Category Archives: Executive Usurpation

Principles and Policies Podcast for 10/15/2011- The Electoral College

This entry is part 3 of 55 in the series Principles and Policies Podcast

Our Principles and Policies radio show for Saturday October 15, 2011. Barry Sheets and Chuck Michaelis of the Institute For Principled Policy discuss the Electoral College.

Institute On The Constitution Class- Gallipolis, OH

We the People have the duty to restrain a government operating outside Constitutional boundaries.  The Institute on the Constitution invites you to learn how by discovering your American heritage and birthright.

INSTITUTE ON THE CONSTITUTION – Course Description & Information

 A great history and non-partisan government class for adults and teens to be introduced to the U. S. Constitution, our Biblical heritage and the concept of limited government.   Twelve weekly classes of approximately 2 hours each are comprised of a 30-minute video lecture, group review and discussion questions.

Beginning with the Bible you will learn of the origins of history, law and government, followed by stories of America’s discovery, settlement and evangelization from exciting, primary sources you never saw in school!  Then, the worldview of the founding fathers is discussed, which leads straight to the text of the Constitution.

Your live instructor will be Barry Sheets, Executive Director of the Institute for Principled Policy and owner of Principled Policy Consulting, LLC.  Barry has nearly two decades of experience working with elected officials and public policy. David Barton of Wallbuilders and Lt. Colonel John Eidsmoe are the video instructors.    Barton is a master teacher with a vast collection and knowledge of founding era literature.  Lt. Colonel Eidsmoe is a Constitutional attorney and professor with degrees in theology, law and political science.  He is a published author and frequent lecturer at colleges, churches and community groups.

This timely and relevant course’s cost is $60 per person prior to October 28th.  Registration after that date will be $75.  Your course fee includes the 12 weekly lectures, a Student Manual, and a number of supplemental books that will be read during the course.

 CLASS DATES AND TIME –  Begins October 31st, 6:30-8:30 p.m. for 12 weeks

CLASS LOCATION –Gallipolis Christian Church, 4486 State Route 588, Gallipolis, 45631

TO REGISTER CONTACT – Barry Sheets, 614-989-5293, or register at: www.campamerican.com

Join in the cause of preserving our God-given Liberty and restoring our Constitutional Republic. After all, if you don’t defend Liberty, who will?

Gardisil And Its Political Fallout In Presidential Politics

Real Clear Politics has posted an article on Texas Governor Rick Perry and his rush to cram the Human Papilloma Virus down the throats of Texas teen-aged girls. Perry did not wait for a legislative act to make the use of the vaccine mandatory, probably because he knew that they wouldn’t pass it, but signed an “executive order” requiring the series of 3 shots for girls in the 6th grade (that’s usually 11 to 12 year-olds). Perry’s act was so egregious that the Texas legislature passed a bill overriding his diktat with a veto-proof majority. Perry, to avoid political embarrassment, allowed the bill to become law without his signature. Why? Because, he claimed, as a dedicated pro-lifer he had to do something to stop the ravages of cervical cancer.

What Perry forgot to mention was that his chief-of staff was a former Merck lobbyist. Merck is the firm that developed and manufactures Gardisil. Merck put on a hard push, including wheelbarrows full of money, to state legislators all over the United States who would support making Gardisil a mandatory vaccine. Now, why would Merck care that much, you might be asking?

Well, one of the reasons is pretty obvious. If they could pull off the political coup of getting the states to require Gardisil to young girls the would have a very lucrative monopoly involving tens of millions of girls. Think about it this way- tens of millions of girls who are required to take a series of 3 injections at $120- PER INJECTION! But there is a more important reason. Merck desperately wanted the protection that a mandatory vaccine has under the PATRIOT Act. Mandatory status means indemnification from damage suit, an important consideration for a company that wants to avoid problems for a vaccine having no long-term testing data and whose short term data showed potential problems. Later data has showed that there are serious health issues with the Gardisil vaccine, including paralysis and death. A company which can get “mandatory” status may very well gain millions in profits with no downside of potential damage lawsuits.

In light of these facts if you argue that Perry didn’t realize the implications of  indemnifying a drug company from personal damage lawsuits while awarding a monopoly and requiring the use of its product then you argue that he is too naive to be President of the United States. If you argue that Perry was just putting his ‘pro-life’ convictions into action then you are both reinforcing the previous argument and further arguing that he has no grasp of the constitutional limits of executive authority which disqualifies him from the office of President of the United States.

So next time someone says that Perry, whose past support of questionable presidential candidates like Al Gore and Rudi Giuliani call his judgment into serious question, is the “kind of ‘conservative’ we need in the White House” remind them of  the fact that Perry abused his pro-life credentials and abused his executive power as governor of Texas. Then ask if this kind of ‘conservative’ is really what the founders envisioned for the office of president.

Crises, Coups and Constitutional Conventions- Introduction

This entry is part 1 of 6 in the series Crises, Coups and Constitutional Conventions

There is currently a movement in the United States that is gaining a disturbing momentum. The leaders of the movement are agitating state governments to petition Congress to call a new constitutional convention. While groups on the left have been demanding a new convention for the purpose of re-writing the existing Constitution for decades  the current calls are coming from groups that most would place in the “conservative” category. The liberal groups are calling straightforwardly for a convention with plenipotentiary constitution making authority while the conservative elements are calling for a convention limited by charter for the purpose of amending the existing Constitution.  While the latter sounds reasonable it is the opinion of the Institute For Principled Policy, not on our own authority but based on extensive research on the legal, historical, and procedural precedents set by conventions of the United States, colonial America, and Great Britain, that the chartering of a so-called controlled or “shackled” constitutional convention will have the same result as the calling of a convention with plenipotentiary authority. That predicted result in either case is a new constitution. Based on further research into existing constitutional models, parts which are already being implemented, we believe that the government created by any new constitution will be divorced from both the bedrock philosophical moorings laid out in the Declaration of Independence and from the shackles imposed by the current constitution. In this light the Hegelian Dialectical nature of the debate over a new constitutional convention is exposed.

In this series we will present the case and documentation that are the foundation our positions.

_______________________________________________________

About once a decade or so, over the last 40 years, a group of social activists decides that a new constitutional convention would be a good idea for one reason or another. The 2010’s have proven to be no exception. What is exceptional about the early 2010’s is that there is a looming governmental and economic crisis that could conceivably provide the “tipping point” necessary for a new convention. In the past, issues like the so-called “Fair Tax,” immigration reform, a balanced budget amendment, state sovereignty (already covered in the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution) and a host of others, one group has a list of 10 proposed amendments, have been used as motivating issues. Up to this point, none of these issues, taken singly, have had the horsepower necessary to create the political pressure necessary to trigger a serious call for a constitutional convention.

The concept of the “tipping point,” a rapid and pivotal change in public opinion or the opinion of key players at critical points of history that occur prior to and which drive key historical events1,  is a crucial concept in the history of  the Constitution. The number of constitutional conventions held in the United States is small, only one so far, but the histories of the convention are voluminous. And, sadly, much of what is written in these histories is wrong, based on the writings of those who were diligently working to create a shift in public opinion and were not above a healthy dose of propaganda to create a “tipping point” in favor of replacing the confederated government of the Articles of Confederation with a new, “national” government which would eliminate the states as sovereign entities. After working for years to undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation, nationalists (those in favor of a new national government) in Massachusetts, found their state embroiled in a crisis, which if sold properly, could be used to mold public opinion and the opinions of key players like George Washington into demanding a new constitutional convention. Men like Henry Knox, Benjamin Lincoln and other former members of Washington’s Continental Army staff, many of them members of the society of the Cincinnati, began writing exaggerated and inflammatory accounts of the events of Shays’ rebellion to key players in Congress, the press and George Washington. Thus Shays’ Rebellion, a local crisis based on a failure of the Massachusetts state government to redress the grievances of its citizens, was turned into an embryonic popular revolt that “threatened to spread across state lines” using carefully constructed accounts of the events that created something of a panic. These were all but a complete fiction. And yet the evidence of this has only been chronicled in any detail in the early 21st century by a scholar who discovered that his university was in possession of the official archives of the rebellion and decided it was time for a fresh look at the data. What he discovered was that the generally accepted accounts of the rebellion don’t match the events painted by the official records.  History truly is in the hands of the victors.

The question we must ask in light of this information is, can something similar happen in our time? Are there individual or groups who want a fundamental change in our form of government and are they willing to exploit a crisis or create one to achieve the goal? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a progressive product of 1960’s radicalism, demonstrated that her training was not wasted. “Never waste a crisis” she told the European Union when speaking on global climate change and the global economic meltdowns (speaking of created crises). [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-T0[/youtube]Clinton knows history. She knows that no radical change to government is possible except as a reaction to some crisis that is perceived as having no existing remedy that   requires quick and decisive action. Thus the quote attributed to James Madison- “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant”- is demonstrated to be an important insight, whether or not Madison actually said or wrote it.

What if a “perfect storm” of concern and outrage over a combination of two or more of the “hot button” issues from the list above or some other societal problems begins to gain momentum? What about a complete economic collapse? What about more “Obamacare” or bank/financial bailout type situations?  Do people really understand that the problem with our current  government lies not in its structure but in the fact that its limits as outlined in the Constitution, the highest law of the land,  are repeatedly ignored or directly flouted by the very people they return to office election cycle after election cycle? Do people who should, really understand the ins and outs of a new constitutional convention or have the waters regarding the first convention, what happened there and what those precedents mean for a new convention been too muddied by historical revisionism and malignant neglect?  Or have those events been clouded by a fog of general ignorance of the history and causes of the first convention in combination with deliberate efforts to obfuscate them?

In that vein, are you able to spot both the drum beat of  crisis and the fatal problems with this “model resolution” calling for a “shackled” constitutional convention for one purpose and one alone?

Federal Relations Working Group Resolution on Article V of the U.S. Constitution2

Whereas the growth of federal government power at the expense of states has accelerated in recent years; and Whereas limiting the continued unchecked growth of federal power may require Constitutional reform; and

Whereas Congress is unlikely, without outside encouragement to propose any Constitutional Amendment that limits its own power; and

Whereas two-thirds of the states should have the same power to propose individual amendments to the Constitution for ratification as does two-thirds of Congress; and

Whereas when state legislators understand that legal and political procedures could limit an Article V Convention to the consideration of just one amendment, the balance of power between the federal and state governments would be fundamentally altered;

Therefore be it resolved that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) support and facilitate the education of state legislators about how an Article V Convention called by state legislatures could be reliably limited to an up or down vote on the text of a single amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the possibility of an amendment that would give two-thirds of the states the explicit right to propose amendments without having to obtain the consent of Congress;

Therefore be it further resolved that ALEC facilitate times for legislators interested in working on this issue in more detail to meet during future ALEC meetings and events.

The drumbeat of the crisis is readily evident . But did you find the far more subtle problem in the “Whereas’s?” It’s there and it’s big. But don’t feel bad if you can’t find it. Most can’t. That’s because there has been so little effort put into teaching the Constitution, how it works and it’s history in primary and secondary education. Colleges, aside from a few isolated outposts of original intent thought teach a dreadfully deconstructed version of the events surrounding its development, how it’s supposed to function and the document itself. That’s why this series is being written.

Since many don’t know the history leading up to and during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 we’re going to walk through some of the high points (and some of the low) and point out where there has been unintentional and where there has been deliberate blurring of those events.  Some of the history isn’t pretty and some readers will find that founders they had looked at almost as demi-gods will emerge as men of much lower stature, men of great ability who sometimes used their God-given talent to further their own, sometimes less than lofty goals and ends. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Deification of men, no matter their historical importance and personal abilities is a dangerous matter. We will also expose some rather gaping flaws in the Constitution. This will challenge the beliefs of some who believe the Constitution is a Divinely inspired document handed down in revelatory style, on par with the Bible. It will also challenge those adherents to the American civil religion, the First Church of the United States, wherein American citizenship somehow automatically rates a free trip through the Pearly Gates as long as the holy sacraments are received by the congregants.

Don’t misunderstand; the Constitution is a brilliantly written document and is unequaled in history. It has some glaring mistakes, something that is to be expected of a document written by men with different backgrounds, motivations and viewpoints. It is marvelous, eloquent, flawed and in modern political discourse bantered about for public consumption but mostly ignored by the men and women we have charged with a solemn oath to uphold and defend it.

And most of all, it needs to be preserved, defended and protected from those who would like nothing better than to replace it with governing documents that will disconnect our government from its Christian philosophical foundation and  radically redistribute power and wealth and alter American society.

This series will be comprised of 3 parts. Part I is a historical examination of the series of crises that resulted in the  Philadelphia convention in 1787. Part II will be an examination of what is happening today to create or use existing crises to gin up a public cry for a new convention. In the final section we will expose existing plans, already partially implemented as part of the existing system of government, much of it in violation of the current Constitution, just waiting for the exploitation or creation of the level of crisis necessary to create the “tipping point” for a new constitutional convention.

___________________________________________________________________________________

1 Gladwell, Malcolm The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference; Little, Brown, and Co., Boston, 2002, rear cover, “The tipping point is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire”

2 American Legislative Exchange Council Resolution Passed by the International Relations Task Force and Federal Relations Working Group on December 4, 2009. Approved by the ALEC Board of Directors on January 8, 2010

Hamilton’s Curse Chapter 8–Poisoned Fruits of “Hamilton’s Republic”

This entry is part 5 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurse“Conservatives who genuinely believe in limited government are not generally exposed to the Hamilton who at the Constitutional Convention called for a king-like permanent president and who subsequently dedicated himself to undermining the limits on governmental power laid out in the very Constitution he championed in the Federalist Papers.”  This quote from page 171 of the book Hamilton’s Curse is a bit of an understatement, as most Americans, conservative and otherwise, are generally exposed to the results of Hamilton’s efforts in our government, our systems of education, business and finance, to name but a few.  The bowl of Hamilton’s poisoned fruit is spilling over with plenty.

As a matter of fact, the 1930’s saw the implementation of Hamiltonian ideology in a key area:  education.  Charles Beard, et.al., introduced the “economic basis” theory of government, which has since poisoned generations of students, policymakers and jurists with this pernicious theory.  This “economic basis” theorem is pure Hamiltonian, and is a consequence of the shift that happened in this country from 1913 onward (with the implementation of the income tax and the Federal Reserve laying the groundwork for a wholesale restructuring of our form of government.)

DiLorenzo lays out the case for the interface of big business interests supporting big government intervention programs (think the Bush/Obama “stimulus” packages and your on the right track); a laundry list of federal “welfare” to business interests that caps out at a neat $90 billion per year.  Other studies have shown it to be greater than that in some instances.

Couple this with a “justice” system at the federal level (Supreme Court) who from 1937-1995 couldn’t find a single piece of federal legislation to be unconstitutional, and you get the complete Hamiltonian package of an “energetic” government with the “fuel” of commercial interests to drive it onward.

This is an amazing record for a body that routinely passes unconstitutional legislation (and did during that period too).  The key to this amazing record is a wildly broad reading of the interstate commerce clause which basically posits that pretty much any form of human behavior has relationships to interstate commerce, and can therefore be regulated by federal statute.

So what are some of the fruits of this poisonous philosophy of “government uber alles?”  Here’s just a representative sample of the results:

–the use of federal grants to states as a control mechanism to kill states rights (think ‘highway funds’ or ‘crime prevention grants’ and you see the link);

–the use of the Incorporation doctrine (through the 14th Amendment) to apply the strictures on the federal government through the Bill of Rights to the states as a restriction on state sovereignty;

–adoption of the “higher law theory” of jurisprudence:  allowing the courts to sidestep the rules of the Constitution in order to apply novel legal (but extra-constitutional) theories;

–the use of executive orders by the President to control or seize power, thus allowing the Executive to act as dictator;

–manipulation of the monetary supply by the Federal Reserve in order to create economic instability as a precursor to radical shifts in power through legislative enactments;

–attaching citizens to the federal government, tying bondholders and others to a primary interest in the growth of government.  Woods illustrates it this way: “According to economist Gary Shilling, 52.6 percent of Americans in 2007 received significant assistance of some kind from the federal government.” and;

–creating an international mercantilist empire, the needs of which lead to agressive expansions of military force and presence.

These are just some of the ways the fruit of Hamilton’s philosophy has ripened (and rotted on the vine).  Woods sums up the chapter’s theme:  “The final characteristic of empires, according to Morley, is that they are sold to the public in grandiose terms about spreading blessings for all mankind, when in reality their main purpose is to allow those who pull the strings of the empire to accumulate money and power.”

Hamilton would be proud of seeing the modern results of his efforts.

The Institute At The Freedom Action Conerfence

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Freedom Action Conference 2010

Freedom Action Conference

Are you looking for a chance to network with other freedom activists? Are you looking for answers to questions on a wide-range of liberty issues? Do you want to meet, converse, pick the brains of, and mingle with experts in those widely diverse areas where the battles for the return of liberty are being hotly contested?

Then you need to register for and attend the 2010 Freedom Action Conference in Valley Forge Pennsylvania on August 12, 13, 14, 2010.

So who are these experts, anyway?

Well, how about Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the new bestseller Nullification? How about William Jasper, editor of The New American magazine? How about Sheriff Mack, an expert on the rights, responsibilities and power of the local Sheriff? An important topic in the era of a revival of thinking about the 10th amendment, no?

The Institute For Principled Policy is a co-sponsor of the 2010 Freedom Action Conference and at least one of our board members, Chuck Michaelis, Vice-chairman of the institute and the Director of Camp American, will be joining with Larry Greenley of the John Birch Society to discuss the dangers of calling a new constitutional convention.

There are several GREAT options for registration.

Full conference registration is $270/$480 per person/couple and includes meals, breaks and a 1-year subscription to the DeWeese Report

There is a “Diet Plan” that DOES NOT include meals that costs $100 (you get banquet attendance but no meal or drink)

For students there is a $40 registration that DOES NOT include meals (student ID required)

There is a single day registration for any single day of the conference that DOES NOT include meals for $50

There is a banquet only registration that is $105

There is a registration for the reception for Tom Woods that is $20

There is also registration for display tables (includes full registration for 2) for $350

Please join us for what may well be THE most important conference of the year-

FreedomActionConference.com

Diagnosis on Health Care Vote – A Symptom of a Sick and Dying Nation

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

The despicable health care vote of March 21, 2010 is not the fault of Barack Obama or the democrats. It’s not the fault of republicans for squandering twelve years of congressional power on federal expansion. It’s not the fault of MSNBC, the SEIU, ACORN, or the G.E. Corporation. It’s not the fault of the American public for electing Obama in 2008, or their collective 70% approval rating at the onset of his term. (It’s not as if everything was fine in 2008 and then suddenly turned south in 2009). It’s not even the fault of the public education system for finally producing a generation of dumbed-down Americans that would gleefully elect a cadre of radical leftists to run the federal government. In fact, this is the exact result one would expect from a sick and dying nation.

It’s easy to curse the darkness and start targeting the above villains that have brought us to this socialist storm brewing on the horizon. It’s easy to treat each of these evils as if they are the real problem, endlessly plugging holes in the dyke only to bolster the flood waters. It’s easy to play “what if” – if only we’d elected McCain – if only the tea party were more organized – if only the media would stop being biased – if only Congress would heed the will of the people – if only the republican party would get its act together, etc. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to treat the symptoms and tackle the disease itself.

What then is the root cause? Why is America sick and dying, with that process now having been accelerated by the advent of a European-style socialized heath care system? It really is a simple answer – THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IN AMERICA HAS FAILED. The church has failed for decades to be salt and light in the culture, and here we are scratching are heads wondering why the average American doesn’t “get it”. The fact is most Christians don’t get it either. Polling shows that at best, ten percent of Christians evangelize the lost. And a substantial percentage of that evangelism assumes that we still live in the nominally Christianized society of the 19th century. Couple that with the absolute lack of worldview training and discipleship, and the lack of doctrine and biblical literacy in the average evangelical church. Then couple that with the frightening trends among Christian youth in America, a group that almost monolithically rejects absolute truth (to say nothing of the secular youth). This combination makes one begin to realize that socialized medicine is only the beginning of sorrows in America.

Socialized medicine has been decades in the making, it was inevitable. As societal rejection of God increases every year, the state must rise in His place. In fact, the Marxists have telegraphed their plans for the last 100 years, why are we surprised? The church in America has failed to the be the storehouse and beacon of truth in our society. Now a majority of Americans decide for themselves what truth is, and are dumbfounded when the state passes draconian legislation against the consent of the governed. As William Penn stated over 300 years ago: Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants. Outside of a moral society based on Christianity, the principle of the consent of the governed no longer operates. The sinful nature of human beings cannot co-exist with true liberty, the state must fill the void.

Even still, there is much deserved backlash against the passage of so-called health reform. Now there is a “conservative ascendency” in America as people look for a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 to lead us to the promised land. There other movements afoot as well – Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and of course the loose coalition of Tea Party groups. However, we had a republican congress from 1994-2006. The anarchist and godless French revolution of 1789 only produced more tyranny. Secular political solutions will at best produce short term victories, delaying the inevitable result of a sick nation – DEATH. Lost people are dead spiritually. Yes the proposed repeal of this legislation and the reassertion of tenth amendment state’s rights are noble endeavors. However, unless the collective spirit of America is awakened, the nation will still riding the long, black train to the graveyard – it will just take a little longer to get there. Only the power of Christ can accomplish the miraculous, and only God’s absolute truth can sustain a free and vibrant nation.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?What good is liberty to dead people?

Mark 8:36

Will the church rise up once again as did in the Great Awakening to shine the light of truth on America, and offer real solutions that will reverberate throughout eternity? Or will she continue to build buildings, play rock concerts, reject sound doctrine, fail to evangelize the lost and disciple the found, while retreating further from the culture? The church has a golden opportunity to disciple the nation is true liberty, and yet she is allowing secular movements to fill the void – much like education has ceded to government schools. If the church will not tell the truth in society, then who will? We are endowed by God with our rights, and yet Americans reject that God in favor of human saviors and self pleasure. Americans therefore have no right to complain as those rights are stolen right before our eyes. As Josh McDowell has pointed out, this could well the be the last Christian generation in America. If that is the case, it will also be the last generation to have any memory of a free society. Government health care will be just the beginning of the nation’s death throes. Is the church ready for CPR yet?

Observations on the Healthcare Summit

By Dr. Mark Hamilton

Due to my own medical issues I load up my teaching on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a Tuesday night class. This keeps Thursdays free for medical appointments. This meant that I was fortunately (or maybe unfortunately?) able to take in the televised spectacle of the health care summit with President Obama entertaining the leaders from the Senate and House of Representatives in mortal verbal combat last week. This short expose’ will be my personal reflective thoughts on the day. Be reminded that due to my own illness, I read and reflected on the entire bill last summer and have been judiciously following the debates and discussions. Regarding this recent summit, I have been careful not to listen to many “post-game” pundits so that I can attempt to give my own untainted response to the nefarious activities of that day.

First, the sessions, especially the morning one was a good introduction to the health care debate. The primary issues were revealed and the ground clearly staked out by each side. The Democratic position was first laid out by the President followed by a clear eloquent Republican response by Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn. After hearing their reply anyone who says the Republicans do not have a proposal for health care is badly mistaken. These men put forward specific Republican plans.

Second, the morning session, while accomplishing nothing in terms of resolution was a great educational time. My wife who understands many of the issues but who has not studied the bill in depth like I have was very attentive to much of the morning session because of the striking philosophical differences revealed.

Third, obviously President Obama was trying to find common points of agreement. Each time a Republican point would be made he would try to restate the discussion and frame it in a way that minimized the differences and magnified the agreement. I now know what Mr. Obama’s real calling is, a professional facilitator. For those of you who have been to professional planning sessions you know what I mean. These are people who are blind to disagreement and violate the law of non-contradiction by seeing all sides as part of the same side. I suspect his plan is to use this grasp at common ground as fodder to attempt to push through his bill while publicly saying the Republicans agree with much of its content.

Fourth, if the summit accomplished one great deed it was revealing the obvious differences in the sides. The Democrats want government to oversee the health care industry and to regulate it wherever possible while the Republicans want more freedom and less government control. Because there are some points of agreement, some will be persuaded to think the two sides are not far apart. They are completely polarized because they have different world views.

Fifth, the Republicans at the summit were much more eloquent and succinct in their points than the Democrats were. Senators Alexander and Coburn, and Representatives Ryan and Cantor were all very eloquent and persuasive; none of the Republicans looked confused or uncertain. I was very impressed at how fluent and philosophically consistent these Republicans were. In the past decade I have been quite critical of many of the leading Republican because of their pragmatic unprincipled approach to governing. That was not observable on Thursday. Democratic Senator Reid looked like a weasel as he denied the concept of reconciliation while networks were showing recordings of him and other Democrats mentioning the idea over the past few months. His denial of reconciliation made him look like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying to his mother that he was not going to eat any cookies. Speaker of the House Pelosi spoke as she always does, irrationally and haphazardly. If I ever hear of another liberal calling Palin dumb while supporting the mindless idiocy of Pelosi, I will pull my hair out. The Democrats must have used twice the time as the Republicans to say less than half of the content.

Sixth, Obama himself tried to be conciliatory and at times it worked. But his disdain for the Republicans obviously manifested itself in his rebukes of McCain and Cantor and the way he wanted to respond to each Republican directly after they spoke. Mr. Obama is the most defensive president I’ve ever seen. I’m sure he lectured and cajoled the Republicans for more time during the summit than all the combined speeches of all the Republicans.

Seven, finally it became obvious that the central issue is one of statism. The Democrats believe in it and hold fast to its tenets. Though some Republicans have been statists, like the Bushes and McCain, the emerging Republican leaders who were spokesmen at the summit are moving away from this outdated, idolatrous position. Healthcare is drawing the line in the sand and the summit painted this line in florescence green.

Real ID and PASS ID

This entry is part 15 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4Pennsylvania state Representative Sam Rohrer addressed the conference attendees on the Real ID Act, a federal law that is all but dead in the water as many states have rejected the implementation of this federal proposal to coordinate private citizen information databases under the Department of Homeland Security.

Rohrer went on to discuss the successor program to Real ID, Senate Bill 1261,the Providing Aditional Security to the States Act (PASS ID), which is by and large a rehashing of Real ID with some significant expansions of data sharing.  It was given hearings before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on July 15th.

PASS ID carries on the philosophy of the Obama administration to create “preventive detention” systems to assist law enforcement  and terrorism fighting, but extends the idea of who is a potential criminal to virtually all citizens.  This philosophy is supported by “intelligence-led policing”, the view that the more that is known by law enforcement about a person then the greater opportunity to prevent a crime before it occurs.  This idea brings to mind the storyline of the movie “Minority Report” but we can’t suspend our disbelief for this piece of legislation.

PASS ID is supposed to correct the “problems” with Real ID that led states to reject it, but it incorporates much of the previous law’s DNA, such as RFID chip assignment via drivers’ licenses, biometric ID requirements, and other features.  In essence, PASS ID will bring the US into a global biometric ID system with all US citizens required to be enrolled in order to travel or carry on official business.  The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association have both come out in support of PASS ID.

Rohrer listed some major problems with PASS ID, including its violation of both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, its requirement for mandatory facial image capture, its massive shift of power and control to the Department of Homeland Security, and the requirement that after the 6th year from the passage of the act all non-complying licenses will not be allowed to be recognized by any state.

For those who have the idea “I’ve done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear”, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has detailed numerous concerns, including the problems of how this data collection and retention lead to significant privacy concerns, how the use of facial recognition technology can allow tracking of people in real time (even non-criminals), and how the technology built by companies such as 3VR can even build watch lists and send reports on individuals to those with access to the databases, and the technology’s claim that with long range cameras an individual’s face can be identified up to 6 blocks from the location of the camera.

As if this isn’t problematic enough, the NLETS program, to network over 30,000 agencies worldwide to share the data collected from the facial recognition information collected through biometric drivers’ licenses, is lurking in the background.  The connection of NLETS to Interpol creates a portal for international surveillance of individuals, regardless of suspicion of criminal or terroristic activity.

Rohrer closed by requesting citizens to become educated about this issue and then continually contact your elected officials at the federal, state and local levels to oppose the radical erosion of privacy and freedom rights of law-abiding American citizens.

The President Adopts Statist Tactics to Further His Agenda

constitutionMost Americans are not aware that there is a constitutional provision that allows the Chief Executive to intimidate citizens into supporting his legislative agenda.  Oh wait, wrong country. (Pop quiz: how many things are wrong with this opening statement?)

Chillingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the White House is encouraging people to snitch on dissenters of the new American socialism (aka “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”).  Yes, this is the White House encouraging this, not the Kremlin.  It would seem that Mr. Obama and his Chicago-machine-politics contingency in the White House have been rocked back on their heels by the rampant opposition to the unconstitutional takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy.  President Obama apparently assumed that his healthcare utopia would sail through with flying colors because of his charisma, rhetoric, and compliant media outlets.  Instead, middle class Americans are rising up at congressional town-hall meetings and giving their representatives an earful.  Talk radio and the internet are ablaze with startling facts about the draconian legislation, which a majority of members of congress have admitted not having even read.  Of course in Obama’s America, facts are characterized as lies, and protesters are classified as terrorists and unruly mobs.

Not content with having to deal with ordinary citizens opposing unconstitutional and dangerous legislation, the White House is fighting back in an unprecedented method (at least in modern American history).  The executive branch of government is asking Mr. Obama’s supporters to report “disinformation” regarding healthcare reform directly to the White House!  Here is the verbatim quote from the White House website as of 08.04.09:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected].

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Interestingly, the White House fails to mention exactly what will be done with these tips.  Perhaps the dissenters can expect to have a little chat with Rahm Emanuel or find a dead fish in their mailbox?  Or maybe they’ll just end up down at Guantanamo, as there will soon be plenty of spare room down there.

This ploy by Mr. Obama should make the blood of every red-blooded, patriotic American citizen boil.  This type of thinly-veiled threat by a President violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the principles of separation of powers, and every tenet of a free society.  This is Saul Alinski on steroids!  (Speaking of Alinski, the leftists and media are accusing the town-hall dissenters of the very tactics that Alinksi himself devised: rent-a-mobs, civil chaos, and intimidation).  The White House may as well just post this on their website: How dare you serfs question the grand plans of your most gracious and benevolent overlord.

Now we must beware of casual conversation and emails we send out, lest we end up on the government blacklist.  The land of the free and the home of the brave is yesterday’s news, the marxist “brave new world” has arrived and not a shot was fired.  Barack Obama promised to radically transform America during the campaign, and most Americans chalked it up to empty rhetoric.  Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that apparently intends to be kept.

P.S. For anyone who would like to report this illegal article to the White House, the website is

WWW.PRINCIPLEDPOLICY.COM