Idaho State Representative Janice McGeachin, R-32, was Halli’s guest on the Halli & Friends radio show Thursday, July 29. Be sure to listen on demand, if you missed it live. The interview will be available on this page for a few days, or permanently at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

Rep. McGeachin discussed the effort nationwide to do away with the Electoral College, and select presidents by the popular vote. On a related topic, Rep. McGeachin also discusses the need to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for the popular election of senators. The two issues are related – both the Electoral College and the selection of senators by state legislatures were placed in the Constitution to preserve states’ rights and keep the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

Rep. McGeachin also discusses Idaho State budgets and tax revenues, resulting from the 22% drop in revenues in the last two years.

Don’t miss this interview with one of Idaho’s standout legislators.

By Richard Larsen

How do the mainstream media sources decide what to report and what not to? How do they decide how to cover the stories they do report? How do they deal with undesirable stories that are just so big they can’t be ignored? This past week we were given a glimpse into how the oligopoly of mainstream media outlets function, and it includes print, electronic media, and internet news sources. And it’s not pretty.

Many of us have long been aware of the biases of the mainstream media. The way they cover certain issues, politicians, and events reveals much of the writer’s prejudices. You don’t have to look far for examples. They frequently take a story, and then interweave their biases throughout their recapitulation of the event by using certain sources, certain quotes and excluding other sources, and by inserting subjective assumptions and conclusions into everyday events and stories.

Recently it was revealed that Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Newsweek, for the past few years has been maintaining an exclusive online group he identified as JournoList, which was comprised of about 400 writers, reporters, bloggers, media representatives, academics, and political activists. Not surprisingly, the participants in his exclusive cadre of media hounds did not represent the full political spectrum, but only the left side of it.

The closed and controlled nature of the group facilitated an open exchange of ideas between these media gurus on how to deal with stories that potentially were damaging to their causes and candidates, and how to shape reporting in their favor. The group was in full swing throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, and was influential in shaping and controlling mainstream media reporting about the Obama campaign.

For example, when the Reverend Jeremiah Wright started to become a problem for the Obama campaign, Chris Hayes of the Nation, told the group to bury the Wright scandal. “What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said. And it was obvious from media coverage on the issue that Hayes’ counsel was heeded, as it was hard to find any serious reporting on the issue from the news networks and primary print media sources.

Dealing with the same issue, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” Ackerman may not be a household name for media prowess, but he should be now. His suggested tactic has been adopted as universal strategy to deflect all critics of the current administration’s policies. By ascribing critics as racists, the issue is deflected, and the debate is no longer about the legitimacy of a policy or a candidate.

I remember when Mark Balzer, a Journal columnist, wrote back during the presidential primary that anyone who was critical of then-candidate Obama would be accused of being a racist. As prescient as he was, little did any of us know that there was collusion at the highest levels of political reporting that assured fulfillment of his prediction.

This certainly explains why all the major media sound the same when reporting political issues. As Fred Barnes quoted in the Wall Street Journal, they’re very much like a flock of birds resting on telephone lines. One decides to fly to a different line, and they all follow.

It’s no wonder then that Fox News is so despised and reviled by the mainstream media. They were one of few media outlets not implicated in the JournoList collusion. One member of the group, a UCLA law professor, went so far as suggesting that Fox News had to be shut down, one way or another. This should not surprise us, since those who are most ideologically driven despise dissent and alternative perspectives, and do all within their power to curtail serious debate.

Once heralded as the Fourth Estate, mainstream journalism has become little more than a propaganda machine for political activists who clandestinely collude and conspire on how to stymie debate and dissent. But this whole affair should pique our inquisitive natures as human beings, and make us much less like sheep thinking the way a select few conspire to make us think, and to actually act like the sentient beings we are and question sources, especially those of the herd mentality. With media consumption, as with retail purchases, the rule of caveat emptor applies even more significant: “buyer beware.”

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth…” The JournoList scandal illustrates how far journalism has willfully digressed from the objective dissemination of information that it should be engaged in.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

There are some amongst us who seem to derive great pleasure in assaulting and insulting those of us who believe in God. It’s as though their raison d’être is to impugn the character, intellect, and faith of we “bitter clingers.” One pontificates on inconsistencies in the Bible, and advances that as sufficient reason to discredit any faith based in that holy writ. The other seems to think we who are classical liberals and believe in literal interpretation of the Constitution, are also despicable sots who undoubtedly believe in literal interpretation of the entire Bible.

I know, these are opinion pieces, and as such, they’re entitled to theirs, and have obviously been granted a forum to express them. But the predictable consistency in their assaults on faith is monotonous and wearisome.

And they’re not alone in their religious assaults. Academics and media hounds seem to thrive on the disapprobation and scorn they can heap upon people of faith. But then, it doesn’t seem to be universally against people of faith, but more accurately, Christians. They say nary a word about Muslims, even the extremists that think “infidels,” even “people of the book” like Christians and Jews, must be brought to Allah, one way or another. Their method or conversion tool of choice is a suicide bomb. And other religions are praised and supported to ostensibly illustrate their “objectivity.” But Christians are just no more than “bitter clingers” who have to be discredited!

There are several aspects to this practice that are disconcerting, but that we should be attentive to. Those who consistently belittle Christians and the object of our faith consider themselves to be the enlightened ones, or the more erudite amongst us. They typically hold themselves up as the bastions of societal tolerance. They are the ones who fully embrace the politically correct version of diversity, and may actually sport one of those bizarre-looking “Coexist” bumper stickers made up of the world’s religious symbols. For some inexplicable reason, Christians are excluded from their pantheon of acceptable religious groups. It’s just not PC to tolerate Christians, they are rather to be scorned and ridiculed.

And since the assailants of Christianity view themselves as more enlightened and erudite than the rest of us, it’s in the spirit of noblesse oblige that they seek to destroy and invalidate anything that even smacks of Christianity. They will condescend from their ivory towers of academia, in tone as well as tome, to belittle and crucify anew the tenets and foundation of the Christian faith.

Perhaps they attack Christians because we’re the low-hanging fruit on the monotheistic tree of world religions. We’re the largest and easiest target for them, and since the majority of American Christians are white we are a politically-correct target for them to display their erudition against, and through their hubris, denounce our faith. We’re also safer targets, since we’re unlikely to behead their cartoonists for disrespectful renderings of Christ, or blow them up for their heterodoxy.

All persons of belief, regardless of label, should thoroughly examine their belief system intellectually and logically, as well as spiritually. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah had it exactly right when he said, quoting the Lord, “Come now, and let us reason together.” We’re sentient beings and must, and can, intellectually resolve the issues thrust upon us by the arrogant who seek to belittle or demean our faith.

When a writer attacks constitutional literalists by making it synonymous with Biblical literalism, he’s being doubly politically correct by targeting not only Christians, but conservatives. To disingenuously compare a legal document to a compilation of religious writings is ludicrous and specious. I rather doubt the writer was as glib about literal interpretation of his employment contract with his university!

I’m impressed with the tenet of the predominant religion of this area, which states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Now that’s tolerance I can believe in!

While ostentatiously parading their self-inflated, yet distorted sense of objectivity and “tolerance,” the antagonists of Christianity are, to the contrary, proving their bigotry and biases, couched in academic terms. In their blighted zeal to denounce the simple-minded Christians, they have embarked on a jihad of their own to replace Christian faith with a godless secular humanism, devoid of Christianity’s supposedly arcane and anachronistic values. They flaunt their bigotry and call it objectivity, and their disdain for anything Christian and call it tolerance. Those who seek to destroy eschatological faith understand not the relationship between the two. I believe as John Donne, the English poet, who said, “Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Washington State Representative Matt Shea

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases…shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: “That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.” 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)…

Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. “In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.” Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\’s_Enemies_List
2. archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
3. www.constitutionalincome.com
4. It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In today’s Halli & Friends radio program, Halli outlines the upcoming tax increases resulting from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and Obamacare. Are you ready for this?

Plus, the numbers are in and Governor Butch Otter and the Idaho Legislature were right when they cut spending in both the 2010 and 2011 budgets. Halli discusses the details.

And finally, the Idaho Republican party has come under fire for a new plank in their platform calling for candidates in the Republican Primary to reveal whether or not they agree with the platform. The mainstream media call this a “loyalty oath”. Learn the truth in today’s program.

Listen on this website, or at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

By Richard Larsen

“Bureaucracy is the epoxy that greases the wheels of progress.” Dr. James Boren, Former professor of Political Science and founder of International Association of Professional Bureaucrats.

Nowhere in recent memory has this been more self-evident than in dealing with the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Time and time again the government has proven Dr. Boren’s aphorism by getting in the way of any progress to clean up the mess down there.

For example, early on, the state of Alabama conceived a plan to erect huge booms offshore to protect their coastline, which is about 200 miles long, from the drifting blobs of oil. They searched the world, scouring sources for the massive booms, some weighing tons and as high as twenty feet, to help protect their coastline.

No sooner had Alabama gotten the booms into place then the Coast Guard, who had helped them locate the equipment, mandated that they be moved to protect the Louisiana coast instead.

This led Alabama to devise a backup plan, where they would procure snare booms to catch the oil as soon as it began to wash up on their beaches. Low and behold, another federal bureaucracy snatched that solution away from them. The Fish and Wildlife Administration nixed that plan because they said it would endanger sea turtles that nest on the beaches. Never mind that the entire ecosystem of the turtles is endangered by the encroaching mass of oil blobs invading the Alabama beaches!

So, Alabama state officials, not to be outdone by bureaucratic obstacles, resolved they would try another, less high tech effort to prevent the oil from caking their beaches. They decided to hire 400 workers to patrol the beaches and, by hand, scoop up the oil residue that washed ashore.

So how did that plan turn out, you ask? Well, you probably guessed it: another federal bureaucracy hampered that backup plan to the previous backup plan, which was the backup plan to the original plan aborted by federal bureaucracy. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) wouldn’t allow those workers to work more than 20 minutes per hour. They further demanded that the state allow said workers an hour-long break after every 40 minutes of work. OSHA’s requirements had the affect of reducing manual cleanup effort efficiency by more than 60%, with just 40 minutes of work for every three hours on the clock.

As Richard Morris, former Clinton administration advisor has said, “Every agency — each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda — was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil…” Rather than facilitating the cleanup, federal bureaucracies have thwarted state and corporate cleanup efforts, as they engage in an apparently uncoordinated tug-of-war jockeying for control and exercising their bureaucratic “epoxy” power. Consequently, the ineptitude hampers cleanup efforts as the assault on our southern shoreline advances.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley characterized the situation by stating that the administration’s “lack of ability has become transparent” in its handling of the oil spill.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that we’ve been enlarging federal bureaucracy at an unprecedented pace over the past two years. The new health care mandate creates over 100 new government agencies and bureaucracies to implement the dictates of that onerous legislation.

The new financial reform package passed by congress creates another 20 new government agencies to beat financial institutions into submission because of the way they implemented the last set of federal regulations congress foisted upon them. Most of the costs of this additional bureaucratic morass will be borne by us. Not just in the form of taxes to cover government cost of implementation and enforcement, but through additional banking fees and charges to cover the anticipated 20% increase in costs to affected financial institutions, which will be passed on to the consumers. That’s us.

Ronald Reagan recognized intuitively as well as empirically how destructive to freedom and liberty bureaucracies can be. He said, “Man is not free unless government is limited…. As government expands, liberty contracts.” And that’s not just for individuals. Just ask the state of Alabama. All of this gives added significance to another of Ronald Reagan’s statements, when he referred to the phrase, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” as “the nine most terrifying words in the English language.”

An efficient and effective bureaucracy is critical to the proper function of government in serving citizens. We have obviously far exceeded that. For those who love government and bureaucratic micromanagement of our lives, this is your heyday. For those of us who love freedom and actual solutions, we’re living a nightmare.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

9th July 9, 2010

To: Senators Risch and Crapo

Representatives Simpson and Minnick

Governor Jan Brewer

Re: Three items

Dear Sirs/Ma’am:

First, I would like to invite you to our Idaho Falls Tea Party event on 29 July at 6pm at the Broadway Bridge. We’ll be holding a SUPPORT ARIZONA RALLY as this is the day that their new illegal immigration law takes affect. It is their response to the failure of the federal government to protect our country. Governor Jan Brewer will also be issued an invitation. Her willingness to stand against a government is to be commended.

Please let me know whether you will be able to attend. It should only be an hour at most and we’d certainly appreciate your show of support.

Idaho is considering similar legislation and we MUST show a united front.

Secondly, congratulations to Senator Risch for his reversal of support in regards to Idaho land. Though I consider myself an environmentalist, I am also a Constitutionalist. First I wonder where in the Constitution do you find Constitutional support for your proposal? I am looking forward to your response on this matter.

Lastly, within the last two weeks, as the Tea Party Patriots Idaho State Coordinator, I contacted your offices (with the exception of Rep Minnick) and asked for some information about a vote that was soon to come up. Telling your staff that I needed it for dissemination around the Idaho Tea Party groups, they requested my email address for a speedy reply. To this date, I have not heard one word from any of your offices. How disappointing. Americans are weary of having our representatives ignore us.

Thank you for your time,

Andi Elliott

2498E 2100

Hamer, ID 83425

straighttalkidaho@yahoo.com

Andi Elliott
Patriotic Resistance Idaho State Coordinator
Tea Party Patriots Idaho State Coordinator
Idaho District 2 Coordinator Anystreet.Org
Member of the American Grand Jury

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Robert L. Webster

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people of a nation to demand a return to the fundamental principles of liberty which were established by their founding fathers, and to eliminate the changes which have weakened and deformed it from the intent of the original charter, a decent respect to the opinions of its citizens, civilized nations and of all mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to this action.

We, the people of the United States of America, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born free, in that they are endowed at birth by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty, property and the freedom of choice – that to secure these rights, men may institute a government, delegating to it those specifically enumerated and limited powers necessary to the security and felicity of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it, and in its place to either restore the original, or institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as shall seem to them most likely to secure their national safety and happiness.

Prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and history has shown that men are naturally inclined to suffer abuses of government, while abuses are tolerable, than to correct them by abolishing the traditional form of government to which they are accustomed. But when a long and significant string of abuses has been experienced, and appears to be designed to destroy the Constitutional form and revert back to the despotic forms of history, this people reasserts its God-given right and duty to throw off such abuses, and to restore again the principles and safeguards provided by the Founders in the inspired original system, the Constitution of the United States of America.

The citizens of this Democratic Republic have suffered enough abuses of government power over its brief bi-centennial existence. The history of the second century in particular is replete with injuries and usurpations, in an apparent design to convert and subjugate this land of abundant resources, industrious people and “common-law” liberty back under the control of the ancient systems of “rulers law.” As testimony, let the sobering facts be submitted openly before God, and to a candid world of witnesses:

Religious persecution has been allowed to persist without just redress or protection by the national or State governments, at times occurring even under government orders.

The issue of “separation of church and state” has been grossly distorted to the point of separation of religion from government and from everyday life. This is a national disgrace, and a reversal of the wholesome relationship intended by the Founders as essential to national well being.

The sixteenth amendment of 1913 has violated the Founder’s principles by authorizing the federal government to collect direct income taxes from the people. It has been a primary cause of centralization of power to the central government, and must be repealed.

The seventeenth amendment of 1913 has helped to destroy States’ rights and the delicate checks and balances system by making the election of US Senators by popular vote, instead of by the State Legislatures, thus increasing the influence of

The twenty third amendment attempts to create a State out of a city – Washinton DC – in violation of the Founders wisdom. It must be repealed, allowing the residents to vote as citizens of the State of Maryland.

The twenty fifth amendment violates the Founders’ principles by allowing a President to appoint a Vice President, which, under manipulated conditions of sedition and murder could result in a president never elected to office; it must be repealed.

The twenty sixth amendment dangerously advanced “democracy” beyond a healthy balance by allowing eighteen-year-olds to vote. They lack maturity; it should be repealed.

MONEY IS POWER, and the enemies of America have taken control of America’s wealth. The Federal Reserve System of 1913 is unconstitutional and must be replaced immediately by the Constitutional Monetary System as prescribed by the Founders – the economic system of prosperity which has never yet been instituted!

America’s Constitutionally prescribed gold and silver money standard has been unconstitutionally removed, and must be restored, under Congressional control. With the value of the dollar and the money supply tied to within 5% of the measured Gross National Product, and limiting all interest rates to a maximum of 10%, for no longer than ten years credit; prosperity would be unprecedented and secured.

The Congress has consistently spent beyond its budget; a balanced biennial budget must be required, under penalty of automatic dismissal from office for all who vote to cause budget excesses.

The Congress has voted to increase its pay while still in its current term of office; these current increases must be repealed and all future increases outlawed; each one voting for it should be recalled by their respective States. The States alone must decide Congressional salaries.

The Congressional seniority system has stagnated progress and corrupted the legislature. Amend the constitution to limit all federal elected legislative, executive and judicial terms to a lifetime total of twelve years in any one office or position.

The total tax burden of the people, including federal, State, local, sales and hidden taxes, is now 50% or more of the average individual wage earner’s income, a level so oppressive that it approaches complete subjugation. It is destroying the lives of America’s people! Not even Almighty God taxes beyond 10%! Amend the Constitution to limit the TOTAL maximum individual taxable burden to 10%, with the States to collect it and apportion revenues to various levels of government – State, Local, and Federal – for only constitutionally authorized activities. Exclude all churches, inheritances and all people under age 21 from any form of taxation. The people must be free to profit and prosper from their own enterprise and initiative, and free to keep and use their earnings as they choose. The result will be a more prosperous nation and government.

Property ownership has been eliminated unconstitutionally by property taxation. Reestablish property ownership to include all surface and subsurface rights, and never may be forfeited or lost due to failure to pay taxes of any kind, and that property may be inherited or granted free from any inheritance tax.

The Congress has violated the individual freedom and income of the people with the oppressive and ineffective Social Security System. Phase it out in ten years and replace it with voluntary, private, annuity-type savings and investment programs for retirement. Leave welfare to the generosity of the local people, who (when not over-taxed by government) will provide for the needy directly.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement to be in business enterprises of any kind. Liquidate all federal businesses and properties into private enterprise hands in ten years.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal ownership or management of lands and resources beyond the constitutional prescription, viz. Washington DC, ports and arsenals, needful government buildings and legitimate US territories; yet the federal has withheld lands and resources within state boundaries, rightfully belonging to those States created out of public domain. Restore all lands and resources immediately to the respective States.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement in education, except to encourage it within the States, as explained in the Northwest Ordinance of 1897, viz. the teaching of religion, morality and knowledge. Promote education of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founders, but cease all direct involvement in education. It is exclusively a State issue.

There is no Constitutional authority for any level of government to give away (grant) any of the people’s property (money) as AID to anyone for any purpose; this includes aid to education, welfare and foreign banks or interests. Cease all grants. Leave the solution of all such matters to the States and the people. Experience has clearly demonstrated that such aid does not buy friends, but is counterproductive. Export American constitutional freedom and prosperity by example, not by financial grants.

The Supreme Court has usurped legislative power: Congress must strike out all decisions which conflict with the Founders’ intent. Limit federal court jurisdiction to matters of life, liberty and national citizenship. No person born in the USA of non-citizen parents has a right to US citizenship. No foreigner or criminal has US citizen rights beyond liberty and life, while staying here.

The court system has obstructed justice and has not provided the right to a speedy and just trial. Eliminate plea bargaining. Require capital punishment within six months for capital crimes.

Inadequate checks exist to prevent or correct constitutional abuses of power by the Supreme Court. Authorize by amendment an elected Regional Court of Constitutional Appeal, which can judge and overturn or reverse any decisions of the Supreme Court which may be judged by the elected Regional Court of Constitutional Appeal to be unconstitutional.

The federal government has entangled America in foreign alliances contrary to the Founders’ intent. Through NATO, the UN, Nafta, Gatt and other “alliances,” the federal has combined with other unelected entities to subject America to jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution and not acknowledged by our laws, giving unauthorized consent to their acts of pretended legislation and concepts of so-called “international law.” No unelected body has power to make any law binding on any people! Cancel US involvement in the United Nations Charter; we are not bound by it. Cancel US funding of the UN, and restrict UN activity to a discussion forum of only those nations operating as constitutional republics.

There is no constitutional authority for the Executive branch to create law, yet the President issues Executive Orders having the effect and force of law, and the executive branches issue regulations which have the force of law but not passed by the legislature. Repeal all such, and establish a paid ten-member Federal/ State/ Citizen Checks and Balances Committee to watchdog all Federal and State branches for usurpations of power.

The federal has involved the nation in undeclared “no win” wars in violation of the constitution, transporting large armies to many foreign places in defense of international power schemes aimed at one-world government dominion. Amend the constitution to provide that 2/3 of the States legislatures may override any Congressional declaration of war. No so-called “police action” or international “peacekeeping” military force will be permitted. Any deployment of US military forces must be committed to protect America’s constitutional values, and to WIN – to end the conflict and restore peace as quickly as possible.

National leaders often have had no constitutional training prior to office; require all elected and appointed officials to pass a national constitutional examination in the intent of the Founders, based on the Constitution itself and the Federalist Papers, as a pre-requisite for federal elective offices and judgeships. Publish a semi-annual constitutional voting and decisionmaking index for all such federal officers.

The executive branch has created a multitude of new offices, and has sent forth a swarm of agents who harass the people. Not the least of these is the IRS, which has been unconstitutionally empowered to function as all three branches of government combined – creating laws, administering them, judging their compliance, prescribing the penalties and enforcing them, often unjustly. This is tyranny!

Repeated petitions for redress of grievances have been ignored or become cause for REPEATED INJURIES TO THE PEACE AND CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE. The federal seems deaf to the voice of constitutional principles, continually seeking to expand its jurisdiction and power, increasing it’s inequitable system of taxes, increasing its spending without prudent budget limitations, seeking primarily for re-election and party status, while subjugating the States, local governments and the people.

The Founders’ worst fears of concentration of power into political parties (Faction) have become realized. The system of political parties has entrenched itself by gradual tradition into the very fabric of all levels of government to control legislation, positions of power, and even provide government-financed primary elections of private political parties, which exclude independents and new parties. Require that no person may be a candidate for or hold any public office, federal or state, who is sponsored by any political party, and that no position in any level of government may be held by anyone who is a member of a political party.

Therefore, WE THE PEOPLE have determined that we as citizens, deprived of our liberties under our current government, much as were our Founders under the hands of an oppressive king, unitedly denounce the above-noted offending actions of our government as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL, employing first those constitutional means at our disposal to remove the offenders and the offences, restoring the Constitution to the original intent of the Framers. In those cases when peaceful means have proven inadequate, we reserve the right of liberty under God, as stated in the original Declaration of Independence, to effect the necessary restorations by force – political, economic or military.

It is left to us of this generation of Americans to preserve, defend and restore the greatest charter of human liberty in history, for ourselves and for all mankind, the original Constitution of the United States of America.

With a firm reliance on the guidance and protection of the Almighty, who inspired our Founders to create the establishment of the original Constitution, we the undersigned herein do mutually pledge to God, to each other and to our posterity, our fortunes, our sacred honor and even our very lives if necessary, to the restoration of the Constitution of The United States of America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Two news reports from late last week indicate that Planned Parenthood and its various affiliates are coming in for long-overdue scrutiny from the courts and public officials.

In one case, the ACLJ won an important victory in the 9th Circuit – an exceedingly rare event. The pro-Life group is representing Victor Gonzalez, a former employee, who has publicly charged that the group is stealing money from taxpayers. Mr. Gonzalez alleges that Planned Parenthood’s Los Angeles affiliate has been overbilling the federal government for fraudulent services.

Planned Parenthood defended itself in federal court by alleging that Mr. Gonzalez could not bring the charges because he was relying upon a federal audit of the local organization. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit dismissed their legal stratagem, and Planned Parenthood will now have to answer questions in a federal lawsuit brought under the “False Claims Act”.

Another story, from WorldNetDaily, demonstrates that the LA scam is far from an isolated case of local mismanagement.

A GAO Report, requested by Leader Boehner, found that something on the order of $1.3 billion in tax money given to Planned Parenthood between 2002 and 2008 remains unaccounted for.

The story quotes Rita Diller of STOP as saying, “The report shows that Planned Parenthood spent $657.1 million [over the period], but their own reports show they took in about $2 billion in federal money…. That leaves the question, ‘where’s the $1.3 billion …?”

It is important to note that the missing money comes during the period in which the Bush Administration was responsible – meaning that much greater amounts are likely being poured out today under the increased funding provided by Obama and Pelosi’s Congress.

In commenting on the story, American Life League President Judie Brown made some crucial and disturbing points:

“Money has been pouring into Planned Parenthood and the amount of it has been increasing for thirty to forty years,” Brown said to WorldNetDaily. “We have had several supposedly pro-Life presidents and never has a single president opposed an increase in the funding for Planned Parenthood. Never in the history of Title X.

“My firm conviction is that we have to elect someone who is willing to put principle above politics and rid the government of any funding or any organization that is involved in destroying the family.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

No country in modern history has been founded on principles of individual freedom, and the preservation of life, liberty, and property, as was the United States of America. No nation has provided a beacon of hope and freedom, as has this country, because of that unique and auspicious beginning. No country has been a beacon of hope, even a Mecca to all in the world seeking freedom and liberty, as has America. Recognition of these verities constitute the foundation for American exceptionalism.

So for our own president to say in Europe last year that, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism,” is a denial of the historicity that made this country what it was designed to be. The “fundamental transformation” of our country that we have witnessed over the past couple of years leaves many freedom-loving citizens wondering what will be left of American exceptionalism after the radicals in Washington have completed their transformation of the country.

Even the presidents’ own history, and his acknowledgement of that history, attest to the uniqueness of America. As he has said many times his story would only be possible in America. Why is that, if we’re no different than any other country?

The president’s statement about American exceptionalism might be “politically correct,” but it’s factually, historically, and ideologically erroneous. His is the same mentality that maintains that every kid should win at dodge ball. Or better yet, no one should play dodge ball because someone’s feelings might get hurt. It’s the same mentality that grades shouldn’t be posted, or scores shouldn’t be kept, or that everyone who participates should get a trophy, rather than just the winners. And even more seriously, that all nations deserve to have a nuclear bomb regardless of disposition or intention of use. Sorry, Mr. President, just as there are winners in sports, there are “winners” in freedom and liberty, and America was founded to be that winner.

Many of us will celebrate this Independence Day revering what the founders created, and what our nation has been and represented before the current cadre of narcissists and statists began their transformation. We will sorrowfully acknowledge that an era has passed, that the nation which stood for freedom throughout the world has now temporarily joined with the socialist states of the world in promoting governmental control over individual lives rather than individual liberty. We will lament the transformation of this bastion of liberty, as we fly our flags celebrating the ideals she was founded on.

We will still celebrate Independence Day with patriotic fervor, for such patriotism acknowledges the uniqueness of our humble national beginnings, based on eternal principles, inalienable rights granted by God, and not on the whims of monarchs, tyrants, or a government “grant” of rights and privileges. But our patriotic zeal is more subdued as we witness the current departure from those precepts.

We recognize that for the first time in history, a nation was created by “we the people,” for we the people, based on a series of principles and tenets recognized to be God-given, not government bestowed. As James Madison said regarding the patriots who fought for freedom, “Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.”

Our national uniqueness makes the celebration of our nation’s birth a most consequential event. Attempts at imitation of American governance have and will be made, but nothing approximates the uniqueness of the establishment of these United States of America because of those founding principles.

The Pope acknowledged this American exceptionalism two years ago when he visited Washington, DC. The Holy See stated, “From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

May we be filled with a resolve, while celebrating this Independence Day, to return to our ideological roots based on individual freedom, and commit to support only statesmen who support those ideals, rather than politicians seeking statist governmental control who do not embrace and champion those inalienable rights. Such determination will make this Independence Day a very personal and memorable one.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.