds everyone that all who are enforcing these laws are “subject to the Attorney General’s direction and supervision.”  In what version of the Constitution did he find this?

Once again, it is NOT about the law, it’s about the discretion of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is King. This court has not only taken the precedent and placed it above the founders’ understanding of the Constitution, but now regulation applied by arbitrary discretion is also elevated above our foundational principles.  This supports the hopes of this current administration to further create a totalitarian government led by King Barry I.

In one decision, the Supreme Court has told every state, they do not have the authority to protect themselves; they must submit to the supervisory authority of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court supports the president’s recent directive to DHS.

Let’s be clear. The Constitution says the federal government is supposed to establish standards so that foreign nations will not have to deal with 50 different rules.  Yes, the states are bound by these standards pursuant to the supremacy clause. However, the power to create standards does not infer the ability to be the sole enforcer.  Once the standards are set, then the states are bound to enforce those laws pursuant to those standards.  The only time the federal government is allowed to be involved is when the states are not following those standards!  This power has now been expanded from the power to create regulations to the power of sole enforcer, and Justice Kennedy has now declared that the sovereign states have no ability to enforce these laws, and therefore have no right to protect their own territories.  It’s as if the US government, via the Supreme Court, has practically expelled Arizona from the Union – since, if the Federal government will not enforce the law and Arizona is NOT ALLOWED to enforce the law – then Arizona is bare and unprotected.

One need only read Justice Scalia’s dissent to discover the correct interpretation.

“ The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.”

As do I, Justice Scalia.  As do I.

The First Amendment; The Future of Liberty

/in /by

The following is an excerpt from KrisAnne Hall’s new book, Liberty First: The Pathway to Reclaiming America, set to be released in the next month.

The path to reclaim America has many avenues. One in particular is embodied within our First Amendment. Freedom of press, freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble…gave our founders the foundation to rise up and restore the Liberty that had been established by over 700 years of battle and blood. Writing as Silence Dogood, Benjamin Franklin made this observation:

“Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” No. 8, July 9, 1772

Our founders saw the power of communication and the effect that it had on the people. Case in point: Patrick Henry’s speech in the St. John’s church, March 23, 1775. Even Thomas Jefferson, after hearing this speech said many could not recall exactly what was said, Henry’s speech was so passionate and so poignant that it “had produced a great effect” and Jefferson himself “had been highly delighted and moved.”

We cannot forget the writers of that day. Thomas Paine, was just a tailor turned journalist, perhaps a revolutionary version of the modern day blogger. His pamphlet “Common Sense” has been reported to have sold 120,000 copies in the first 3 months and half-million in the first year. John Adams reportedly said, “Without the pen of the author of “Common Sense,” the sword of Washington would have been drawn in vain.”

The women were not silent either. Mercy Otis Warren was just one of our amazing founding mothers. She was a prolific writer of newspaper articles and anti-British propaganda plays. Hannah Winthrop, wife of Dr. Winthrop, describes Mercy in January 1773 as “That noble patriotic spirit which sparkles must warm the heart that has the least sensibilities, especially must it invigorate a mind of a like fellow feeling for this once happy country.”

Through the freedoms of expression, these dear Patriots sparked a revival of Liberty throughout a land that would be soon known as the United States of America. Today is no different. We have Americans with “like fellow feeling for this once happy country” who have picked up the mantle that has been left before us – those that understand that the security of all Liberty rests upon the back of our freedom of expression.

One of the most influential forces in this present restoration effort has been “New Media.” New Media includes the internet, the blogosphere, Facebook, Twitter, talk radio and the like. Probably the biggest pioneers of the New Media have been Rush Limbaugh in the talk radio world and Andrew Breitbart in the blogosphere and grass roots journalism.

Rush has been a thorn in the liberals’ side for decades. Since his talk radio debut in 1984, his pioneering efforts have spawned thousands of talk jocks and laid the foundation for the modern day talk radio juggernaut. Why talk radio works and why it is conservative is simple: it includes the people. There is no public voice or input in the mainstream media. There is no feedback from the people on the nightly news. There is no immediate public voice in newspapers or magazines. There is no input or challenge to what is being disseminated in the mainstream media; therefore, it remains decidedly slanted toward leftist, statist ideology – matching the worldview of it owners and editors. In contrast, when the people are involved, the stance will tend toward conservatism – first, because conservatism is supported by the truth; secondly, because most Americas are truly conservative. That is why liberal talk radio cannot survive unless it is supported by taxpayer dollars. That is also why mainstream media is losing its viewership left and right and has been taken to the woodshed by conservative, new media. It is no wonder that those who cannot stand on the truth hate the free expression of it. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. remarked in the Supreme Court decision in Abrams v. United States , 250 U.S. 616 (1919):

“If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent…or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”

The internet blogosphere provides a response to the monolithic, leftist voice in the echo chamber known as the mainstream media. The late Andrew Breitbart was one of the most impactful figures in this area of new media. Starting as an editor of the Drudge report (another foundational block in New Media) and then helping Arianna Huffington launch her site, Breitbart launched his own empire. With all his BIG sites and his internet journalism, he sparked the ire of seemingly every liberal in the known universe. I once heard Andrew tell a crowd that the key to making the biggest impact is “be petty.” Andrew was funny, brilliant and a tireless and fearless warrior and we must follow on in his footsteps. Every patriot should have a video camera and be a citizen journalist. Andrew used citizen journalism as well as anyone to expose the hypocrisy and nastiness of the left. He believed this was a battle “between good and evil” and he used new media to “shine light on the darkness.” The great thing about video is even if you have no talent to write, you can hold a camera.

Something Andrew Breitbart loved, along millions of other activists, is Social Media. Social media, like Facebook and Twitter, allows super-fast dissemination of information that is not filtered or controlled by some editorial board or other “overseer.” One of the difficulties in the late conservative awakening is that a large portion of the engaged citizens are older and less adept at some of the technologies like Facebook. We must continue to expand our social media networks. It may sound silly, but the more “likes” a page has the more influence and reach it has (same principle with Twitter). We need to get as many conservatives as possible connected on social media. We also need conservatives in the field of Journalism, citizen journalism and professional journalism (it’d be nice if there were a prominent Journalism school somewhere that wasn’t liberal). If you feel yourself a techno misfit, I encourage you to attend a Right Online conference held by American’s for Prosperity. There is no better grassroots techno training available. I have AFP to thank for much of what I know and understand about these new media outlets. It was at the Right Online conference that I got hooked on Twitter. It’s also where I became friends with Andrew Breitbart and Katy Abrams. I met Michelle Malkin and scores of other great patriot activists. AFP does fantastic work at keeping the citizen network connected, motivated and engaged.

We need more tweeters, more Facebookers, more talk show hosts, more bloggers. Keep writing the op-eds. Keep publishing books, newsletters, magazines, and pamphlets. Information is power and we must dislodge the liberal stranglehold on the media. I dream of a day when New York is not the media hub in America. This is the expression of our First Amendment. This God given right can be lost without active participation-we will use it or lose it. At least one of our founders felt it was the most important right protected in the Bill of Rights. Daniel Webster said:

“If all my possessions were taken from me with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of communication, for by it I would soon regain all the rest.”

Show Christmas

UN Treaty, Sea Treaty, Gun Treaty…What Are We to Do?

/in /by

Power to create treaties is established in Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution. The power to create a treaty is delegated by the people to the President with approval of a two thirds vote of the Senate. The Supremacy Clause then states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is so much misunderstanding regarding treaties, the doctrines of the necessary and proper clause, and the general welfare clause, that when you aggregate this misunderstanding our government is able to reach magnificent proportions of corruption and unconstitutional activity. Our founders were very clear and its time we listen to them instead of Congressmen and Judges who have had no training on the true meaning of the Constitution.

The power to create treaties was vested in the President AND the Senate after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation created a federal government so small that it could not successfully complete the tasks it was delegated to accomplish. James Madison explains in Federalist #45 that the power delegated to the federal government was one of very limited proportions:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… (and) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Our federal government was designed to be our national representative to the foreign world; a representative of the country in foreign relations. Because we lived in a world where nations where led by Kings, Czars, and Emperors, we needed to have a way that all the states could have a unified voice for negotiations and commerce. During the Articles of Confederation, our federal government could not collect taxes or even compel the delegates to show up to work and do their job. The federal government was attempting to make agreements with foreign nations and was defaulting on these agreements because they had no authority to enforce them equally throughout the states and the states themselves were suffering the greatest consequences. As reported in The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, written December 12, 1787, this very point was addressed.

“It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. The Congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States.”

So, why were treaties given “supremacy”? The collective decision was made to not only delegate the power of treaties to the President and Senate but to also classify its relevance in enforcement to the states. There was great debate over this issue, as many were concerned that by designating this power, it would elevate the treaties above the very Constitution itself. Fortunate for us, this argument was made, because the rebuttal to this argument is vital in understanding the limitations and scope of treaties. Without these explanations, treaties created by the federal government might justifiably supersede the Constitution. Good thing for us that these treaties, although they may attempt to supplant the Constitution, they are plainly not justified in doing so.

Our founders repeatedly stated that treaties were, for every purpose and application, CONTRACTS, agreements with foreign nations to accomplish the duties obligated in those four delegated powers Madison identified.

“The power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign.” Federalist #75

Although these Contracts were not considered to be a subdivision of laws or even new laws altogether, it was necessary that they were binding upon the states to prevent the failures seen by our founders in the Articles of Confederation.

“These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.” Federalist #64

These treaties were not designed to be untouchable. They were subject to the very same checks and balances of every act of the federal government. They could fail if they didn’t meet the proper standards. One way they could fail is if they attempted to infringe upon or utilize a power that had not been granted to them through the Constitution. They were to be bound and fettered by all the limitations of power inherent in the Constitution through the specific delegated powers and the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses. To us, that statement must sound like an oxymoron; to think that the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses were meant to bind Congress. Because we have become so detached from the founders intent, we have allowed these clauses to become an expansion of power, a consequence that our founders thought an abomination. [The explanation of these clauses are a whole other analysis, but for a complete explanation of the intent of the General Welfare Clause, please read my previously written analysis. I promise you will be shocked at the clarity of our founders’ intent.] So, if a treaty attempted to assume a power that was not previously delegated, for instance to bind upon the states agreement for an object outside of the realm of war, peace, or foreign commerce, it would be deemed unconstitutional.

“–I insisted that in givg to the Prest. & Senate a power to make treaties, the constn meant only to authorize them to carry into effect by way of treaty any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” (sic) –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

“By the general power to make treaties, the constitution must have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated… It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800.

Another limitation imposed by our founders on treaties is that they MUST NOT be in conflict with the Constitution. If a treaty is in direct conflict with, let’s say the Second Amendment, that treaty would be considered unconstitutional. Treaties were established as a supreme law to maintain the credibility and honor of an agreement with a foreign nation, but it was NEVER supposed to be superior to the Constitution. There is no law superior to the Constitution.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. “ Federalist #78

But what are we to do when these treaties fail the tests of Constitutional limitations? I have heard it mentioned that we are stuck with these treaties short of another treaty supplanting them or a Constitutional Amendment. This perspective is not consistent with our founders’ explanations. As a matter of fact, our founders wanted us to know that if a treaty was in opposition to the Constitution, there were significant consequences.

“if they [the President & Senate] act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties?…As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.” Federalist #64

There is no qualification in that statement that this treaty be replaced or a Constitutional Amendment be written. The simple fact of the matter is this treaty would be a “fraudulent contract” and would be of no effect. At this point, the states would be justified Constitutionally to tell the federal government that they will not honor or enforce the treaty. We do not live in a Kingdom and the power of our government is not derived from a King. We do live in a republic and the power of our government is derived from the people. It is always the responsibility of the PEOPLE to be the ultimate check and balance. I think that Alexander Hamilton made this point abundantly clear in Federalist #33:

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. .. would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.” Federalist #33

Every day our federal government seems to operate more and more under the assumption that their power is derived in the manner of a Kingdom, it is essential that the people, from which its true power is derived, stand against this tyranny and restore the balance of power. We cannot do this unless we first understand the exceptional principles under which this nation was established. We cannot do this unless we REQUIRE our representatives to operate under these principles.

Standing Strong Means Standing Together

/in /by

As a Christian and student of the Bible, I can tell you that the Scriptures have no shortage of teachings on the importance of fellowship and mutual support and encouragement. Hebrews 10:25 says Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. I am once again reminded of the importance of fellowship here at the Right Online Conference being held by American’s for Prosperity (AFP). I had the opportunity to speak to Tim Phillips, president of AFP about this issue.

Conservatives do not believe in collectivism, we are individualists by nature. I, for one, have to work hard at being “social”. We are often entrepreneurs, self-motivators, and believe strongly in personal responsibility. So, it is easy for us to forget that we were created to fellowship with one another. That is a dangerous position to be in. When we become isolated, we can become weakened and discouraged.

Anyone who knows even a little about American’s for Prosperity knows that they are a group dedicated to the economic health of our nation. Who hasn’t heard or seen the slogan, “It’s the Spending Stupid?” But for me, the most valuable aspect of these conferences is the networking and bonding that occurs between like-minded activists. I was surprised to discover that particular benefit was not an unintended consequence. Mr. Phillips explained that the initial goal of AFP in having these conferences was to connect activists together and in turn connect them to the movement as a whole. Mr. Phillips explained:

“People perform better when they discover they are working for something bigger than themselves. Teams make people stronger. Even though we are individualists, we need to bond together.”

The scripture I quoted also gives a timely directive, it says “so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” We are bonding together for a reason, for a bigger purpose and that purpose is approaching. We are not happy with the path this nation is on and we are angry at the destruction of Liberty perpetrated by our own government. As the days of destruction are upon us, we must not become isolated and discouraged. As the days become overwhelming the natural instinct is to run away and go “Galt”. Believe me, I know, I have fought those feelings to just stop fighting and search for that “blue pill” and reinsert into the Matrix! But we literally cannot afford to become overwhelmed – our children will suffer the worst. Sam Adams wrote in the Boston Gazette in 1771:

“Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom!” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event!”

We refuse to suffer tamely these assaults upon our Liberty and to succeed we must remain encouraged. Interestingly enough, that word encouraged literally means “to infuse with courage.” The fellowship of like minds works to infuse the patriot in the home and the soldier on the field with a courage that cannot be maintained when isolated and alone. As proof of this principle, AFP tracks the activists who come to their training events. They found that activists who have bonded through the Right Online experience are three times as likely to take action locally.

We have to be a team, an army of activists with the focus of our founders had – putting Liberty First to secure its “Blessings for our posterity.” Mercy Otis Warren said,

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding…May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity…”

We are building an army of patriots in the cabinet and heroes in the field. Anyone who has attended military basic training knows that the most important aspect of any military corps is the loyalty to your brother in arms. Let us not be discouraged or isolated. Let us learn from each other and build each other up in mind and spirit. We are in this foxhole together, if you become discouraged and retreat, I will be left to defend this hill alone. We need to spend just as much time “infusing each other with courage” as we do battling with the enemy.

In spite of our disappointments and frustrations, we must remain resolute. Let’s stay connected with one another, so that we can be infused with the courage to go forward each day. Let’s stand together a strong and formidable force in the name of Liberty, for the sake of our children.