Sheriff Joe Arpaio

For those not familiar with Joe Arpaio, he is the county sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. He keeps getting re-elected over and over again. These are some of the reasons why:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the “tent city jail” to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex; inmates sleep in tents!
He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but “G” movies. He says, “They’re in jail to pay a debt to society, not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.”
He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer’s money. Men work in pink “Clean(ing) and Sober” shirts. Their underwear is also pink!
Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn’t get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney Channel and The Weather Channel. When asked why the weather channel, he replied, “So these morons will know how hot it’s gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.”
He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, “This isn’t the Ritz. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.”
He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116° F set a new record for June 2, 2009), the Associated Press reported that about 2,000 inmates living in a tent encampment surrounded by barbed wire at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On that Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. “This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,” said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. “It’s inhumane.”
Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. “Criminals should be punished for their crimes, not live in luxury until it’s time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.”
The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: “It’s between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents there too, and they have to walk all day in that sun, wearing full battle gear and getting shot at, and THEY have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!”
Sheriff Joe was just re-elected for the fourteenth time as Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Do You Secretly Hate The Rich?

Do You Secretly Hate The Rich?

Do You Secretly Hate The Rich?

We’re all just wasting our time until we finally work up the “politically incorrect” courage to say that economic bigotry isn’t something we should tolerate from anyone, whether they’re conservative, liberal, libertarian, or anything else. Economic bigotry is so common, it’s seeped into the rhetoric even of the capitalists who supposedly embrace every economic “class”.
So what is an “economic bigot”? Anyone who thinks it’s fine to steal from the rich but not the middle class. Anyone who thinks the rich should pay a higher rate of taxes than anyone else. Anyone who thinks that “middle class” is somehow a better background than “rich parents”.

Screw that. It’s disgusting, it’s weird, and it’s based on the new infatuation of people to obsess over bending over backwards so the most radical leftists will possibly be more “open” our view. It’s so common and “normal” now that it’s getting difficult for us to even see it happen. Look at any “fire them up” speech, and you’ll see the “middle class” glorified and the “upper class” ignored — at best.
It’s Not Better To Be Non-Rich
I remember one time in church, a visiting pastor gave this sermon that almost had me get up and leave. He glorified poverty for its own sake, and at one point, he said with an arrogant smile, “I don’t mean to brag, but I’m not rich.”
What the heck? Well, I’m glad you weren’t bragging, because that would be just a stupid thing to brag about. If you’re going to brag, at least do it about something you’ve done — not something you aren’t.
And this watering down of rhetoric doesn’t work. You don’t win points in the minds of others because you water down your rhetoric with Marxism and class warfare slogans of “help the middle class”… as though it’s possible to do that without helping the rich as well.
All that happens is that the average folks get used to getting a bizarre, envious narrative of “who cares if they’re rich” added to everything they think about politics, and that hurts everyone in the end. Including, ironically, the middle class. The universe has a sense of humor.
The Rich Get Richer With Capitalism. That’s Good.
It’s fine that the rich get richer with capitalism. That’s awesome. It’s wonderful. It’s also good because other people also are better off. Everyone sees their incomes go up. Everyone. Because remember, whatever is good for the middle class is going to be good for the poor and the rich as well. And that’s GOOD. Being in one income group doesn’t mean you have extra rights. It doesn’t mean you’re more important. That’s absurd.
That’s why we shouldn’t focus only on rhetoric of “well, we need more middle class jobs!” It’s not necessary and it creates invisible “class warfare” narratives in the minds of the listener.
So here’s to capitalism, to EVERYONE it helps, which includes the people with the huge houses, the expensive private schools, the private jets, and the luxurious lifestyles we’re trained to hate — because they have identical natural rights as anyone else.
By playing along with the Marxist word games, we’re just selling the socialists the rope they plan on hanging us with.
So next time someone says something negative about someone because their parents were successful, or they have millions of dollars they can spend on anything they want, or they have a car that is as expensive as some houses, just look them in the eye and say, “I know, isn’t that great? It should be more common.”
Down with every ounce of Marxism, whether in policy or rhetoric. If we don’t stop caving to every new angle of the left, we’re just wasting our time.

Inside the talks: Fiscal framework emerges

Inside the talks: Fiscal framework emerges 

Inside the talks: Fiscal framework emerges
By: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
November 29, 2012 04:42 AM EST

Listen to top Democrats and Republicans talk on camera, and it sounds like they could not be further apart on a year-end tax-and-spending deal — a down payment on a $4 trillion grand bargain.
But behind the scenes, top officials who have been involved in the talks for many months say the contours of a deal — including the size of tax hikes and spending cuts it will most likely contain — are starting to take shape.

Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had a 30-minute phone conversation Wednesday night  — but the private lines of communications remain very much open.
No doubt, there will be lots of huffing and puffing before any deal can be had. And, no doubt, Obama and Congress could easily botch any or all three of the white-knuckle moments soon to hit this town: the automatic spending cuts and expiration of the Bush tax cuts, both of which kick in at the end of this year, and the federal debt limit that hits early next.
(Also on POLITICO: Can McConnell, Obama overcome bad blood?)
But it’s clear to veterans of this budget fight a deal is there to be done. Here is the state of play that is sketched out by top officials in both parties:
The coming tax hike
There is no chance taxes are not going up for people making north of $250,000 — and virtually no chance that doesn’t include their tax rates, too.
Republicans publicly say they are opposed to rate hikes — but privately they know they are going up, if not all the way to the Clinton-era 39.6 percent, then darn close.
The reason is simple math. Take a look at this list, and you will see that any tax loopholes worth closing won’t get Obama or Republicans close to their targets.
To those involved in the talks, it’s not really a mystery how big the overall hike will be. Boehner was for $800 billion before the election, and Obama slapped down an opening bid of $1.6 trillion after. So it doesn’t take Ernst and Young to add those numbers, divide by two and know the president wants to end up close to $1.2 trillion.

House Republicans, already worried about possible primary challenges in 2014, are pleading to keep that number below $1 trillion, even if it is by a hair. Still, they know it’s likely to come in a shade higher. The safe bet is just over $1 trillion for the final number. A bit less, and that’s a notable win for Boehner.
Officials familiar with the White House position say Obama plans zero flexibility on his insistence on a higher tax rate for top earners. He plans to take what one aide called a “trust but verify” position: He will insist on a higher rate in the year-end deal. Then next year, during tax-reform negotiations, “the onus will be on Republicans to propose something that raises the same amount of revenue,” the aide said. “He’s going to pocket their rate hike on the top two brackets at first, and then he’s going to say to them in the 2013 process that we set up: If you think you can realize these same revenues in a different way, prove it to me.”

A rate hike would be the most difficult element for Boehner to sell to his own members. But Republicans are already trying to build the case — both with their own members and with constituents — that whatever the final deal, they fought hard. And the speaker has drawn a sharp distinction between increasing revenue, which he will accept, and raising rates, which he has said he will not. Kevin Smith, Boehner’s communications director, said: “We have no intention of increasing tax rates. Doing so will hurt small business and destroy jobs.”
Boehner told his conference in a closed-door meeting Wednesday morning: “We’ve staked out a principled position. It’s important that everyone in this room continue to be clear with our constituents about what that position is: We’re fighting for spending cuts. We’re fighting against increases in tax rates that destroy jobs. And we’re fighting for pro-growth tax reform and entitlement reform, the keys to economic growth.” And the speaker narrated slides from Republican pollster David Winston arguing that most Americans prefer overall tax reform to higher rates for the rich.
So what does the final tax hike look like? That will take a while to hash out, but those involved guess it will include a rate hike, higher taxes on carried interest and probably capital gains and dividends, and either a cap on total deductions for rich people or some form of a minimum tax rate for them.
The coming entitlement cuts
There is only one way to make the medicine of tax hikes go down easier for Republicans: specific cuts to entitlement spending. Democrats involved in the process said the chest-pounding by liberals is just that — they know they will ultimately cave and trim entitlements to get a deal done.
A top Democratic official said talks have stalled on this question since Obama and congressional leaders had their friendly-looking post-election session at the White House. “Republicans want the president to own the whole offer upfront, on both the entitlement and the revenue side, and that’s not going to happen because the president is not going to negotiate with himself,” the official said. “There’s a standoff, and the staff hasn’t gotten anywhere. Rob Nabors [the White House negotiator], has been saying: ‘This is what we want on revenues on the down payment. What’s you guys’ ask on the entitlement side?’ And they keep looking back at us and saying: ‘We want you to come up with that and pitch us.’ That’s not going to happen.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that he could see $400 billion in entitlement cuts. That’s the floor, according to Democratic aides, and it could go higher in the final give and take. The vast majority of the savings, and perhaps all of it, will come from Medicare, through a combination of means-testing, raising the retirement age and other “efficiencies” to be named later. It is possible Social Security gets tossed into the mix, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to fight that, if he has to yield on other spending fronts.
Democrats want most Medicare and other entitlement savings to kick in between 10 and 20 years from now, which will make some Republicans choke. Democrats will point to the precedent set by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of pushing most mandatory savings off until a decade from now.

“A lot of the big entitlement savings comes in the 10-20 year budget window, not the next 10 years,” a Democratic aide said. “Everybody will need to get on board understanding that. Paul Ryan and the Obama budget are the same on health cuts for the next 10 years.”
But that will most likely be the deal Republicans will be staring at: tax hikes now in exchange for Medicare changes way later. That will require some fancy footwork by Boehner to sell.
The coming cave
People who have talked privately with the top three House Republican leaders — Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — say they recognize that Obama holds the high cards, and that the public is likely to blame Republicans if negotiations blow up and the new year brings a fiscal disaster. Ryan, back at the Capitol after spending the fall on the road as Mitt Romney’s running mate, is said to be resisting concessions that the others consider inevitable.
Ryan, who is considering a run for president, will ultimately have to decide if he wants to be party to a deal — or if he wants to be the public leader of the resistance.
If that happens, Cantor becomes all the more important to getting a final deal through the House. Cantor is a bigger player than some think and his relationship with Boehner is stronger today than six months ago. The staff-level tension, which was often a distraction for both men, has abated ever since Barry Jackson left as Boehner’s top aide. Cantor, who is better versed on the details of tax issues than most members of Congress, also remains relatively tight with Vice President Joe Biden, a relationship that Bob Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” revealed to be closer and more important than commonly known.
A Pew Research Center poll this month had sobering figures for Republicans: 53 percent of respondents said the GOP would be more to blame if the country goes over the fiscal cliff, while only 29 percent said Obama. A CNN/ORC poll this week had a similar finding: 45-34.

Even Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, sounded more pragmatic than doctrinaire during a Playbook Breakfast interview Wednesday. He said that while Republicans need to avoid having “their fingerprints on the murder weapon” of a tax increase, they will have a defensible position if negotiations are conducted in public, they push for reforms and the deal can “pass the laugh test” back home. That leaves a lot of leeway.
Spending cuts will be crucial to this. The floor for new spending cuts is simple: replacing the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts set to kick in if the two parties can‘t cut a deal before year’s end. Republicans will insist these are real and imminent to swallow the rest.
It’s the Obama-Boehner show
Everyone has an opinion on the grand bargain. But only two matter: Obama’s and Boehner’s. Any deal will ultimately be hammered out between the two men, whose on-again, off-again relationship is stronger than most people realize.
Bluster aside, both know they have a heavy incentive to cut a deal, and quick. Boehner knows the president isn’t bluffing on letting the Bush tax cuts lapse to get his way on raising rates on the rich. Obama knows the last thing he wants at the start of a second term is an economic funk caused by Washington dysfunction, even if Republicans get more of the blame.
People involved in the talks over the past six months say House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is at best a bit player in the unfolding drama, and virtually certain to back any deal Obama blesses. Reid runs the Senate and has more juice than Pelosi, but he knows his role is to play bad cop until it’s time to play loyal soldier to pass the final package. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, facing a reelection two years from now in conservative Kentucky, will defer to Boehner in brokering any compromise and might even break with his fellow GOP leader on a final vote.

Our View: Udall Tilting at Windmills | The Colorado Observer

Our View: Udall Tilting at Windmills | The Colorado Observer

Our View: Udall Tilting at Windmills

November 5, 2012

By Editor

inShare

How can politicians demand never-ending taxpayer handouts for “green energy” when the country is drowning in a $16 trillion sea of debt?

Count us as shocked! Shocked! over the announcement last week from Vestas Wind Systems that they will be shuttering their “research and development office” in Colorado in order to “…further simplify its global footprint to reduce operational costs…”
While the Danish company’s announcement also impacted similar operations in other states, we can’t help but be reminded about the folly of a business model that is wholly dependent upon government subsidies to thrive.
What caught our eye here at The Observer was a tweet sent out by our own Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) blaming the Vestas shut down on Congress’ unwillingness to extend pork-barrel subsidies that the company relies upon to meet its payroll.  Does this senatorial finger-wagging remind anyone else of burglar admonishing the local police department for not patrolling his victim’s neighborhood enough?
Does Senator Udall – a member of the majority party — understand the rules of the Senate well enough to know that if this issue were truly important enough to Colorado, he has the ability to shut the place down to force action on it?
While many of us remember the good old days when the economy was roaring and it seemed as though we might have the luxury of handing out public dollars to underwrite “green energy” fantasies, the bottom line today is that our economy continues to sputter under the failed policies of Barack Obama, Mark Udall and the rest of their friends in Washington, D.C.
We can’t understand how members of Congress can look their constituents in the eye and tell them that, even though our nation is drowning in a $16 trillion sea of debt, it makes sense to continue delivering truckloads of government handouts to politically connected green energy companies in an effort to make them seem competitive with traditional energy sources like coal and natural gas.
While Senator Udall has managed to get himself elected to the Senate with a winning smile and a namesake most politicians would kill for, we’d much rather see him use his perch on a couple powerful committees in the Senate to demand answers to a few other questions, such as what really happened in Benghazi.
Unfortunately for Colorado, however, Mr. Udall seems much more interested in using his office to act as a mouthpiece for the radical environmental movement.
Mr. Udall isn’t on the ballot Tuesday, and won’t face the voters until 2014.  But we hope our senior senator will spend a little more time over the next two years focusing on the priorities of Colorado families, and a little less time tilting at the green lobby’s windmills.

REPORT: Oil and Gas Boom Boosts Small Town Incomes | The Colorado Observer

REPORT: Oil and Gas Boom Boosts Small Town Incomes

November 28, 2012

By Observer Staff

DENVER – Personal incomes inched up in rural America between 2007 and 2011 while declining in large metropolitan areas, according to a new analysis, which attributed bigger paychecks in smaller towns to the much maligned American oil and gas industry.
“The nation’s oil and gas boom is driving up income so fast in a few hundred small towns and rural areas that it’s shifting prosperity to the nation’s heartland in large part thanks to growth in the oil and gas sector,” read a Tuesday report by USA Today’s Dennis Cauchon.
Perhaps not surprisingly, residents of New York County, home to the skyscrapers and financial hubs of Manhattan, enjoyed the highest per capita income in the country at $121,000 – down more than 5 percent since 2007.  The unlikely enclave of Sully County, South Dakota – where per capita income has risen by more than 70 percent to a healthy $116,000 over the same period – clocked in at number two.
According to the report, six of the counties in the top ten are located in North Dakota, now the second largest oil producing U.S. state.
The findings of the analysis are likely to stoke what is an already contentious debate between majority House Republicans and President Obama over the proper direction for U.S. energy policy – as moderate and conservative lawmakers look for opportunities to raise additional revenue and create jobs without raising taxes, and while holding down government spending.
“It’s like a tax cut for America,” said the Wall Street Journal’s John Bussey of the oil boom during a Tuesday appearance on FoxNews.
Bussey added that the increased domestic energy productuion could give the U.S. a stronger hand on the international stage, arguing that additional American oil and gas resources could make foreign countries more likely to back the U.S. in international disputes — nations currently hesitant to do so for fear it might disrupt their energy supplies.
“We can use that [American] oil and gas to help our allies,” said Bussey.
In all, the study found that average incomes have fallen by 3.5 percent in big cities during the four year period, while incomes grew in small towns by nearly 4 percent over the same time frame.  Although incomes rose in both rural and urban areas in 2011.
“The energy boom and strong farm prices have reversed, at least temporarily, a long-term trend of money flowing to cities,” wrote Cauchon. “Last year, small places saw a 3% growth in income per person vs. 1.8% in urban areas.”
Colorado’s Crowley County had the dubious distinction of posting the lowest per capita income in the nation at $16,752, according to the report, despite growing by 3.5 percent since 2007.

Nullification: The Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 1

Nullification: The Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 1

Nullification: The Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 1

     

by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com After perceiving a long train of usurpations of power by the federal government, which culminated in legislation known as Obamacare many Americans took to the streets in protest.  They appealed to the Legislature to no avail. The legislation ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court.  We then witnessed a colossal rewriting of our founding documents in the majority opinion to the Obamacare mandate.  Justice John Roberts in a few lines pulled down the pillars of the Republic and set us on the path to totalitarianism. Nearly half of the population rightfully regards this legislation as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  The truth is, not only should the Sates be able to deal with their own health insurance issues, but the federal government has no legitimate authority to rule by such dictates.  Yet, many who vowed to fight it “to the end” have now acquiesced and declared that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land.”  So is this the end?  Since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high, must we now bow to an all-powerful government, from which no area of our daily life is off-limits?  Or is there a remedy yet remaining?  Can the States legitimately resist federal law or is this "treasonous" as some have suggested? To answer these questions we must first understand the nature of the Republic we call the United States.  These States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution.  This compact, or contract, made among the States not only the created the federal government but also dictated the limited and specific powers delegated to the federal government by the parties of this contract.   Secondly, since the States are the parties to the compact and the creators of the central government, then the States, naturally, are the masters of their creation.  That is to say, they are sovereign - independent of, separate from and sovereign over the federal government.  All of the powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the States and the people.  The 10th Amendment makes that very clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment to the US Constitution It is upon this foundation that the States have the ultimate right to stand against ANY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.  The 10th Amendment declares that the federal government is to only operate within their delegated powers.  James Madison explains those delegated powers in Federalist Paper #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…”  Federalist Paper #45 Madison then goes on to explain “the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”  Federalist Paper #45 Therefore, the 10th Amendment in conjunction with Madison’s explanation makes it clear that the States’ powers are numerous, the federal powers are few, and the federal government has no business interjecting itself into the powers reserved to the States. To claim the 10th amendment says anything else would make the Constitution a complete absurdity.  Since there are no areas of power that are simply floating out in the neutral zone waiting for someone to use them, if the federal government uses a power that was not Constitutionally delegated, it must steal it from the States.  When the federal government does this, it removes power from the States, rights from the people, and makes the Constitution completely meaningless.  Such overreach sets the precedent that no power is reserved to the States and that all power is open for federal taking.  This effectively nullifies the 9th and 10th Amendments, and destroys the Constitutional barriers established to contain a limited and defined federal government.  What will then be the federal government’s limitations? Nothing but its own will.  “That they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely in cases made federal, but in all cases whatsoever…that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 This is, in essence, what Justice Roberts declared in his opinion on Obamacare, overturning the very purpose of the Constitution itself – to enumerate the powers of a limited central government and bind it under the authority of the States.  What happens when the barriers of the Constitution are completely swept away?  The federal government will now have the ability to exercise any power over the States whatsoever.  The people will be rendered completely powerless and irrelevant.  What will be the purpose of elections then?  We will no longer be a republic, but a government ruled as a Kingdom. “…for the federal government toenlarge its powers by forced construction of the constitutional charter which defines them…so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases…the obvious tendency and inevitable result…would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.”  James Madison, Virginia Resolutions 1798 So, when the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution, and the people have no recourse in the federal system, what is the remedy?  What is the proper course when the federal government has gone rogue?  The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and The Father of the Constitution, James Madison speak very clearly on the position of the States as the sovereign defenders of the foundations of our Republic.  It is the founders of the Republic who must give us our remedy…  Nullification, the Duty and Right of the States-Pt. 2         by KrisAnne Hall http://www.KrisAnneHall.com  (Here is a link to Part I)   James Madison gives us this answer regarding the remedy to the states for combating federal overreach. In fact, according to our founders, it was not only the remedy but the DUTY of the states to stand in defense of the Republic. “…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798 James Madison What is this interposition? It is what Jefferson referred to as NULLIFICATION of the unauthorized acts of the federal government.  It is the States declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply!”  “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Nullification is legitimate act of refusing to implement unconstitutional federal directives. “That the several states who formed [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”  Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1799 To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine. In fact our founders believed that if the States did not refuse to submit to unconstitutional use of federal power, the result would be the elimination of state powers, elimination of the rights of the people, and the complete dissolution of the Union and our Constitution.  “the doctrine which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through which department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of the Federal Union.”  Fort Hill Address, John C. Calhoun July 26, 1831 If the federal government uses a power that it was not delegated, it does so unconstitutionally. The federal government exists solely because of the Constitution.  Therefore any act that is unconstitutional destroys the very legitimacy of the federal government’s actions and therefore has no effect whatsoever.  Since it has no effect, the States are merely declaring that fact, and are therefore not required to submit. An epidemic of Constitutional ignorance has made it popular in our day to declare “this is the law of the land because the Supreme Court says so,” and since SCOTUS has said “nullification is not valid,” then it is not a proper remedy, some even claim that it is treasonous.  The men who founded the nation found the assertion offensive that the Supreme Court had the ultimate authority to dictate to the States the acts of the federal government. “The idea that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism- since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers.” Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution 1799  To assume that the Supreme Court has the final word on what will or will not be implemented throughout the land is to abandon all power of the states, and throw them into complete submission to a federal power. It would be like allowing a criminal to determine his own guilt or innocence.    “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution… consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800 Even Federalist, Alexander Hamilton made clear that the Constitution is binding upon any branch of the federal government.  To suggest that the creature could overrule its creator was to our founders a complete absurdity.  "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #78 It is incumbent upon the STATE REPRESENTATIVES to carry out their oath of office, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and be the guardians of the liberty of its citizens.  The Governors and Legislatures must draft a Resolution proclaiming the sovereignty of the state and the unconstitutionality of the federal power and asserting the state’s duty to deny said power.  That Resolution must then be transmitted by the Governor to the Senators and Representatives representing the state in Congress.  Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibilities… It would be [deceitful] in those entrusted with the GUARDIANSHIP OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY, and acting under the solemn obligation of the following oath, — “I do swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” — not to warn you of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet establish precedents which may ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped power.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia January 23, 1799 When petition fails…when Congress refuses to enforce Separation of Powers and protect the sovereignty of the States…when the Supreme Court joins in the unconstitutional use of power, we cannot admit that revolution is the only solution that remains! Revolution does not save the Constitution, it can only destroy it.  There must be another peaceful resolution; and there is: It is called Nullification. For the federal government or the States to deny this method of constitutional remedy is to say they are resolved to the destruction of the Constitution and the potential of driving its people to revolution. “…our Constitution is most worthless and tyrannical, if the usurpations of those who administer it, cannot be resisted by any means short of revolution. I have always considered the reserved powers of the States, as the only real check upon the powers of the federal government; and I have always considered it, not only the right, but the imperious duty of the States, so to apply that check, as not to dissolve the Union. And I have never been able to discover any mode of doing this, except by the positive refusal of the States to submit to usurpations…” Judge Able P. Upshur, An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (No. I) The acquiescence of the states, under infractions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impotency and contempt, or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength.  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, January 23, 1799 Therefore, in upholding their oath the States must stand against any legislation that serves to steal power from the state, thus destroying the Constitution.  If the States fail to stand against this tyrannical use of power by the federal government, they will consent to their own destruction, or worse, to revolution. “Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what further materials they can need for building up their favorite system.”  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1799

Open Letter to the States to Stand Against Obamacare 

Open Letter to the States to Stand Against Obamacare

• Posted by KrisAnne Hall on November 27, 2012 at 11:37am

This is a letter that I have drafted based upon my constitutional analyses of Obamacare (found here) and Nullification (found here).  My goal is to provide us with a united front to attack this unconstitutional federal attack and defeat this once and for all...without the drastic measures that history predicts.
"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin
PLEASE USE AND SHARE THIS LETTER.  I will be grateful.  My son will be grateful.
Sincerely,
KrisAnne Hall

Dear State Legislator and Governor,

Much of the population rightfully regards the Affordable Healthcare Act as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  It is undeniable that there is no power neither enumerated nor delegated to the federal government to compel a citizen to purchase health insurance under threat of penalty of law.  For the central government to claim such power denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void.

Some claim that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land” since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high.  This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy.  The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution to be Supreme, not the federal government.  “If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also….” James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

The founding documents and the men who wrote them make it unequivocally clear that the States have the final word on whether their creation, the federal government, has trespassed its clearly defined boundaries.  AND IT HAS.   Our States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution.  The States’ compact created the federal government and dictated its limited and specific powers.  As the creators of the federal government that means the States are the masters of their creation.  The 10^th Amendment makes that very clear.  The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government have collectively torn through the boundaries set by the Constitution.  The people have no recourse in the federal system, and must now turn to their States.  The Framers considered it the duty of the States to stand against EVERY unconstitutional law created or enforced by the federal government.

“…in the case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted…the states…have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, …for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties…” Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison “Father of the Constitution”

“That the several states who formed [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”   Kentucky Resolutions 1799 Thomas Jefferson, Writer of the Declaration of Independence

Nullification is the State declaring, “The federal government is NOT our master, the States and the people are the masters of the Constitution and we do not have to, nor will we comply with dictates not enumerated in the Constitution!”   To deny the States this right is tyrannical and is an unconstitutional doctrine.

You must take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the rights the citizens that hired you to represent them.  Rest assured many will not comply with this mandate.  If you do not protect your citizens now, what will you do then?

An Overdue Book - Thomas Sowell

An Overdue Book - Thomas Sowell

An Overdue Book

• 
• Thomas Sowell
   

Nov 28, 2012

If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, "Who's The Fairest of Them All?", Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.
The point here is not to say, "Where was Stephen Moore when we needed him?" A more apt question might be, "Where was the whole economics profession when we needed them?" Where were the media? For that matter, where were the Republicans?
Since "Who's The Fairest of Them All?" was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year's election. But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.
Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged. The title "Who's The Fairest of Them All?" is an obvious response to liberals' claim that their policies are aimed at creating "fairness" by, among other things, making sure that "the rich" pay their "fair share" of taxes. If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.
A couple of graphs on pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about "tax cuts for the rich." These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.
There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas. At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.
This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in "Who's The Fairest of Us All?"
Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today. As Stephen Moore points out, "the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored" the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.
Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.
Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a "tax cut for the rich." President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that "A rising tide lifts all boats."
If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out "tax cuts for the rich," maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy's answer.
A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on "the rich."
If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.
Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how "tax cuts for the rich" have "cost" the government money that now needs to be recouped. Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama's benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion dollar deficits.