Brewer: The Government Has ‘Failed’ Arizona and the American People; Several States, Federal Government at odds over illegal immigration, and more

States, Federal Government at odds over illegal immigration> Yesterday in The Republican: Governor Susana Martinez moves one step closer to fulfilling her campaign promise to end the issuance of driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants

James Walsh -Immigrant Fraud Imperils Medicaid

Oklahoma Legislature Crafts AZ-Like Immigration Law

Brewer Ready for War: The Government Has ‘Failed’ Arizona and the American People

 

First Lady Pushes Amnesty for Illegals

FLOTUS on ‘Al Punto’

First lady pushes immigration bill

By AMIE PARNES | 02/12/11  Michelle Obama is urging the Latino community to help push immigration legislation, such as the Dream Act …  Read more 

Illegal Immigrant Charged With Murder in Virginia

Doc Jailed for Plot to Alter Immigrant’s Fingerprints

Illegal Immigrants Hiding in Walls of Construction Site 

Jan Brewer sues feds for failing to control U.S./Mexico border

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says state will countersue federal government for failing to enforce immigration laws More headlines from FoxNews.com:

Immigration Reform…Should America Follow Arizona’s Lead?
http://www.personalliberty.com/poll/immigration-reform/index.php?SC=BEL2534

Byron York – To House GOP, illegal immigration is a jobs issue

With Republicans now in control of the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials are going to be answering a lot of questions in the next two years. Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the committee, lists a bunch of priorities: immigration, national security, the constitutionality of Obamacare, lawsuit abuse, intellectual property, and more.There are many areas in which Republicans and Holder are likely to disagree, but the most contentious could be immigration, starting with the enforcement of federal laws to prevent the employment of illegal immigrants. Ask Smith what he’ll be investigating, and it’s the first thing he mentions. “One initial hearing will be on work site enforcement,” he says. “We want to find out why the administration is not doing more to enforce current laws. Workplace enforcement has dropped 70 percent under the Obama administration.”

Day One: GOP Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship

Chris Matthews: Do Democrats Want More Illegal Immigration? (In his bantering way of admitting something, the short answer is Yes) Read Article

Amnesty Groups Expect Tough Going for 2011 Read Article. (Also: Analysis of DREAM Act Vote Shows Opportunity for True Immigration Reform Gains Read the story)

New Poll Shows Majority in U.S. Say All Immigration Has a Negative Impact Read Article

 

FAIR president Dan Stein discusses birthright citizenship on Fox News. (It is an abuse, misuse, and liberal misinterpretation of the 14th amendment) Watch now.

 

 

Feel Safe? Two Young Girls Climb US/Mexico Border Fence in Under 18 Seconds

 

Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert US – “In Memory of Our Martyrs” -

 

Fox News has an exclusive report detailing how a book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border: The book, “In Memory of Our Martyrs,” was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs. Agents also say that the book appears to have been exposed to weather in the desert “for at least several days or weeks.”

Published in Iran, it consists of short biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died carrying out attacks. According to internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents, “The book also includes letters from suicide attackers to their families, as well as some of their last wills and testaments.“ Each biographical page contains ”the terrorist’s name, date of death, and how they died.”

Read the entire report from FoxNews.com.

Editor’s note: A portion of the recent documentary, “Rumor of War,” released by Glenn Beck deals specifically with this topic. It discusses Iran’s infiltration of Mexican drug cartels and the push to enter America through its southern border. That documentary can be viewed here.

Government as Source of Inequality (and enabler of illegals taking jobs from Citizens)
Bruce Kesler – Many young Americans cannot climb the ladder of upward mobility, as unskilled posts are being filled by illegal migrant workers…

 

The American Dream, Doled Out by Democrats When Convenient
By Kerri Toloczko (and a funny thing, how they sometimes are willing to give it to non-Americans before their own citizens.) 

Another Tea Party Battle – Get Our Language Back!
By Thomas D. Segel – YOU BET YA. A MAJOR MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE CLAMORED FOR YEARS FOR ENGLISH ONLY AND HAVE BEEN IGNORED TIME AND TIME AGAIN. TIME’S UP!

Setting the stage for America’s degraded future, Part 3
by Frosty Wooldridge
This continuing series expects to educate Americans as to the accelerating ramifications brought upon our civilization by adding 70 million immigrants in the next 25 years and 300 million people within 70 years. It’s interesting how many emails I receive that ‘deny’ and ‘defend’ unlimited immigration, and utterly disregard the facts, figures and realities exposed by this series. It’s like they cannot or will not extend their……

From THE HILL By Bridget Johnson
An anti-illegal immigration group said after Saturday’s defeat of the DREAM Act in the Senate (vote 55-41 to end debate, not clearing the 60-vote threshold) that “we look forward to moving aggressively to offense.” Roy Beck, president and founder of NumbersUSA, countered however by saying “Now, the next Congress can start to put unemployed Americans back to work by eliminating the ability for illegal aliens to hold jobs and by reducing the number of unnecessary permanent foreign workers we currently bring in legally every month,” “Perhaps now we look forward to moving aggressively to offense,” “The next Congress has the strongest pro-enforcement membership since 1995 and probably since 1924.”

 

Obama quietly erasing borders

Dem administration advancing ‘North American Union’ agenda

Posted: December 15, 2010 By Jerome R. Corsi © 2010 WorldNetDaily

Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.

The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled “United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision.”  More….

Obama government using domestic spy group to watch Americans (while illegals who have invaded our country, are given aid and comfort by the administration’s policies run amok, and while one of the biggest threats with regard to radical Islam is our illegal immigration and open borders)

Published in December 20th, 2010 Posted by WhatIfTheyWereARepublican in Liberal hypocrisy

The government led by Barack Obama is creating a domestic spying network to collect information about Americans, the Washington Post reported Monday. FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators are being used to do the collection of information. The system collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of US citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. The government’s goal is to have law enforcement agencies in the country feed information to Washington to aid the FBI in the collection. According to the report, the network includes 4,058 federal, state and local organizations, each with its own counter-terrorism responsibilities and jurisdictions.

In use are technologies and techniques developed on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and have been adapted for use in the United States. In addition, the FBI is building a database with the names and personal information of thousands of US citizens and residents, the report said. The database is accessible to an increasing number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators, the report noted.

In a bid to counter what is seen as a threat from radical Islam, some law enforcement agencies have hired as trainers people whose extremist views on Islam and terrorism are considered inaccurate and counterproductive by US intelligence agencies. This year, 3.8 billion dollars has been allocated to local law enforcement agencies.

Leftist water carrying Journalist Group Complains ‘Illegal Immigrant’ Term is ‘Offensive’ to Latinos

Really! FIRST OF ALL IT SHOULDN’T BE OFFENSIVE TO “LEGAL” LATINO (or is it Hispanic) IMMIGRANTS, BUT RATHER A COMPLIMENT. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS COME HERE ABOVE BOARD, PAY THEIR DUES, FOLLOW OUR LAW, AND ASSIMILATE. ILLEGALS DON’T! SECONDLY, WHAT THE HECK MAKES YOU THINK ALL “ILLEGALS” ARE LATINOS. WE DON’T CARE IF YOUR BLACK FROM HAITI, WHITE FROM RUSSIA, ARAB FROM SOME MID EASTERN PLACE, IF YOU’VE INVADED OUR COUNTRY YOUR AN “ILLEGAL” IMMIGRANT AND WE WILL NEVER STOP CALLING YOU THAT. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT – GET OUT, THAT’S ALL WE WANT TO BEGIN WITH. IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK, DO IT LEGALLY AND IF YOUR WORTHY WE’LL EXCEPT YOU, IF YOUR NOT BECAUSE YOUR A GANG MEMBER, A MURDERER, A ROBBER, A RAPIST, A TERRORIST, OR WHAT HAVE YOU,  THEN WE WON’T!

Watch – Megyn Kelly: Calling Illegal Immigrants ‘Undocumented’ Is Like Calling Rape ‘Sex’

 

 

“Frustrated by what they see as a lack of government enforcement and support, some states are taking illegal immigration into their own hands, considering a variety of legislation and action at local levels. Several states, including Utah and Michigan have been debating immigration legislation. And now, the chairman of Prince William County, Virginia, Corey Stewart, is suing the Department of Homeland Security, seeking records about illegal immigrants in his county.” – Fox News

It’s Washington’s Birthday, Not Presidents’ Day

 February 22 is the birthday of George Washington — the man who, more than any other, made possible our republican form of government.

The third Monday in February has come to be known, wrongly, as President’s Day. America’s political leaders should take this occasion to remember Washington’s deeds, recollect his advice, and again call the holiday celebrating him by its legal name: Washington’s Birthday.

Washington biographer James Flexner called him the “indispensable man” of the American Founding. Without Washington, America would never have won our War of Independence. He played the central role in the Constitutional Convention and set the precedents that define what it means to be a constitutional executive: strong and energetic, aware of the limits of authority but guarding the prerogatives of office.

Washington not only rejected offers to make him king, but was one of the first leaders in world history to relinquish power voluntarily. His peaceful transfer of the presidency to John Adams in 1797 inaugurated one of America’s greatest democratic traditions.

For eight years, Washington led his small army through the rigors of war, from the defeats in New York and the daring crossing of the Delaware River to the hardships of Valley Forge and the ultimate triumph at Yorktown. Through force of character and brilliant political leadership, Washington transformed an underfunded militia into a capable force that, although never able to take the British army head-on, outwitted and defeated the world’s mightiest military power. And when the job was done, Washington resigned his commission and returned to his beloved Mount Vernon.

Washington was instrumental in bringing about the Constitutional Convention, and his widely publicized participation gave the resulting document a credibility and legitimacy it would otherwise have lacked. Having been immediately and unanimously elected president of the convention, he worked actively throughout the proceedings. His voting record shows his consistent support for a strong executive and defined national powers. The vast powers of the presidency, as one delegate to the Constitutional Convention wrote, would not have been made as great “had not many of the members cast their eyes towards General Washington as president; and shaped their ideas of the powers to be given to a president, by their opinions of his virtue.”

Washington wrote extensively and eloquently about the principles and purposes of the American Founding. He was a champion of religious freedom, of immigration, and of the rule of law. His most significant legacy is his Farewell Address of 1796, which ranks with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as one of the greatest documents of the Founding. The Farewell Address is best remembered for its counsel about international affairs: Washington recommended commercial relations with other nations but as few political entanglements as possible.

Often overlooked is his sage advice about the character of our political system:

1. Uphold the Constitution. Washington reminds us that the Constitution — by which our government is carefully limited yet strong enough to defend our rights and liberties — is our strongest check against tyranny and the best bulwark of our freedom.
2. Beware of the politics of passion. Washington was concerned about the excessive partisanship that stirs up individual passions, bringing out the worst aspects of popular government.
3. Protect American independence. Although often remembered as an isolationist, Washington advocated an active policy of building the political, economic and physical strength for America to defy external threats and pursue its own long-term national purpose.
4. Encourage morality and religion. Public virtue cannot be expected in a climate of private vice, Washington reminds us, and the most important source of virtue is religion and morality.

Although Washington’s Birthday was celebrated as early as 1778, Congress did not officially recognize as a national holiday until 1870. The Monday Holiday Law in 1968 moved the holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Section 6103 of Title 5, United States Code, currently designates that legal federal holiday as “Washington’s Birthday.” Contrary to popular opinion, no action by Congress or order by any president has changed “Washington’s Birthday” to “President’s Day.”

Several times, legislators have introduced legislation to direct all federal government entities to refer to the holiday as George Washington’s Birthday. Better yet: the president could issue an executive order that, in one stroke of the pen, would not only enforce the law, but also remind all Americans that George Washington still deserves to be “first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), is executive editor of “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.”

Tea Party Democrats, huh?

By Mark W. Hendrickson

I have good news and bad news:  The good news is that the political ideals and values of some prominent Democrats are so right-wing that they make most Tea Party leaders seem like liberals in comparison.  The bad news is that all those right-wing Democrats belong to an earlier century and are no longer with us.

On Presidents Day, 2011, as we reflect on past presidents and chafe under the destructive policies of the incumbent, it might be hard for young Americans to realize that there have been Democratic presidents whose core beliefs included the inviolability of individual rights, the sanctity of our constitution, and the conviction that the federal government should protect citizens’ property rather than redistribute it.  In fact, though, those beliefs were the animating principles of the Democratic Party in the 1800s.

Today, it is virtually impossible to picture Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Grover Cleveland — all two-term Democratic presidents in the 19^th century — being welcome in the modern Democratic Party or even wanting to be associated with it.  Today’s Democrats — Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. — haven’t modified the principles of those early Democratic presidents; rather, they have inverted, repudiated, and abandoned them.  (and we would add, twisted, foresaken, and bastardized as some other good descriptions)

For example, one of the primary tenets of Jeffersonian Democrats was their belief in small, limited government.  In 1824, Jefferson wrote, “I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” If the Sage of Monticello felt that way in 1824, imagine how he would feel today! 

Distrusting Big Government, early Democrats naturally detested government debt.  Jefferson believed that debt leads to taxation, wretchedness, oppression, and servitude.  He reduced the $83 million federal debt he inherited by over one-third during his presidency, despite incurring the expenses of the Louisiana Purchase and the conflict with the Barbary pirates.  In 1824, Jackson declared government debt a “national curse.”  Old Hickory remains the only president to have paid the federal debt down to zero. Today, by contrast, Obama presides over a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt that will double by 2021 if Obama gets his way.

Nineteenth Century Democrats such as them would have regarded today’s Democrats’ penchant for social engineering as un-American.  They would have rebelled against the injustice of redistributing wealth in the cynical name of “social justice” in pursuit of socialistic egalitarianism.  To achieve this goal, Democrats (with considerable collaboration from all too many Republicans) have done their best to replace the principle of an impartial and uniform rule of law with its antithesis-a transfer society comprised on a complex system of privileges.  They have rejected the traditional American sense of justice as so beautifully articulated by Andrew Jackson:

Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.

Rather than stamp out what Frederic Bastiat termed “legalized plunder” — privileges for the wealthy and the politically well-connected — recent generations of Democrats have democratized plunder.  They have granted privileges and bestowed trillions to labor unions, senior citizens, racial minorities, low-income individuals, etc.  As usual, two moral wrongs don’t make a right, but in this case, they have led us to the brink of national bankruptcy.

Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland were strict constitutionalists.  Jefferson warned against making our written constitution “a white [blank] paper by construction [i.e., sophistic, spurious, unscrupulous interpretation].” 

Jackson’s creed was:  “Democrats …favor limited state and national governments according to a strict reading of the state and federal constitutions.”  (Part of what was elided from the foregoing quote was Jackson’s opposition to a national bank — a position emphatically shared by Jefferson.  Today’s Democrats don’t even want the modern incarnation of a national bank, the Federal Reserve System, to be audited, much less abolished.) Cleveland, believing that the Constitution meant precisely what it said in plain English, resisted a huge expansion of government by vetoing a record number of spending bills.  As he put it in one veto message, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution…Though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”

It is plain that Jeffersonian Democrats are anathema to Obama and his progressive cohorts today.   “Progressive” Democrats live by the obnoxious and unconstitutional nostrum that “the government” should support the people (meaning in practice that government takes from some to give to others, namely, their political allies).  Contemporary Democrats also believe that government can bestow additional rights on citizens, such as the right to cheap health care.  They have lost sight of the traditional American belief, so clearly stated by another Democratic president from an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, “that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

Today’s Democratic party is not your grandfather’s party.  Indeed, it may well be that the most profound political transformation in our country’s history has been the one that has happened within the Democratic Party.  Today’s “progressive” Democrats are practically the polar opposite of their Jeffersonian forebears.  There is actually a silver lining in this sad report: It means that it’s almost impossible for Democrats to migrate farther away from our country’s foundational principles, and raises the possibility that the next significant ideological shift in the Democratic Party will, of necessity, be in the direction back toward their party’s (and our republic’s) founders.

That day cannot come soon enough (because right now classic liberalism is dead, and new leftist liberalism runs rampant.)  

Happy Presidents Day, everyone!

Today is Bill of Rights Day est. Dec 15, 1791. The Preamble and more

 

Above: Though faded, this is part of the original Bill of Rights that is preserved in the Library of Congress.

 

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

 

“The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

 

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

 

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

 

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

To read the 10 Amendments and For more information on the Bill of Rights, click here or here or here.

Virginia Judge Declares Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional; Next? ObamaCare mandate and SCOTUS

December 14, 2010

ObamaCare mandate and SCOTUS

Thomas Lifson – American Thinker

Nearly everyone agrees that Judge Hudson’s finding that the ObamaCare health insurance mandate is unconstitutional will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say. The only question is whether the government will agree to expedited treatment, which would bypass the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which most observers agree is likely to uphold Judge Hudson’s decision).

Jennifer Rubin, the superb political analyst who recently moved from Commentary Magazine to the Washington Post, notes a singular fact that should lead to Judge Hudson’s decision being affirmed by the SCOTUS:

…here’s the tricky part: Justice Elena Kagan, having served in the Obama Justice Department, is surely to recuse herself. With the “liberals” one judge down, even a Kennedy vote to uphold the individual mandate would presumably result in a 4-4 tie. And guess what? If there is a tie, the lower ruling stands. In other words, this is really　bad for ObamaCare advocates.

Hat tip Richard Baehr

 

And here’s a collection of articles as to this major victory: Judge Hudson’s finding.

 

American Spectator

• ObamaCare’s Legal Setback

Patriot Updates

• Judge Rules Obamacare Mandate Goes Beyond Letter and Spirit of the Constitution

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

• Virginia Judge Declares Health Care Mandate Unconstitutional

WSJ-Politics and Policy

• Court Strikes at Health Law

WSJ – Opinion

• ObamaCare Loses in Court

Family Security Matters

• Virginia Judge Rules That Part of ObamaCare Plan is Unconstitutional

A U.S. District judge has found that a main clause of ObamaCare, demanding that Americans must purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional.

• ObamaCare: Virginia, Severance and Section 1501

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate of ObamaCare – demanding that a citizen must purchase insurance or face IRS penalties – was unconstitutional…

FreedomWorks 

• FreedomWorks Salutes Virginia Court Decision Declaring Obamacare Unconstitutional
• Virginia Judge: Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Libertarian-Republican

• The Most Important Court Ruling of the Year
• VICTORY! Health Care individual mandate struck down by Virginia Court
• Ken Cuccinelli Guest Tonight on “Libertarian Politics Live”
• Texas Governor Rick Perry welcomes VA Court decision against ObamaCare

10th Amendment Regulatory Reform Act HR 4946: Pushing Back Against Federal Overreach

HR 4946: Pushing Back Against Federal Overreach

Published in December 6th, 2010 Posted by Jim Delaney

In a recent D&C article, Cal Thomas took note of a hopeful congressional development, a rarity these days: in league with Reps Bishop (UT), Manzullo (IL), Chaffetz (UT) and Rooney (FL), Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) introduced HR 4946, the 10th Amendment Regulatory Reform Act, which would grant legal standing to specific state executive leaders (Governor, Lt. Governor or Attorney General) or legislative leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, or Minority Leader) to directly challenge in federal court regulations issued by federal administrative agencies. Finally!!!!

On March 25, 2010, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. Of course, how soon the bill will get out of subcommittee and be favored with a floor vote in both the House and Senate is anyone’s guess. But, as Cal Thomas says, “it’s a start.”

In light of George Soros’ recent public advice to Obama to circumvent a Republican-dominated House by issuing executive orders and encouraging his regulatory bureaucrats to implement rules to advance his socialist agenda over the next two years, as well as reports that other far-left Obama supporters, stung by the GOP takeover in the House, are providing similar advice to the White House, Rep. Cole’s legislative effort is, indeed, timely.

Coupled with the GOPs “Pledge to America” which will require specific constitutional justification for each bill introduced in Congress before being voted on, could it be that some semblance of constitutional order on the Hill might actually be forthcoming in the months ahead? Though much depends upon the GOPs virtue and integrity, we can certainly hope these actions mark a return to constitutional governance.To justify passage, para 7 of the bill pointedly states that “The Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government often promulgate regulations contrary to the spirit and letter of the 10th Amendment. ” As poignantly, para 9 states that “It is the responsibility of Congress to safeguard the 10th Amendment and to recognize that it is as vital and valuable today as on the date of its ratification.” Nothing like hitting ‘em between the eyes. Yes, indeed!

If passed, the law would provide that whenever a federal agency proposes a rule for public comment, a designated State official may file a legal brief challenging its constitutionality at which point that challenge must be prominently posted by the proposing agency on its website. And if, despite the legal challenge, the agency still intends to implement the rule it must, within 15 days of the state challenge’s posting, issue a legal opinion as to why the proposed rule does not violate the 10th Amendment. A state designated official may then commence legal action in district court to invalidate the rule. Further, the bill calls for expedited review of the district court’s ruling in the US Court of Appeals. How did we do without such a law for so many years?

So, while this bill does not impose an especially onerous requirement on federal agencies, it does compel those agencies to exercise due diligence, political caution and appropriate restraint before inadvertently or willfully attempting to overstep their constitutional authority. In short, it attempts to keep those agencies in check and truer to their constitutional limitations.

And what of blatant executive overreach, per se, occasioned by imperial Presidential executive orders? Well, suffice it to say that the Republican Congress still possesses the power of impeachment and the purse. And given the deep and growing public distrust toward the White House’s current occupant and his socialist coterie, articles of impeachment is no longer unthinkable. Let’s hope that knowledge alone will be enough to restrain Obama’s imperiousness, failing which another epic constitutional crisis for the country may well be in the offing. But, if impeachment is what it takes to properly restore the balance of power in DC, then in the immortal words of G W Bush, “Bring it on!”

Constitutional crisis: Obama “Creator” omission is intentional, is about ideology, to him government gives rights not god. And more

Obama Omits ‘Creator’ From ‘Inalienable Rights’…Again

• Posted on September 27, 2010 at 6:48pm by  Meredith Jessup

Just one week after President Barack Obama came under fire for omitting man’s “Creator” as the source of his “inalienable rights” — as described in the U.S. Declaration of Independence — he’s done it again. This time, the president was delivering remarks at a Democratic Party fundraiser in New York City, raising money for his party’s midterm election races.

During the Sept. 22 fundraiser at New York’s Roosevelt Hotel, President Obama told the audience:

[I]f we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class, every child able to go as far as their dreams will take them — if we stay true to that, then we’re going to be able to maintain the energy and the focus, the fight, the gumption to get stuff done.”

Referring to “those words,” the president encourages his audience to remember the Declaration of Independence, but once again fails to mention one of the documents most central ideas — that man’s rights come from God, not government.  Instead, the president interprets the meaning behind the Declaration as one that grants government the authority to dole out “opportunity.”

When the president spoke to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala on Sept. 15, many speculated he had inadvertently left out the word “Creator” when loosely quoting from the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Obama said at that event, “that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s what makes us unique.”

Fox News’ Bret Baier later reported that the White House clarified the remarks, claiming  President Obama “went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.”

With the same omission made just one week later, it seems the latest “mistake” may have been intentional. (and so too was the first one as far as we’re concerned, some Constitutional scholar you were Mr Obama!)

There’s a new name for the Constitution: Political Propaganda

One would think that our founding documents such as the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers would be considered historical treasures.

They should be taught and appreciated in schools so that our children grow up with the proper sense of patriotism for this great country. One would think… READ MORE

 Cass Sunstein: Conservatives think Constitution means what it originally meant

Cass Sunstein (the guy who Glenn has called the most dangerous man in America because of his regulatory powers) summed up the main issue conservatives have with progressives. Glenn plays the recently unearthed clip of Sunstein saying, “Some conservative legal thinkers like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas think that the Constitution means what it originally meant.”  Glenn has more on Sunstein’s comments and the battle with progressives today. ( Transcript, Insider Audio)

Obama Crosses the ‘Credibility Threshold’

It’s only human nature. When people face trouble, they try to talk their way out of it. When a mistake has been made, people try to explain what happened. When there is confusion, people try to clarify the situation through… READ MORE

Not such a bright idea.

When the government regulates how much water a toilet can flush, or what kind of lightbulbs you can put in your table lamps at home, the Constitution looks pretty small in the rear view mirror.  Exactly where in the Constitution… READ MORE

Some lessons on government funding brought to you by Madison and Hamilton

September 08, 2010

Patrick Jakeway

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers numbers 36 and 54 about the importance of constraining the tendency of governments to lapse into partiality, venality, corruption and tyranny when it comes to the power of taxation:

Hamilton in the Federalist 36:

“Let it be recollected, that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature: but it is to be determined by the numbers of each state, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census, or enumeration of the people, must furnish the rule; a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that ‘all duties imposts and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.”

James Madison elaborated on the importance of the population count as a governing function restraining abuses of taxation at the end of Federalist number 54:

“In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation, will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by congress, will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree, on the disposition, if not the co-operation of the states, it is of great importance that the states should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the states will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

The genius of the original form of the Constitution is plain to see here.  The government of the United States now spends an obscene amount of money.  Exactly what Madison predicted has come to pass: the states now have an incentive to exaggerate their population numbers in order to gain transfer payments to their citizens from the welfare state which is in turn dependent on the income tax as opposed to the direct “head tax” which the Founders established. This is in turn affects all manner of domestic and national security politics: e.g. education, immigration, border security.

Ever since the birth of the income tax on Christmas eve 1913, the growth, corruption and power of government has continued unabated.  While marginal income tax rates have varied dramatically over the years, revenues have, on average, consistently expanded through the decades.  Correspondingly, the burden and oppression of government has magnified to the point that it has become a yoke on the citizenry. 

Think ahead to 12/24/2013, the centennial of the income tax. Reflect upon where this country was 200 and 100 years ago. Imagine what it will be like on Christmas eve 2013 (the eve of Obamacare). Finally, envision the condition in which you hope to leave this great nation for your children and grandchildren on Christmas eve 2113.  It is self-evident to me that we are not on the right track to sustain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the long term and that we as a country need to move back toward the Founders’ vision of how we should fund the government of the United States.

Some Republicans are rolling over for Kagan, yet her confirmation will endanger our Constitution!

Some Republicans Roll Over For Kagan

June 30, 2010 Posted 06:59 PM ET

Supreme Court: The questioning of Elena Kagan has been mostly laughs and smiles. Republicans are letting image and empathy win out over substance, and that’s no laughing matter.

Supreme Court confirmation hearings have degenerated into slick TV entertainment. Millions of viewers seeking real scrutiny of President Obama’s choice instead heard light banter about how New York Mets fan Kagan might get along with Yankees fan Justice Sonia Sotomayor. (Answer: They’ll be too busy working together with fellow liberal New Yorker Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg against the court’s conservative male justices to talk baseball.)

They also heard Kagan’s jokey answer to a question from Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., about the Christmas Day bomber. “Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant” that day, she said.

Graham even hinted that Kagan may have secured his vote by saying that her longtime friend, the much-maligned Judge Miguel Estrada, was qualified to sit on the Supreme Court — proving what little it takes for a liberal nominee to bag a stray GOP senator.

These hearings have become valueless. Last year, Sotomayor assured the committee she supported the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in support of the Second Amendment’s individual gun rights.

“Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked her. “Yes, sir,” Sotomayor replied.

But fast-forward to this week and the McDonald v. Chicago ruling just handed down and we find Sotomayor joining a dissent that says,”I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Sotomayor now believes that “examination of the Framers’ motivation tells us they did not think the private armed self-defense right was of paramount importance.”

She further holds that “Unlike the First Amendment’s rights of free speech, free press, assembly and petition, the private self-defense right does not comprise a necessary part of the democratic process that the Constitution seeks to establish.”

In other words, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment belongs in the back of the bus. If baseball players who lie to Congress about steroid use get into legal hot water, shouldn’t Sotomayor for misleading senators on the Second Amendment?

GOP senators are once again mostly playing dead.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Wednesday let Leahy wow him with the flattering text of conservative former appellate judge and Stanford law professor Michael McConnell’s endorsement of Kagan.

“That’s high praise indeed,” Hatch gushed.

Similarly, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was reduced to pleading with Kagan to reread the Federalist Papers, giving her an opportunity to appear to be the epitome of moderation by vowing to do so.

In truth, Kagan seems more fascinated with the authority of foreign law than that of the Framers.

On Tuesday, she told Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that in “narrow circumstances” on a “limited number of issues,” there are “some cases where citation of foreign law or international law would be appropriate” because a judge should “look for good ideas wherever they come from.”

There’s a lot at stake here. GOP senators should have stopped yukking it up and started questioning this lady in a serious way.

If they had, they’d find that Elena Kagan lacks any experience as a judge, shows every sign of being a liberal judicial activist and refused to answer question after question — yet seems set to slide through to a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

(Hey Lindsey Graham, yea especially you, Mr RINO extrodinaire, just go away already would ya.)

Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK’d

by Phillis Schlafly

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn’t “radical” enough because “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” in order to allow “redistribution of wealth.”

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will “break free” from the Constitution and join him in “fundamentally transforming” America. That’s the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it’s long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “all legislative powers” are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should “make” and “create” law, assume “a role in the legislative process” and give statutes “new meaning that suits new social needs.”

Barak wrote that a judge “is subject to no authority” except himself, and he “must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it.” Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak’s weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her “judicial hero.” Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan’s praise of Barak is “disqualifying in and of itself.” Bork said that Barak “establishes a world record for judicial hubris.” He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that “there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern.”

During Kagan’s confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Sen. Arlen Specter asked her views on using foreign or international law or decisions to interpret our Constitution and laws. She wrote in reply that she approves using “reasonable foreign law arguments.” Au contraire. The U.S. Constitution says our judges “shall be bound” by “the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.”

Extreme Feminism

Federal law requires all educational institutions receiving federal funds to present an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on every Constitution Day, Sept. 17. Kagan thumbed her nose at Constitution Day 2007 by hiring a transnationalist to the Harvard faculty, Noah Feldman, and featuring him for two days of speeches.

Transnationalists are lawyers who advocate integrating foreign and international law into the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws. In his Harvard Constitution Day address, Feldman urged the “use of international legal materials in constitutional decision-making … to help actually decide cases,” and opined that “international tribunals’ rulings must be treated as law.”

Kagan’s hero is also a transnationalist. In his book “The Judge in a Democracy,” he sharply criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to cite foreign law, and he praises Canada, Australia and Germany for their “enlightened democratic legal systems.”

Kagan is particularly inappropriate because this anti-military woman would replace the only veteran on the court, John Paul Stevens. As Harvard Law School dean, she signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn or rewrite the Solomon Amendment, which she called “profoundly wrong.”

That popular law denies federal funds to colleges that bar military recruiters from campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Kagan’s argument, proving what an extremist she is.

Kagan showed her feminist extremism when she served as the lead White House strategist advising President Clinton to veto the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ten years later, substantially the same act was passed by Congress, signed by President Bush and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Feldman has published a New York Times magazine article in which he worries about how the high court will rule on lawsuits over ObamaCare, Obama’s corporate takeovers and the stimulus spending cronyism. Feldman hopes Kagan’s appointment means “the moment has arrived for progressive constitutional thought” to seize the courts .

The left is counting on Kagan to play a major role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold Obama’s transformation of our exceptional private enterprise system to a socialist economy. The New Republic magazine is salivating at the prospect that Kagan will reassert the discredited doctrine of the “living Constitution.”

A Rasmussen poll reports 42% of Americans oppose Kagan’s confirmation, and only 35% favor her. Are senators listening?

• Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative, and long time political analyst.

BE SURE TO VISIST OUR “KAGAN FILE” PAGE FOR MORE…

Tea Party Power, a great discussion

Santelli and Dobbs Talk Tea Party Power

by Larry Kudlow

So what exactly is the real message of the tea parties? And how large an impact will they have on the upcoming elections? These are just a couple of the questions I posed to my old friends Rick Santelli and Lou Dobbs on last night’s Kudlow Report.

Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC a little over a year ago helped launch the whole tea party movement. We also welcomed David Webb. David is a big tea party player and is the co-founder of TeaParty365 in New York City. I guess you could call it a tea party trifecta.

Right Click-open new tab to watch last night’s fireworks: http://biggovernment.com/lkudlow/2010/06/25/santelli-and-dobbs-talk-tea-party-power/

and a few comments:

mtv22 109p · 16 hours ago

I always enjoy the Santelli “riff”. Imagine, “harmony with the Constitution, for the individual, not the collective”. And “American exceptionalism”. Breitbart commenters certainly understand “grass roots”. Our political parties are green with envy at the popularity of the Tea Party. Thanks for posting this uplifting message, a real shot of adrenaline.

rckmom 107p · 16 hours ago

Capitalism 101…LEAVE the business world alone!!! What part of this does the government not understand?? I know, they want control of EVERYTHING…guess what WE THE PEOPLE are here to stay! Get over it!!!

mackycat 55p · 16 hours ago 

We want our republic back. And we’re going to take it back starting in November. Respect the Constitution of the United States of America or get out.

StanH 115p · 16 hours ago

The Tea Party represents the true power in America…fear us! It harkens the beginning of the end of the progressives (‘60s radicals) in the USA, finally. The struggle will be long, however the rewards will be great, no less the preservation of the greatest country the world has ever known, the USA!.

Cowboy Logic 124p · 16 hours ago

Larry, I can answer your question:
“So what exactly is the real message of the tea parties? “

We are here, we are real, we want OUR Country back, and WE are NOT going away.

TexasStomp 92p · 16 hours ago

The Tea Party Movement is AMERICA 101. We will win because Americans have always and will always refuse to fail.

The_Great_Satan 97p · 16 hours ago

“So what exactly is the real message of the tea parties? “

We are returning the federal govt to a representative govt by the people for the people, not by political prostitutes who’ve sold out to special interests, unions and large corporations.

The fascist democrats in DC see the tsunami of rage coming their way and yesterday the House passed an egregiously unconstitutional bill called the Disclose act where corporations are silenced and unions are given carte blanche. This is unconstitutional and should be defied. The tyrants in DC no longer care about adhering or defending the Constitution, their main objective is to usurp power.

copperpeony 95p · 15 hours ago

Great video. You rock Mr. Kudlow! Love the Santelli part and I wonder if Obama heard this? On another note, the SEIU thugs are starting to get really busy in my part of the country. I was going into a Safeway store and there was a woman dressed in all pink with an SEIU badge blocking the entrance with her clipboard .

She was harvesting votes ahead of time for the mid -terms. There were about 6 people listening to her and I asked “what are you talking about?” She started telling me and I just said to her and to the group: You represent the most corrupt union in the country. If it wasn’t for your union our country wouldn’t be in half the mess.

She got offended and asked me to explain and in my loudest voice I told the group what SEIU is all about in short sentences and I walked away. So did 5 out the 6 people. We the Tea Party need to do just what SEIU is doing. Harvest votes ahead of time. In front of Walmart, grocery stores etc. Just my humble opinion to get the message out.

Nero_Burning 61p · 15 hours ago

“What do you think?” “Think” is the crucial word when a serious question is posed. My own thoughts on the TEA Party movement are that it is a popular expression by people who actually understand the basis of our founding. The Founders applied reason and objective analysis to the human experience with all types of governance. They designed a system with the individual as the supreme value, while government was to be limited in scope and power. The Founding Fathers had ample evidence that valuing the government over the rights of the individual always leads to tyranny and despotism against at least some portion of the populace. It is why they had no love for democracy and established a uniquely Constitutional Republic. When the wealth is controlled by a few, the people are oppressed lest they take it. When governed by democracy, the mob steals from the productive classes, or “the rich” as they are so derisively referred. Nineteenth century America unfolded as the most productive and innovative century in human history for one reason: Ordered liberty. That is what the TEA party must restore.

Xoros 71p · 15 hours ago

Chop the Fed down to size, protect the individuals God given rights, stick to the constitution and the rest will take care of itself over time.

It’s simple but it’s going to be the fight that determines the direction of the country for the next 100 years, or the next 5 depending on who wins.

Smaller Government =
Bigger Freedoms -More Prosperity -Better Future

Dirtt 62p · 14 hours ago

Caught the segment. Who could forget the day Santelli woke up a huge segment of the USA and the rest of us were yelling FINALLY! at a CNBC broadcast? Thank you Mr Santelli and Well done Mr. Kudlow.

Taxpayer1234 94p · 14 hours ago

Tea Parties ROCK! I really love that the Tea Parties are as different as the exceptional Americans who comprise them.

When Americans unite around the principle of freedom, no one can stop us. When Americans unite around an orthodoxy, anyone can stop us.

mugiwara 81p · 14 hours ago

I saw that segment last night, Larry is one of the only guys who actually asks the Tea Partiers what they think about issues rather than just paint them as some angry racists and be done with them. Just watching The Kudlow Report now and Larry is spot on as always.

Looking4Sanity 122p · 14 hours ago

Even the Tea Party members and supporters do not know where this will lead us. We only know that we can NOT continue down the path we are on and survive as constituted. We love our country, and we’d rather die than to see IT die!

All you proglibs and outright Communists are hereby put on notice! WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THAT NIGHT! You have the fight of your lives on your hands, liberty will prevail, and we will win!

Every American household should know the phrase “The Democrat 16000″

Constitution OK with 16,000 new IRS agents?

Questions about Washington’s agenda prompt look at founding document

---

Posted: April 26, 2010
10:25 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The questions seem to be growing: what is the government’s role in your health-care decisions? What will the government require you to do to conserve energy resources? And what about the issue of illegal immigration? Shouldn’t that be a concern?

And that’s why – for the eighth straight ranking – readers have made the U.S. Constitution No. 1 among best-sellers at the WND Superstore.

According to the Washington Post, President Obama’s recent budget proposal includes the hiring of “tens of thousands of new federal government workers.”

The Heritage Foundation estimated that need at 250,000 people, and even White House budget director Peter Orszag said Obama will be “investing” in ranks of new “professionals.”

The IRS alone is bringing on 16,000 new agents to enforce the various penalties of the new health-care law and other jobs.

But the questions remain unanswered: where in the course of a constitutional republic is there a mandate for such extensive federal controls?

Which brings people around to the very document that set up the U.S. government.

The Constitution, printed by the National Center for Constitutional Studies and proofed word-for-word against the original in the Archives in Washington, D.C., provides the outline of what a federal government should do and places limits on what it cannot.

It is identical in spelling, capitalization and punctuation to the original. The 48-page pocket Constitution also includes the Bill of Rights, Amendments 11-27, the Declaration of Independence and a complete index of the Constitution.

“Make no mistake about it – there’s power in the words of the Constitution,” said Joseph Farah, founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com. “It’s one of the most magnificent political documents ever conceived by mortal men. In fact, I don’t think its beauty, elegance and enduring spirit would have been possible without a little divine inspiration.”

At The Hill, Rep. Cathy McMorris noted not only is government growing rapidly, the salaries for government workers are too. She recently noted while the private sector lost 7.7 million jobs over the past two years, federal bureaucracies grew by 10 percent. Further, she added, while private-sector salaries average $40,000 plus, federal jobs pay – on average – more than $71,000.

“Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. economy has been shedding jobs at its worst rate since the Great Depression. But you would never know it if you worked ‘inside the Beltway,’” she wrote. “When the economy turned south two years ago, the Department of Defense had 1,868 employees earning $150,000 or more. Today, there are 10,100 employees at the Pentagon taking home that salary. At the start of the economic slump, the Department of Transportation had only a single career employee earning more than $170,000. Today, there are more than 1,600 career federal workers at the DOT making that amount. Obama has recommended an additional 2 percent pay raise for 2010.”

In second place is “Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes The Global Warming Scam” by Brian Sussman.

The distinguished, award-winning television weatherman in San Francisco deftly melds easy-to-understand scientific facts with provocative commentary in this explanation of how the propagators of environmental alarmism are doing mankind a disservice.

Sick of twisted “facts” mass-marketed to manipulate basic living decisions and common-sense energy consumption, Sussman writes an indictment of elitist politicians, bureaucrats and activists who front the environmental movement to push intrusive, Marxist-derived policies in a quest to become filthy rich.

Sussman traces the sources of the campaign and then guides the reader from the diabolical minds of Marx and Engels in the 1800s to the global-governance machinations of the United Nations today.

Sussman’s work is a call to action, warning Americans that their future is being undermined by a phony pseudoscience aimed at altering every aspect of life in the United States and the world.

Thank God for this next one that people are waking up to history, revisiting and relearning such, as the Islamic threat we face is truly rooted in evil, and the most dangerous thing the world, including U.S., faces today.

In third place is “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini” by Chuck Morse.

The author traces the remarkable story of Haj Amin al-Husseini and describes him as, in many ways, as big a Nazi villain as Hitler himself.

He explains al-Husseini’s influence on the Middle East was as a bridge figure in terms of transporting the Nazi genocide in Europe into the postwar Middle East.

He writes: “As the leader of Arab Palestine during the British Mandate period, al-Husseini introduced violence against moderate Arabs as well as against Jews. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine in 1937 and subsequently went on the Nazi payroll as a Nazi agent.”

Further, “Al-Husseini played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in instigating a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941 as he urged Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in Europe to transport Jews to death camps, trained pro-Nazi Bosnian brigades, and funneled Nazi loot into pro-war Arab countries.”

Morse is a veteran radio talk-show host and syndicated columnist who is regularly featured on WorldNetDaily.com. His columns have been published in compilations including “Thunder Out of Boston,” “Why I’m a Right-Wing Extremist,” “The Difference Between Us and Them – America confronts the Leftist-Islamist Axis of Evil,” and “The Gramsci Factor – 59 Socialists in Congress.”

Combating Progressivism

by Bryan Björnson
Issue 149 – February 3, 2010

There is a belief in the political movement known as liberals – or better, progressives – that our government is the solution to our country’s problems. That is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers believed. Our Founding Fathers had a strong dislike for too much government. They joined together to rid themselves of an oppressive government. An oppressive government that the liberals, the progressives have not only bought back but seek to enlarge far beyond the level of oppression that caused our American Revolution. The British government had imposed on them taxes that they thought were too high. “No Taxation without Representation!” Sound familiar? It should. It was a rallying cry for our American Revolution.

To understand why liberals are wrong in their support of big government we should take a brief look at that revolution, its causes and the arguments for it being fought. Let’s start with our Declaration of Independence. In that document there is a sentence that is extremely important. A sentence that is often overlooked. A sentence that states how much the 56 men who signed it disliked big government. That sentence is; “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.” If you change the word “He” to Congress what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 could be written today! It is not what someone who believes that big government is the answer to all of our country’s problems would write. Our Declaration of Independence is a condemnation of oppressive government.

Also in that radically revolutionary document, our Declaration of Independence is our Founding Fathers’ pledge to risk everything they had. Here’s how Jefferson wrote it.  “…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honour.” Those who pledge all that they have to rid themselves of a big and oppressive government, if they are successful, are not going to create a big oppressive government to replace it!

Our American Revolution like any other war had its problems. Shortages of supplies, food and pay for the soldiers were the biggest problem. Our American Revolution had more than its share of those problems. Those shortages almost caused our soldiers to give up. They didn’t because another one of our Founding Fathers wrote a pamphlet that helped rally our soldiers. It reminded them of the oppressive government they were fighting against. The author of the pamphlet, Common Sense, was Thomas Paine. In it is a sentence that is another example of our Founding Fathers’ dislike, their hatred for big government. Here is Paine’s opinion on government; “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” That would not be the opinion of those who think or want a big government. It is not the opinion of those see government as the answer to all of our country’s problems.

The opinion that government is a necessary evil is not the opinion of the people who have been in control of our government for many decades. It is the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers believed. Why has this changed? What has caused the people in our government to think they must be involved in every aspect of our daily lives? Do they think we are less competent in running our own lives than Americans were in the past? Why does our government believe that Americans must be protected from themselves? Life has become more complex and the world has gotten smaller but Americans are no less intelligent, no less capable of fending for themselves than they ever have been. So why has our government grown so dramatically over the last several decades?

The cause of the growth is due to the way our government has been funded. Historically our government had been funded by tariffs and excise taxes. The money raised by excise taxes and tariffs was not all that much, which is fine because a small government doesn’t need much money. In 1861 our government instituted an income tax to pay for the War Between the States. That law was amended in 1862 and the changes of the revised law were later to become part of the XVI Amendment. The 1862 income tax law was very much like to todays with its list of deductions and a progressive rate of taxation. It also introduced the practice of withholding taxes from a person’s paycheck. By 1872 the income tax was abolished. (If it has happened before it can happen again!)

The income tax created by the 1862 law was to be paid mainly by the “rich”. To tax people just because they are rich is contrary to what America is all about. The taxes that caused our American Revolution were not only on rich people. The idea that if you are rich you owe more in taxes is not an American idea. It is a bad idea because it gives our government the power to decide who is rich and how much they must pay in taxes. That is not a power our Founding Fathers would have wanted our government to have!

But in politics bad ideas don’t die. Their supporters just refine and repackage them until enough politicians are convinced they are a good idea. Who brought back the bad idea of an income tax? Who refined and repackaged the bad idea that eventually became the XVI Amendment? Who convinced Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify the XVI Amendment? It was a political movement known as the “Progressives”. Their ability to pass and get the XVI Amendment ratified was an example of how the shift in people’s attitude towards the size of our government began. By giving our government the power to tax everyone’s income people began to look to our government as the solution to our problems. People don’t agree to buy something unless they think it will work. The XVI Amendment is our agreement to buy a government that we think can solve our problems.

The idea that our government is the solution to all of our country’s problems wasn’t one that achieved instant acceptance with the ratification of the XVI Amendment. To have an income tax was one of many ideas that the progressives used to shift our attitude towards our government and pave the way for our reliance on Washington, D.C. Some of the other ideas were the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Pure Food & Drug Act of 1906 and many other regulatory agencies. While in theory these agencies do good things they are contrary to the idea of limited Constitutional government.

The progressives’ views of our government’s duties are is the opposite of what our Founding Fathers were. This is what John Burgess, a leading progressive, wrote about government. “The most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood was the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects.” That is not a description of freedom. That is a description of tyranny! This was and is the goal of the Progressive movement. They want absolute, unlimited, universal power centralized on Washington, D.C.! If that is what our Founding Fathers had wanted why did they bother to risk everything they had to fight our American Revolution? Progressives and their belief in government solutions to all of our country’s problems are un-American and definitely un-Constitutional!

What other political movements sought absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual, over the people? Two of the most violent, murderous, tyrannical political movements in the history of man fascism and socialism! These political fraternal twins are responsible for deaths of an estimated 100,000,000 people. Progressivism is their American cousin.

From William Jennings Bryan to Barack H. Obama many an American politician has said that he or she was a Progressive. They will, of course, deny that their Progressives views are akin to socialism or fascism. But when their policies their programs increase our government’s size and its power over the individual that is socialism or fascism. For when the size of our government progressively increases our freedoms progressively decrease. Politicians should not be judged by their words. They must be judged by their actions. Do they, or have they, supported the progressive shift of power from our local and state governments to our Federal government? Have they voted for a progressive income tax rate? If they have they are progressives. Do they believe that government programs will solve all of the problems in our country? If they do they are progressives.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a progressive. He is the political godfather of the current Progressives in America. Here is a quote of FDR’s that shows his belief in progressivism and not a belief in freedom. “The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” Compare that to the quotes made earlier by our Founding Fathers. Would our Founding Fathers write our Constitution to be a set of rules for our government that could be stretched however our President wanted them to be? Men who believed in, men who risked everything they had to create a limited government would not write an “elastic compilation of rules of government.”

Prior to World War II progressives in America openly admitted their admiration for fascism. In 1934 Roger Shaw a progressive writer for the magazine The North American Review described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” Or as Rexford Tugwell the economic policy advisor for FDR’s Brain Trust wrote in his diary about Il Duce the man who coined the word fascism, Benito Mussolini, had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Once WWII started FDR had to convince people that his Progressivism was different from its European cousin, fascism. He was able to do this by being a stalwart opponent of the Nazi’s racist fascism. The genocide committed by the Nazis helped fool people into believing that FDR wasn’t a fascist. During World War II the US defeated fascism by allying with socialism. Socialism was the form of progressivism that FDR believed in. Socialism is the form of progressivism that is now our government’s modus operandi.

Currently an economic crisis, very much like the Great Depression, is adversely affecting our country. What is Pres. Obama suggesting to end this economic crisis? What FDR and the Progressives did in their attempt to end the Great Depression. Those ideas didn’t work then and they are not working now! But as with FDR and the Progressives people have been convinced that the free market failed and drastic measures are needed. It is not the market that has failed. It is the fascist/socialist ideas of the Progressives that have failed. The Progressive idea of government bailouts, nationalizing companies, and coming soon the largest government programs yet, government run health care, and Cap & Trade, make FDR look like a conservative! Presidents Bush and Obama have stretched our Constitution beyond FDR’s wildest dreams. The Progressive’s version of an elastic set of rules for our government is to say that our Constitution is a “living document”.

If our Constitution is a living document then like the horror movie from 1958 The Blob it will eat our freedom. The “living document” must eat something to survive and freedom is its favorite meal. What will The Blob, what will our government do when it has consumed all of our freedom? Do we want to find out?

Or do we want to start reducing our government’s appetite for our freedom? How do we go about putting our government on a diet? How do we kill The Blob and return to the limited government that our Constitution was a blueprint for? That can be done by the mechanism to control our government that is in our Constitution. We have done that a total of twenty seven times. Since 1795 we have amended our Constitution seventeen times. (The first ten, our rapidly disappearing Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791) That is an average of one amendment every twelve and half years. We even ratified one Amendment to repeal a previous Amendment; the XVIII Amendment was repealed by the XXI Amendment. There are two others that need to be repealed, the XVI (The income tax) & XVII (The direct election of US Senators) Amendments. Both of them were written passed and ratified because of the power of the progressives. The amendment process was intended to be a slow and difficult one. Yet the XVII was ratified just three months after the XVI was. (February 3, 1913 and April 8, 1913)

To hasten the drive to repeal the XVI Amendment it would help to repeal a law passed thirty years after it was ratified, the 1943 Current Payment Tax Act (CPTA). This law returned our government’s power to deduct taxes from a person’s paycheck as it had been done with the income tax that was abolished in 1872. It changed our taxes from being paid once a year as they had been to being paid every time we get paid. On April 15th we don’t pay our taxes we simply determine how much we have either over or underpaid. Many people overpay and then think they are getting a great deal when our government refunds their money to them. Why anyone would willingly give our government an interest free loan by overpaying their taxes is an example of how our attitude towards our government has changed. By repealing the 1943 CPTA the interest free loans we give our government would stop. People would learn and realize how much they actually pay in taxes and what percentage of their income goes to pay their taxes.

Making government bureaucracies, bigger, intrusive, and oppressive is easy. Making them smaller, less intrusive, and less oppressive is not. To do so almost requires a second revolution!

Bryan P. Björnson is a Madisonian liberal who believes that our Constitution was and is a blueprint for limited government and must be restored as the law of the land. To achieve this goal he has founded the A1S8 Society LLC.