Conservative Principles Based on Founding Principles

There is much more to read after the jump. I encourage you, especially if you're an elected representative, to do so. The future of this Nation depends upon elected officials acting in the best interests of the people.

From Family Security Matters

The primary legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual freedom, and conservatism, as a philosophy of freedom grounded in the ideas articulated as the basis of the founding of the nation, has, as its rationale, the preservation and enhancement of that great ideal. That is not just a general intellectual concept. It is a sacred, activist purpose.

Freedom to Work.

Conservatives should start the march to freedom by passing a national right to work law that applies, especially, to workers at all levels of government. In doing so, they will affirm the principle that no person should be limited in the work he does by the artificial imposition of involuntary membership in an organization of which he may not approve and whose message he does not support. Such legislation will recognize the unfairness of subjecting workers to the involuntary confiscation of their wages to underwrite a purely private organization pursuing purely private ends. It will unshackle millions of workers yearning for the freedom simply to do their jobs without, also, having to make a political statement. A national right to work law would enable workers to exercise their free choice and freedom must be conservatives’ mission.

Individual Prerogative.

If freedom is the agenda, conservative office holders must cancel any statute that limits individual freedom in the choice of health care. That includes anti-free market initiatives as well as coercive taxation. It includes legislation that forces individuals to purchase health insurance because such enactments violate the fundamental right of citizens to make their own choices. It includes any program that limits, through regulation, health care choices by making procedures and testing unavailable. It also means that any regulation that makes invidiously discriminatory rules limiting care based on immutable characteristics, such as age, should be prohibited to government.

Economic Liberty.

Ours is supposed to be a free society that protects freedom of enterprise and prohibits government from forcing citizens or companies to provide goods or services without payment. Doing so constitutes the unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation and forced labor on the part of those who must, by government mandate, provide service for free. A conservative agenda must include legislation that repeals federal law requiring the extension of health care services to anyone who shows up, regardless of the emergency or his ability to pay for service received. It should dismantle any public program that competes with the private sector and any tax on people or companies used to fund coverage for those who do not want or cannot afford it. Wealth transfer is not a legitimate function of government. It is the immoral theft of private resources.

State Autonomy.

Unfunded national mandates are breaking state budgets across the nation. The federal government should not be in the unsavory business of extorting cooperation from the states by working its unconstitutional will by threatening to withhold federal funding available to cooperative states from those that want to maintain their sovereignty and constitutional prerogatives. If a state is otherwise entitled to highway funds, for example, they must not be tied to a surrender of state power to federal authority. Conservatives should pass legislation that prohibits extortive federal bribery that impinges on state prerogative and warps the original state/federal relationship.

Baucus Bill - FBI/DoJ To Have Unfettered Access To Records?

Washington, DC - According to credible sources familiar with the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill—the “Baucus Bill”—the current legislation gives the Department of Justice and the FBI unprecedented and unfettered access to the Medicare and Medicaid records of all 80 million-plus Americans enrolled in those programs.

Unfortunately, it’s Senate Finance Committee “tradition” not to release the actual legislative language for the American people to read while the Committee amends it.

FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe commented: “Hiding the bill doesn’t fit with President Obama’s pledge to run ‘the most transparent government in history.’ This sort of secrecy and arrogance adds to the low opinion of Congress and is part of why so many came to the September 12 Taxpayer March on Washington.”

All we get to see at this point is the “Chairman’s Mark”—the general summary of what the committee intends to make law, and page 186 and 187 say:

The Chairman’s Mark would require CMS to complete development of the comprehensive “One PI [Program Integrity]” Integrated Data Repository (IDR). The “One PI” IDR would expand existing program integrity data sources and expand data sharing and data matching across Federal health care claims and payment data (including HHS, SSA, the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA), Defense (DOD), and Justice (DOJ)). In addition to including all claims and payment data for Medicare and Medicaid, the “One PI” IDR would enable existing and new data sources to be integrated…

The “One PI” IDR would be accompanied by additional authority for HHS OIG and DOJ to use these data, including secondary data sources, to identify and investigate potential fraud and abuse.

Kibbe continued: “Persecuting waste, fraud, and abuse is very important but so are the checks and balances within the government that currently protect our privacy. These paragraphs—and particularly the line ‘additional authority…to use these data’ suggest the Baucus bill will remove these checks.

Until they reveal their legislation, we are left to ask:

1. Does this mean the FBI—part of the DOJ—will have open access to all Medicare and Medicaid information?

2. Who will make sure the data will not be used for political fishing expeditions?

3. Do all who join a Medicare-like 'public option' also become part of an open-access database?

10th Amendment Musings

By a young Turk from Virginia who will be a force.

The 10th Amendment Center

Today Is Constitution Day

"I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better to have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake."—Thomas Paine, 1776

Federal law mandates that all high schools, colleges and universities across the country that receive federal funds host educational events about the Constitution on Constitution Day, September 17. Yet as John W. Whitehead points out in his latest commentary, the best way to celebrate the Constitution is by knowing and exercising your rights.

Formally adopted on September 17, 1787, the Constitution has long served as the bulwark of American freedom and as an example for struggling nations worldwide. Unfortunately, the rights enshrined in this vitally important document are under constant attack. And this month's Faith and Freedom newsletter shines a spotlight on three vitally important religious freedom cases being litigated by The Rutherford Institute before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Busch v. Marple Newtown School District, Institute attorneys are fighting for Donna Busch's right to read a few verses from Psalms as part of an "All About Me" kindergarten classroom program intended to spotlight her son Wesley and his favorite book, the Bible. School officials actually told Mrs. Busch that the Bible is illegal in public schools. Incredibly enough, school officials then suggested that a book on Halloween might be an appropriate substitute!

In McComb v. Crehan, Institute attorneys are fighting for high school valedictorian Brittany McComb's right to give God credit in her graduation speech as the reason for her success in school. School officials actually unplugged Brittany's microphone just as began speaking about her Christian faith.

And in Nurre v. Whitehead, Institute attorneys are fighting for Kathryn Nurre's right, as part of a school woodwind ensemble, to be able to perform an instrumental arrangement of Franz Biebl's "Ave Maria" at graduation. Mind you, no words were to be sung—just an instrumental piece was to be played! School officials actually defended the ban as necessary in order to avoid offending someone in the audience.

We hope you'll take a moment to read about these and other critical cases and issues affecting your rights. Thank you, and God bless you, for continuing to stand with The Rutherford Institute as we strive for liberty and justice for all.

A Bill of Federalism

Click here for an explanation of each amendment

Commentary
A Bill Of Federalism
Randy E. Barnett,
05.20.09, 04:11 PM EDT
A detailed proposal to redress the imbalance between state and federal power.

Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism

Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” as the 10th Amendment affirms and the rights “retained by the people” to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;

To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereby resolves:

First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and

Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and

Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the Virginia congressional delegation; and

Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]
Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]
The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

Article [of Amendment 3] -- [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending]
Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

Article [of Amendment 4] -- [No Abuse of the Treaty Power]
No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

Article [of Amendment 5] -- [Freedom of Political Speech and Press]
The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

Article [of Amendment 6] -- [Power of States to Check Federal Power]
Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

Article [of Amendment 7] -- [Term Limits for Congress]
No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Article [of Amendment 8] -- [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]
Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.

Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.

Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]
Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

Article [of Amendment 10] -- [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]
The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.

UCV Unlocked; Cargosquid's Post

UPDATE1:concretebob OK the blog has been unlocked, but it looks as if we're still having some problems with the text generator.

In addition to Governor Henry being a radical, modern day radicals who can be added to this list are Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Del Chris Peace from Hanover for their "State's Rights" legislation. Apparently, Patrick Henry was a terrorist. And a "rightwing" one at that!

Support of this document makes you seem to be a terrorist! Just ask the Department of Homeland Security. From the PDF: (empahsis mine)

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Do you like how principled opposition to the government is linked to racism?

"The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology"
"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”

(Actually the only accusations I've seen or heard are those by the Obama people.)

Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

(Except doesn't this describe the GOP?) Then linked the above to racism:

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

Again:

"Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties >as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage."

(What does white supremacy have to do with ANY of the above issues? Besides, Planned Parenthood was started by a white supremacist.)

"incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of
economic uncertainty."

They just described Obama, Dodd, Franks, Pelosi, etc.

High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals.

Yep. This describes the inner city, alright. All those right wing extremist clinging to their guns and God...."

(German Institute? Perhaps their experiences DON'T correlate to US results. Germans of all people should recognize extremism, huh?)

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling,

"Sure are alot of rightwing liberals buying guns and ammo. "

During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho

."Where do I start.....even the DHS is buying into the BS of the 1994 law banning "assault rifles." NO ASSAULT RIFLES WERE BANNED. Those rifles are already restricted. And who in their right minds (get the pun?) isn't concerned about how the BATFE acted at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In both cases, their Rules of Engagement led to loss of life and they conducted a cover up. What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

"On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists."

Uh,..... Yeah...

"Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time."

Apparently, if you are a conservative, you may be a racist, violent, terrorist; you are not a law-abiding American. Leftwing extremists exempted, of course. ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE OFFENDED BY THE VIEWPOINT IN THIS DOCUMENT.

The Liberty Papers first reported this and Michelle Malkin confirms it.