When is Your "Enough"?

/in /by

As I watch the video of a parent in Maryland get manhandled and arrested for standing up to the lies of a school board, my heart fills with an overwhelming anger and disgust. First at the propaganda and lies perpetrated upon our children through government controlled schools upon unsuspecting parents. Secondly at the people who sat and watched this happen without intervening. Thirdly, at the clear violation of our First Amendment committed by the very institutions that are charged with educating our children and that should be teaching our children to defend their Liberty.

Finally, my heart drops to my stomach realizing that this is just the beginning. You see, in 2011 our federal government passed a bill known as HR347/S1794 The Federal Building and Grounds Improvement Act. I did what I could to educate America on the insidious nature of this bill. Read my analysis as published in 2011 in this article; “HR347/S1794: A Trespass on the First Amendment.”

But this bill was sponsored by Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a “conservative, constitutionally minded, republican” and my analysis was disregarded as something that would “never happen in America”.

This bill was passed into law with overwhelming support from our so-called “conservative, constitutionally minded, republican House.” HR347 makes what this concerned parent did, on the federal level, a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison. So if this parent had been at a Townhall meeting held by his Representative, Senator, or the President, he would have been “lawfully” arrested and sentenced. Lawfully, mind you, but NOT Constitutionally.

When we tamely allow something like this to happen to members of our community, we become cheerleaders to the very tyranny that will enslave us.

I am reminded by what Sam Adams said, “’if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.” (Essay, written under the pseudonym “Candidus,” in The Boston Gazette (14 October 1771))

Sam Adams says of our liberties:

“We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath’d to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance.”

Sam Adams, as cited above.

I will make you this promise, before I am charged with a crime that will put me in prison for 10 years…I will EARN my sentence. How about you? Fed up? Ready to pull your kids out of government schools? Or perhaps, the indoctrination of your child into a God-hating, government-loving, socialist-indoctrinating prison camp, is not bad enough….not yet. And if not now, then perhaps not ever. Perhaps slavery is most powerful when you don’t realize you’re a slave.

Debt Spending Deadbeats

/in /by

debt spending by the deadbeatsOn Friday, President Barack Obama told workers at a Ford plant in Liberty, Missouri, “if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’re deadbeats.”  This is a prime example of “fundamentally transforming” America.  This is part of the strategy that leftists use – change the definition of words, seize the vocabulary.  Obama wants you to believe that racking up bills that you can’t pay for in the first place, and then borrowing money to pay those bills, and then passing on that debt to your children is the responsible thing.  It used to be that people understood that if you robbed from your children you were, fundamentally, a deadbeat.

Thomas Paine tells a story in 1776 about a conversation he overheard by such outlaws like we see in government today…

“I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, ‘Well! give me peace in my day.’”

Thomas Paine calls men who pass on problems to their children “UNFATHERLY”.  How is it that we are taught that we are so much smarter than our founders that we have to redefine their wisdom by redefining the Constitution?  Here we have Thomas Paine in 1776 giving the correct definition of “deadbeat” and today that concept eludes us?  What does that say about ANY member of Congress who will vote to increase the debt ceiling?  Yes, I said they ALL are wicked deadbeats, regardless of party affiliation, if they vote to increase the debt ceiling.

How many in the Republican Party have declared that they cannot do what is necessary to subdue this out of control government because they don’t want to get “blamed” for the government shut down?  They don’t want to interfere with the party’s chances during the election?  They are saying, “Well, give me peace in my day!”  We don’t have to call them names, because according to Thomas Paine, they have CLASSIFIED THEMSELVES as the REAL deadbeats!

Do you want REAL solutions?  Just listen as Thomas Paine continues with his story to give us REAL direction…

“Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;” and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America.”

When are YOU going to become that “generous parent” and separate YOURSELF from these wicked, deadbeats playing party politics?  In fundamentally-transformed liberal wonderland, up is down and down is up…spending like a drunken sailor is good, attempting to reign in the drunkards is bad.  Can someone go get the grown-ups who know that wonderland isn’t real?  Can someone please find a parent in government who loves their child or their grandchild more than their money, their party, and themselves?

Cato Institute Declares States Are Not Sovereign

/in /by

The New York Times published on September 3, 2013 and article written by Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, on the “Limitations of Nullification”. I have had the honor of having personal discussions with Mr. Levy on several issues and even had the opportunity to debate him on the issue of nullification in a forum in South Florida. It will be no surprise to Mr. Levy that I disagree with his opinion. Opinions aside, I would like to have the opportunity to present the facts.

Mr. Levy’s main premise is that the States have the option to not agree and not enforce federal law, but they do not have the ability to prevent the federal government from enforcing its laws within the States.

“That’s because federal officials are authorized to enforce their own laws, even if they cannot compel the states to do so. Thus, on the second point, the nullifiers are wrong: states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.”

Mr. Levy’s premise is flawed and a mere review of the facts makes that clear. This country was built upon the foundation of free, independent, and sovereign States.

“Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States…” Lee Resolution June 7, 1776

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,…solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 (emphasis added)

The fundamental foundation of this country is built upon the understanding that our States are free, independent and sovereign in the same manner that Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany are free, independent, and sovereign (e.g the State of Great Britain). Because the States are free, independent, and sovereign countries they had the authority to come together in a contractual agreement, otherwise termed as a “compact” that created the Union and the federal government. The federal government is the creation of the States and the Constitution. The formation of the constitutional compact did not alter that free, independent, sovereign nature.

I find it ironic that Mr. Levy quotes Justice Scalia in Printz v. United States to make his point. Levy’s use of Scalia’s language in this case is legally inaccurate. Justice Scalia takes great effort in this case to maintain the sovereignty of the States over the federal government, citing many examples of how the States are a vital check in the federal power balance.See the multitude of ways Scalia reasserts the sovereignty of the States in this case:

“…[the States] they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” (citing The Federalist No. 39, at 245).

“…the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” (citing Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938)).

“Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion.”

“It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends, and no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect.” (citing by comparison Bowsher v. Synar – 478 U.S. 714, 736 (1986))

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (citing The Federalist No. 51, at 323)

Nothing Scalia said in Printz ever asserted that the States must just sit back and take federal enforcement of unconstitutional law. As a matter of fact this case says exactly the opposite.

Levy claims James Madison supports the premise that the Supreme Court has a type of Supremacy over the States, quoting The Virginia Assembly Report 1800. This could not be a more inaccurate statement of James Madison’s view of the States and the Supreme Court. A complete reading of the document Levy cites, shows Madison’s point actually contradicts Mr. Levy’s assertion.

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution (i.e. the States)… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” Virginia Assembly Report 1800, James Madison (emphasis added)

By this statement it is clear that Madison never meant to assign the Supreme Court supremacy over the sovereignty of the States. As if to punctuate his point, Madison continues;

“consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution (i.e. the States), to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800, James Madison. (emphasis added)

With all due respect to the Cato Institute, Mr. Levy’s confidence in the Supreme Court is misplaced, not founded by fact or history, and is contrary to the very foundation of this nation; the sovereignty of the States. We must remember that the Supreme Court is yet the third branch of the federal government; it is not an independent governmental body. For Mr. Levy’s “limits on nullification” to be true, the States are no longer free, independent, and sovereign entities, but merely subjects to the federal government with no recourse to limit or control the power the States themselves delegated to it. For Mr. Levy’s opinion to be true, the only limit upon the federal government’s power is its own will. A central government’s whose only limitation is its own will is a Kingdom and not a Republic.

“for the federal government to enlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration…the obvious tendency and inevitable result… would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison

Is Mr. Levy asserting that the Cato Institute supports the premise that this country is to operate as a Kingdom?

Open Letter on Syria

/in /by

Dear (Senator, Congressman),

As you are pressed to consider launching an attack on the Syrian people and their government I would hope you would consider the following facts.

Our Constitution was created to limit the federal government in its power and authority. The mission statement of the Constitution is contained in the preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.(emphasis mine)

The purpose of our Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” With that prime directive in mind, it is incumbent upon the federal government to “provide for the common defense.” I would like to draw your attention the word “defense”. This does not authorize the federal government to engage in offensive actions. It is a requirement to defend the Blessings of liberty. This essential principle is further illustrated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry Philadelphia, Jan. 26, 1799:

“I am for relying, for internal defence (sic), on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by it’s own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance….”

What the president is asking you to do is not only contrary to Constitutional principles, it is in violation of federal law. Section 7008 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2012 (division I of Public Law 112–74; 125 Stat. 1195), declares the United States is legally prohibited from providing foreign assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by a military coup d’´etat, or removed in such a way that the military plays a decisive role. What is going on in Syria is a coup in progress. We have no authority provide aid in the overthrow of Syria’s government.

Finally, the assertion made by the president that the use of chemical weapons precipitates a necessity for us to become involved in this is “quarrel”. This issue is not settled however. Although we are being told that chemical weapons where the cause of death of 1,400, the parties responsible for that action cannot be so clearly defined. Several international news sources are now reporting that the “rebels” too have chemical weapons supplied to them by the Saudi Prince Bandar. These reports even indicate that this particular incident was a result of an accidental mishandling of these chemical weapons by the “rebels”. Additionally, many sources are exposing the fact that the “rebels” are not Syrians at all, but Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood forces attempting to overthrow the Syrian government to establish themselves as that governmental power.

Congressman, there are some very serious unanswered questions that MUST be answered before we engage in an action that could have global military implications. (Russia has made their stance very clear)Please consider the following:

  1. What is the “common defense” need for action in Syria? Simply claiming “national security” or “war on terror” is not sufficient to satisfy the standard established by the framers to justify US military action.
  2. How do we justify not only violating the Constitution, but also federal law by aiding a country that is clearly in a military overthrow of power where military force will play a decisive role?
  3. Considering the great human rights violations going on in this world, in other countries (e.g. Slaughter in Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, Mali, China, Philippines, Russia, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, North Korea, or 1.2 million children enslave in human trafficking every year) how do we justify involving US military forces in a conflict between two factions who are not supporters of Western Liberty, are not trying to establish Liberty with a justified revolution, but simply killing each other in the name of political power and where we will inevitably team up with Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to start a potential massive global conflict?

These are very serious concerns that are not answered and may I submit, cannot be answered with the information being provided by the president. The first object of my heart is my own country. In that is embarked my family, my fortune, & my own existence. I have neither one minute of interest, nor one fiber of attachment out of it, nor a single motive of preference of any one nation to another, but in proportion as they are more or less friendly to us. All I ask for my representative to have this same dedication to our country first, to our citizens first, to Liberty First!

The honest truth and unavoidable reality is this; you bear a great responsibility in this decision, perhaps one greater than you have considered. You must recognize that generations will be the sharers of this one decision. You cannot make the wrong decision if you remain loyal to the foundations that made this nation great. Do not make this decision out of fear, or a preference for national security. Do not make this decision out of political avarice. Do not make this decision based upon less than complete evidence. You must make this decision with clarity of mind and with evidence beyond every doubt. To do otherwise will be a negligent act perpetrated upon future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. May God be with you as you do the right thing.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

/in /by

republic-if-you-can-keep-it-smAll forms of society rely on the continuing moral obligation of the people within that society, which is why I believe Benjamin Franklin, when asked what type of government they created, he responded, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”    With socialism, you eventually run out of someone else’s money and the system collapses.  With stateless society, you eventually run out of someone else’s morality and the system devolves into utter chaos.  With a republic you eventually run out of people’s attentiveness and immorality reigns in government.

Thomas Paine said, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is, but a necessary evil; in its worse state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

Paine is describing the very paradox of societies.  What happens without government will also occur with government; the same consequence, just with different actors.   The point that Paine was trying to make is that we hold fellowship with our fellow man as a blessing, so we desire to live in communities.  Small communities do well without much intervention of law, as people are bound by their closeness to respect each other’s liberty, act morally, and do not tread on their neighbor’s natural rights of Life, Liberty, Property and Right to defend these rights (Samuel Adams, Rights of man 1772) and are able to police themselves.  However, the larger communities become and/or the more detached man becomes from his neighbor, the less driven he will become by a personal obligation to morality.  When that occurs, the society will cry out for laws and as the society will begin to distrust his neighbor’s fair application of the laws, will elect government to enforce those laws.  Paine expounds:

“the reciprocal blessing of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing government to supply the defect of moral virtue.”

Perfect society is governed by morality; that circumstance exists when people “remain perfectly just to each other.”  The socialist societies believe that we will all operate in a just manner because we are “inherently good” people.  The stateless societies believe we will operate in a just manner because we can police ourselves as a “society” of “inherently moral” people.  With either of those systems there is no mechanism to compensate for the actual “inherently depraved” nature of man.  Which is why Paine points out that the people will then look to the enforcement of laws by a body of people, trusted to embody the morality of society.  Bottom line is this; government is the compensation for the immorality of man.  The more immoral man becomes in society, the more government is called for.  The more government we establish the less Liberty the people enjoy.  The less Liberty people enjoy the less government they want. Immorality is at the heart of these turbulent oscillations.

Our founders believed a Republic to be the most stable form of government as it is a blend of this “policing of the people” and a government to enforce the laws established by a moral society.  The Republic has lost its value when the PEOPLE no longer police the government.  The negligence of the people will allow them to then assume we have a “government problem” to avoid the personal responsibility of their actions.  Can there be a “government problem” that is not the result of a moral problem?  Not likely.  Therein lays the crux of the problem.  With the breakdown of the morality of the people, all society fails.  However, our founders believed the solution to our problem did not lie in the elimination of government, as Paine points out, societies naturally tend toward the establishment of government is some form eventually.  The solution lies with the restoration of morality in society.  Sam Adams warns:

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

Difficulty is, as Paine points out, “nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice” and it appears have to suffer the “necessary evil” of government as long as we are a fallen world.  The question remains, how long will we suffer an intolerable one?

Conviction Of The Republican Party

/in /by

war-on-republican-partyEvidence beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the Republican Party is LOST and delivering America to our enemies…foreign AND domestic:

Republican Policy: Arm our enemies? YES! Amnesty to Criminals? YES! Unlimited Power to POTUS? YES! Defend the Constitution? NO!

Republican Party approves unconstitutional, immoral, and illegal activity with their SILENCE: http://rt.com/usa/state-department-egypt-psaki-determination-181/

Republican Party AGREES with John McCain by NOT condemning his support of the Republican Party over Democrat Hillary Clinton!

Republican Party APPROVES of Chris Christie’s stand on thought police by continuing to give him endorsement and credibility.

134 House Republicans voted AGAINST requiring the federal government to comply with the Constitution. Republican Party approves unconstitutional, immoral, and illegal activity with their SILENCE

Republican Party CONSENTS to POTUS theft of power AND destruction of our Constitution by NOT condemning Congressional inaction!

Republican Party gives its APPROVAL to de-criminalizing criminals and MOCKERY of our laws and Constitution with its continuing support for McCain, Rubio, Graham, and Flake and Amnesty in the name of vote buying. (click on any of the items below to read a corresponding article).

The Republican party APPROVES AND ENCOURAGES all of the actions as they are not only NOT condemned but PERPETRATED by REPUBLICANS!

This is NOT the end of the evidence, it is only the beginning. If this evidence does not CONVICT the Republican Party in your mind of aiding and abetting the enemies and the destruction of the Constitution, then nothing will!

I am declaring WAR on REPUBLICAN party principles. ARE YOU WITH ME?!?

victor 207x300

Impeach Eric Holder~Open Letter To Congress

/in /by

Several members of the House of Representatives are moving forward with efforts to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder. We MUST help them in this effort.

As Reported by the Huffington Post, Congressman Ted Yoho met with his constituents in Florida:

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” said Yoho, who was a large-animal veterinarian before winning election last year. “It will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Yoho’s chief of staff, Cat Cammack, said the congressman wants Holder fired for issues that include the Fast and Furious sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that left federal agents’ weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was found at the 2010 scene of a Border Patrol agent’s killing.

Read the Remainder of the article here: http://huff.to/1iOiom2

If we want the Constitution to be defended, if we want justice to be served, we MUST help these Representatives through grass roots pressure.

In an effort to help us help Mr. Yoho and those standing with him, I have crafted this Open Letter. We can only do this if EVERYONE will pitch in. We MUST make this happen. If we do not there will be consequences.

These consequences are outline in the letter. Please read the letter and then share it many times over with your representative and others in the House. We CAN do this. We CAN enforce the Constitution. But we MUST take action. We CANNOT sit idly by.

Congressman,

Article 1, section 2, clause 5 makes it clear that impeachment rests in the House of Representatives. It is a clear obligation placed upon the house to maintain not only the integrity of the government, the separation of powers, but also the confidence of the people in their government.

George Mason remarked: “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?”

Your responsibility to the people of this country is great. That is why we are asking you to support your fellow Representatives in their efforts to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder for his conduct in Operation Fast & Furious, along with any other activity that support such efforts.

Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution leaves no choice for the House in this matter. This clause makes it clear that AG Eric Holder must be impeached.

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

As you know, as a result of the Fast & Furious hearings, AG Eric Holder was found in contempt by this body. Pursuant to Article 2 section 4, that finding requires the House to impeach Eric Holder, e.g. Eric Holder is a civil officer, contempt is a misdemeanor, and this clause requires impeachment, (“shall be impeached).

We are not concerned at this moment whether the Senate will convict Eric Holder. We do not ask you to speculate on the actions of the Senate, we only ask you to do the job we hired you to do; follow the Constitution.

There will be consequences for your failure to do so. James Iredell identified those consequences during the North Carolina Ratifying Convention:

“A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him, may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose, although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.”

Failure to impeach will send a clear message to AG Eric Holder and other civil officers that they are above the law and have no limits upon their desires no matter how malignant or pernicious. Edmund J. Randolph warned during the Constitutional Convention that “should no regular punishment be provided [speaking of impeachment], it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections.”

Stand in honor of your Oath. Stand in honor of this Republic. Stand in honor of your duty to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”   Stand with your fellow Representatives in this effort to right this injustice to the Constitution and to the People.

Just as the Constitution requires this action, we demand this of you.

Sincerely,

NullificationPart 1

/in /by

After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest. They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court. We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate. Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. The truth is, not only should the States be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates. Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.” So is this the end? Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits? Or is there a remedy yet remaining? Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this “treasonous” as some have suggested?

To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States. These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. This compact, or contract, made among the States not only created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract. Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation. That is to say, they are sovereign – independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government. All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people. The 10th Amendment makes that very clear.

“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.” 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government. The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers. James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45:

 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…” Federalist Paper #45

Madison then goes on to explain “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Federalist Paper #45

Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.

Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States. When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless. Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking. This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government. What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.

“That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States. What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away? The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever. The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant. What will be the purpose of elections then? We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom.

 “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798

So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy? What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue? The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic. It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…

READ PART II HERE

Show Brandon

Immigration: Enforcement Not Reform!

/in /by

Immigration reform seems to be one of the go-to plays for politicians seeking votes these days. Everyone trots out some plan to integrate illegal immigrants into the tax system in a program that would eventually lead to the possibility of citizenship.  It is hard to see how this is any kind of solution to real problems. Think about this logically…currently illegal immigrants are working in the United States…they are getting paid in cash…they are getting free schooling, sometimes even to the college level…they are getting free medical care…they are getting food stamps, all WITHOUT paying any taxes.  WHY would they volunteer for a program that will force them to pay taxes for a benefit that they already receive?  WHAT is the actual incentive of citizenship?  I know the government has a warped sense of reality, but they can’t actually believe being forced to pay taxes is a BENEFIT!  The catchphrase today is “get them to come out of the shadows.”  What shadows?  They are breaking numerous laws IN BROAD DAYLIGHT! Not only that, sweeping immigration reform is not simply about the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce…it is about ALL illegal immigrants, from all over the globe, to include potential terrorists!

The fact is, we don’t simply need immigration REFORM; we need immigration ENFORCEMENT!    I thought the President wanted us to be more “like Spain, Italy, and Greece”?  What other nation gives a free pass to illegal immigration?  Try to sneak into any other country in the world and live there while breaking the law and see what they do to you…deportation will be a blessing.  Why is it only in America that we solve a criminal problem by making the laws conform to the criminals?  If this is the solution to criminal activity, since we can’t possibly stop people from stealing, why don’t we eliminate the laws that criminalize theft?  The government’s solution to gun crimes was MORE LAWS, why is the solution to illegal immigration ignoring the law?  Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court declared that there is nothing illegal about being in this country illegally.  Of course, you have to go to law school to get that stupid!

George Washington said in his Farewell Address, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence…the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Lack of immigration enforcement is the real problem.  It is lack of immigration enforcement that allowed Faisal Shahzad (Times Square Bomber) to attempt to blow up Times Square.  Shahzad was a naturalized citizen, but it is his questionable naturalization process that should sound the real alarm about immigration reform.   Shahzad was born in Pakistan. In December 1998 he was granted an F-1 student visa, a visa requiring sponsorship by and attendance in a college.In 1999 he was placed on a terrorist WATCH LIST. Between 1999 and 2008 Shahzad engaged in documented terrorist activity with known terrorists.  (See CBS News Investigates, May 5, 2010)  On May 1, 2010, after gaining full citizenship, Shahzad tried to blow up Times Square.  That means that neither the Bush administration, nor the Obama administration (if you can call them two different administrations) enforced immigration laws. As a result of the Shahzad incident, Eric Holder held an interview with ABC in which his suggestion was to alter our Bill of rights and give the government more flexibility in controlling our Constitutionally protected rights!

How did a man with known and continued operations with terrorists get full citizenship?  The answer is, improper immigration enforcement, not lack of visas.  In April of 2011, the Government Accountability Office issued the results of an audit conducted on our nation’s visa offices.  They found the greatest discrepancy in the evaluation process of our visa offices was in determining “WHAT LEVEL” of terrorist activity should deny someone a visa!  What in the world would convince a government that it is reasonable to give KNOWN TERRORISTS visas?

Fast forward to the present day.  In January of 2013, the Department of Homeland Security, executed a program called The Global Entry Program that expedites the visa applications of Saudi Arabians.  In this expedited process, the Saudi government helps approve the US Visa’s for its own citizens.  The Saudi applicants then get preferential treatment in obtaining visas and they do not even have to submit to customs inspections when they enter the country!  Did we forget that 15 of the terrorists that blew up the Twin Towers were from Saudi Arabia?  Did we forget that Saudi Arabia has the highest jihad recidivism rate of any nation regarding those released from Guantanamo?  I’m sure we didn’t forget any of this.  But I am sure that because of the corruption of our government they simply don’t care.  It’s all about the government’s agenda (read: OIL) and not the safety of the people.

Our government has become so corrupted by foreign influence that it is no longer concerned with the welfare of its own citizens.  The only thing this government is concerned with is maintaining relations with powerful nations and destroying to the Constitution to maintain its own power.

We are granting visas to known terrorists and at the same time demanding immigration REFORM to allow these people greater access to our country and our Constitution.  Now the GOP is walking down the same path to win back the Hispanic vote from the Democrats.  When will this insanity end? How about instead of throwing the doors open wide on the visa program, let’s have some actually oversight and safeguards on the visa program?  I say let those who wish to become citizens be put in a separate visa program like the proposed Red Card program.  Require background checks, credential them, fingerprint them and track them.  If you are a “good guy” then you shouldn’t mind letting us know who you are and submitting to the rule of law just like everyone else.  How about when an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime, deport them instead of turning them loose again on the streets?  And for goodness sake SECURE THE BORDERS!!!  What is the point of deportation, if our border is as porous as a sieve?

Enough with the thinly veiled voter drives disguised as immigration reform.  Enough with bowing to Saudi oil interests.  Let’s get the interests of OUR citizens and the defense of the Constitution and the rule of law at the top of the agenda.