One more precedent for tyranny

From the minute the Affordable Care Act was signed into law it was destined for the Supreme Court. Lower courts are split on the issue, with some contending ObamaCare oversteps federal authority while others accept it as the central government's legitimate function. The stakes will be high when the Supreme Court hears arguments next summer. Either ObamaCare will be scraped, establishing precedent to dismantle years of unconstitutional federal actions, or it will be upheld and liberty will again yield to tyranny.

From a limited government perspective it's difficult to see how the law can stand. The Constitution was written to restrain the central government, insuring it could legally act only within specified guidelines. Yet when courts, which are part of government, are the last arbiters of constitutionality, the guidelines are often blurred. Legalese supplants original intent, ensuring the Constitution lacks solid meaning. Jurisprudence is reduced to a legal playground where obvious liberties and logical conclusions yield to manipulation.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman's recent opinion upholding ObamaCare's individual mandate represents such an abuse of judicial oversight. And lest Silberman's decision be dismissed as another wacky ruling from a pinko judge, understand that he's a Reagan appointee, an associate of Clarence Thomas, and considered a forceful conservative jurist. However, his decision represents nothing liberty can admire. In fact, Silberman's opinion confirms how the federal behemoth consumes those who enter its lair, regardless of said person's original ideals.

Federal authorities -- whether legislators, executives, or judges -- become part of a governing apparatus where there's no benefit in limiting federal power. Fueling the bureaucracy becomes the goal and the central authority is enabled to act as it wills. On page 29 of his ruling Silberman concludes that Congress has the right to force citizens to purchase health insurance under the Commerce Clause. If he's correct, every conceivable economic transaction is subject to congressional oversight. In fact, according to Silberman's opinion, people retain neither economic liberty nor individual rights. We aren't endowed by our Creator with unalienable and self-evident rights, but are granted privilege as the central authority finds pleasure. The entire experiment in self-government is turned upside-down.

Consider Congress' constitutional authority to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states," found in Article 1, Section 8. In Judge Silberman's opinion, "to regulate" means "to adjust by rule or method . . . to direct . . . to order; to command." The definition is technically accurate, prompting Silberman to assume an unlimited ability for Congress to affect commerce, even to the point of forcing citizens to engage in commerce that doesn't yet exist. However, Silberman's opinion flies in the face of the Founder's vision.

James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, would reprimand Judge Silberman. Madison described the federal government's constitutional powers as "few and defined" while recognizing those remaining in state hands as "numerous and indefinite." Madison found Congress' authority to regulate commerce only within its enumerated powers and not beyond. Consider, too, his assessment of the General Welfare clause:

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

If the Framers considered Congress' ability to promote the general welfare constrained only to specifically delegated constitutional authorities, why would they empower Congress to regulate commerce at every turn? The idea is preposterous when liberty is held as a right of human existence. Yet it's perfectly sensible when the purpose is expanding government at freedom's expense.

While Silberman recognizes the Framers' distinction regarding what commerce Congress can regulate (p.29), he invokes judicial precedence to override the Founder's vision. To support the decision he writes, "Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last century has largely eroded that [the Framer's] distinction." What should be apparent is the lack of judicial authority to amend the Constitution through convenient interpretation and erroneous application.

Doubtful Judge Silberman meant to highlight a problem inherent to judicial activism, yet he did just that. Relying on precedent involves a fatal flaw. If one foolish ruling precedes a second foolish ruling, a foolish precedent is established. Subsequent rulings based on the foolish precedent will necessarily be of equal or greater folly. Precedent is therefore no substitute for original language when ruling on constitutional matters. Ironically, Silberman cites one of the most foolish, anti-liberty precedents in U.S. history to support his ruling.

According to Silberman, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirms Congress' power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. Filburn, a farmer, violated federal law when he grew more than his allotted quota of wheat, not for open sale but for his family and livestock. The Court unanimously upheld the law under the pretense that had Filburn not grown the excess wheat he would've purchased it on the open market. His action contradicted Congress' interest in preserving the national wheat price and supposed authority to stimulate commerce. Remember, foolish precedent equals foolish rulings, and foolish rulings produce foolish regulations.

If Congress can force the public to purchase health insurance because health care affects the overall economy, it can force the public to purchase anything. Automobile sales affect GDP. Can Congress then compel a citizen to buy a car? Can Congress also force an individual to buy a subsidized model from a subsidized manufacturer, say a Chevrolet Volt? Under such a pretence, the economic decisions the central government can force upon the public are infinite.

What's more, in light of Silberman's ruling based on Wickard v. Filburn, there's no private act government cannot manage. A homeowner has no right to remodel their residence due to the work's affect on the construction market. A car owner has no right to perform maintenance due to the affect on repair businesses. A landowner can't even grow tomatoes for personal consumption without undermining produce prices. Every economic act becomes a matter of privilege rather than right. The Court's decision on ObamaCare thus carries implications far beyond health insurance. At issue is whether citizens enjoy inalienable rights or the federal government holds unlimited authority.

Rejecting the individual mandate would undo a century of federal expansion based on foolish judicial precedent. Rulings like Wickard v. Filburn would be exposed as twaddle and the concept of constitutionally limited government would gain a foothold. Overturning ObamaCare means far more than overturning ObamaCare. It offers a sliver of hope that liberty has not perished.

Upholding federal authority to force individuals to buy government approved products is yet another blow to freedom. The foolish precedent will become further entrenched and every American will suffer as a result.

The stakes are high. The Legislative and Executive branches, combined with a generally complicit Judicial branch, have placed the Framers great experiment in self-government on life support. The question is whether the Supreme Court will establish a new trend based on liberty or follow the century-old precedent toward greater tyranny.

Anwar al-Awlaki's death spurs 5th Amendment debate

Anwar al-Awlaki's death has stirred an interesting debate. Can we celebrate his departure as one less al-Qaeda operative? Or, should we lament the killing of an American citizen abroad as another step on the slippery slope toward domestic tyranny?

The slippery slope argument doesn't lack precedent. Governments are notorious for targeting their own citizens. Nazi Germany systematically eliminated Jewish citizens, Stalin's Soviet Union imposed a famine on Ukraine, and Chairman Moa oversaw millions of Chinese deaths. Just this year Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Libya have trained government guns on their own people, killing them without trial. There's no denying the dangers of a government that recognizes no bounds.

However, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment forces our government to recognize boundaries, specifically that no one can be deprived of life without due process. So, how does the Fifth Amendment square with Awlaki's death? Despite living in Yemen, Awlaki was American born and a U.S. citizen. Does his death establish the assassination of American citizens as standard federal procedure? One such death certainly doesn't place our government on par with history's most brutal regimes. But there are questions. Liberties and safeguards lost or surrendered are seldom regained.

Awlaki was an inflammatory critic of the United States. If he can be denied due process and killed because government leaders don't approve of his positions, could it lead to other Americans becoming government targets? If so, we're in grave danger. Pro-life activists and Second Amendment purists could be declared enemies of the state. Advocates for state's rights and a limited federal government would surely run afoul of the central authority. Should they be eliminated?

Anwar al-Awlaki's activities were certainly detestable. He was an al-Qaeda recruiter and jihad preacher who incited radicalism against the United States. But the Fifth Amendment question remains. Awlaki was an American citizen and his life was snuffed without due process of law. There've been other notorious Americans -- Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber -- who weren't killed without trial. What makes Awlaki different from them?

American citizens retain their constitutional protections whether they're home or abroad. Numerous Americans have engaged in questionable activities while overseas, including former President Jimmy Carter. None became missile targets. In fact, not even al-Qaeda operatives in the United States have been denied due process, as Awlaki allegedly was. Two Minnesota women suspected of raising funds and recruiting fighters for the Somali jihad group al-Shabab were recently arrested, not bombed.

However, one key factor has thus far been ignored. One of the central government's fundamental functions is to address threats to the citizenry. If government lacks either the ability or the will to defend the nation it cannot maintain the security necessary for liberty to flourish. Therefore, common sense establishes a line beyond which threats to security must be eliminated, even when posed by U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki crossed that line.

There are stark differences between mere rabble-rousers and someone like Awlaki. The fact that Awlaki left the United States doesn't mark him for death. But he left his country for a region where a recognized enemy is known to reside for the purpose of joining and aiding their cause. Essentially, Awlaki chose to become an enemy fighter.

Awlaki actively recruited al-Qaeda operatives with his radical doctrines and sermons. His résumé includes the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Bomber, and the failed Times Square bomb plot. No doubt a rouge government could manipulate evidence to cast suspicions on someone it would prefer to eliminate. But there's no need for cloak and dagger conspiracies in Awlaki's case. His decision to become a foreign enemy made him a legitimate target.

Anwar al-Awlaki's fiery departure didn't compromise our Fifth Amendment right to due process. The deaths of Randy Weaver's wife and David Koresh at the hands of federal authorities were much more troublesome to the cause of liberty than Awlaki's.

The dividing line between an imaginary enemy of the state, someone targeted solely for speech or activities the state doesn't approve, and a genuine enemy of the nation is quite clear. If we fail to see that truth it's simply because we choose to ignore it.

Debating the strategic value in Awlaki's death is an endless argument. But he wasn't killed because he didn't blindly support the federal government. He wasn't killed because he criticized America's foreign or domestic policies, or because his religion was strange, or because he was a quirky hermit on a mountaintop. Awlaki was killed because he left his country to voluntarily join an identified enemy whose hostilities toward the United States are well-documented. He was a legitimate target and the Fifth Amendment needn't shed a tear at his wake.

Bearing no faith or allegiance to the Constitution

Before taking a seat in Congress, all elected Senators and Representatives must swear an oath of office. In summary, they are required to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, bearing full faith and allegiance to our nation's foundational law. Their oath confirms their willingness to bear these duties freely and without reservation. It seems the vow was changed when the people weren't looking.

Too many members of Congress, predominately the Democrats, regard the Constitution as an obstacle, not as a sacrosanct document they must support and defend. They bear little faith, and less allegiance, to its directives. The Constitution, now a "living" document, has devolved into a legislative and bureaucratic playground where anything goes. Alleged representatives have decreed the federal government above the restraints imposed by a 200-year-old parchment. There are no constraints, no delegated federal powers, and no reservation of non-delegated powers for the states and the people. Anyone who dares question Congress' obvious contempt for the Constitution is dismissed as a crackpot.

Our once-revered Constitution is now reserved for political grandstanding and posturing. Otherwise, it's increasingly irrelevant to the central government's actions. Federal disdain for the Founding Father's crowning achievement was thoroughly displayed during the debt ceiling debate. Rep. James Clyburn, a high-ranking but woefully inept Democrat from South Carolina, encouraged President Obama to "sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment" to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, bypassing Congress altogether. His colleagues reportedly applauded his proposal.

Ironically, Clyburn and his political kin once condemned a president for usurping congressional authority. That president was accused of going to war unilaterally, ignoring Congress' power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The accusations were pure demagoguery. U.S. troops weren't deployed to either theater, Afghanistan or Iraq, via presidential decree. Congress voted on both wars, expressly granting authority to the president to use military force as he deemed necessary.

The same legislators who falsely accused a previous Executive of abridging congressional authority encouraged the current Executive to do just that. Politics, not principles or delegated duties, drove these legislators' interest. The Constitution, and their oath to uphold it, became an afterthought. The disingenuous nature of James Clyburn and his ilk is thereby established. But are their claims about the 14th Amendment accurate? Does the Constitution enable the Executive to raise the nation's debt ceiling arbitrarily?

Sen. Barbara Boxer agreed with Clyburn. "As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge every American to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned."

Boxer is correct in one regard. We should read our Constitution, all of it, especially the 14th Amendment. There, in Section Four, are Boxer's words, but only in part. Predictably, she hasn't born full faith and allegiance to the document. The Constitution's language regarding the public debt doesn't support her position, so she simply ignored the words she found politically inexpedient.

The 14th Amendment indeed addresses "the validity of the public debt of the United States." However, that debt must be "authorized by law." Raising the debt ceiling naturally increases the government's access to revenue. Therefore, to be authorized by law, any attempt to increase the federal government's ability to borrow must arise in the House of Representatives in order to comply with Article 1, Section 7. Furthermore, according to Article 1, Section 8, "Congress shall have power . . . to pay the debts of the United States" and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."

The 14th Amendment itself grants the President no authority to increase the nation's indebtedness by a single penny, or to secure debt in any manner. Section Five of the 14th Amendment explicitly entrusts authority for enforcing the article's provisions to Congress, not to the presidency. The President can do nothing in regard to the public debt of his own volition. In fact, neither the President nor the Executive branch is mentioned in the 14th Amendment's text, save for the recognition of voting rights.

I hope Sen. Boxer is satisfied. I read my Constitution and found her in utter violation of both the document's spirit and language. She, Rep. Clyburn, and their nefarious left wing cabal are totally ignorant of the Constitution's division of powers and authorities, or they've born untrue faith and allegiance to the same in blatant violation of their oath of office. Barbara Boxer, James Clyburn and their cohorts should be expelled from Congress. So should any Senator or Representative, regardless of party or ideology, who so disregards their oath.

The Legislative Branch is far too comfortable shifting their constitutional duties to the Executive Branch, when it's politically convenient. Such an arrangement, allowing a single public officer to make key decisions, may expedite government activity. But it's not how representative government functions. It's dictatorial, pure tyranny. The Founders designed our Constitution to restrain the central government, compelling it to move deliberately. It should never be unfettered and able to act on the whims of a single authority.

Our representative republic is in perilous condition. By and large, congressional delegates possess contempt for the Constitution they've sworn to uphold, and for the electorate they represent. Too many Representatives and Senators care nothing about constitutional checks on federal authority, the separation of powers, or their responsibility to the public's trust. They pledge loyalty to a document they haven't the slightest intention of honoring, making them liars from the moment they utter "So help me God." Yet they have the audacity to lecture the population as if we're ignorant or irresponsible.

Our Senators and Representatives, especially Barbara Boxer and James Clyburn, should read the Constitution. It's past time they bore full faith and allegiance to its principles, as their oath demands. Said oath of office has not changed. If Congress members honor their vow they can remain the people's delegates in a representative republic. If not, they are despicable tyrants who should be removed from office without delay.

This article first appeared at American Thinker.

Cap, Cut and Balance was preferable, but still flawed

If there were an elephant in your swimming pool would you need to call attention to it? An elephant is difficult to miss and impossible to intentionally ignore. So the problem isn’t in realizing the elephant’s presence, but in removing it from the pool. Federal debt presents a similar predicament, dominating an economy like an elephant does a swimming pool. The question is what can be done about the debt elephant?

One idea for addressing Washington’s spendthrift habits is a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Theoretically, under constitutional mandate the federal government would be forced to balance annual expenditures with receipts. However, requiring the federal government to balance the budget and forcing it to control spending are quite different.

A balanced budget amendment without spending controls is a disaster in the making. Once ratified, politicians who favor tax hikes could argue the Constitution mandates tax increases to meet projected spending levels. To be useful, a balanced budget amendment must respect the Constitution’s spirit of limited government.

Cap, Cut and Balance addressed the fear of constitutionally imposed tax increases. Modeled after H.J.RES.1, it limited federal spending to 18-percent of GDP, required a supermajority to raise taxes, and introduced a balanced budget amendment to the states. With egregious taxation and federal spending limited, a balanced budget amendment could finally fulfill the promise its proponents have long claimed.

Of course, optimism plays well in an ideal world. Reality is far from ideal. Cap, Cut and Balance passed the House with relative ease. But it had no chance to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate and would never have escaped Obama’s veto pen. Democrats will support nothing more than token spending reductions. Thus any compromise on a balanced budget amendment would lack spending controls, making it a constitutional mandate for tax increases. Such a scenario would suit Democrats just fine.

But problems existed even in the House version of Cap, Cut and Balance. It would’ve increased the debt ceiling by 18-percent, to $16.7 trillion. To put that number in perspective, consider each dollar as one second in time and do the math. A $16.7 trillion debt equals 529,553 years. Chew on that number, if you can do so without choking. Furthermore, a balanced budget amendment would have, at best, only symbolic effect until ratified by 38 states (U.S. Constitution, Article V). Before the proposed amendment could become part of the Constitution the debt ceiling could be raised several more times.

Was Cap, Cut and Balance mere political theatrics, a distraction orchestrated to divert the public’s attention from the federal elephant in the swimming pool? Or did it represent action toward curing Washington’s debt addiction? Actually, it was both. While easily the lesser of all current evils, Cap, Cut and Balance remained flawed nonetheless.

Romney pleads the Tenth

Mitt Romney’s candidacy boasts several strengths. He is a successful businessman, an accomplished politician, and an articulate speaker. Romney is also perceived as economically conservative. In addition to those qualities he is photogenic, which is more essential to contemporary office seekers than a coherent platform. But Romney has drawbacks as well.

Some of Romney’s flaws aren’t actually flaws, such as Mitt’s oft-criticized Mormon beliefs. Pundits contend America isn’t ready for a Latter Day Saint president. That argument is familiar, and erroneous. Experts made the same case against a Catholic president just before America elected JFK, and against a black president before Obama. Thus Romney’s Mormonism is a moot point.

An equally empty argument concerns Romney’s lineage. Mitt’s Mormon ancestors practiced polygamy. However, Romney has been married to one wife since 1969. His “family values” appear impeccable. Mitt is no more a polygamist via ancestral link than a descendant of Jefferson Davis is a slaveholder. His heritage, too, is a moot point.

A legitimate criticism of Romney is his indecisiveness, as columnist Steve Chapman alleges in a recent editorial. Chapman’s main contention is Mitt’s willingness to change position at the drop of a hat and then deny having done so. Indeed Romney has a history of being a walking contradiction. He tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race. Once pro-choice, Romney became pro-life. Once in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms, he became pro-gun. Yet to become pro-life and pro-gun are solid conservative changes.

Romney’s true Achilles Heel isn’t indecisiveness, religion, or heritage. It’s the Massachusetts healthcare overhaul he fostered. One of the key arrows in a conservative’s anti-Obama quiver is opposing ObamaCare. Can Romney distance himself from his Massachusetts system, after which ObamaCare was modeled? He can and he has. Furthermore, Romney’s defense is based on solid, conservative, pro-Constitution grounds.

Romney has cited the Tenth Amendment in reconciling Massachusetts’ healthcare plan with his criticism of ObamaCare. He contends the Constitution grants the central government no authority to deliver or mandate health coverage, nor does it prevent states from doing so. Thus Romney’s state program is defensible while Obama’s federal program is not.

Granted, the conservative position is to remove government entirely from healthcare, making Romney’s Tenth Amendment defense a technicality. But Romney can claim to have acted in the interests of Massachusetts. This position doesn’t necessarily defend government managed healthcare, but rather the right of each state to experiment with laws that fit the citizens’ desires. Favorable laws are retained while unfavorable ones are repealed. The entire nation suffered no loss of liberty under RomneyCare, as it will with ObamaCare.

Mitt Romney is a politician first and may be blowing smoke with his Tenth Amendment stance. But any candidate who makes a Constitutional argument for state sovereignty should please conservatives. To reject Romney’s defense entirely is to repudiate the principle of limited government and state sovereignty upon which our nation was created.

Outraged or shocked at Casey Anthony verdict? Think again!

Social media is abuzz with condemnations for Casey Anthony. Celebrities are tweeting their outrage while media pundits from Joy Behar to Bill O’Reilly air their displeasure with the Anthony verdict. The court of public opinion had Anthony convicted and all but executed. Anger toward Casey Anthony united this country like nothing since Pearl Harbor. How could the jury disagree with the majority? But disagree they did.

The prosecution couldn’t produce sufficient evidence to erase the jury’s reasonable doubt about how Caylee Anthony died, or at whose hand. So Casey will go free, in complete agreement with America’s judicial system.

We the people empower the State to execute offending citizens, or imprison them for life. To balance that power, the State must bear the burden of establishing guilt. Were accusation, or public opinion, the primary evidence for determining a person's guilt the right to life, our most basic liberty, wouldn't exist. A State-induced, mob mentality would serve America no better than it did Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Islamic caliphates.

Yet the calls for Casey Anthony’s head are myriad. From Twitter to Facebook the protests rage, virtual vigils are held, and Casey Anthony is strapped into an imaginary electric chair. She knows whether or not she killed her daughter. But the State didn’t prove her guilt to the jury’s satisfaction. So Casey will be freed. There is no appeal, no re-trail. She cannot be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial. I think publicly airing criminal proceedings cheapens our courts and transforms them into quasi-reality dog and pony shows. Courts are serious, not a judicial version of American Idol. Their purpose is to try the charged and determine guilt or innocence to the greatest degree possible within an imperfect, human system. Most of the time they work. Sometimes they fail. That’s life; get over it. When courts become public entertainment they’re no longer tools of justice and tranquility, but of tyranny.

Nothing in Casey Anthony’s acquittal indicates she is guiltless. Casey prefers partying to parenting. She’s a maternal nightmare, similar to Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, and exceeds the Octomom for irresponsibility. She’s no matron of motherhood. But for many of Anthony’s detractors, condemning her for considering Caylee an inconvenience is somewhat hypocritical. Why is a child’s death, for the sake of convenience, considered evil only when it offends the public?

More than a million babies die for the sake of their mother’s convenience every year. Had Casey Anthony aborted Caylee she would’ve been a heroine to the pro-abortion activist. The only difference between Casey Anthony’s alleged crime and an aborted pregnancy is the timing. The underlying attitude is the same. At least Caylee’s accused killer stood trial. Where’s the media, celebrity, and public outrage for the unknown babies sacrificed to convenience in abortion clinics every day?

Another interesting twist on the Anthony verdict is the eagerness with which her detractors want her punished. The nation is angry at Casey Anthony. Therefore, she should fry like scrambled eggs. But the condemnations contradict the normal attitudes our social superiors have towards accused, and even convicted, murderers.

Many of Casey’s harshest critics are altogether opposed to capital punishment. When an accused murderer is convicted, activists demand tolerance regardless of either the perpetrator’s brutality or prior record. Social activists excuse duly convicted murderers as products of an unjust society. They piously remind those of us in the great unwashed about the danger of executing an innocent person, even when the condemned has been tried and found as guilty as John Dillinger.

Those voices are quiet in the Casey Anthony aftermath. Or, they have joined the self-righteous calls for Casey’s guilt and execution. And they hold this opinion about someone who was tried and exonerated in criminal court? It's a double standard that defies all reason.

Blatant inconsistencies are evident in the public's reaction to Casey Anthony acquittal. The State didn’t convince a jury of Casey’s guilt, meaning she's innocent. Calling for her head is an affront to our fundamental liberty. Abortion activists believe pregnancies represent an inconvenience to women. Yet they're angry toward Casey Anthony for, allegedly, considering Caylee a drain on her lifestyle. And “open-minded” opponents of executing duly convicted murderers are convinced that an exonerated defendant should bite the dust.

The nation's reaction to Casey Anthony's exoneration confirms that a lack of consistency is the only constant in contemporary public discourse.

Sarah Palin, the media, and the First Amendment

The Constitution’s First Amendment clearly and properly protects the press from government intrusion. However, does the First Amendment allow reporters to ignore laws, or guarantee their access to a citizen’s every move? Ask Sarah Palin.

Palin recently made news for reasons other than her unusual version of Paul Revere’s ride. The controversy centered on her One Nation Tour, whose bus drivers apparently didn’t win any safe driving awards. Palin’s drivers ran red lights, recklessly exceeded speed limits, and changed lanes without signaling.

Ignoring traffic laws isn’t best practice, but it’s hardly unique. Drive a mile on the nation’s highways and you’ll witness similar, or worse, disregard for traffic laws. The question is, why reporters are so familiar with the One Nation Tour’s driving habits? If you answered, “The reporters were doing the same things,” take a gold star.

Reporters committed the same traffic violations for which they criticized Palin’s troupe. Even while describing the experience as “harrowing,” reporters remained quite blind to their own role in creating dangerous situations. Even in today’s warped social climate, where traditional standards are deemed passé, two wrongs still won’t make a right. Reporters are no more immune from traffic laws than are Palin’s bus drivers.

However, reporters excused their part in creating a “rolling menace” as the price required for keeping pace with Palin. Palin’s advisors failed to divulge the tour’s schedule. Lacking the itinerary, reporters had no alternative but to trail the One Nation Tour at all cost. What a load of bull!

The lack of an itinerary provides no excuse for reporters to exacerbate the traffic dangers blamed on Palin. In fact, the media is just as guilty as the Palin entourage, if not more. The media’s zeal to cover Palin is predicated not on idealistic notions of journalistic integrity or public disclosure but on the hope she will commit an embarrassing faux pas. What’s more, the media has no right of access to Sarah Palin’s itinerary.

“But the fourth estate has an obligation to keep tabs on politicians, government figures, and candidates,” journalists may counter. I agree; that’s why the Constitution recognizes the free press. The media should scrutinize everyone who fills, or seeks to fill, public positions. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”

But Palin isn’t filling a public trust. She is no longer the Republican nominee for Vice President, the Governor of Alaska, or the Mayor of Wasilla. Sarah Palin hasn’t declared her interest in any public office either. She’s a media personality no doubt. But she isn’t a public official whose decisions can directly affect our liberty. Anyone who patronizes her does so voluntarily. Therefore, reporters have as much right to your local barber’s itinerary as they do Sarah Palin’s.

It’s truly amazing the lengths to which the media will go to cover every movement of a woman they routinely label as the world’s biggest idiot. If Sarah Palin is as dumb and irrelevant as the media claims, why cover her tour at all? Why not simply let her go her way in anonymity? Such an approach, if adopted, might cause reporters to miss an opportunity to portray Palin as the total loon they believe her to be. No wonder she didn’t grant journalists access to her itinerary.

Reporting on the whereabouts of celebrities -- and Palin is a celebrity -- isn’t the reason the First Amendment protects the free press. The media’s right to investigate politicians and bureaucrats who directly affect America’s liberty is unquestionable. Should Palin again seek or assume a public trust, she’ll become fair game. Until then the media enjoys no First Amendment access to her agenda and no right of any kind to mimic poor driving habits.

The case of Lindsay Graham vs. Free Speech

All rise! The Court of Historical Accuracy is now in session, the Honorable First Amendment presiding. The Court will entertain arguments in the case of Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) vs. Free Speech. At issue is the protected status and free application of speech during wartime.

Sen. Graham, hereafter the Prosecution, alleges free speech is invalid when it denigrates a national enemy. The Prosecution reserves belief in free speech, but also claims said speech must be approved in order to be free. In summary, Prosecution alleges, “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Free Speech, hereafter the Defense, intends to prove that free speech indeed protected derogatory attitudes toward America’s World War II enemies. The Defense calls as its first witness Moe Howard, Curly Howard, and Larry Fine, a.k.a. the Three Stooges, in You Nazty Spy.

The Three Stooges displayed no fear of inspiring der Fuhrer, his Nazi regime, or the Axis in general. In You Nazty Spy they satirized dictatorships, Hitler’s rise to power, and the gullibility of the entire population of “Moronica,” which represented pre-war Germany.

Your Honor, the Defense contends that Moronica’s Dictator Moe Hailstone (Hitler), Field Marshal Curly Gallstone (Goering), and Propaganda Minister Larry Pebble (Geobbels) could’ve offended and thus inspired Nazi Germany. The Defense will also prove that You Nazty Spy wasn’t an isolated example of uncensored speech during World War II.

The Defense calls as its second witness the same Three Stooges in I’ll Never Heil Again.

Dictator Hailstone and his henchmen broke treaties and double-crossed allies, just as Hitler did to Chamberlain and Stalin. I’ll Never Heil Again bristles with jabs at the Nazi regime and “der Fuhrer” himself. Hailstone and Moronica’s allies fight over the world, with the Japanese representative taking frequent snapshots during the melee.

Your Honor, the Defense submits Moronica as de facto Nazi Germany and Hailstone’s dictatorship as personifying the Hitler regime. The Defense argues the Three Stooges did willfully and with forethought mock and ridicule both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, that these entities were enemies of the United States, and that the Three Stooges’ actions could’ve inspired enemy forces. Furthermore, since the Three Stooges’ testimony was filmed, distributed, and viewed during the World War II era and remains available 70 years after the fact, free speech protects similar conduct today. Your Honor, the Defense also charges the Prosecution with intentionally misleading the public about the application of free speech during wartime, past and present.

The Prosecution has maliciously revised history and perpetrated fraud to cause the public to doubt their memories. In summation, the Defense believes the Three Stooges’ testimony verifies the validity of Free Speech and the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of Sen. Graham. Defense requests that Graham answer perjury charges in the Court of Public Opinion.

The Defense rests.

Sen. Lindsay Graham: Fool, liar, or historically ignorant?

During a recent appearance on Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) addressed free speech in relation to the current war effort. Apparently, words and activities that could incite or motivate an enemy are beyond the First Amendment's protection. Government can then silence such speech. Frankly, that is a foolish and utterly un-American idea. But it isn't as foolish as Graham's use of World War II to justify his position. "During World War II," Graham explained, "you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy."

Such a claim would be news to the World War II generation, who weren't the least bit concerned with whether or not their attitudes inspired their enemies. In fact, they went out of their way to denigrate the Nazis and the Japanese at every opportunity.

Has Sen. Graham never seen a poster from the WW II era? Those posters appeared throughout the United States and they were anything but complimentary toward the Germans and the Japanese.

One WW II poster depicts the Axis powers firing on Jesus Christ as he hangs on the cross. On another poster a Nazi is thrusting his bayonet through the Holy Bible. An anti-Japanese poster displayed the "Tokio Kid" (Misspelled intentionally?) with slanted eyes, big teeth, round eyeglasses, and devilishly pointed ears. A war bonds promotion poster shows an aggressive Japanese soldier holding an all-American girl at knifepoint. The caption reads, "Keep this horror from your home."

Inciting? I think so. Obviously, Sen. Graham hasn't paid much attention to WW II posters. He must not have watched cartoons, either. A wide array of animated characters, from Popeye to Donald Duck, took turns poking the Axis in the eye.

In Daffy the Commando, Daffy Duck took on a ranting Nazi officer and his bumbling subordinate, Shultz. In one scene the German commander springs to attention and shouts "Heil Hitler" when a skunk crosses his path. After making a total mockery of the Nazi army Daffy drops in on a Hitler speech and conks der Fuehrer on the head with a mallet.

Popeye the Sailor deployed to the Pacific Theatre in You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap. He tangles with two stereotypical Japanese sailors, each with a penchant for treachery. The Japanese promise peace, but attack Popeye when he turns his back. A not-so-subtle reference to Pearl Harbor, perhaps? Popeye eventually eats his spinach and gives an entire Japanese battlewagon a thorough whipping. You’re a Sap, Mr. Jap poked fun at everything Japanese from their manufacturing quality to their doctrine of honorable suicide. It ended with the Rising Sun being "flushed" in the ocean.

In Her Honor the Mare, Popeye's nephews disguise a horse as a house painter to sneak the nag into the house. The "painter" looks like Hitler -- an obvious insult to Adolf's artistic aspirations -- with the face drawn on the horse's backside. Sen. Graham can draw his own conclusions about inspiring the enemy. But to me, the animators were calling Hitler a horse's ass.

Walt Disney joined the anti-Axis animation parade with Der Fuehrer's Face, in which Donald Duck dreams about living in the Third Reich. The cartoon begins with an unflattering Nazi marching band and a song that resembles someone breaking wind "right in der Fuehrer's Face." Everything in Donald’s home is a tribute to the Nazi police state and he’s forced, at bayonet point, to read Mein Kampf. Then it's off to work for Donald, where he'll "Heil Hitler" in forced servitude at a Nazi munitions factory. The cartoon ends with Hitler being hit in the face with a tomato.

None of these print and animated insults could’ve provoked the enemy? Senator Graham is either ignorant of this nation's attitude toward our enemies during the Second World War, a complete fool, or a dastardly liar. Choose the lesser of the evils, if there is a lesser between ignorance, foolishness and dishonesty. Whichever you choose, there is one certainty; free speech wasn't limited so as to avoid inspiring the Germans and the Japanese. In fact, the Greatest Generation reveled in insulting their enemies at every opportunity and their war ended just fine.

The good guys won World War II, in case Senator Graham needs reminding. There were no focus group plans for appeasing our adversaries. Victory didn’t come from seeking common ground with Hirohito or proving to the Nazis how we meant no harm to their Fuehrer and his concentration camps. We won because we put victory above the nonsensical notion that offending our enemy was off-limits.

Sen. Graham isn’t ignorant of America’s attitudes toward the Axis powers. But he’ll promote a historically false perspective and believe Americans are foolish enough to accept his dishonesty.

America’s Black Monday

On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Constitution and American jurisprudence from which we’ve yet to recover. That was the day when seven black-robed justices overstepped their authority and plucked a right to abortion from the 14th Amendment, where no such right had previously existed.

Wading through judicial opinions is taxing even for those schooled in law and legal precedent. For the rest of us, we have about as much chance to comprehend this maze of legalese and obscure rulings as we do of deciphering faded Egyptian hieroglyphics. The endless references and cross-references confuse with regularity, even if not intentionally meant to do so. Yet even the slightest diligence, research and application of common sense will reveal Roe v. Wade for the fallacy it is.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade alleged that Texas’ abortion laws, as they existed in 1971, violated privacy guarantees found in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. While there’s no doubt that Americans enjoy the privacy and freedom to determine their sexual activities--we owe deference not to governments but to Divine Authority or personal conscience for our intimate choices--there’s neither reference nor inference to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. That would necessarily include the cited amendments. The U.S. Constitution therefore grants no authority to the federal government to act on the matter of abortion.

One may attempt to form a case for federal oversight based on the authority to regulate interstate commerce found in the Constitution’s Article One, Section Eight, a clause already bastardized beyond imagination. But in the Roe complaint there was no interstate commerce to regulate, rendering even an oblique application of the commerce clause a moot point.

Abortion is not a subject in which the federal government enjoys authority to speak, regulate, or legislate. The Constitution’s silence becomes each state’s gain. The Tenth Amendment explicitly grants authority to the states or to the people in all areas where the central government is not specifically authorized to act. Therefore Texas, and all other states, reserves the right to regulate abortion to whatever extent represents the ideals, perceptions and morals of their citizens.

Ample precedence existed before the fateful Roe v. Wade decision to support the state’s rights view on abortion regulation. Each state had governed abortion as it saw fit for well over a century before the Supreme Court inserted itself into the equation. As Justice William Rehnquist cited in Section II of his dissent:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

There was no longstanding precedence affirming abortion as a fundamental human liberty that would warrant Court action in its defense. A right to abort a pregnancy is not a self-evident truth, as is the right to speak freely, to petition the government, or to bear arms in protection of self, family and liberty. Ironically, these latter liberties--all essential--are under constant assault from the very factions that consider abortion rights an integral part of a document in which no such right appears.

The fact that states had possessed authority over abortion law until the Roe decision further refutes the idea of abortion being a fundamental constitutional liberty. States had exercised regulatory authority over the performance of abortions since prior to the Civil War, which necessarily meant before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It cannot be said that the drafters of said Amendment then intended to remove from the states authority over subjects not addressed in its language.

One of the chief arguments Roe supporters present is the need for easy abortion to protect a mother’s life. On the surface this reasoning has validity. There’s no doubt that each person owns their life--at least in relation to their government and fellow man--and cannot be legislated into surrendering that life without due process of law. This is essential to liberty and enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, only pure ignorance on the part of abortion supporters can justify citing the protection of the mother’s life in defense of Roe.

The Texas law that Roe v. Wade overturned did not outlaw abortions under all circumstances. That reality circumvents the most cited argument for abortions, if indeed protecting the mother’s life is the Roe supporters’ prime concern, which is debatable. The overturned Texas statute, enacted in 1857, provided for an abortive remedy when the mother’s life was at risk. Thus the pro-abortion “life of the mother” argument is rendered moot, for no mother’s life was jeopardized by the Texas law. This fact was recognized not in the Rehnquist dissent but in Section 1 of Blackmun’s majority decision.

Another of Blackmun’s rationale seems equally contradictory. In Section VI (4), Blackmun cited English law in evidence for his opinion. The British Parliament had passed legislation in 1967 that greatly liberalized the use of abortion as a medical treatment. In addition to protecting the mother’s life, the British law also took into account the mother’s physical and mental health as well as the prospects of both for the fetus. In other words, the British legislated in favor of abortion on demand. Blackmun basically inserted the British law into the U.S. legal system, subverting state authority and the legislative process.

Abortion remains a divisive issue mainly because of Blackmun’s activism. Notice that the British altered their abortion laws through their elected representatives. The various states comprising the United States saw their abortion laws altered by judicial diktat. The American people had no voice whatsoever in the direction an issue of such moral, personal and religious sensitivity would progress. It was imposed sans the consent of the governed, a fundamental overstep of judicial and federal authority.

The best avenue for addressing the abortion issue to everyone’s satisfaction is to overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. The ruling represents a poor application of the Constitution, if indeed the states have sovereign authority over all powers not delegated to the central government nor constitutionally prohibited to the states and the people. And they do, for although the Tenth Amendment is routinely compromised and ignored, it hasn’t been repealed.

Without Roe v. Wade each state enjoys sovereign authority to establish abortion protocols representative of their citizens’ moral and ethical conscience. Under such a scenario people can move to a state where their positions are adequately represented, whether their views on abortion side with the Southern Baptist Convention or the National Organization of Women. Under the current condition, everyone must live under the onerous decision rendered by Blackmun and his six activist colleagues.

Abortion law under Roe v. Wade does not reflect the consent of the governed. It represents the tyranny of the judiciary and it’s wholly at odds with both the concept of a free people and the idea of a representative republic of sovereign states.

Reading the Constitution was a worthwhile stunt

Considering Washington’s modus operandi anything that happens in the District warrants a grain of salt. In the last ten years Republicans spent money and expanded federal power in ways that would’ve made previous Democrat leaders green with envy. Their profligacy allowed Democrats to paint the GOP as a party of big spenders, helping Democrats to victory in ‘06 and ‘08.

However, the spendthrift methods the GOP had employed apparently didn’t sit well with the Democrats. Upon regaining government’s reigns they set out to prove that Republicans remained, by comparison, the party of limited government and fiscal sanity. Thus neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are as good as their rhetoric, making cynicism a proper response to Washington theatrics.

With both parties growing government and its related red ink, it’s perfectly normal to dismiss the House’s reading of the U.S. Constitution as a publicity stunt. Were Republicans simply catering to budget hawks and Tea Party activists while Democrats were trying to prove that they realize the Constitution exists? Both accounts are likely. But if the Constitution’s vocalization was a self-serving political stunt, it was a worthwhile stunt. Let’s look at three reasons why.

Foremost, the Regressive Left’s outright contempt for the supreme doctrine of American government was prominently displayed. Liberal-leaning media commentators referred to supporters of our founding document as possessing a fetish. Sure, some Democrats participated in the reading. But some found nits to pick or other things to do. And really, there’s little wonder that leftists aren’t enthused about reading the Constitution.

The Constitution, as written, limit’s the central government’s authority, clearly defining the areas where Congress can exercise its due influence and where it cannot. Regressives think big government is good and bigger government is better, thus ignoring the Constitution makes perfect sense for them. Conversely, conservatives believe that the government governs best when it governs least. If that makes for a Constitution fetish then label me a pervert and we’ll continue.

Another reason to applaud the Constitution’s reading is because it forced ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (yes, everyone realizes she’s the ex-Speaker, but I love using the phrase) to acknowledge the document. Last year, following the healthcare debate, a reporter asked then-Speaker Pelosi what part of the Constitution authorized Congress to provide or require healthcare coverage. She became incredulous. However, the reporter’s question was serious and reflected the views of many Americans. Pelosi learned that lesson last November.

Granted, reading even a small segment of the Constitution is to Pelosi what holy water is to Count Dracula. And merely reading the words will do nothing to reshape her collectivist mind. But at least she’s been forced to publicly recognize the document before her next premeditated subversion.

A third reason this stunt makes sense it because it reminds Congress that it’s a representative body and not the U.S. House of Sovereign Lords. These 435 men and women take an oath to abide by the Constitution. They make no vow to circumvent the amendment process or to ignore the document when it proves inconvenient. Isn’t it then sensible that representatives pay homage to the principles they swear to uphold? A representative Congress does not rule arbitrarily. A representative Congress cannot enact just law while exceeding its granted authority. Again, there’s no guarantee of compliance. But due deference was offered, which is at least a starting point.

Among the first acts of the 112th Congress was to read the U.S. Constitution on the House floor for the first time in our nation’s history. Perhaps it was simply a stunt, albeit of some value, intended to placate a restless and concerned electorate. Or was it something more, a repentance for Congress’ errant past? We can hope the latter. But keep the cynicism handy and call it an act of eternal vigilance. That is, after all, freedom’s price.

The five myths of Regressive politics #5: Conservatives stifle dissent

Whenever conservatives question stale Regressive talking points they are accused of stifling dissent. Of the five myths discussed in this series--racism, poverty, sexism and environmentalism being the first four--this is the greatest myth of all. Once again, apply the slightest common sense to the Regressive’s accusation and it melts like ice on a blistering sidewalk.

What represents today’s most popular conservative media outlet? If you answered talk radio, take a gold star. Talk radio is conservative equal time, offsetting the Regressive dominated media. If Conservatives stifle dissent, the greatest vehicle for promoting limited government vanishes in a flash.

Where would conservatism be if there were no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Jason Lewis, or no hundreds more conservative radio hosts in local markets from coast to coast? Where would they be without free speech? Conservative talk radio wouldn’t exist and the Reagan Revolution would’ve long since withered away. Free speech kept conservatism viable during Bill Clinton’s early presidency and stoked the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Conservatives want to quell free speech and stifle dissent? Why not just cut off our right arms? Please. Can’t Regressives do better than that?

The left’s accusations about stifling dissent arise from the Conservative’s attitude toward content. The right to free speech compels no one to listen; audiences must be earned. Conservatives recognize this fact. But Regressives adamantly declare that their right to speak includes a right to force others to listen. This is the First Amendment, Regressive style.

Insubordination infuriates Regressives. Thus they despise having free speech employed to challenge their motives and ideologies, such as the Iraq War protests. When those protesters were challenged they accused Conservatives of stifling dissent. Actually, Conservatives were engaging in debate, something most Regressives avoid like the plague.

The left is where censorship exists in its purest form. The university, long a bastion of leftist elitism, has been home to speech codes for more than 20 years. Any discourse that may offend a protected class is summarily banned. “Hate speech” is the code word on campus.

Furthermore, it is the left that fosters the legal love affair with “hate crimes” legislation. Crime is crime, and few crimes there are that are born of a desire to do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Therefore hate crimes are but another means to the same end, that being the abolishment of speech, thought, opinion, belief, or content that does not follow a Regressive doctrine.

Yet another cause for left-wing resentment toward free speech is their utter failure in exercising it. Air America is exhibit A. The Regressive radio network launched in 2004 to counter conservatism’s talk radio dominance. No problem thus far. However, the network struggled from the womb, went bankrupt in 2006 and ceased operations entirely in 2010. Air America’s leadership blamed the collapse on a stagnant economy. Yet the network never generated a dependable audience or a steady revenue flow, the absence of which is a perfect recipe for bankruptcy. Their flimsy excuse begs the determination that the left’s disdain for talk radio stems from jealousy.

The Regressive playbook is based on blind allegiance to banal talking points. Since such arguments can’t stand scrutiny the left must control the debate. Therefore they accuse conservatives of stifling dissent, the very tactic they deploy at every turn.

Why do we go to the polls?

Tea Partiers have waited nearly two years for this Election Day. We’ve dreamed about it, worked toward it and suffered unsubstantiated slanders for our efforts. Our opponents, who live for the Washington establishment, call us racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and the sexually derisive “tea-baggers.” We’re Limbaugh’s, Beck’s and Hannity’s puppets, intellectually vapid and thoroughly Neanderthal.

Such derision is unwarranted but not surprising. When an ideology is under assault its adherents will fight. Therefore the Washington establishment--well represented in both dominant parties--is retaliating against the Tea Party, for we threaten to tear the playhouse down.

We’ve traveled a long road to this day and many a long road lies ahead. With polls showing large conservative gains across the electoral spectrum complacency becomes a danger. We must send a loud message on November 2nd. And our motivation lies in the reasons the Tea Party was born, why it grew, and why it’s redefining the two party system.

Our national balance sheet is corrupt. The debt is $13 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. That’s roughly an entire year’s worth of national production. Obama, who campaigned on reducing deficits, has proposed a $9.7 trillion increase in debt over the next ten years. Yet our federal “representatives” claim the answer lies in more government, higher taxes and an expansive cradle-to-grave welfare state. Therefore we go to the polls.

Social Security and Medicare are runaway trains hurtling toward a washed-out bridge. There is no Social Security trust fund and the touted “surplus” is but an accounting gimmick backed by worthless IOUs. Medicare is just as bad, if not worse. The Part D prescription drug plan and Obamacare only expand the problem.

Productive Americans--rich, poor and in between--are taxed to fund programs for the dependent. Politicians tantalize ignorant voters with promises to soak “evil” corporations and institute mythical visions of regulatory “fairness.” Yet the costs of such measures are paid by people, not legal entities. Each tax, each burdensome regulation is absorbed by the people, for the cost is passed to the consumer. Economists call this phenomenon the “unseen consequence.” It’s time we, the unseen consequences, were both seen and heard. Therefore we go to the polls.

We must repeal the onerous healthcare bill that promises high costs, poor service and shoddy results while granting enormous power--and the probability of abuse--to the central government. A majority of Americans, even if those who aren’t Tea Party activists, want this law repealed. Furthermore, it is another unconstitutional program sold to us “for our own good.” Therefore we go to the polls.

We are tired of arrogant “public servants” like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who invents Bible passages to promote her global warming agenda. She holds our freedom, the U.S. Constitution and her duty to both in utter contempt. Truth and honesty aren’t character traits for Nancy Pelosi; they are obstacles to overcome. This woman is unfit to hold public office, much less the Speaker’s gavel. Therefore we go to the polls.

Sen. Harry Reid thinks you and I stink. We, the great unwashed, are just too gamey for his aristocratic olfactory. When the Capitol Visitors Center opened Reid expressed his joy. A sensible, reasonable person would’ve been happy for the Americans who would no longer wait in the broiling sun to tour Congress. Not Reid! The air conditioned center meant no more smelly peasants near his office. Frankly, a herd of filthy goats couldn’t stink up the Capitol like Sen. Harry Reid and his ilk have done.

Reid ramrodded the healthcare overall into law despite deep objections from a sizeable number of Americans. Oppose amnesty and you’re racist in Harry Reid’s world. He is arrogant, unresponsive, sanctimonious and insulting. Even Reid’s own son views him as damaged goods, shunning the family name while running for the Nevada governorship. Therefore we go to the polls.

On Tuesday we strip power from the tyrants who kept the healthcare bill hidden, changed it indiscriminately, lied about its content and their pledge for an open review, and then passed it via a secretive, backroom vote. The bill itself was unreadable; a labyrinth of legalese, vagaries and cross references intended to prevent public understanding. Supporters of Obamacare blithely told us how wonderful the legislation would be for all Americans, yet said that the bill must pass before we can know what’s in it. Not even Sen. Max Baucus, the bill’s alleged author, bothered to read this nonsense before it became law. It’s naïve to think Congressmen and Senators read these large bills. But their contempt for our intelligence can’t go unchallenged. Therefore we go to the polls.

We go to the polls to prevent cap and trade from sacrificing our economy to an unproven theory. We go to the polls so card check won’t transform employer-employee relationships into one-sided AFL-CIO/SEIU playgrounds, which will ultimately fund our further demise. We go to the polls to correct our fiscal future and secure our national sovereignty.

Government is too large. It is unmanageable and unrestrained. Our representatives have stretched government far beyond its constitutional limits while scoffing at the Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty, property rights and individual liberty. We go to the polls to save the greatest hope for human liberty from a destructive Marxist agenda.

Ultimately, the reason we go to the polls is to fire the first salvos in a long and arduous revolution--fought each election cycle, as our Founders intended--to restore constitutional principles, fiscal sanity and common sense to American government at all levels. And we do this not only for ourselves. We go to the polls for our posterity, that future Americans may live as government’s masters, not its servants. We go to the polls because we are liberty’s last line of defense.

With Republicans like Powell, who needs Democrats?

Why Colin Powell remains a favored interview on Republican electoral strategy is inexplicable. Powell’s personal achievements are indeed exemplary. But his conservative credentials expired long ago. He continually proves that he--like too many Republicans--is a small “d” Democrat with an “R” beside his name.

Powell’s inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.

Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.

First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.

Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It’s called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who’ve shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That’s no winning strategy.

The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it’s appalling coming from a Republican.

Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington’s “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama’s “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year’s worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.

Budgetary sanity and fiscal discipline better be winning issues, Gen. Powell. That is, if America’s future is to exceed its past.

Let’s also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative’s prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it’s ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.

If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren’t priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell’s ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.

Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.

Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let’s admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let’s certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.

The First Amendment takes a hit

The Richter scale measures the magnitude of subterranean movements. But any recent seismic activity is more attributable to our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves than to tectonic shifts. Free speech has been sacrificed and it’s doubtful the Founders would be pleased.

Molly Norris is a former cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly newspaper. I say “former” because Molly no longer exists, at least not in her original form. At the FBI’s encouragement she has become something of a non-person.

No, Molly didn’t witness a mob hit nor will she provide key evidence against a drug lord. Molly Norris merely expressed an opinion, offended the “religion of peace” and became the target of an Islamic assassination order. What on earth could she have done to earn such ire? Nothing, really.

Norris satirically declared an “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” in response to the censoring of the Muslim overseer’s depiction on Comedy Central’s South Park. She never declared an actual event. She wasn’t trying to spark a “Draw Muhammad Day” movement and she apologized for any offense. Too late. Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki declared her a “prime target” fit only for hell’s fire.

Actually, it’s al-Awlaki who should be pricing asbestos underwear. But that’s a topic for another time.

What this episode says about our society, our courage and our dedication to our founding principles is deafening. An American citizen is worse than exiled--at the behest of our government--because some Muslims don’t like her views. The federal government has thus admitted that it can’t, or won’t, protect our Constitution or our people against militant Islamic threats. The politically correct atmosphere in Washington is more inclined to appease radical nutcases than to defend our culture and liberty. It is disgraceful!

Can Americans truly be as spineless and weak as this situation indicates? If so, we should admit defeat for we’re doomed where we stand. But it’s doubtful the public knows about this egregious assault on the First Amendment, from both Islam and Washington. Except for Fox News, Molly Norris’ demise has received scant attention at best. Frankly, it’s being ignored. She and the First Amendment have been sacrificed to Islamic radicalism.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We have less liberty and safety whenever we, and our government, surrender to animals like al-Awlaki and his cutthroat followers. Molly Norris certainly has no liberty or safety. She’s not even allowed to exist.

Our Founder Fathers would hold us in utter contempt. The depth of their repudiation echoes across two centuries. In fact, I can almost feel the ground trembling from their restlessness.

Arizona fulfills the federal government’s abandoned duty

Now that the federal government has formally filed suit to block Arizona’s efforts to identify illegal aliens the emotional rhetoric that has controlled the debate should take a back seat to reality. The Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government’s authority over immigration and naturalization (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sect. 8) and the Constitution’s supremacy clause (Art. VI).

Odd how Washington becomes concerned with the constitutional delegation of authority only when federal power is challenged. There was little interest in the Constitution’s assigned powers when Congress passed the healthcare bill. Constitutional authority isn’t mentioned when card check is debated, or when Social Security and Medicare are discussed. However, despite its disdain for the document by which it is supposed to abide, the federal government seems to be on solid constitutional footing this time.

Congress has the authority to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” The reason the Founders granted this power to Congress was to avoid conflicts and wars with neighboring nations. John Jay argued in Federalist No. 3 that border states, the ones most likely to be affected by immigration and border disputes, were inclined to act “under the impulse of sudden irritation.” Therefore national control of the international borders provided a greater opportunity for sustained peace.

Alexander Hamilton affirms Jay’s testimony in Federalist No. 32. Hamilton contends, quite logically, that if each state enacts individual naturalization laws then the “uniform rule” demanded in Article I, Section 8 would be impossible. Thus legislative authority over the borders, immigration and naturalization belongs to the United States government. This power being granted to the national government is naturally denied to the states.

The United States is apparently correct in claiming authority over immigration law. Yet there are a few flies in the ointment that lend credence to Arizona’s position. Foremost, Arizona hasn’t enacted a law that regulates immigration or the naturalization process. What Arizona’s legislature has done is authorize state and local agents to address federal crimes. This isn’t unprecedented.

Sixty-three state and local jurisdictions, seven in Arizona alone, currently deal with illegal immigrants via Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 287g program. State and local authorities are instrumental in identifying illegal aliens for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is proximity. Local police are likely to be the first officers at the scene of any violation. However, 287g is based upon ICE, a federal agency, authorizing local departments to enforce federal law. If 287g were the sole example of local authorities addressing federal crimes the case might be closed. It’s not.

Rhode Island state police have been enforcing immigration law on the weight of Gov. Donald Carcieri’s executive order since 2008. The Kentucky State Patrol and a local fire chief were first to investigate a possible arson at a Williamsburg, KY apartment building. Police in Amherst, NY are investigating a rape that occurred early on the morning of July 5, 2010. The New Castle County (DE) police are actively seeking leads in the June 9, 2010 abduction and rape of a young girl. Also in Delaware, the state police are investing two unrelated kidnappings and rapes.

According to Sumpter and Gonzalez website—a law firm in Austin, Texas—federal crimes include arson, rape and child abduction. This being the case, it’s apparent that local police units are investigating federal crimes and have a strong interest in apprehending the offenders. Why not immigration violators, too?

For a national government to refuse to exercise an authority--in this case, enforcing the borders--amounts to abandonment. Nature abhors such a vacuum, so the United States’ abdication of naturalization enforcement must be filled. Enter Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. In fact, Arizona’s action is in keeping with our nation’s founding principles.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when a government no longer meets the needs of the governed it is open to alteration. Arizona’s reaction is therefore mild. Instead of abolishing federal authority, or supplanting federal statutes, the state has upheld both in enforcing the existing national law.

States aren’t obligated to tie their hands or turn their heads when Washington ignores its assignments. If that were the case, what would happen if Washington ignored its duties in other areas? Reconsider Article I, Section 8, which not only establishes the federal government’s naturalization powers but also compels Congress to “provide for the common defense . . . of the United States.”

If a foreign power were to invade one of the several states the national government would be constitutionally responsible for repelling the invaders. Suppose Washington simply refused to deploy the armed forces to the sieged state? Would that state be constitutionally bound to accept the occupying force, since its defense is an established federal duty? Only the most naïve pacifist would accept such a proposition.

A state so occupied would be well within its right, and obligated to its citizens, to act against the occupiers. The same holds true when the invading force is comprised not of military personal, but of illegal aliens.

Washington’s wink-and-a-nod approach to immigration is a losing position whether or not Arizona successfully defends its immigration enforcement statute. A federal victory will create a tsunami of resentment towards the national government. Congress will then be compelled--this being an election year--to reluctantly consider the best interests of the people and the states in regard to action on illegal aliens. An Arizona victory affirms a state’s right to act in its own interest in areas not delegated to Congress, or in areas where Congress has neglected its constitutional charge.

This column originally appeared on American Thinker.

The role of proper government

Congratulations to Gaston County (NC) resident David Williams. It’s not everyday that a man gets the opportunity to speak before a congressional committee. What’s more, Mr. Williams apparently gave a good account of himself. He presented his material logically and reasonably, qualities which are in short supply in Congress these days.

Mr. Williams’ focused on one of the federal government’s legitimate duties, the census. Article One; Section Two of the U.S. Constitution directs the central government to conduct the census every ten years. The purpose is to determine appropriate representation and taxation. Adherence to such constitutional processes hasn’t been high on Congress’ list either.

However, I found one of Mr. Williams’ points troubling. He said the census is used to distribute federal money. If more Gaston County residents complete the census the county will receive more funds from Washington. I assume that would hold true for any county. It is Williams’ goal to ensure that his county doesn’t get shortchanged.

This isn’t a criticism of David Williams or his role in promoting the census. He has a job to do and seems to do it quite well. I’m not placing any blame on him. But it disturbs me that the federal government considers the census a tool for distributing money that first belonged to us.

Leave it to Congress to twist a constitutional duty into a self-perpetuating rewards system. It is not government’s role to distribute wealth by the numbers. So, let’s consider government’s purpose.

Food and shelter are basic needs. Is it government’s role to provide them? To think so requires an unusual view of rights. For a right to be a right and not a privilege it must demand no forced sacrifice from another person. Otherwise there would be no check on what government can confiscate in the name of the common welfare. It is no more the role of government to meet the needs of able-bodied individuals than it is to corrupt the census.

How about the equal distribution of wealth? In order to accomplish that goal some government bureaucracy or commission must possess the wisdom necessary to determine what constitutes equal distribution. Can any such board or panel exist? Who, other than God, is qualified to arbitrarily establish a person’s worth?

The only fair method for wealth distribution is an individual’s contribution to society. Free exchange between people, not government whims and biases, is the only legitimate means of distributing wealth among free people.

How about saving the earth? Is that a function of government? Perhaps in part, but not in the context of current climate debates. It is highly presumptuous to believe that man’s activities can render earth unlivable. Certainly we can cause environmental harm to a degree, meaning sensible laws to curb pollution are worthwhile. But it’s not government’s role to use conservationism as a tool for spreading collectivist doctrine.

It isn’t government’s job to manipulate the housing industry or the mortgage market in pursuit of “social justice”, to force free people to purchase health insurance, or to ensure the perpetual reelection of incumbents. So what is the role of government as it pertains to free men?

All men are created equal. They receive from their Creator certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure and protect these rights is the role of government, the proper authority for which comes at the consent of the governed.

Government’s most basic role, plain and simple, is to ensure that each individual can live freely and pursue their happiness without guarantee that happiness will be found. It is my hope that David Williams’ diligence in promoting the constitutionally mandated census won’t be used to further the power of self-indulgent politicians. But I suspect it is a false hope.

An argument is missing in the healthcare debate

Since the House of Representatives unveiled its various versions of healthcare “reform” there have been myriad reasons given for why it shouldn’t become law.

Opponents have called attention to some rather ominous wording within the legislation. The “end of life” counseling sessions have sparked fear among seniors. Obama himself has said there are times when it’s better to take a pain killer than to treat an ailment, pointing out that such decisions are already being made.

He’s partially correct; such decisions are part of life.

Living wills convey a patient’s wishes in the event he or she is incapacitated. Resuscitation agreements provide instructions concerning life support. And yes, private insurers sometimes deny payment. But these examples aren’t synonymous with the Democrats’ arguments. In fact, they are apples and oranges.

These life decisions are largely a private matter, at least for now. Government isn’t involved; it has no say about what treatments are offered or when those treatments are deemed unwarranted. As for insurers, even when coverage is denied there remain charitable organizations to which a patient can turn.

Allowing government to become involved in individual life decisions is a dangerous precedent, even if it appears harmless at the outset.

That’s not the only argument. Opponents of “reform” point to wording that can end private health insurance, ration care, tax individuals and businesses that don’t carry “adequate” coverage, provide health insurance to illegal aliens and set wage controls for medical professionals.

All of this came to light as the President pushed Congress to rush healthcare legislation through at light speed, which is another reason to oppose its passage. Representatives both pro and con, and even President Obama, have admitted to never having read the legislation they’re so hot to pass.

Despite this dereliction of a representative’s fundamental duties, reformists have called the opposition everything from kooks to Nazis. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many empty minds soaking up this bilge hook, line and sinker.

Not even the people who write the gibberish that passes for legislation can explain what their bills say. The must call in lawyers, who must call in other lawyers, who then advise the impending bureaucracy on how to interpret the language and establish the rules. So, in all honesty, who can claim to know what “healthcare reform” means or how it will be applied?

But there’s one argument against healthcare reform that cannot be spun or disregarded. And it’s an argument that no legislator has shown the courage to make. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide or manage healthcare?

All powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, remain with the states and the people. Since the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to provide healthcare or insurance, anything passed and signed into law is invalid.

Sound radical? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

I have yet to hear a single opponent summon the courage to challenge healthcare “reform” on constitutional grounds. Consider this a call to action, beginning with the representatives from my area.

Rep. Sue Myrick, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Kay Hagan, heed your oath of office. Unless you want to publicly declare that your word is worthless you have no choice but to oppose this legislation.

Furthermore, you should demand expulsion for any colleague who votes for these “reform” measures. Such persons have violated their oath. They aren’t representatives enacting law; they are tyrants seizing illegitimate authority over the governed.

The Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed, much to the dismay of Congress. “Reform” opponents aren’t kooks, Nazis, racists, or lunatics. And there’s nothing subversive about holding our representative’s feet to the constitutional fire.