Saturday, September 17, 2011
In a clear sign the 2012 presidential election campaign is in full swing, the Obama campaign launched a new website this week: AttackWatch.com . The purpose of the site is to give Obama supporters a way to report “attacks” on the president, implying that any criticism is based on lies or misinformation.
Let’s leave aside for the moment the disturbing notion of a president of the United States setting up a web site so that his supporters can “report” on the statements and activities of his opponents. When it comes to firearms issues, it’s this site that is misrepresenting President Obama’s record on guns.
The site says “Public figures have made outlandish claims that President Obama is planning to use a United Nations treaty to take away legal firearms from gun owners in the US.” It goes on to claim that “The Obama Administration supports a UN treaty that would help stop the worldwide illegal arms trade, while opposing any treaty that would interfere with US gun laws. While an arms treaty is currently being drafted, it has not yet been ratified.” What’s left out is that many of the treaty’s strongest proponents are demanding provisions would directly threaten American gun rights if it were ratified. Also omitted is that the position of the U.S. has changed since Obama took office: from strong unwavering opposition to the treaty, to support for the treaty if is passed by “consensus.”
The NRA has kept close watch on UN gun control efforts for more than 15 years. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified last month at the UN, making it clear that any treaty that includes civilian arms in its scope is a threat to the Second Amendment rights of Americans. But the misrepresentation of Obama’s position on the UN treaty is not the only misinformation on the AttackWatch site. The site also repeats claims from the 2008 campaign that Obama “supports” the Second Amendment and quotes the president as saying “There’s nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.” But that statement is inaccurate in many ways.
First, the primary function of the Second Amendment is not to protect “sportsmen,” but to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for the defense of our homes, families, communities and country. And this lip service to the Second Amendment is dwarfed by Obama’s lifetime Supreme Court appointments of two Supreme Court justices with clear records of antagonism toward the fundamental right to keep and bear arms: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These nominations alone are proof of Obama’s true stance on the Second Amendment, but there is much more. Obama has appointed dozens of high officials with long records of opposition to gun owners’ rights. From Vice President Joe Biden to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama has surrounded himself with anti-gun extremists. With people like these at the top level, it’s no surprise the administration has launched initiatives such as the effort to ban the importation of popular sporting and defensive shotguns, or the illegal use of “demand letters” to force southwest border state gun dealers to report multiple sales of certain rifles. And it should not be forgotten that “Operation Fast and Furious” not only happened under Obama’s watch, but has been covered up for ten months and counting, while growing evidence suggests the operation’s goal was to create support for more gun laws.
Finally, while Obama did sign legislation allowing firearms possession in national parks, he only did so when the provision was added as an amendment to a credit card reform bill that was one of his top priorities. In fact, Obama opposed the parks provision and accepted it only because he had no choice. The bottom line is this: The NRA has been incredibly successful over the past 20 years, not only in the legislatures and the courts but in changing the debate on the Second Amendment. This success has forced Obama to try and hide his life-long opposition to guns and gun ownership. Repeating a campaign sound bite that he “supports the Second Amendment” will not make it true. Nor does including that lie on the AttackWatch site make the claim any less preposterous. That’s not an attack; it’s the truth.
**************************************************
Reprinted from an article, Obama Misinformation Machine Gears Up, published on September 17, 2011, by the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, www.nraila.org.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Obama Insaniity Exposed
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
After last Thursday night’s presidential address before the Congress, there can be no question about it. Barack Obama is certifiably insane. He has gone beyond stupidity, apparently having no intention of rebuilding the economy of the United States. If he is not insane, the only other explanation for his comments is that he is, in fact, attempting the destruction of our country for his personal ambition, whatever that may be.
The Obama jobs proposal outlined to Congress on September 8, has as its goal, the financial destruction of the United States economy, our liberty, our way of life. His proposal displays a total lack of common sense, a trait which evidently is rampant in the United States Congress.
Today the national debt stands at 14.7 trillion dollars, the total tax revenue of the United States as of today is 2.3 trillion dollars, and the current goods and services sold, again as of today, in the United States is 19.9 trillion dollars.
Social Security is close to going broke, a situation which did not exist prior to the Congress authorizing the theft of money from the Social Security Trust Fund in the 1970s to fund other programs. The solution to this problem, according to Obama, is to cut the Social Security tax. He proposes a fifty-percent reduction on what employees and employers pay. Yep. The government that stole from the trust fund plans to make up the Social Security deficit right by reducing revenues to Social Security by half.
But that is not enough. He also wants to cut taxes to the “Middle Class.” According to Obama, the savings to the taxpayer earning $50,000 a year would be about $1,500. With a taxpaying population of 112-million plus, the tax revenue lost by this brilliant plan would increase the deficit by a mere 118 billion dollars. Obama’s plan to increase jobs, by the way, will, according to Obama, will cost 450 billion dollars.
Talk to any housewife who does the grocery shopping and she can explain how a decrease in family income somehow fails to be solved by spending more money at the grocery store and Wal-Mart.
But the logic of an increasing debt caused by increased spending just doesn’t compute with Obama. What he wants to do is to increase jobs by building and repairing, bridges, roads, schools, you name it, anything which will pour money into the coffers of organized labor. It doesn’t matter that the United States can’t pay for it. It doesn’t matter that we are on the verge of bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter that the real unemployment rate is over 19%, not the 9% the government claims, that figure being based on how many are being paid unemployment insurance, not how many are actually unemployed.
Obama’s economic plans won’t work. The only way to solve the problem of unemployment and debt is to stop government spending, and stop it now. Our current leadership is not up to the task.
But then by definition, Obama is insane.
After last Thursday night’s presidential address before the Congress, there can be no question about it. Barack Obama is certifiably insane. He has gone beyond stupidity, apparently having no intention of rebuilding the economy of the United States. If he is not insane, the only other explanation for his comments is that he is, in fact, attempting the destruction of our country for his personal ambition, whatever that may be.
The Obama jobs proposal outlined to Congress on September 8, has as its goal, the financial destruction of the United States economy, our liberty, our way of life. His proposal displays a total lack of common sense, a trait which evidently is rampant in the United States Congress.
Today the national debt stands at 14.7 trillion dollars, the total tax revenue of the United States as of today is 2.3 trillion dollars, and the current goods and services sold, again as of today, in the United States is 19.9 trillion dollars.
Social Security is close to going broke, a situation which did not exist prior to the Congress authorizing the theft of money from the Social Security Trust Fund in the 1970s to fund other programs. The solution to this problem, according to Obama, is to cut the Social Security tax. He proposes a fifty-percent reduction on what employees and employers pay. Yep. The government that stole from the trust fund plans to make up the Social Security deficit right by reducing revenues to Social Security by half.
But that is not enough. He also wants to cut taxes to the “Middle Class.” According to Obama, the savings to the taxpayer earning $50,000 a year would be about $1,500. With a taxpaying population of 112-million plus, the tax revenue lost by this brilliant plan would increase the deficit by a mere 118 billion dollars. Obama’s plan to increase jobs, by the way, will, according to Obama, will cost 450 billion dollars.
Talk to any housewife who does the grocery shopping and she can explain how a decrease in family income somehow fails to be solved by spending more money at the grocery store and Wal-Mart.
But the logic of an increasing debt caused by increased spending just doesn’t compute with Obama. What he wants to do is to increase jobs by building and repairing, bridges, roads, schools, you name it, anything which will pour money into the coffers of organized labor. It doesn’t matter that the United States can’t pay for it. It doesn’t matter that we are on the verge of bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter that the real unemployment rate is over 19%, not the 9% the government claims, that figure being based on how many are being paid unemployment insurance, not how many are actually unemployed.
Obama’s economic plans won’t work. The only way to solve the problem of unemployment and debt is to stop government spending, and stop it now. Our current leadership is not up to the task.
But then by definition, Obama is insane.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Van T. Barfoot, the Flag, and the Medal of Honor
Remember the guy who wouldn't take the flag down?
You might remember a news story several months ago about the crotchety old man who defied his homeowners association and refused to take down the flagpole on his property and the large flag that flew on it. Now you can learn who, exactly, that old man was.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg -- probably didn't make much news back then. Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Carano, Italy, Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the US Army in 1940, set out to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a minefield, took out three enemy machine gun positions and returned with 17 prisoners of war. If that wasn't enough for a day's work, he later took on and destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions.
That probably didn't make much news either, given the scope of the War, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam, a Congressional Medal of Honor.
What did make news was a neighborhood association's quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home. Seems the rules said a flag could be flown on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, items such as Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were unsuitable. He had been denied a permit for the pole, erected it anyway and was facing court action if he didn't take it down.
Since the story made national TV, the neighborhood association has rethought its position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.
"In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag without interference," Barfoot told The Associated Press, as well he should.
And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he's not real good at backing down.
Van T. Barfoot's Medal of Honor citation:
“For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.”
This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of Honor Society, is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry.
WE ONLY LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE AND BECAUSE OF OLD MEN LIKE VAN BARFOOT!
You might remember a news story several months ago about the crotchety old man who defied his homeowners association and refused to take down the flagpole on his property and the large flag that flew on it. Now you can learn who, exactly, that old man was.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg -- probably didn't make much news back then. Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Carano, Italy, Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the US Army in 1940, set out to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a minefield, took out three enemy machine gun positions and returned with 17 prisoners of war. If that wasn't enough for a day's work, he later took on and destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions.
That probably didn't make much news either, given the scope of the War, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam, a Congressional Medal of Honor.
What did make news was a neighborhood association's quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home. Seems the rules said a flag could be flown on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, items such as Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were unsuitable. He had been denied a permit for the pole, erected it anyway and was facing court action if he didn't take it down.
Since the story made national TV, the neighborhood association has rethought its position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.
"In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag without interference," Barfoot told The Associated Press, as well he should.
And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he's not real good at backing down.
Van T. Barfoot's Medal of Honor citation:
“For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.”
This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of Honor Society, is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry.
WE ONLY LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE AND BECAUSE OF OLD MEN LIKE VAN BARFOOT!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Obama Food Regulators to Censor Food Commercials
(An editorial printed by Morningbell, a Publication of the Heritage Foundation, morningbell@heritage.org, on September 1, 2011)
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
Food Regulators Out of Control
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
White House Quiet On Investigation Into Justice Department Gun Sales to Mexican Drug Cartels
A U.S. government gun-trafficking investigation gone horribly wrong has resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, some 2,000 firearms in the hands of criminals, and the dismissal of a 24-year veteran law enforcement official. This is the story of Fast and Furious, and yesterday the latest chapter unfolded when two top officials associated with the operation were removed from their positions, while a third individual resigned.
The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.
Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers' assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional 11 violent crimes in the U.S.
In December 2010, ATF agent Vince Cefalu spoke out about the operation before the first reports on the story appeared in February. FoxNews.com reports that Cefalu said at the time, "Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border." Other agents later came forward, congressional hearings have been held, and President Barack Obama called the operation "a serious mistake." Cefalu, though, was forced to resign.
Yesterday, more Fast and Furious–related personnel changes came about when the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Kenneth Melson, the acting head of the ATF who presided over the operation, is being replaced and transferred to the Office of Legal Policy where he will serve as a senior advisor on forensic science. Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports that "Melson bucked his superiors at DOJ in July by revealing details about the operation to congressional investigators in a closed door meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who have been investigating the operation in their respective roles."
Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, announced his resignation. The Hill reports that "Burke oversaw the legal aspects of the Fast and Furious operation, providing advice to agents involved." And The Arizona Republic reports that the lead prosecutor for Operation Fast and Furious cases in Burke's office was also reassigned Tuesday. Issa, who has led the congressional investigation into the case, said that even with yesterday's news, he will continue looking for answers:
While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn’t offloaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the White House has said little about Fast and Furious. In June, President Obama said in a press conference: "My Attorney General has made clear that he wouldn’t have ordered gun running into Mexico. . . That would not be an appropriate step by the ATF." He then deflected further questions by citing an "ongoing investigation." And press secretary Jay Carney previously said that the President "did not know about or authorize this operation." But as Heritage's Rory Cooper wrote, "If that’s the case, how could neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder not know about an operation that everyone else at the Department of Justice seemed to be actively involved in, including the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and head of the ATF?"
And if the White House has been silent, so has the media. It has been 57 days since the press has questioned the White House on the matter, when ABC's Jake Tapper peppered press secretary Jay Carney on the issue, asking why the public knows so little about the story, what the Administration is doing to get to the bottom of it, whether the acting head of ATF would go to Capitol Hill to testify on the subject, whether it is something the White House is worried about, and if the President upset about it. Carney's reply: He referred Tapper to the Department of Justice and remarked, "I think you could assume that the President takes this very seriously."
The President should take it seriously. And so should the American people. The ATF sold guns to criminals in Mexico, a life has been taken, and crimes have been committed with the weapons that were trafficked by the federal government. And yet, shockingly, questions remain under the Administration that called itself "the most transparent in history." It's time for more answers.
***************
This article originally published on August 31, 2011, morningbell@heritage.org., as
The Fast and Furious Scandal Continues.
The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.
Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers' assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional 11 violent crimes in the U.S.
In December 2010, ATF agent Vince Cefalu spoke out about the operation before the first reports on the story appeared in February. FoxNews.com reports that Cefalu said at the time, "Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border." Other agents later came forward, congressional hearings have been held, and President Barack Obama called the operation "a serious mistake." Cefalu, though, was forced to resign.
Yesterday, more Fast and Furious–related personnel changes came about when the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Kenneth Melson, the acting head of the ATF who presided over the operation, is being replaced and transferred to the Office of Legal Policy where he will serve as a senior advisor on forensic science. Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports that "Melson bucked his superiors at DOJ in July by revealing details about the operation to congressional investigators in a closed door meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who have been investigating the operation in their respective roles."
Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, announced his resignation. The Hill reports that "Burke oversaw the legal aspects of the Fast and Furious operation, providing advice to agents involved." And The Arizona Republic reports that the lead prosecutor for Operation Fast and Furious cases in Burke's office was also reassigned Tuesday. Issa, who has led the congressional investigation into the case, said that even with yesterday's news, he will continue looking for answers:
While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn’t offloaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the White House has said little about Fast and Furious. In June, President Obama said in a press conference: "My Attorney General has made clear that he wouldn’t have ordered gun running into Mexico. . . That would not be an appropriate step by the ATF." He then deflected further questions by citing an "ongoing investigation." And press secretary Jay Carney previously said that the President "did not know about or authorize this operation." But as Heritage's Rory Cooper wrote, "If that’s the case, how could neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder not know about an operation that everyone else at the Department of Justice seemed to be actively involved in, including the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and head of the ATF?"
And if the White House has been silent, so has the media. It has been 57 days since the press has questioned the White House on the matter, when ABC's Jake Tapper peppered press secretary Jay Carney on the issue, asking why the public knows so little about the story, what the Administration is doing to get to the bottom of it, whether the acting head of ATF would go to Capitol Hill to testify on the subject, whether it is something the White House is worried about, and if the President upset about it. Carney's reply: He referred Tapper to the Department of Justice and remarked, "I think you could assume that the President takes this very seriously."
The President should take it seriously. And so should the American people. The ATF sold guns to criminals in Mexico, a life has been taken, and crimes have been committed with the weapons that were trafficked by the federal government. And yet, shockingly, questions remain under the Administration that called itself "the most transparent in history." It's time for more answers.
***************
This article originally published on August 31, 2011, morningbell@heritage.org., as
The Fast and Furious Scandal Continues.
Friday, August 19, 2011
English Mobs Run Wild
By Chris W. Cox
If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.
Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams — everything they worked so hard to build and acquire — are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.
Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.
The fact is, when British politicians stripped their citizens of their God-given right to self-defense, they robbed them of their freedom and their dignity.
Sales of baseball bats are up over 5,000% on Amazon.co.uk. This isn’t to mark the beginning of little league season. These are desperate homeowners and shopkeepers purchasing the best — and in reality, only — self-defense tool that the British government will allow them to own…at least for now.
If past is prologue, this flood of baseball bats into London will spark cries from government leaders for mandatory bat registration and a wave of new laws on how, when, and under what circumstances British citizens may carry or swing a bat. After all, this is exactly how British citizens lost their gun rights.
First came mandatory gun licensing. Next came a wave of restrictions on firearms ownership. Then came the outright gun bans.
It has been illegal to own a handgun in Britain for nearly 15 years. As a result, Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. In fact, Britain consistently clocks-in with the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe. Last week’s riots notwithstanding, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. These are the inconvenient statistics that the gun-ban crowd likes to sweep under the rug.
As if banning handguns didn’t send a strong enough message to criminals that British citizens are ripe for the picking, the British government went even further in 1999.
Recall the tragic story of Tony Martin, the British farmer who was awakened one night to the sound of breaking glass and found two burglars in his home. Martin had been robbed six times before. This time, he went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at the intruders.
For this, Martin received life in prison for killing one of the burglars, ten years for wounding the other thug, and one additional year for possession of an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar served just 18 months of a three-year sentence and was given $5,000 in legal assistance from Britain’s Legal Services Commission so he could sue Martin for violating his civil rights.
The British government goes out of its way to embolden the criminal element in society, and now British politicians look at last week’s riots in utter amazement, confused as to how such a thing could happen. As Britain’s Home Secretary recently said in an interview, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”
All Americans should pay close attention to the riots in the Great Britain, because this is the criminal utopia that gun-ban extremists at the United Nations, and in our own White House, want to impose on us.
Next year, the U.N. will convene leaders from various countries around the world to finish writing an international Arms Trade Treaty that could severely restrict or even outright ban Americans’ right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm. Anti-gun extremists have been working on this treaty for well over a decade. Now they’re closer than ever to realizing their dream.
Ironically, the British government is one of the strongest proponents of this latest U.N. scheme to destroy our Second Amendment rights. Evidently, British politicians think America and the rest of the world should enjoy the same the criminal utopia that was on full display in London last week.
The U.N. and its anti-gun allies incessantly campaign for the United States to be more like the rest of the world — especially disarmed Great Britain. As we watched the horror unfold in the UK, it has never been clearer: The rest of the world should be more like America when it comes to freedom.
**************
Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.
If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.
Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams — everything they worked so hard to build and acquire — are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.
Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.
The fact is, when British politicians stripped their citizens of their God-given right to self-defense, they robbed them of their freedom and their dignity.
Sales of baseball bats are up over 5,000% on Amazon.co.uk. This isn’t to mark the beginning of little league season. These are desperate homeowners and shopkeepers purchasing the best — and in reality, only — self-defense tool that the British government will allow them to own…at least for now.
If past is prologue, this flood of baseball bats into London will spark cries from government leaders for mandatory bat registration and a wave of new laws on how, when, and under what circumstances British citizens may carry or swing a bat. After all, this is exactly how British citizens lost their gun rights.
First came mandatory gun licensing. Next came a wave of restrictions on firearms ownership. Then came the outright gun bans.
It has been illegal to own a handgun in Britain for nearly 15 years. As a result, Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. In fact, Britain consistently clocks-in with the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe. Last week’s riots notwithstanding, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. These are the inconvenient statistics that the gun-ban crowd likes to sweep under the rug.
As if banning handguns didn’t send a strong enough message to criminals that British citizens are ripe for the picking, the British government went even further in 1999.
Recall the tragic story of Tony Martin, the British farmer who was awakened one night to the sound of breaking glass and found two burglars in his home. Martin had been robbed six times before. This time, he went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at the intruders.
For this, Martin received life in prison for killing one of the burglars, ten years for wounding the other thug, and one additional year for possession of an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar served just 18 months of a three-year sentence and was given $5,000 in legal assistance from Britain’s Legal Services Commission so he could sue Martin for violating his civil rights.
The British government goes out of its way to embolden the criminal element in society, and now British politicians look at last week’s riots in utter amazement, confused as to how such a thing could happen. As Britain’s Home Secretary recently said in an interview, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”
All Americans should pay close attention to the riots in the Great Britain, because this is the criminal utopia that gun-ban extremists at the United Nations, and in our own White House, want to impose on us.
Next year, the U.N. will convene leaders from various countries around the world to finish writing an international Arms Trade Treaty that could severely restrict or even outright ban Americans’ right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm. Anti-gun extremists have been working on this treaty for well over a decade. Now they’re closer than ever to realizing their dream.
Ironically, the British government is one of the strongest proponents of this latest U.N. scheme to destroy our Second Amendment rights. Evidently, British politicians think America and the rest of the world should enjoy the same the criminal utopia that was on full display in London last week.
The U.N. and its anti-gun allies incessantly campaign for the United States to be more like the rest of the world — especially disarmed Great Britain. As we watched the horror unfold in the UK, it has never been clearer: The rest of the world should be more like America when it comes to freedom.
**************
Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
More Bad News From the Budget Control Act
The Spending Threat to Our National Defense
Consider it a warning from the highest levels of the U.S. government. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta held a joint press event in Washington in which they cautioned that U.S. debt is jeopardizing America's ability to ensure national security and preserve its interests abroad.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011—the debt ceiling agreement enacted earlier this month—$350 billion in cuts to defense spending must be made over 10 years. But if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on $1.5 trillion in deficit savings, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts would be made. Half of those would come from the military's budget by 2013. And Panetta said yesterday that those cuts would be disastrous:
This kind of massive cut across the board, which would literally double the number of cuts that we're confronting, that would have devastating effects on our national defense; it would have devastating effects on certainly the State Department.
Clinton agreed. "It does cast a pall over our ability to project the kind of security interests that are in America's interests," she said. "This is not about the Defense Department or the State Department . . . This is about the United States of America. And we need to have a responsible conversation about how we are going to prepare ourselves for the future."
The Heritage Foundation's Mackenzie Eaglen explains that the draconian cuts to our armed forces would result in a military ill-equipped to sustain its mission at home and around the world.
Secretary Panetta said any additional defense cuts—on top of the hundreds of billions over the past several years and hundreds of billions over the next 10 years—would result in a hollow force. The term “hollow force” describes the situation when readiness declines because the military does not have enough funding to provide trained and ready forces, support ongoing operations, and modernize simultaneously.
Like a freshly painted house with no plumbing or wiring inside, the military may appear functional, but in reality it would be too poorly trained and equipped to be reliable without incurring excessive and unnecessary risk.
The U.S. military is already woefully underfunded, and for months the Pentagon has warned that even with $400 billion in cuts—less than half of what the military could face—the United States "may have to scrap some military missions and trim troop levels." And if Members of Congress don't act to reform mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—which account for more than 60 percent of the entire federal budget—the ax will automatically fall on the military (or Congress will be forced to raise taxes to halt the automatic trigger.)
The Constitution clearly states that one of the primary duties of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." Yet today, because of the government's unrestrained spending, national defense is falling by the wayside. Former Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) writes, "The great irony of our time is that the bigger the federal government has become, the less well it has performed its priority function of providing for the national defense." Now, after all the stimulus spending, the bailouts, and the runaway entitlements, America is seeing the results. Congress must act now to rein in spending so that it can ensure that the government's ability to execute its primary duty remains intact.
*********************
Originally published by the Heritage Foundation on August 17, 2011, on their website www.morningbell@heritage.org.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order
August 4, 2011
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson
In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the "Budget Control Act of 2011" ("BCA 2011") were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of "bi-partisan consensus "to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.
First, the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.
The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power "to borrow Money on the credit of the United States." As two of America's leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is "inseparably connected" with that of "raising a revenue." Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress -- vested with the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts," -- kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.
To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.
However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process." Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to "determine" that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments," subject only to congressional "disapproval." For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.
Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation's debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion "subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted" by Congress.
But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more -- up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.
By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation's commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head. According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States - whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution -- must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature. This bill creates what it calls a "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" whereby the constitutional process is reversed. Instead of Congress's initiating the decision to borrow money, the President has the initiative. Congress is relegated to the role of having to disapprove the President's decision to lift the debt ceiling and authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the Constitution says only Congress may do -- borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Instead of constitutional order, in which Congress presents a law authorizing the borrowing of money to the President to sign or veto, the President presents to the Congress his determination that more money is to be borrowed, subject to the acquiescence or veto of Congress.
Second, the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes a joint select committee of 12 members, six from the House and six from the Senate. Three of the six House members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and three are appointed by the House minority leader. Three of the six Senate members are appointed by the majority leader and three by the leader of the minority.
Title IV of the Budget Control Act vests in that joint select committee the power to draft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a "Super Congress" selected not by the people -- but by Republican and Democrat leaders.
How many of these Congressmen and Senators campaigned on the platform that they would be elected, get sworn in, and then obediently surrender the power their constituents vested in them to the very same Republican and Democrat leaders who have created the problems they were sent here to solve?
To facilitate passage of the joint committee's legislative proposals, Section 402 contains a number of procedural rules designed to expedite consideration of the joint committee recommendations. Generally, the rules require action by both houses no later than December 23, 2011, on a joint committee recommendation that must be submitted no later than December 9, 2011. Additionally, the section prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation and prescribes severe limits on the time for debate. In short the procedural rules dictate unity of action of a majority of each house to accelerate adoption of the deficit reductions recommended by the joint committee within a two-week period of time.
The Constitutional order is quite different. Article I, Section 1 vests the legislative power in a bicameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of each body are elected in two very different manners. Each senator is elected by the vote of the people of an entire state, and each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. The members of the House are elected by the people in congressional districts divided into districts, each state being guaranteed at least one representative and the others allocated according to population.
The composition of each house then is deliberately designed by the Constitution to represent vastly different majorities. And for good reason. As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials."
The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be "carefully and fully considered," if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives.
These are not matters of constitutional form without meaning -- the process was considered central to the founders.
In the debates on the need for a bicameral legislature, James Wilson warned: "Is there a danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability; and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches."
Even the last defender of monarchy among the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned that to "accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty [would] entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived."
Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Chadha, James Madison "point[ed] up the need to divide and disperse power in order to protect liberty": "In republican government, legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and the common dependence on society will admit." The Federalist, No. 51 (emphasis added).
The Budget Control Act of 2011 does just the opposite. Instead of ensuring action by two "distinctive bodies," to be "exercised only after opportunity for full debate in separate settings," the Act truncates the deliberative process by shortening debate, excluding amendments, and commanding uniformity. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951.
Expedition was never the principal object of the legislative process created by the founders. The object was to preserve limitations on the power of government in order to protect the liberties of the people. Liberties can be lost when bad precedents are set in the atmosphere of crisis -- and crises can, and often are, manufactured. Precedents established can be hard to overturn. Rights lost can be hard to regain.
The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice.
Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency litigation, and suspension of Constitutional order -- these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.
*****************
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding Dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com or Olsonlaw@twitter.com
Orginally published on www.americanthinker.com
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson
In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the "Budget Control Act of 2011" ("BCA 2011") were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of "bi-partisan consensus "to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.
First, the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.
The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power "to borrow Money on the credit of the United States." As two of America's leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is "inseparably connected" with that of "raising a revenue." Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress -- vested with the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts," -- kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.
To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.
However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process." Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to "determine" that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments," subject only to congressional "disapproval." For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.
Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation's debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion "subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted" by Congress.
But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more -- up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.
By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation's commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head. According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States - whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution -- must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature. This bill creates what it calls a "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" whereby the constitutional process is reversed. Instead of Congress's initiating the decision to borrow money, the President has the initiative. Congress is relegated to the role of having to disapprove the President's decision to lift the debt ceiling and authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the Constitution says only Congress may do -- borrow money on the credit of the United States.
Instead of constitutional order, in which Congress presents a law authorizing the borrowing of money to the President to sign or veto, the President presents to the Congress his determination that more money is to be borrowed, subject to the acquiescence or veto of Congress.
Second, the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes a joint select committee of 12 members, six from the House and six from the Senate. Three of the six House members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and three are appointed by the House minority leader. Three of the six Senate members are appointed by the majority leader and three by the leader of the minority.
Title IV of the Budget Control Act vests in that joint select committee the power to draft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a "Super Congress" selected not by the people -- but by Republican and Democrat leaders.
How many of these Congressmen and Senators campaigned on the platform that they would be elected, get sworn in, and then obediently surrender the power their constituents vested in them to the very same Republican and Democrat leaders who have created the problems they were sent here to solve?
To facilitate passage of the joint committee's legislative proposals, Section 402 contains a number of procedural rules designed to expedite consideration of the joint committee recommendations. Generally, the rules require action by both houses no later than December 23, 2011, on a joint committee recommendation that must be submitted no later than December 9, 2011. Additionally, the section prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation and prescribes severe limits on the time for debate. In short the procedural rules dictate unity of action of a majority of each house to accelerate adoption of the deficit reductions recommended by the joint committee within a two-week period of time.
The Constitutional order is quite different. Article I, Section 1 vests the legislative power in a bicameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of each body are elected in two very different manners. Each senator is elected by the vote of the people of an entire state, and each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. The members of the House are elected by the people in congressional districts divided into districts, each state being guaranteed at least one representative and the others allocated according to population.
The composition of each house then is deliberately designed by the Constitution to represent vastly different majorities. And for good reason. As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials."
The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be "carefully and fully considered," if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives.
These are not matters of constitutional form without meaning -- the process was considered central to the founders.
In the debates on the need for a bicameral legislature, James Wilson warned: "Is there a danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability; and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches."
Even the last defender of monarchy among the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned that to "accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty [would] entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived."
Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Chadha, James Madison "point[ed] up the need to divide and disperse power in order to protect liberty": "In republican government, legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and the common dependence on society will admit." The Federalist, No. 51 (emphasis added).
The Budget Control Act of 2011 does just the opposite. Instead of ensuring action by two "distinctive bodies," to be "exercised only after opportunity for full debate in separate settings," the Act truncates the deliberative process by shortening debate, excluding amendments, and commanding uniformity. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951.
Expedition was never the principal object of the legislative process created by the founders. The object was to preserve limitations on the power of government in order to protect the liberties of the people. Liberties can be lost when bad precedents are set in the atmosphere of crisis -- and crises can, and often are, manufactured. Precedents established can be hard to overturn. Rights lost can be hard to regain.
The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice.
Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency litigation, and suspension of Constitutional order -- these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.
*****************
Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding Dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com or Olsonlaw@twitter.com
Orginally published on www.americanthinker.com
Friday, July 29, 2011
What Role Does Fear Play in Obama's Debt Ceiling Strategy
President Obama kicked off last weekend with a testy Friday night press conference warning of the drastic consequences of failing to raise the debt limit, the havoc it would wreak on financial markets, and the disastrous repercussions for the poor and middle class. That message of fear was reiterated throughout the weekend, bookended on Monday by a senior White House official who says there’s a 50/50 chance that the standoff in Washington will not be resolved by the August 2 deadline.
But it’s not fear for fear’s sake. The White House is employing the same cynical, irresponsible political strategy to force Congress’ hand that it started in January, using Wall Street as its foil. This morning, NPR—as usual and unsurprisingly—had the zeitgeist of the Obama White House just right. Cokie Roberts, its long-time commentator, said:
[T]here’s a certain element of waiting for the markets to weigh in and show Congress that they have to get serious here…You see the Administration almost kind of, almost daring the markets to respond, yesterday saying that the Congress had to act by 4:00 yesterday afternoon before the Asian markets started to open.
How true, and how irresponsible. The Obama Administration spent all weekend trying to talk down markets, hoping to make use of any artificial drop for political purposes.
Never mind that the financial security of hundreds of millions of Americans and others would be injured in the process. The Administration needs what it has already dubbed “the Boehner drop”—named after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner—to try to get its way in the debt ceiling negotiations.
The attempt by senior members of the Administration, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to make markets even more nervous than they are was noticed by other journalists. Veteran financial journalist Charles Gasparino vented his frustration on ABC’s This Week with Christian Amanpour by saying “it’s irresponsible for Geithner to go out there to talk about default. If he’s worried about the Asian markets tonight, why does he mention default? We are not going to default. We have cash on hand to pay bond holders.”
But that is the political game the White House is playing—and it’s a dangerous one. Investment adviser James Rickards wrote to Politico‘s Playbook, “Geithner and Obama are foolish to try to ‘scare’ markets over the debt ceiling. Markets are already scared. They’re looking for reassurance and a more mature dialogue.”
Instead, we have the President and his legion of foot soldiers running amok, hoping to threaten the markets to achieve their political ends.
But amid the maneuvering, there have been some moments of unvarnished honesty, if only accidental. Yesterday, White House deputy press secretary Dan Pfeiffer admitted on Twitter that President Obama will likely sign any debt deal Congress sends his way. Heritage’s Rory Cooper writes:
This revelation came in an exchange with Stephen Gutowski, the blogger known as The College Politico. Gutowski asked Pfeiffer: ‘Do you see a scenario where the house & senate pass a deal but the President doesn’t sign it?’ and Pfeiffer responded: ‘No, bc only something that has R and D support can pass both bodies.’
With those words, Pfeiffer highlighted a truth that has become increasingly clear. Obama is not the mediator of a grand bargain the White House has attempted to portray him to be, Cooper explains. Instead, his role in the debt ceiling debate has been subordinated to the House and the Senate, leaving him with nothing but veto threats, ultimatums, and rhetoric designed to force a resolution that suits his political ends.
Since Congress holds the cards, it’s up to them to get the job done. Now they should listen to their employers—the American people—and deliver a solution that meets the test of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s to bring down our debt ratio through spending cuts, not tax hikes, and preserves our nation’s ability to defend itself.
**************
Originally published July 29, 2011, by, and used with the permission of, the Heritige Foundation.
But it’s not fear for fear’s sake. The White House is employing the same cynical, irresponsible political strategy to force Congress’ hand that it started in January, using Wall Street as its foil. This morning, NPR—as usual and unsurprisingly—had the zeitgeist of the Obama White House just right. Cokie Roberts, its long-time commentator, said:
[T]here’s a certain element of waiting for the markets to weigh in and show Congress that they have to get serious here…You see the Administration almost kind of, almost daring the markets to respond, yesterday saying that the Congress had to act by 4:00 yesterday afternoon before the Asian markets started to open.
How true, and how irresponsible. The Obama Administration spent all weekend trying to talk down markets, hoping to make use of any artificial drop for political purposes.
Never mind that the financial security of hundreds of millions of Americans and others would be injured in the process. The Administration needs what it has already dubbed “the Boehner drop”—named after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner—to try to get its way in the debt ceiling negotiations.
The attempt by senior members of the Administration, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to make markets even more nervous than they are was noticed by other journalists. Veteran financial journalist Charles Gasparino vented his frustration on ABC’s This Week with Christian Amanpour by saying “it’s irresponsible for Geithner to go out there to talk about default. If he’s worried about the Asian markets tonight, why does he mention default? We are not going to default. We have cash on hand to pay bond holders.”
But that is the political game the White House is playing—and it’s a dangerous one. Investment adviser James Rickards wrote to Politico‘s Playbook, “Geithner and Obama are foolish to try to ‘scare’ markets over the debt ceiling. Markets are already scared. They’re looking for reassurance and a more mature dialogue.”
Instead, we have the President and his legion of foot soldiers running amok, hoping to threaten the markets to achieve their political ends.
But amid the maneuvering, there have been some moments of unvarnished honesty, if only accidental. Yesterday, White House deputy press secretary Dan Pfeiffer admitted on Twitter that President Obama will likely sign any debt deal Congress sends his way. Heritage’s Rory Cooper writes:
This revelation came in an exchange with Stephen Gutowski, the blogger known as The College Politico. Gutowski asked Pfeiffer: ‘Do you see a scenario where the house & senate pass a deal but the President doesn’t sign it?’ and Pfeiffer responded: ‘No, bc only something that has R and D support can pass both bodies.’
With those words, Pfeiffer highlighted a truth that has become increasingly clear. Obama is not the mediator of a grand bargain the White House has attempted to portray him to be, Cooper explains. Instead, his role in the debt ceiling debate has been subordinated to the House and the Senate, leaving him with nothing but veto threats, ultimatums, and rhetoric designed to force a resolution that suits his political ends.
Since Congress holds the cards, it’s up to them to get the job done. Now they should listen to their employers—the American people—and deliver a solution that meets the test of Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s to bring down our debt ratio through spending cuts, not tax hikes, and preserves our nation’s ability to defend itself.
**************
Originally published July 29, 2011, by, and used with the permission of, the Heritige Foundation.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Federal Budget Truths
The Washington Post babbled once again today about Barack Hussein Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Hussein Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Hussein Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Hussein Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit FOUR-FOLD since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized by the dominant leftist media. So each of us must send it on. This is your chance to make a positive difference, and save your country from even further disastrous spending by the Democrats.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Hussein Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Hussein Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Hussein Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit FOUR-FOLD since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized by the dominant leftist media. So each of us must send it on. This is your chance to make a positive difference, and save your country from even further disastrous spending by the Democrats.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom
Boeing is a great American company. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
**********
The preceding is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College by Mark Mix, on January 31, 2011, during a conference co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series. MARK MIX is president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a B.A. in finance from James Madison University and an associate’s degree in marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register and National Review.
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Obama Administration Approves Illegal Reporting Requirement
On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it will proceed with a controversial reporting procedure that will require federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.
Last fall, the reporting procedure was proposed as an “emergency" measure by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The procedure specifically calls for all of the firearm retailers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and that are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days. For example, a dealer would have to tell the government every time a deer hunter in Sacramento or Amarillo finds a good deal on a pair of semi-auto .30-06s like the popular Remington 7400.
The BATFE has no legal authority to demand these reports, and the flood of new paperwork (BATFE estimates 18,000 reports per year) will waste scarce law enforcement resources that should be spent on legitimate investigations.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in the DOJ statement that this new reporting measure “will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations.”
As anyone who watches the news is aware, the BATFE has recently come under intense scrutiny due to its involvement in, and handling of, the ill-conceived and ill-fated “Fast and Furious” operation. "Fast and Furious" was a part of the five-year-old "Project Gunrunner" program and encouraged Arizona gun stores to sell thousands of guns to suspicious buyers, despite objections from dealers and BATFE field agents alike.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called the new policy "the height of hypocrisy," and said the Obama administration is restricting the gun rights of border state citizens "when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico.” Smith went on to say, “Limiting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to solve the problem."
Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on and passed, by a vote of 277 to 149, an amendment to H.R. 1 offered by Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) that prohibits the use of federal funds for the reporting scheme.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not included in the final version of the bill as a result of Senate inaction. In March, U.S. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) introduced legislation (S. 570) “to prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns." The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for a multiple sales reporting scheme proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Please contact your Senator and encourage him or her to cosponsor S. 570 to stop this blatant abuse of power. You can reach your Senators at (202) 224-3121 or send them an e-mail by clicking here.
Commenting on the DOJ announcement, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox said, “$40 billion transnational criminal enterprises don't fill out paperwork and are not deterred by paperwork violations. This is a blatant effort by the Obama administration and ATF to divert the focus of Congress and the general public from their gross incompetence in the 'Fast and Furious' scandal. This scheme will unjustly burden law abiding retailers in border states. It will not affect drug cartels and it won't prevent violence along our borders. The BATFE and the Administration lack the statutory authority to do this and the NRA will file suit as soon as BATFE sends the first demand letters.”
Thursday, June 30, 2011
New Philadelphia Times-Reporter Editorials Fall Short
From time to time I suffer from what some people call writer's block. I would refer to it as temporary brain death except that some readers of this blog would have the tendency to question the terminology temporary. It is, I suppose, all in the point of view.
I recently heard about the election of 2012 where a Jewish candidate for President of the United States, an obvious dark horse, won election. He wanted his mother to attend his inauguration but she was hesitant. "I have no clothes to wear," she complained.
"Come on, Mom," he said. "I going to be the President of the United States. I'll get you the finest tailor to make you dresses."
She shrugged and said, " I have no way to get there. It's a long way from Miami to Washington. I should walk?"
Mom," he said. "I'm going to be in charge of the Air Force. I'll send Air Force One to pick you up.
"But where will I stay? I don't know anybody in Washington. What will I eat?" she asked.
"Mom, we'll be living in the White House. We'll have servants and special cooks to prepare your food. Whatever you want will be available. All you have to do is ask and it will be prepared. I'll be the president all I have to do ask and the Department of Agriculture can get any food you desire."
Finally she agreed and on the day her son was inaugurated she was on the platform in front of the capitol building dressed in her new finery. One one side of her were the justices of the Supreme Court, On the other the leaders of the House and Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were behind her and in front of here were thousands of people who came to witness the ceremony.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stepped forward and started to administer the oath of office.
His mother touched the elbow of the man standing next to her pointed to her son and said,"See that fellow over there with his hand in the air? His brother is a doctor."
It's all in the point of view.
Today points of view at the Times-Reporter are constantly changing. Take the issue of pay raises for elected officials in the City of New Philadelphia. It is no secret that I was against them, and I still am. The changing of the point of view on the part of the T-R was a surprise, one which made no sense. It was not too long ago that the T-R was in favor of wage increases for the Police, a much greater strain on the City budget than the "objectionable" wage increase for City officials. The T-R did not present a telling argument for either opinion. It failed to present a factual reason for its position on either issue. The articles presented in both cases lacked the insight which is only found by an investigation of the facts, a journalistic lack which plagues the T-R on most issues. The T-R lacks the ability to take a stand on an issue and then present a compelling reason for that decision.
The Times-Reporter has no editorial position. The change of position from approving increased spending in support of a city union to opposing pay raises for non-union elected and appointed city officials raises the question of a double standard which is not in the best interests of the citizen. The issue in both cases is the ability of the City to meet its expenses and, in a strange way, the T-R failed to make either case.
The T-R would have better served the citizen by addressing the real issues exemplified by the wage increases granted to all city employees and labor unions.
How is the City going to pay for these pay increases now and in the future?
Why are across the board pay raises granted to all union members rather than increases based on performance and competency? Longevity is no reason for promotion or wage increase.
Why are wages for elected officials and appointees so low that competent citizens are not drawn to serve as elected members of city government? Most of the members of this Administration and City Council have failed to display an ability to understand their responsibilities let alone fulfill them.
Why do New Philadelphia citizens refuse to take part in running the City by not running for elective office? Why do so few New Philadelphia citizens vote in the local elections?
Where does the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the City of New Philadelphia really rest? An active, informed citizenry or an incompetent city government?
It is all in the point of view.
I recently heard about the election of 2012 where a Jewish candidate for President of the United States, an obvious dark horse, won election. He wanted his mother to attend his inauguration but she was hesitant. "I have no clothes to wear," she complained.
"Come on, Mom," he said. "I going to be the President of the United States. I'll get you the finest tailor to make you dresses."
She shrugged and said, " I have no way to get there. It's a long way from Miami to Washington. I should walk?"
Mom," he said. "I'm going to be in charge of the Air Force. I'll send Air Force One to pick you up.
"But where will I stay? I don't know anybody in Washington. What will I eat?" she asked.
"Mom, we'll be living in the White House. We'll have servants and special cooks to prepare your food. Whatever you want will be available. All you have to do is ask and it will be prepared. I'll be the president all I have to do ask and the Department of Agriculture can get any food you desire."
Finally she agreed and on the day her son was inaugurated she was on the platform in front of the capitol building dressed in her new finery. One one side of her were the justices of the Supreme Court, On the other the leaders of the House and Senate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were behind her and in front of here were thousands of people who came to witness the ceremony.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stepped forward and started to administer the oath of office.
His mother touched the elbow of the man standing next to her pointed to her son and said,"See that fellow over there with his hand in the air? His brother is a doctor."
It's all in the point of view.
Today points of view at the Times-Reporter are constantly changing. Take the issue of pay raises for elected officials in the City of New Philadelphia. It is no secret that I was against them, and I still am. The changing of the point of view on the part of the T-R was a surprise, one which made no sense. It was not too long ago that the T-R was in favor of wage increases for the Police, a much greater strain on the City budget than the "objectionable" wage increase for City officials. The T-R did not present a telling argument for either opinion. It failed to present a factual reason for its position on either issue. The articles presented in both cases lacked the insight which is only found by an investigation of the facts, a journalistic lack which plagues the T-R on most issues. The T-R lacks the ability to take a stand on an issue and then present a compelling reason for that decision.
The Times-Reporter has no editorial position. The change of position from approving increased spending in support of a city union to opposing pay raises for non-union elected and appointed city officials raises the question of a double standard which is not in the best interests of the citizen. The issue in both cases is the ability of the City to meet its expenses and, in a strange way, the T-R failed to make either case.
The T-R would have better served the citizen by addressing the real issues exemplified by the wage increases granted to all city employees and labor unions.
How is the City going to pay for these pay increases now and in the future?
Why are across the board pay raises granted to all union members rather than increases based on performance and competency? Longevity is no reason for promotion or wage increase.
Why are wages for elected officials and appointees so low that competent citizens are not drawn to serve as elected members of city government? Most of the members of this Administration and City Council have failed to display an ability to understand their responsibilities let alone fulfill them.
Why do New Philadelphia citizens refuse to take part in running the City by not running for elective office? Why do so few New Philadelphia citizens vote in the local elections?
Where does the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the City of New Philadelphia really rest? An active, informed citizenry or an incompetent city government?
It is all in the point of view.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
New Philadelphia City Council Hides Behind Executive Session
Here we go again. At the New Philadelphia City Council meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011, the right of the citizenry to know what their local government is doing was hidden behind the curtain of secrecy called the Executive Session.
In this case City Council went into a closed door session to discuss the continuation of free water and installation of storm sewer services being provided to Tuscarawas Catholic Central High School (TCCHS) by the administration of New Philadelphia.
This all started a number of years ago when an agreement between a previous New Philadelphia administration and TCCHS. New Philadelphia High School received permission from TCCHS to use their football field in exchange for free water from the City. This in itself raised questions of propriety. Why did the City become involved in an agreement between the New Philadelphia City Schools (NPCS) and a privately operated Catholic School? Why did the City agree to provide free water to TCCHS as a lease payment for use by New Philadelphia sports teams. The NPCS is a separate governmental agency with no legal nor financial ties to the City. It has its own budgets, its own administration, sets its own agendas totally without the consent of the City.
About three years ago the State Auditor investigated the New Philadelphia Water Department. It found fault that certain individuals and businesses were receiving water at no cost. One of those was TCCHS which prompted the order by the State Auditor to meter not only TCCHS, but all locations where city water was being provided. In May of 2010, Mayor Taylor told TCCHS that the provision of free water to the athletic fields would cease and other arrangements would have to be made.
According to the minutes of the Safety, Health, and Service Committee, Mr. Rob Maurer Chairman, a proposal was made by Mr. Bob Martinelli, of REM Construction, to solve this dilemma by construction of a retaining pond and storm sewer, at the recommendation of Diversified Engineering, to alleviate a recurring flooding problem in Schoenbrunn Village. The retaining pond would be on properties of TCCHS. The storm sewer would run from TCCHS through property owned by Betty Heavlin and empty into Beaver Dam Creek. This project is needed, say city officials, following the lead of Diversified Engineering. But there is a question if the project will ease the drainage at TCCHS or solve the flooding at Schoenbrunn Estates. The problem is in the lay of the land. The natural drainage in the area was destroyed with the building of the football fields at TCCHS.
Martinelli proposed the City furnish all the materials for the project at a cost of $60,000. The City would then pay REM Construction $25,000 to do the work, REM picking up the remaining $125,000 cost of construction. For the $25,000 REM would install the storm sewer pipes, manholes, dig the retention pond, furnish the equipment, and perform whatever labor is required. The reason given in the committee report for a city payment of $25,000 to REM is that council approval is not required for an expenditure less than that amount.
A few years back, the Airport Commission wanted to paint some hangers at the New Philadelphia airport. In an effort to approve bids without consent of the City Council, the Administration split the project into two parts. One was the cost of paint, the second the cost of labor, neither of which alone exceeded the statutory limit of $25,000 set by the Ohio Revised Code. Together the cost of paint and labor for the project would require consent of the city council. When asked, the office of the Attorney General stated that a project cannot be broken into parts to get around the $25,000 cap. Everything connected with a project must, according to the Attorney General’s office, be lumped together to determine the total cost of any project and if that total cost exceeds $25,000 it must have the approval of the City Council.
The stated cost to the city for the project according to Maurer’s committee report is $85,000. The attempt to bypass the $25,000 spending limit is a violation of the Ohio Revised Code and its suggestion by a committee of the New Philadelphia City Council is disgraceful.
According to Mr. Maurer’s meeting minutes, land necessary to carry out this project has tentatively been granted variances by both TCCHS and Heavlin, as well as their approval for the project.
Lastly, in exchange for Martinell’s $125,000 contribution to this project, the City of New Philadelphia and TCCHS will enter into a negotiated fee for water and sewer usage at the football fields. At Monday night’s council meeting, the negotiated fee was reported by Mr. Maurer to be $1.00 a year for thirty years. Wow! What a deal that is for TCCHS. They have been getting free water for a number of years, who knows how much since it was never metered, but now they are going to start paying their fair share at a dollar a year?
To hide this, and other questionable issues concerned with this project, City Council went into Executive Session Monday night. The reason, given by Law Director Johnson, for the Executive Session was the purchase of property necessary for the storm sewer project, property purchases by the city are allowed to be discussed in Executive Session. But what property purchase was to be discussed? Mr. Maurer’s committee report states, “The storm sewer and pond would be on the Tuscarawas Central Catholic and Betty Heavlin Properties. Both Parties agreed to the plan…and both parties have agreed to give the City of New Philadelphia easements for the storm sew(er) construction and future maintenance.”
Why is REM Construction going to take a $125,000 loss on this project should it come to pass? Why is it important that REM get the contract on this project without competitive bidding?
What are the EPA considerations and how will Schoenbrunn Estates be affected considering its current flooding problems.
The citizen of New Philadelphia has the right to have answers to these questions, as well as others connected to this project. It is obvious that the Administration and City Council have no intention in allowing the citizen to become aware of their intentions. Ohio Revised Code 121.22 (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/121.22) was enacted precisely to prevent such secrecy in government.
When government doesn’t want you to know what it is doing, is afraid to tell you the truth on matters which will effect you, you know there is something going on that is not to your benefit. If ever there was a warning that the New Philadelphia Administration and City Council needed watching this is it. Get informed. Get involved. If you have any questions or comments, call your City Councilman. If you need their telephone numbers check http://nptattler.blogspot.com/2010/01/city-officials-phone-numbers.html
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Financial Insanity Strikes Again
Summer has arrived, at least as far as the temperatures are concerned. Spring seems to have slipped by almost unnoticed. Unfortunately, neither of those events has helped the politicians out of their craziness. If anything it has made the insanity of our times even more evident than in the past. Living under the assumption, often questioned by friends and others, that I still retain some of my past sanity, I would like to point out some of the most recent events which could be used to certify that our politicos are eligible to be committed.
On the local scene, New Philadelphia and Dover administrations are hovering near the top of the list of possible suspects. Neither seems to have a clue about money matters or what constitutes fiscal responsibility.
In the case of New Philadelphia, City Council is deliberating Resolution No. 19-2011, and will probably pass it, to raise the salaries of all non-union employees, those either elected or appointed, who did not get pay raises under the recent union contracts. The logic seems to be that if fact finders and arbitrators can give unaffordable pay raises to union members, then those who don't belong to a union should get pay raises as well. First on the list for retroactive 3% pay raises is the Mayor, who, as we know, is responsible for the financial well-being of the city, followed by the rest of elected and appointed city workers. Nobody in the administration and few on city council appears to care that income tax revenues are down this year or that the state has announced that state funding to municipalities is being cut. City officialdom wants more money and they are going to give it to themselves. Hey, Mr. and Mrs. New Philadelphia. Get ready for one of the promises Mayor Taylor made when he was running for mayor. The income tax increase he promised is on the way
The new high school in Dover is moving along. The problem with the current high school is that it is old. There is another problem. The state will give the school board 9.2 million dollars for the construction. Wow. 9.2 million. Of course, the Dover School Board will have to come up with the remaining 26.8 million. The school board? Well, not exactly. The citizens of Dover will have to come up with that amount of money through a bonding issue which they will be paying for. Although the building itself is in good shape, there are some water leaks, and the air conditioning system is inadequate for those warm summer temperatures when school is not in session.
Dennison seems to be joining the list of financial oddities. According to the Times Reporter, their village council wants the voters to pass a five year, 4.8-mill levy ($500,000) to provide the village with its own emergency medical services unit, translated ambulance. According to the T-R article Dennison currently contracts that service out to Smith Ambulance for $45,000 a year. By providing those services through the fire department, we are told there can be a financial savings to the residents. Start-up costs would include a building to house the equipment, cost $150,000, a squad vehicle at $20,000 (the last one New Philadelphia purchased came out close to $200,000), and the needed equipment to go with the squad at about $12,000. Let's see. That comes to a $182,000 initial cost, which is equal to about four years contracts to Smiths. That leaves $318,000 for operating expenses for the five years of the proposed levy. The move would also protect eight to ten jobs according to the T-R article. I guess it is a good deal as the statement in the article, "It would provide 24-hour-a-day, seven-days a week service to the village," indicates that such service is not always available in Dennison currently. But it will save jobs, increase overtime, and guarantee another levy in five years. By the way, New Philadelphia should consult with Dennison to find where EMS units can be bought for $20,000.
One last parting shot. Kelly Ricklic, the former Water Department Supervisor for New Philadelphia found an innovative way to get a pay raise. He left New Philadelphia employment to be Building and Grounds Supervisor for the New Philadelphia Public Schools. The New Philadelphia job paid a mere $55,000 base salary, in excess of $80,000 a year with benefits, to a base salary of $58,000 base salary with the school system, and who knows how much in benefits, a total which could run to $87,000. Hey, Mr. and Mrs. New Philadelphia. Remember that when the School Board cries about needing another levy increase to meet expenses. By the way, will Ricklic be eligible for the 3% pay increase retroactive to the first of the year if New Philadelphia City Council Resolution No. 19-2011 passes?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Reasserting Federalism in Defense of Liberty
By Ken Cuccinelli
Some favorite Virginians of mine who inspired and crafted our federal Constitution—Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and Henry—also drafted the Constitution of Virginia. And in the latter, they included a critical statement that said, “No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved . . . but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
Our founders well understood that our liberty could not be preserved without frequently referring back to first principles. But while they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defend those principles, we have often taken them for granted, as we have become complacent in thinking that government will take care of every problem.
We have asked government to do more for us, and all the government asks for in return is a little bit more of our liberty. Over the decades, we kept asking. And because the courts and the politicians were all too happy to oblige, regardless of what the Constitution said, we no longer have a federal government of limited powers. We have an overreaching central government—a government that seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance.
Thankfully, though, in the last several years, people have woken up and are pushing back. With this pushback, we are seeing the idea of federalism reemerge. People want to return to a government of limited, enumerated powers, and an arrangement in which states serve as a check when the federal government oversteps its constitutional bounds.
In the current lawsuits brought by the states over health care and against the EPA, state governments are pushing back and reasserting federalism as the Founders intended them to do. Indeed, I am not aware of a time in history when this many states have sued the federal government to rein in its power: Today, more than half are parties to lawsuits against the new health care act and its individual health insurance mandate.
Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health care law is unconstitutional. When we brought the suit in March 2010, most media outlets and many legal experts said we stood no chance. One law professor said our argument about constitutionality was, if not frivolous, close to it. Another legal expert said our case relied on a “controversial reading of the Constitution.” Apparently, it is controversial to apply the Constitution as it was written.
But back in December, when a federal judge ruled in Virginia’s favor that the mandate is unconstitutional, assertions that we did not stand a chance faded fast.
Shades of King George III
Let me explain a bit about our lawsuit. Our first legal argument is that the government’s attempt to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mandate the purchase of a private product—in this case, health insurance—goes beyond Congress’s power. The reason there has never been a mandate like this in all of American history is because, up until now, everyone knew Congress lacked the power to impose one.
I often give the example of the colonial period, when the colonists were boycotting British goods while demanding that King George III and Parliament repeal the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. I am sure it was to the king’s dismay, but his own lawyer—the solicitor general—told Parliament that the boycott was legal under British law. In other words, the colonists could not be forced to buy British goods.
Yet in 2010, we had a president and a Congress who believed they could compel Americans to buy a private product even when the king of England, whom we rebelled against, knew he did not have that power. And back then, we were merely subjects!
The federal government has argued in court that not buying health insurance is as much of an economic activity as buying it, and therefore that it can regulate a citizen’s decision not to buy government-approved health insurance under the Commerce Clause. Nonactivity is the same as activity in the government's argument. Clearly, someone in Washington needs a dictionary.
That same reasoning could be used to force us to buy cars, vegetables, or gym memberships. If Virginia loses this suit and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order us to buy or do anything. It would be the end of federalism—not to mention individual rights—as we have known it for more than 220 years.
There is also a secondary argument made by defenders of the health care act. The Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses its Commerce Clause argument is to say that the fine for not buying government-approved health insurance is not a penalty, but a tax. The administration is asserting this because a tax to pay for a health care scheme would be constitutional under Congress’s taxing authority. We argue in response that the government cannot all of a sudden start calling a penalty a tax to try to make the law legal. In fact, every court that has heard the government’s tax argument has rejected it.
When Congress and President Obama debated the health care law, for political reasons, they repeatedly said that the fine for not buying health insurance was a penalty, not a tax. And indeed, under the law they passed, they structured it as a penalty. So now the administration is both flip-flopping and misrepresenting facts.
We will soon see which arguments the appeals court agrees with, because we will be arguing the case in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10th. Whatever that ruling, the case will end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why we are also running a second track and asking the Supreme Court to skip the Fourth Circuit and take the case directly. We have asked the court for this expedited review because states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and real health care reform is on hold until the Supreme Court rules. If we do not get this suit resolved as quickly as possible, we impose crippling uncertainty on the states, businesses, individuals, and our entire economy.
Liberty as an Environmental Principle
As bad as the federal health care law is, the economic consequences of what the EPA has in store for us will be equally damaging to our freedom and our economy. Thus the EPA is another front in Virginia’s federalism fight.
In December 2009, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants dangerous to public health because they are alleged to cause global warming. This finding gave the agency the immense power to regulate CO2 emissions—and remember, this dangerous pollutant, carbon dioxide, is what we exhale from our bodies every second of every day.
For the ruling, the EPA relied primarily on data from a United Nations global warming report. Emails leaked in 2009 in the Climategate scandal showed that some of the world’s prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment. Much of the U.N. report relied on that questionable data, and the EPA relied on that report. Since the revelations from the leaked emails became public, some scientists involved in the report have had to back off some of their positions and research. Renowned climate researcher Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, a long-time proponent of the global warming theory, admitted recently that there is no question that data in the U.N. report was misleading, and that “it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data” that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.
Pursuant to this, in February 2010, my office petitioned the EPA to reopen its hearings on greenhouse gases and review new evidence. Instead it ignored our request—in fact, it ignored the law. So we filed a federal lawsuit to force the hearings to be reopened, and we are still awaiting our day in court.
If the EPA is allowed to move forward with its regulation of carbon dioxide, costs to every American household are projected to increase by $3,000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. Talk about taxing the poor!
In a document the EPA published on regulating greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, it admits that its new rules would add about $950 to the price of each new vehicle. And buried deep in the report, the EPA’s own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, in testimony before Congress, called this amount of temperature difference “immeasurable.” But that has not stopped the agency from trying to move the new auto regulations forward.
Greenhouse gas regulations will also cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in increased energy costs, and could price several industries out of business or force them overseas, resulting in permanent job losses.
These are serious consequences of decisions made by unelected bureaucrats. All we are asking the EPA to do is to look at all the data, not just the data that supports the pre-conceived views of the people in charge.
For my challenges to these rules and to the federal government, I am accused of being a flat-earther and an enemy of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not only an attorney; I was also an engineer. As a former engineer, I have a certain trust in science: the math, the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the objective quest for new answers. But when science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.
And contrary to the image some in the media have created, I do not have a battle with environmental protection. In fact, my office works in close coordination with our Virginia regulatory agencies to enforce environmental laws. I also have seven children who will be on this earth for the better part of this century, and I have a vested interest in seeing that they have clean air, water, and land.
But I also have a vested interest in seeing that my children have the opportunity to get good jobs and achieve at least the same standard of living we have today. That means we have to balance care for our environment with care for our economy.
We also have to recognize that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. Wealthy countries pay for environmental improvement, and healthy economies are critical to it. The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets. Economic success will help deliver environmental improvement far more effectively than any number of forcibly-applied regulations. Yet we are gradually suffocating our free market economy with command-and-control regulations from our federal government.
Freedom in the Balance
With the EPA’s attempts to regulate our lives by regulating the by-products of practically everything we buy and everything we do, and with the federal government’s attempt to assume the power to command us to buy its chosen health insurance, we face some of the most significant and unprecedented erosions of liberty in our lifetimes. And federalism—that tension between state sovereigns and the federal government—was designed for the very purpose of helping to preserve that liberty.
While we can derive some satisfaction from last November’s election results as a backlash against the centralization and growth of raw federal power, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past where conservative victories were followed by liberal policies. We must ensure that the newly elected officeholders have learned from past mistakes. We must hold the representatives we put into office accountable to first principles, and then demand from them concrete action. For the failure of conservative principles has not been due to the principles themselves, but to the failure to fight for them.
At a time such as this, when principled conservatives do not control the reins of power in Washington, state attorneys general become the first line of defense against federal government overreach. When I ran for Attorney General of Virginia, I said that if the federal government crossed certain lines, I would challenge it. Unfortunately, we have a federal government that is giving us more opportunities to challenge it than I would like. But we are keeping our promise. With fellow Virginians and the American people, we have planted our flag and we are taking a stand. And if we are successful, future generations of Americans will have a chance to enjoy the liberty that has made America the envy of the world.
Success in this fight for federalism is critical, for as Ronald Reagan warned us:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding is adapted from a speech delivered by Ken Cuccinelli on April 1, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Mr. Cuccinelli was elected the Attorney General of Virginia in November 2009. From 2002-2009 he was a member of the Virginia State Senate. Prior to that he was a partner in the law firm of Cuccinelli and Day, where he specialized in business law. A graduate of the University of Virginia, he has an M.A. in international relations from George Mason University and a J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law and Economics.
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Some favorite Virginians of mine who inspired and crafted our federal Constitution—Mason, Madison, Jefferson, and Henry—also drafted the Constitution of Virginia. And in the latter, they included a critical statement that said, “No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved . . . but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
Our founders well understood that our liberty could not be preserved without frequently referring back to first principles. But while they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defend those principles, we have often taken them for granted, as we have become complacent in thinking that government will take care of every problem.
We have asked government to do more for us, and all the government asks for in return is a little bit more of our liberty. Over the decades, we kept asking. And because the courts and the politicians were all too happy to oblige, regardless of what the Constitution said, we no longer have a federal government of limited powers. We have an overreaching central government—a government that seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance.
Thankfully, though, in the last several years, people have woken up and are pushing back. With this pushback, we are seeing the idea of federalism reemerge. People want to return to a government of limited, enumerated powers, and an arrangement in which states serve as a check when the federal government oversteps its constitutional bounds.
In the current lawsuits brought by the states over health care and against the EPA, state governments are pushing back and reasserting federalism as the Founders intended them to do. Indeed, I am not aware of a time in history when this many states have sued the federal government to rein in its power: Today, more than half are parties to lawsuits against the new health care act and its individual health insurance mandate.
Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health care law is unconstitutional. When we brought the suit in March 2010, most media outlets and many legal experts said we stood no chance. One law professor said our argument about constitutionality was, if not frivolous, close to it. Another legal expert said our case relied on a “controversial reading of the Constitution.” Apparently, it is controversial to apply the Constitution as it was written.
But back in December, when a federal judge ruled in Virginia’s favor that the mandate is unconstitutional, assertions that we did not stand a chance faded fast.
Shades of King George III
Let me explain a bit about our lawsuit. Our first legal argument is that the government’s attempt to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mandate the purchase of a private product—in this case, health insurance—goes beyond Congress’s power. The reason there has never been a mandate like this in all of American history is because, up until now, everyone knew Congress lacked the power to impose one.
I often give the example of the colonial period, when the colonists were boycotting British goods while demanding that King George III and Parliament repeal the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts. I am sure it was to the king’s dismay, but his own lawyer—the solicitor general—told Parliament that the boycott was legal under British law. In other words, the colonists could not be forced to buy British goods.
Yet in 2010, we had a president and a Congress who believed they could compel Americans to buy a private product even when the king of England, whom we rebelled against, knew he did not have that power. And back then, we were merely subjects!
The federal government has argued in court that not buying health insurance is as much of an economic activity as buying it, and therefore that it can regulate a citizen’s decision not to buy government-approved health insurance under the Commerce Clause. Nonactivity is the same as activity in the government's argument. Clearly, someone in Washington needs a dictionary.
That same reasoning could be used to force us to buy cars, vegetables, or gym memberships. If Virginia loses this suit and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order us to buy or do anything. It would be the end of federalism—not to mention individual rights—as we have known it for more than 220 years.
There is also a secondary argument made by defenders of the health care act. The Obama administration’s fallback position if it loses its Commerce Clause argument is to say that the fine for not buying government-approved health insurance is not a penalty, but a tax. The administration is asserting this because a tax to pay for a health care scheme would be constitutional under Congress’s taxing authority. We argue in response that the government cannot all of a sudden start calling a penalty a tax to try to make the law legal. In fact, every court that has heard the government’s tax argument has rejected it.
When Congress and President Obama debated the health care law, for political reasons, they repeatedly said that the fine for not buying health insurance was a penalty, not a tax. And indeed, under the law they passed, they structured it as a penalty. So now the administration is both flip-flopping and misrepresenting facts.
We will soon see which arguments the appeals court agrees with, because we will be arguing the case in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10th. Whatever that ruling, the case will end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why we are also running a second track and asking the Supreme Court to skip the Fourth Circuit and take the case directly. We have asked the court for this expedited review because states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and real health care reform is on hold until the Supreme Court rules. If we do not get this suit resolved as quickly as possible, we impose crippling uncertainty on the states, businesses, individuals, and our entire economy.
Liberty as an Environmental Principle
As bad as the federal health care law is, the economic consequences of what the EPA has in store for us will be equally damaging to our freedom and our economy. Thus the EPA is another front in Virginia’s federalism fight.
In December 2009, the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants dangerous to public health because they are alleged to cause global warming. This finding gave the agency the immense power to regulate CO2 emissions—and remember, this dangerous pollutant, carbon dioxide, is what we exhale from our bodies every second of every day.
For the ruling, the EPA relied primarily on data from a United Nations global warming report. Emails leaked in 2009 in the Climategate scandal showed that some of the world’s prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment. Much of the U.N. report relied on that questionable data, and the EPA relied on that report. Since the revelations from the leaked emails became public, some scientists involved in the report have had to back off some of their positions and research. Renowned climate researcher Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, a long-time proponent of the global warming theory, admitted recently that there is no question that data in the U.N. report was misleading, and that “it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data” that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.
Pursuant to this, in February 2010, my office petitioned the EPA to reopen its hearings on greenhouse gases and review new evidence. Instead it ignored our request—in fact, it ignored the law. So we filed a federal lawsuit to force the hearings to be reopened, and we are still awaiting our day in court.
If the EPA is allowed to move forward with its regulation of carbon dioxide, costs to every American household are projected to increase by $3,000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. Talk about taxing the poor!
In a document the EPA published on regulating greenhouse gas emissions in cars and light trucks, it admits that its new rules would add about $950 to the price of each new vehicle. And buried deep in the report, the EPA’s own models show that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, in testimony before Congress, called this amount of temperature difference “immeasurable.” But that has not stopped the agency from trying to move the new auto regulations forward.
Greenhouse gas regulations will also cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in increased energy costs, and could price several industries out of business or force them overseas, resulting in permanent job losses.
These are serious consequences of decisions made by unelected bureaucrats. All we are asking the EPA to do is to look at all the data, not just the data that supports the pre-conceived views of the people in charge.
For my challenges to these rules and to the federal government, I am accused of being a flat-earther and an enemy of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not only an attorney; I was also an engineer. As a former engineer, I have a certain trust in science: the math, the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the objective quest for new answers. But when science gets tainted by politics and money, and facts are set aside in the name of advancing a political agenda, it is no longer science.
And contrary to the image some in the media have created, I do not have a battle with environmental protection. In fact, my office works in close coordination with our Virginia regulatory agencies to enforce environmental laws. I also have seven children who will be on this earth for the better part of this century, and I have a vested interest in seeing that they have clean air, water, and land.
But I also have a vested interest in seeing that my children have the opportunity to get good jobs and achieve at least the same standard of living we have today. That means we have to balance care for our environment with care for our economy.
We also have to recognize that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. Wealthy countries pay for environmental improvement, and healthy economies are critical to it. The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets. Economic success will help deliver environmental improvement far more effectively than any number of forcibly-applied regulations. Yet we are gradually suffocating our free market economy with command-and-control regulations from our federal government.
Freedom in the Balance
With the EPA’s attempts to regulate our lives by regulating the by-products of practically everything we buy and everything we do, and with the federal government’s attempt to assume the power to command us to buy its chosen health insurance, we face some of the most significant and unprecedented erosions of liberty in our lifetimes. And federalism—that tension between state sovereigns and the federal government—was designed for the very purpose of helping to preserve that liberty.
While we can derive some satisfaction from last November’s election results as a backlash against the centralization and growth of raw federal power, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past where conservative victories were followed by liberal policies. We must ensure that the newly elected officeholders have learned from past mistakes. We must hold the representatives we put into office accountable to first principles, and then demand from them concrete action. For the failure of conservative principles has not been due to the principles themselves, but to the failure to fight for them.
At a time such as this, when principled conservatives do not control the reins of power in Washington, state attorneys general become the first line of defense against federal government overreach. When I ran for Attorney General of Virginia, I said that if the federal government crossed certain lines, I would challenge it. Unfortunately, we have a federal government that is giving us more opportunities to challenge it than I would like. But we are keeping our promise. With fellow Virginians and the American people, we have planted our flag and we are taking a stand. And if we are successful, future generations of Americans will have a chance to enjoy the liberty that has made America the envy of the world.
Success in this fight for federalism is critical, for as Ronald Reagan warned us:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding is adapted from a speech delivered by Ken Cuccinelli on April 1, 2011, in the “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C. Mr. Cuccinelli was elected the Attorney General of Virginia in November 2009. From 2002-2009 he was a member of the Virginia State Senate. Prior to that he was a partner in the law firm of Cuccinelli and Day, where he specialized in business law. A graduate of the University of Virginia, he has an M.A. in international relations from George Mason University and a J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law and Economics.
Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
"Friendly" Muslims Murder U.S Troops In Afghanistan
A number of years ago, 1952 to be exact, a friend of mine asked a question. It was Korea. How, he asked, do you know the difference between the Koreans who are on our side and the ones who aren't? Sarge looked at him. "It's not that hard," he said. "If they're trying to kill you, they're not on our side. If they're not trying to kill you, maybe they're on our side, maybe not. You never really know. Don't trust any of 'em."
Here we are 58 years later with the same dilemma. It is hard to tell who the enemy really is. You hear about terrorists, Muslims who are pledged to destroy our country and way of life. We are told that we have to be tolerant to them. After all, they are people just like us. Says who? Our government, Obama and company blames past actions by the United States for the animosity that Islamic leaders show against us. Well, I say baloney.
Muslims and Islam have nothing in common with the United States. Muslims believe the Koran and follow the teaching and direction of Islamic leaders. There is no halfway about it. Muslims accept the Koran and Islam. Their quest is world domination.
There is a striking similarity between Islam and Hitler. Nobody believed what Hitler wrote in the thirties, and nobody, especially our government, seems to believe what the Muslims are telling us now. Muslims want to kill all Israelis, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, everybody who does not profess to be Muslim. It is written in the Koran to be read and believed.
Muslims are a blood-thirsty group. Christian missionaries in the Middle-East are decapitated for speaking about Christ. Women are stoned to death for disobeying their husbands. Steal and you hand is cut off. Life means nothing to followers of Islam. How quickly we forget the pictures of dead Americans being dragged through the streets and hung from bridges in the Middle East. How quickly we forget Americans being beheaded, their executions being broadcast on the Internet. Now it is becoming more complicated as our supposed allies in the fight against terrorists are killing United States soldiers.
The Obama clique seems to be unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it. Consider Afghanistan and the attitude of the Afghan military.
During a meeting at the Kabul airport, a 48-year-old Afghan air corps pilot took out a weapon and fired at his American training partners, killing eight U.S. soldiers and a U.S. contractor. It was not the first such attack on US troops, but was the deadliest. It was the seventh such attack by members of Afghan military/security members.
To say the Afghan military is not involved makes no sense. How is the use of U.S. weapons issued to the Afghan military in these attacks explained away? How is the ammunition used of in those weapons, made in the United States and supplied to the Afghan military by the United States, explained? The Pentagon calls these incidents "rogue" attacks. But are they? Take a look at the record.
Attacks occur at training sessions and joint operations where the Afghans have the opportunity to carry out their killing sprees at close range. Their admittance to such situations is through being members of, or clothed as, Afghan security forces. The Pentagon reaction? Its response is that these incidents are the result of "combat stress" or "unknown reasons." Interesting thoughts considering these Muslim attacks were committed only against United States and NATO troops.
According to Investment Business Daily, the coalition had recorded at least 20 incidents since March 2009 where a member of the Afghan security forces or someone wearing a uniform used by them attacked coalition forces, killing a total of 36. Among recent attacks:
On April 16, an Afghan soldier walked into a meeting of NATO trainers and Afghan troops at Forward Operating Base Gamberi in eastern Afghanistan and detonated a vest of explosives hidden underneath his uniform. The blast killed six American troops.
On April 4, a man wearing an Afghan border police uniform shot and killed two U.S. soldiers in northwest Afghanistan while they were training him. The gunman reportedly was upset over the recent burning of the Koran at a Florida church.
In February, an Afghan soldier shot and killed three German soldiers and wounded six others in the northern province of Baghlan.
In January, an Afghan solider used an M-16 rifle to kill an Italian soldier and wound another in Badghis province.
A year earlier, a suicide bomber posing as an informant infiltrated a Central Intelligence Agency outpost in Afghanistan without being thoroughly searched and killed seven CIA officers. The CIA reportedly contracted with local Afghan guards to provide security at the base.
In Iraq, two U.S. troops were killed this January at the hands of an Iraqi soldier who smuggled real bullets into a training exercise and opened fire.
In May 2009, two U.S. soldiers were killed and three wounded in Mosul by a gunman wearing an Iraqi army uniform.
Three months earlier, two Iraqi policemen opened fire on U.S. soldiers lunching at a Mosul police station, killing one.
How can such terrorist activities continue if there is not government involvement by those countries in which our troops are stationed? Such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan are Islamic, controlled and run by Muslims who live by the Koran, which demands the overthrow of non-Islamic states and the deaths of those who are not Islamic believers. Because of the Koran the United States is a common enemy to all Muslims.
The Obama policy in Afghanistan does not fight the real enemy, Islamic Muslims. Through ignorance or design, it backs one Muslim terrorist group against another, both of which advocate the overthrow of the United States and the Christian-Judiac tradition upon which our country was built. These deadly attacks by Middle-East government forces on United States troops are part of Islamic overall strategy. Until Obama develops a winning policy for the Middle-East, the war in Afghanistan will follow in the footsteps of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War.
While all wars are political in nature, the main thrust of the Islamic Muslim terrorist conflict in which we are now engaged is religious in nature. Make no mistake about it. This is a religious war. Lose it and we lose everything, our country, our liberty, our lives.
Here we are 58 years later with the same dilemma. It is hard to tell who the enemy really is. You hear about terrorists, Muslims who are pledged to destroy our country and way of life. We are told that we have to be tolerant to them. After all, they are people just like us. Says who? Our government, Obama and company blames past actions by the United States for the animosity that Islamic leaders show against us. Well, I say baloney.
Muslims and Islam have nothing in common with the United States. Muslims believe the Koran and follow the teaching and direction of Islamic leaders. There is no halfway about it. Muslims accept the Koran and Islam. Their quest is world domination.
There is a striking similarity between Islam and Hitler. Nobody believed what Hitler wrote in the thirties, and nobody, especially our government, seems to believe what the Muslims are telling us now. Muslims want to kill all Israelis, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, everybody who does not profess to be Muslim. It is written in the Koran to be read and believed.
Muslims are a blood-thirsty group. Christian missionaries in the Middle-East are decapitated for speaking about Christ. Women are stoned to death for disobeying their husbands. Steal and you hand is cut off. Life means nothing to followers of Islam. How quickly we forget the pictures of dead Americans being dragged through the streets and hung from bridges in the Middle East. How quickly we forget Americans being beheaded, their executions being broadcast on the Internet. Now it is becoming more complicated as our supposed allies in the fight against terrorists are killing United States soldiers.
The Obama clique seems to be unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it. Consider Afghanistan and the attitude of the Afghan military.
During a meeting at the Kabul airport, a 48-year-old Afghan air corps pilot took out a weapon and fired at his American training partners, killing eight U.S. soldiers and a U.S. contractor. It was not the first such attack on US troops, but was the deadliest. It was the seventh such attack by members of Afghan military/security members.
To say the Afghan military is not involved makes no sense. How is the use of U.S. weapons issued to the Afghan military in these attacks explained away? How is the ammunition used of in those weapons, made in the United States and supplied to the Afghan military by the United States, explained? The Pentagon calls these incidents "rogue" attacks. But are they? Take a look at the record.
Attacks occur at training sessions and joint operations where the Afghans have the opportunity to carry out their killing sprees at close range. Their admittance to such situations is through being members of, or clothed as, Afghan security forces. The Pentagon reaction? Its response is that these incidents are the result of "combat stress" or "unknown reasons." Interesting thoughts considering these Muslim attacks were committed only against United States and NATO troops.
According to Investment Business Daily, the coalition had recorded at least 20 incidents since March 2009 where a member of the Afghan security forces or someone wearing a uniform used by them attacked coalition forces, killing a total of 36. Among recent attacks:
On April 16, an Afghan soldier walked into a meeting of NATO trainers and Afghan troops at Forward Operating Base Gamberi in eastern Afghanistan and detonated a vest of explosives hidden underneath his uniform. The blast killed six American troops.
On April 4, a man wearing an Afghan border police uniform shot and killed two U.S. soldiers in northwest Afghanistan while they were training him. The gunman reportedly was upset over the recent burning of the Koran at a Florida church.
In February, an Afghan soldier shot and killed three German soldiers and wounded six others in the northern province of Baghlan.
In January, an Afghan solider used an M-16 rifle to kill an Italian soldier and wound another in Badghis province.
A year earlier, a suicide bomber posing as an informant infiltrated a Central Intelligence Agency outpost in Afghanistan without being thoroughly searched and killed seven CIA officers. The CIA reportedly contracted with local Afghan guards to provide security at the base.
In Iraq, two U.S. troops were killed this January at the hands of an Iraqi soldier who smuggled real bullets into a training exercise and opened fire.
In May 2009, two U.S. soldiers were killed and three wounded in Mosul by a gunman wearing an Iraqi army uniform.
Three months earlier, two Iraqi policemen opened fire on U.S. soldiers lunching at a Mosul police station, killing one.
How can such terrorist activities continue if there is not government involvement by those countries in which our troops are stationed? Such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan are Islamic, controlled and run by Muslims who live by the Koran, which demands the overthrow of non-Islamic states and the deaths of those who are not Islamic believers. Because of the Koran the United States is a common enemy to all Muslims.
The Obama policy in Afghanistan does not fight the real enemy, Islamic Muslims. Through ignorance or design, it backs one Muslim terrorist group against another, both of which advocate the overthrow of the United States and the Christian-Judiac tradition upon which our country was built. These deadly attacks by Middle-East government forces on United States troops are part of Islamic overall strategy. Until Obama develops a winning policy for the Middle-East, the war in Afghanistan will follow in the footsteps of Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War.
While all wars are political in nature, the main thrust of the Islamic Muslim terrorist conflict in which we are now engaged is religious in nature. Make no mistake about it. This is a religious war. Lose it and we lose everything, our country, our liberty, our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)