Sunday, August 29, 2010

A (Bad) Case For More Stimulus

Now sooner do I finish posting about the media "getting it" in regards to Keynesian theory, that I come across this op-ed in the NY Times stating the case for more stimulus.

Now normally this would just be more drivel from John Maynard Keynes disciple Paul Krugman that you could just brush aside, but this is from someone who actually has the ear of the Chosen One, Professor Laura Tyson of the Haas School of Business at the UCal, Berkeley and member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

This my friends is why we are in the trouble we are in today. Professor Tyson's conclusion is that since our (feeble) economic recovery has been based on solely massive amounts of capital pumped into the economy by the government, which will soon end, they should borrow and print more money, putting us further into debt, to further prop up the economy. This, is what my mother used to call throwing good money after bad. The delusion that Prof Tyson has is the same as a gambling addict who thinks that their luck will turn and the big score is right around the corner. Except that gambler does not have the Fed's printing press at their disposal.

Anyone who understands Austrian theory realizes that government intervention only prolongs the downturn and prevents the correction needed through the malinvestmet of capital.

But what else would you expect from a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress?

New York Times
The situation would be even worse without the $787 billion fiscal stimulus package passed in 2009. The conventional wisdom about the stimulus package is wrong: it has not failed. It is working as intended. Its spending increases and tax cuts have boosted demand and added about three million more jobs than the economy otherwise would have. Without it, the unemployment rate would be about 11.5 percent. Because about 36 percent of the money remains to be spent, more jobs will be created — about 500,000 by the end of the year.

But by next year, the stimulus will end, and the flip from fiscal support to fiscal contraction could shave one to two percentage points off the growth rate at a time when the unemployment rate is still well above 9 percent. Under these circumstances, the economic case for additional government spending and tax relief is compelling. Sadly, polls indicate that the political case is not.

Two forms of spending with the biggest and quickest bang for the buck are unemployment benefits and aid to state governments. The federal government should pledge generous financing increases for both programs through 2011.

Oy vey, progressives like Prof Tyson need to be stopped before they do any more harm.

Via Memeorandum

It Is Time To Bury John Maynard Keynes (Again)

Time and again it has been proven that John Maynard Keynes had it wrong, that governments need to intervene in the economy, through massive spending, to get a faltering economy back on track. Keynesian theory was a failure in the 1930's and again in the 1970's but that didn't deter the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama from falling back on it during our current economic downturn. It has also been championed by many economists, most notably Paul Krugman, progressive politicians and the LSM. But that may be changing.

Case in point are articles in the Wall Street Journal; Spreading Hayek, Spurning Keynes and Denver Post; A Referendum on the Economy today that are questioning whether Keynesianism works and that maybe the Austrian School, which promotes a laissez faire approach, has is right.

As anyone who has to manage a budget knows, you cannot spend your way out of debt. The only way to get out of debt is to spend less and that applies to any government as well. The idea that printing more money to stimulate the economy is a pipe dream which only serves to further devalue our fiat currency.

It's time to bury Mr Keynes and his flawed theory once and for all before we return to the stagflation of the 1970's or worse yet, hyperinflation.

Via Memeorandum

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Gary Johnson To Return To Iowa

This visit comes on the heels of Gov Johnson's participation in the 438 mile, 38th annual Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI) in July (Pictured).

OUR America Initiative
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Honorary Chairman of the OUR America Initiative, today announced that he will return to Iowa for the second time this summer to visit with citizen and student groups to discuss pertinent issues of the day. Johnson’s comments will focus on key issues such as: lowering taxes, cutting deficits, the implications of immigration reform, his opposition to continued nation-building in Afghanistan, the failure of the war on drugs and a return to common-sense governing. Governor Johnson visited Iowa last month, where he participated in the annual RAGBRAI (Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa) event, and held several public events along the RAGBRAI route.

Governor Johnson will be in Iowa from August 29th through September 1st, speaking at the following events:

Monday, August 30th, 6:00pm – 8:00pm:
Iowa Patients for Medical Marijuana, Drake University

Tuesday, August 31st, 6:00pm – 9:00pm:
Students for Liberty Event, University of Iowa Business College Courtyard

Wednesday, September 1st, 4:30pm – 5:30pm:
Super Liberty and Tea Party, Thunder Bay Grille, 6511 N Brady Street, Davenport

Friday, August 27, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Blasts US Human Rights Report To The UN

I'm continued to be amazed at the anti-American sentiments of our government and the depths they will stoop to kowtow to the United Nations. In a report to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights "in the context of our commitment to help to build a world in which universal rights give strength and direction to the nations, partnerships, and institutions that can usher us toward a more perfect world", our government has chosen to highlight it's opposition to Arizona's attempt to bring the problem of illegal immigration under control as a shining example of how America is a beacon of light in the struggle for international human rights. The report is nauseating enough but to imply that the Arizona law is anti-human rights is an affront to the people of Arizona and their laws.

Well, AZ Governor Jan Brewer is not going to let this slide. In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gov Brewer fights back.

The Tucson Citizen
In her letter to Secretary of State Clinton, Governor Brewer stated “Simply put, it is downright offensive that the State Department included the State of Arizona and S.B. 1070 in a report to the United Nations Council on Human Rights, whose members include such renowned human rights ‘champions’ as Cuba and Libya.” Governor Brewer additionally stated, “The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a State of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional. Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration.”

The State Department’s report takes credit for the “…sophistication and breadth of [the United States’] anti-trafficking efforts” while in fact many human rights problems are occurring because of the decade-old or more enforcement policy by the federal government to secure the border in San Diego and El Paso and leave the Tucson Sector less secured. This policy choice forces the illegal immigrant trafficking across the harsh Arizona desert resulting in life-and-death consequences. Governor Brewer stated that “If the federal government secured the entire border and enforced our immigration laws, these human rights problems would not be occurring for citizens, legal residents and illegal immigrants.”

Sunday, August 22, 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque Bait And Switch

Much time and bluster is being made over the controversy of a proposed Mosque and Cultural Center near the site of the 9/11 attacks by politicians, mediots and bloggers on both sides of the argument to the point to where it is the dominant story day in and day out. Now debate is healthy but in the grand scheme of what is going on in this country, is this story being used as a distraction to focus the attention off of what we really should be paying attention to?

Glenn Beck is always one to point out that when the politicians and mediots have us watching one hand, you really should be looking for what is going on with the other and this, to me should be the case with this issue. What is being buried under the avalanche of coverage on this issue and who is it providing cover for?

You may not have been paying attention but unemployment is on the rise again, a sign that the recovery (if there ever was one) is fizzling; New Unemployment Claims SURGE, Hit Highest Level Since November 2009, not to mention troubling news on the housing and consumer fronts; U.S. Economy: Spending Stagnates, Home Sales Drop, the government wants to control your retirement funds; First Your Health Care, Now Your Retirement, Congress and the POTUS have given $26B to their union buddies; President Obama signs $26 billion jobs bill to aid state payrolls while taking over the financial industry; President Obama Signs Wall Street Reform: "No Easy Task" , not to mention a complete disappearing act of the illegal immigration issue. And these are just a few things that I could come up with.

So while everyone is concerned with what amounts to a property rights and political correctness debate, don't worry about what is going on on the economic front or how your liberty is being trampled. Everything is just peachy.

First Your Health Care, Now Your Retirement

It's bad enough that the government has taken the unconstitutional steps to nationalize health care, but now they want to take more of your money and force you into a government mandated retirement plan (S 3760 Automatic IRA Act of 2010). Now, while this may sound good on the face, saving is a good thing, allowing the government to dictate which funds you are required to invest in can turn to crap in a hurry.

We are already forced to pay into the ponzi-scheme known as Social Security, where we will never recoup the benefits that we paid in, but to add a government mandated payroll deductions where you are forced to contribute to a fund of the government's choosing is just ripe for fraud and abuse. And what will happen when the market tanks again and your forced retirement account is wiped out, will the government bail you out?

Instead of creating an even larger nanny state, DC should put an end to forced SS payroll deductions and and the idea of forced retirement accounts and let us, responsible adults, take control of our finances and let us determine how, or even if, we save for our future.

Investment News

After much discussion and anticipation, the Automatic IRA Act of 2010 was formally proposed Friday by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. If enacted, the bill could affect half of the country's working population.

Under the provisions of the bill, employers that do not sponsor a retirement plan and have more than 10 employees would be required to offer an auto-IRA plan through payroll deductions. The employers would contribute nothing to the accounts, but they would receive a $250 tax credit for each of the first two years of the plan's operation.

The law would also be phased in over a period of years, with the rules applying to employers with over 100 employees in the first year after enactment. In the fourth year after enactment, the law would apply to firms with ten employees and more. It would never apply to firms in the first two years of their existence, according to the bill.

Several default investment options are mandated under the provisions of the bill.

First, if an employee does not take any action to sign up, 3% of each paycheck would be automatically withdrawn into an individual retirement account. The default investment vehicle would be Roth IRA.

The default investment in the Roth IRA would be a “principal preservation fund,” or retirement bonds (R bonds), until the balance in the employee's account reaches $5,000 — at which time the funds would move to an approved life-style or balanced fund. No provider is required to accept automatic IRA accounts.

The Treasury Department would be expected to develop a website to list approved providers, and employees also have the option to select their own IRA provider. If an employer does not want to select a provider, the Treasury Department will provide a group of possibilities that have been vetted for the program, and an employer would be assigned to one at random.

Friday, August 20, 2010

How Bad Is Our Economy? Ask Tony Robbins

H/T The Economic Collapse

This is how bad things are, even Tony Robbins is concerned about an economic collapse and issued this warning.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Video - Harry Reid Against Birthright Citizenship

Who knew that Harry and I agreed on anything?

Via Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Eight Unbreakable Rules for Hard-Core Tea Party Activists (or Any Other Special-Interest Coalition)

By Gary North

I joined the conservative movement in 1956 when I joined Fred Schwarz's Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. I wrote an anti-FDR high school term paper in 1958. I supported the Goldwater for Vice President movement in 1960. I voted for Goldwater for President in 1964. I voted for Reagan's Republican primary gubernatorial challenger in 1966, William Penn Patrick, because I thought Reagan was too liberal. (I was right; he imposed income tax withholding in his first term as governor.) I was Ron Paul's first research assistant in 1976.

I am hard core. I have been hard core for a long time.

I am writing this for those of you who are equally hard core.

Here are ten facts of American national politics that you must understand to get meaningful change.
1. You can't beat something with nothing.
2. 80% of politicians respond only to two things: (1) fear; (2) pain.
3. Bureaucrats (tenured) respond only to one thing: budget cuts.
4. Political reform never comes as long as the tax money flows in.
5. The #1 goal is to reduce the government's funds, not re-direct them.
6. Congress's club system sucks in 80% of new members by term #2.
7. Politicians listen to their peers, not to their constituents.
8. Money from the government buys off most voters.
9. Most citizens care little about politics and know less.
10. This gives influence to organized swing-vote blocs.
The political system was summed up a generation ago by the man I regard as the elder statesman of the hard-core wing of the American conservative movement, M. Stanton Evans: "Evans's Law of Political Perfidy."
When our friends get into power, they aren't our friends any more.
To this, I add North's Law of Partisan Politics
When a movement is in either political party's hip pocket, it will be sat on.
If you do not believe this, then you are a sheep for the shearing -- and then, after several shearings, the roasting. You are on some politician's menu.

These are eight basic rules of engagement. There may be others, but these are fundamental. If you do not believe these, you are headed for disappointment.

1. Vote for a hard-core challenger on the other side against a squishy incumbent.This rule separates the hard core members from the soft core members. It has a corollary: A first-term incumbent next election is easier to beat than a squishy incumbent this election. It is always hard to defeat an incumbent. Do what you can to defeat any incumbent, no matter which party he belongs to, if he is squishy on the issue you regard as fundamental. Why is this so important? Incumbents must become deathly afraid of your movement. Take out a few dozen of them in the next election and the one that follows, and many others will cooperate. As Sen. Everett Dirksen put it so long ago, "When we feel the heat, we see the light." In short, you do not settle for the lesser of two evils. You eliminate them both, one election at a time: first the softie, then the newbie.

2. Hold your newly elected politician's feet to the fire the first time he breaks ranks on a key vote. He is like a puppy. When he leaves a mess on the carpet, get out the switch. "Bad dog! Bad dog!" Let him remember that switch. Let him fear that switch. The second time he does it, warm up the car. You and he will be taking a trip to the pound. You are his voter only for as long as he is your representative. Politicians respond to only two things: fear and pain.

3. Get him to sign a resignation letter. Before you work for him, make sure he has signed a resignation letter. This letter says the following:
To the voters of [district, state]:

I am making this public. If I ever vote for [whatever], I will turn in my letter of resignation to the [government body] within 24 hours.

If I fail to do this, I expect voters to vote against me at the next election, since I clearly cannot be trusted.

I expect my opponent in the primary to defeat me next time, and if he doesn't, my opponent in the general election will. And should.

Very truly yours,

Name Candidate for [whatever]
This is a political suicide letter. You will see who is serious about your #1 issue and who is not by means of a signed resignation letter. Post it online. If he refuses to sign it, start working to undermine him after he defeats the squishy incumbent. Above all, do not trust him.

No candidate will sign more than a few of these. Any candidate who will not sign at least one is just another glory-seeking, power-seeking, retirement bonanza-seeking political hack. Like a drone bee who is useful only once in his life, he is useful for only one thing: defeating a squishy incumbent.

You say he refuses to sign? Don't donate any money or time to his campaign. You should vote for him against a squishy incumbent, but you will immediately start working to replace him.

4. Track all of his votes on your #1 issue, and post them online. The Congress deliberately seeks to conceal voting results. Your committee must keep track of every vote related to your interest. This means that someone must follow the voting schedule. If there is no record of his vote, call his office. Ask for an email with his vote recorded. My suggestion: make sure he has an assistant send an email to your committee after every vote in this area, explaining it. Post all of this without alteration. If he breaks ranks, make sure you have a clear statement of why this was a bad vote.

This is boring. This is time-consuming. This is vital. You must see if there is a pattern in his voting on your issue.

I wish there were watchdog sites that cover every vote. Be sure there is one for your special interest. WordPress is free ( A domain name costs $10 a year to register. A multi-site hosting service like Hostgator is $10 a month or less. Have a separate site for every candidate and elected official.

This would make a great civics project for home schoolers: track a candidate for the school year. Then turn the task over to a new student. Have the committee run the sites, but students can do the grunt work. It is good practice.

5. Find out who his largest campaign donors are. This will tell you who will have the most clout when he takes office. Investigate the PACs. Investigate the donors who send in the maximum donation allowed. Are they members of one group? Post this information on the site that you set up to monitor his votes.

6. Instill fear. This is your #1 task, once he takes office.

7. Inflict pain. This is the basis of #6.

8. Trust, but verify. If your group refuses to verify, it should not trust.

Politics is not based on love, because civil government is based on coercion. Do not impose "tough love" on a politician. He is not to love you. He is to obey you. You are not to love him. You are to monitor him. Impose negative sanctions and positive sanctions wisely.

Politicians surround themselves with young men and young women who serve as staffers, plus a few old-timers who have survived in the staffing system and who are unimpressed with their bosses, but are even less impressed with the boss's constituents. Politicians spend time in each other's company. They are not much impressed with their colleagues, but they are very impressed with themselves. They are not impressed by their constituents. Finally, they spend time raising money. So, they have to spend time with lobbyists.

I shall now end my little lesson on politics with a verbatim citation from one of the great masters of state-wide politics, Jesse Unruh. He was the Speaker of the California Assembly in the late 1960s. He was known as Big Daddy. He ran against Ronald Reagan in 1970 and lost. But he later was elected state Treasurer. Here is what he said about the proper attitude toward lobbyists:
"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, and still vote against them, you have no business being up here."
So committed was he to this philosophy of life that he chose to die of prostate cancer at age 65 rather than have his prostate surgically removed, because he would not risk the sexual impotence that might result from surgical removal.

He loved dealing with lobbyists.

We are dealing with dedicated people. We are dealing with power-seeking, often ruthless people. Don't try to buy them off. Don't try to sweet-talk them. If they don't vote the way you want them to vote, defeat them.

This, they understand. This, they fear.

Either they are on your menu, or you are on theirs. I suggest the former.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Tenth Amendment Center Nullify Now! Tour

For those of us who believe in the limited power of the federal government over the states, the Tenth Amendment Center is having a series of Nullify Now! events to promote the idea of state sovereignty and their right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

The scheduled events are September 4th in Ft. Worth, TX, October 10th in Orlando, FL, October 23rd in Chattanooga, TN and January 29th in Phoenix, AZ. Keynote speakers will include Thomas Woods, author of Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st Century and "The Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter, along with a host of other speakers on the topic.

This should be a great event for liberty minded patriots and will give you the ammunition to take the power back from the federal government and bring it back to you on the state level.

Please visit for more information.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Obama, Congress Leave States To Hold The Bag

Once again, The Chosen One and Congress show that they are not serious in battling illegal immigration and due to their inaction have put the financial burden on the states, particularly the border states.

A program called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) calls for the federal government to reimburse state and local governments for their costs in incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens when the federal government is unable take them into federal custody.
Overview: BJA administers SCAAP, in conjunction with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.
However, the program is subject to funding and while it is capped at $950M, Obama has only requested $330M, which is the same as the current year and $70M less than last year, for the coming fiscal year.

Of course, former AZ Governor Janet Napolitano who criticized the Bush administration for it's lack of funding for SCAAP, now defends her boss for not asking for more money for the program.

East Valley Tribune
"I think the administration has chosen to support states in a number of other ways," Napolitano said. She specifically cited Operation Stonegarden which provides cash for state and local police in border areas.

"That’s money they can use for overtime, to hire new folks, to help pay for vehicles and equipment they need for law enforcement," she said. Her agency provided $60 million this year, of which nearly $13.9 million went to Arizona police agencies.
So, while the feds can always find the cash to bail out their Wall Street and union friends, maybe Arizona, where current Governor Jan Brewer estimates that the state is owed $700M in SCAAP funds since 2003, should take a cue from Sheriff Joe and house these criminal aliens in tents and feed them MRE's to cut costs until DC decides to do what they claim is their job.

Illegal Immigrants And Birthright Citizenship

A new study by the Pew Hispanic Center this week revealed that 8% of babies born in the US in 2008 were the offspring of parents where at least one of the parents was in the country illegally.
An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center.
If that is not bad enough, consider Texas, where their Health and Human Services Commission estimated that 60K-65K babies are born to illegal immigrant parents in the state each year, accounting for 16% of the state's births and that from 2001-2009, 542,152 births were to illegal immigrants.

Isn't this enough of a reason, along with the phenomenon of birth tourism, where pregnant woman come to this country with the specific intent of delivering their child here to gain US citizenship for them, to end the notion of birthright citizenship, when that was clearly not the intent of the 14th Amendment?

15 Reasons Our Economy Is Not In Recovery

The Chosen One, the Fed and the mediots all want us to believe that their Keynesian plan for rescuing our economy from the brink of collapse is working and that things are getting better, but are they? Anyone who manages a budget knows that you cannot spend more to get out of debt, but that is the lie that continues to be perpetuated.

All you need to do is look beyond the artificially created statistics, that make the economy look good on paper, to see that we are really in a world of hurt and headed for disaster.

The following are 15 key economic statistics that just keep getting worse and which reveal the horrific economic plight in which we now find ourselves....

1 - The number of Americans who are receiving food stamps rose to a new all-time record of 40.8 million in May.  The number of Americans receiving food stamps has set a new all-time record for 18 months in a row.  But there is every indication that things are going to get even worse.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the number of Americans on food stamps will increase to 43 million in 2011.

2 - The U.S. economy lost 131,000 more jobs during the month of July.  But the truth is that the U.S. economy has been bleeding jobs for a long time.  According to one analysis, the United States has lost 10.5 million jobs since 2007.  Meanwhile, immigrants (both legal and illegal) continue to pour into this nation in unprecedented numbers.

3 - Americans who are out of work are finding it incredibly difficult to get back into the workforce.  In the United States today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to an all-time record of 35.2 weeks.

4 - The U.S. government keeps trying to pump up the economy with debt, and in the process things are getting wildly out of control.  According to a U.S. Treasury Department report to Congress, the U.S. national debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015.

5 - The interest on all of this debt is becoming increasingly oppressive.  As of July 1st, the U.S. government had spent $355 billion so far in 2010 on interest payments to the holders of the national debt.  The total for 2010 should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion.  According to Erskine Bowles, one of the heads of Barack Obama's national debt commission, the U.S. government will be spending $2 trillion just on interest on the national debt by 2020.  Keep in mind that the entire U.S. government budget is less than $4 trillion for the entire year of 2010.

6 - If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the annual U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion.

7 - Social Security will pay out more in benefits in 2010 than it receives in payroll taxes.  This was not supposed to happen until at least 2015.  In the years ahead, these new "Social Security deficits" are projected to be absolutely catastrophic.

8 - There are simply far too many retirees and not nearly enough workers to support them.  Back in 1950 each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers.  Today, each retiree's Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers.  By 2025 it is projected that there will be approximately two workers for each retiree.

9 - Wealth continues to become highly concentrated at the top.  Since 1973, the average CEO’s salary has increased from 26 times the median income to over 300 times the median income.

 10 - According to a poll taken in 2009, 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck.  That was up significantly from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

11 - The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that more than 10% of all U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one mortgage payment during the January to March time period.  That was a new all-time record and represented an increase from 9.1 percent a year ago.

12 - A recent survey of last year's college graduates found that 80 percent moved right back home with their parents after graduation.  That was up substantially from 63 percent in 2006.

13 - During the first quarter of 2010, the total number of loans that are at least three months past due in the United States increased for the 16th consecutive quarter.

14 - The total number of U.S. bank failures passed the 100 mark in July of this year.  In 2009, the total number of U.S. bank failures did not pass the century barrier until October.

15 - The U.S. dollar continues to rapidly decline in value.  An item that cost $20.00 in 1970 would cost you $112.35 today.  An item that cost $20.00 in 1913 would cost you $440.33 today.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Sunday, August 8, 2010

It's Time To Take The Power Back

Having some time away from blogging and not paying much attention to the news, not to mention a few good days of sleep, has given me some great clarity of mind and has really helped my focus on what I believe we, as Americans, need to do to to take the power back from our elected officials in Washington.

Too much focus, I believe, is being put on the the upcoming November elections with the hope that the Republicans will take over both houses of Congress and make everything right again. The problem with this is, how can we know that this will solve anything? Won't these new Congressmen and women be subject to the same forces of lobbyists, PACs and special interests as previous sessions to prevent them from governing in the best interests of We the People? As we have seen time and time again, turnover in DC has done nothing to cure the ills of the nation. All we have seen is the federal government grow larger, put us deeper into debt and pander to those with the loudest voice and the deepest pockets.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the the lifers in DC gone as much as anyone, but unless we can hold their replacements accountable on a daily basis, instead of every 2 or 6 years when they come up for reelection, what will we really gain?

The solution is simple and it was given to us in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, opponents of the 10th Amendment are quick to point out that Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, trumps the 10th Amendment but that is only partially true. The Supremacy Clause holds sway only in powers enumerated to Congress in the Constitution. This was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution and was clarified in the ratification process.
This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.
-William Davie
Thomas Jefferson also made this argument in the The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in regards to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force
As you can see, it is the 10th Amendment that the founders intended as a way for the States to check the power of the federal government, holding them to only the powers granted to them in the Constitution. For the past 100+ years the 3 branches of the federal government have colluded in an unconstitutional power-grab over the States and it is time for us, on the State level, to send DC a message and take the power back.

So you see, this cannot be achieved by who we elect to Congress because people in power will very rarely give up their power. The only way to take the power back is to support candidates on the State level that support States' rights. We need to elect people in our state legislatures and as Governors that believe in this ideal and will stand up to DC. These are the people that we have access to and are more likely to have our best interests in mind and will listen to our voices.

When Congress enacts a law that is unconstitutional we need people on the State level to let them know that enacting a law is one thing but enforcing it is another story. We need the Governors and legislatures of the 50 States to stand united against DC to let them know enough is enough.

It's time We the People take the power back.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Gary Johnson On States' Rights

Yet another reason why Gary Johnson is the real deal and should be the choice of liberty-minded Americans for President in 2012. Name one candidate, other than Ron Paul, that is in favor of shrinking the federal government and returning power back to the States, as was intended by the founders.

Support Gov Johnson at OUR America Initiative.

Via Tenth Amendment Center

States’ rights should be encouraged, not punished
by Gary Johnson

As the governor of New Mexico, I spent eight years dealing with issues unique and specific to our state – addressing immigration, education, the privatization of our prison system, ways to streamline state agencies, and keeping our spending under control. During those eight years, we proved that, with a little common sense and by embracing the reality that government is not the answer to every question, spending can be controlled, bureaucracy can be reduced, and individuals can manage their own lives.

Last December, after growing not just alarmed, but angry at the direction of the current government in Washington, we launched the OUR America Initiative to help give voice to those same ideas I put to work in New Mexico. Since then I’ve been traveling around the country, visiting a total of 23 states so far.

During these travels, I’ve realized more than ever that not only are Americans ready for a very different direction, but that each of the 50 states must deal with its own unique set of challenges, needs and priorities.

As a nation, we’ve been hearing a lot about states’ rights lately, particularly in the context of Arizona’s immigration reform law, and the Obama administration’s very bad decision to challenge that state law in court.

I have said that I would not have signed the Arizona immigration law, because I’m concerned it could lead to racial profiling. But, having served as governor of another border state, New Mexico, I empathize with Arizona’s frustration, and absolutely support the prerogative of that state’s officials to act. Think about it: Congress and the federal government have failed, due to political cowardice, to do anything meaningful about immigration reform; yet when a desperate border state does decide to do something, the feds go running into court claiming that Arizona is trying to usurp their authority.

The situation in Arizona is a crystallizing example of how the federal government has taken the very limited authority granted it by the Constitution and expanded that authority to make a mockery of states’ rights and primacy.

How many times have we heard in the weeks since the Arizona law was enacted that “Immigration is a federal issue?” Certainly, securing our border and managing the flow of people across that border is an appropriate federal role – consistent with the Constitution. But, where is it written in the founding documents that a state doesn’t have the right to enact its own laws and policies relating to immigrants, both legal and illegal, who choose to enter and reside in that state?

I would suggest that just the opposite is true. Every state is different, and is presented with its own challenges and opportunities related to immigration – and countless other issues. Rather than trying, as the Obama administration is doing, to stop Arizona from implementing its own approach, we should be encouraging the states to be the policy laboratories they were intended to be in our federal system.

Arizona feels it needs to enact state law to deal with illegal immigrants. Similarly, farmers in a state like Iowa need a guest worker program that actually meets their needs for reliable, economical and legal seasonal labor. Each state needs a system where willing employers and willing immigrant workers can connect in a practical, realistic and most importantly, legal, way. And if Congress lacks the courage to enact that kind of system, why shouldn’t state legislators be free to come up with policies that serve their unique needs? That is what state primacy and federalism are all about, and should be encouraged – not punished — by an overreaching federal government.

Immigration is the issue that is right in front of us today, but it is just the tip of the states’ rights iceberg. Education, welfare, health care, drug policy: These are just a few of the issues that have been slowly but surely usurped by the feds – with no real basis in the Constitution or the clear intent of the Founders.

As the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, challenging these federal power grabs is one of my highest priorities. Someone needs to ask the obvious questions about why the federal government insists on doing so much, spending so much, and attempting to ultimately control so many local issues.

We can see where their approach has gotten us: borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the government spends, with no end in sight.

The time has never been better for a long-overdue reassessment of the balance of power between the federal government and the 50 individual states. If it takes a controversial Arizona immigration law, or an insane federal takeover of health care to bring this debate to a head, so be it. Let’s have this debate and let common sense – and genuine states’ rights – prevail.

The Judge and Tom Woods on Nullification

Via Campaign for Liberty

The 14th Amendment And US Citizenship

Much is being made that we need to make changes to the 14th Amendment as to who is and isn't a citizenship based on their birth in this county, but I have to ask, why? The 14th Amendment was quite clear in who is granted citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So, going against popular opinion and much to the disappointment of the pro-amnesty crowd, anchor babies do not qualify because their parents, who are here illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of this country. To further support this contention, Senator Jacob Howard, who proposed for the language of the amendment, was very clear as to his intent of the phrase.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
How much clearer could Senator Howard have been?

Now granted, supporters of citizenship for anchor babies will point to United States v. Wong Kim Ark and say that this is the same issue, their argument does not hold water. The SCOTUS was clear that since Ark's parents were legally in the US as domiciled residents, hence were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, he was indeed a US citizen. It is merely an assumption, no matter how generally accepted, that children of illegal immigrants have birthright citizenship.

So instead of making changes, it is time to take the 14th Amendment at face value based on it's original intent and put an end to the ridiculous notion that children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country are automatically US citizens. The allegiance of the parents is to a foreign nation and therefore neither they nor their child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Via Memeorandum
Related Posts with Thumbnails