The States Say "Enough"

Friends,
It seems that there are some states that are saying “enough is enough” to the federal government. In a resolution introduced last week, the New Hampshire legislature has taken the nearly unprecedented step to remind the federal government

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; . . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force….

What crimes may we be talking about? Anything that does not fall under those listed above such as drug laws, gun control laws, and kidnapping laws to name a few. Many of the crimes Congress has identified are, indeed, crimes that need to be punished. However, I have been able to find no place in the Constitution where Congress and the president are given authorization to make such declarations. Under the 10th Amendment, these determinations are left up to the states and therefore their citizens.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Looking at Article I. §8, there are numerous areas of control given to Congress such as; borrowing money; regulating commerce between the US and foreign nations, and the states; establishing citizenship requirements, etc., but none of the specific crimes that have been set down by Congress and signed by the presidents appear. My Constitutional Guru, Mr. Ric Morgan, Esq. has informed me that most of these laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, Art I §8(3) which states that the Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes….” I have to tell you that I have twisted my head every which way and the connection with many of the laws passed still seems pretty thin. Quoting Mr. Morgan:

Under the Commerce Clause, since the mid-1930's, federal power has incrementally extended to reach a myriad of far-flung issues that are only vaguely connected to interstate commerce by the most tendentious logic. Prior to the 1930's, all of those issues had been firmly within the States' control under Constitutional interpretations of the previous hundred and forty years.

These current standards defining the federal reach under the Commerce Clause are set forth in the 1995 Supreme Court case of Lopez v US, which was the first case in over sixty years to set any limits on the exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.

In Lopez, an eighteen year-old miscreant and high school senior was caught carrying a .38 cal handgun on school grounds in San Antonio, Texas. He was tried and convicted under the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", which banned guns within 1000 feet of a school.

Lopez challenged the federal law on constitutional grounds, claiming that there is no federal authority to reach so far into the realm properly belonging to the States. The federal government defended on Commerce Clause grounds, claiming that carrying of firearms in a school zone would 1) lead to crime, which 2) frighten citizens, which would 3) inhibit travel, which 4) would lead to a weaker economy, and 5) was therefore related to interstate commerce and subject to the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 Lopez decision delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the court held that government's logic was too strained, the association to interstate commerce was unsupported by any facts, and "there must always be an outer limit to federal power".

But the government lost in Lopez based on the same tenuous logic that serves to justify thousands of other federal laws.

Since I started working on this Discourse an article in World Net Daily has been brought to my attention. It can be seen here. In the article they point to eight states, including New Hampshire, that have introduced similar resolutions and the potential for 20 more states to follow suit. Many of these states are pointing to the “stimulus” package and are putting their collective feet down on unfunded government mandates.

As many of you know, I have a deep concern for any abuse or subversion of the 2nd Amendment but there is an ever growing body of evidence of the systematic subversion of all of our rights by the federal government. Over the years, there have been steady steps, some large and some small, by various factions at the federal level to take our freedoms. However, the recent election cycle has emboldened numerous disparate groups to work together and put together what is being touted as a “stimulus” package. For many states, this is the last straw. We may be seeing the start of a significant push-back to this ever increasing trend of the federal government.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan
PS: Happy Birthday, Nick

Special Prayer for the Inauguration

Friends,
Below is a prayer offered by our pastor, Lance Gentry, on the Sunday after President Obama was inaugurated. I feel that this powerful prayer needs to be shared and prayed often. It needs no further comment.
Dan

Father God,
We come before you this morning with thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for the country we live in and for the freedoms we possess. We thank you that we are free this morning to assemble and worship in accord with your Word and in harmony with our consciences without the threat of great persecution. We pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in countries where they do not have this great freedom and where they live in constant threat because of their faith in Jesus Christ. So we pray for our fellow Christians in countries like China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and Morocco. Strengthen, encourage, and protect our brothers and sisters in Christ we pray.

We thank you too for the peaceful transition of power that we all witnessed this past week. That no blood was shed as our country installed and recognized its new leader and commander-in-chief. We know that you are Sovereign and that no leader ever gains a position of authority without your putting them there. We thank you that whatever our circumstance and whoever may be in authority over us, our trust and confidence can always be in You.

With that in mind Lord, we pray for our new President, Barak Obama and ask that you would grant Him great wisdom as he leads our nation through difficult days. We thank you that in his election we witnessed such a significant milestone along the road to racial equality in our culture, a culture where racial equality has not always been valued. We pray for his safety and that you would protect the Obama family from harm.

Lord we also know that the king’s heart is like channels of water in your hand, and so we pray that you would change President Obama’s heart on the issue of abortion. We pray that he would see the sanctity of all human life and that he would not seek to expand abortion policies that will result in more and more killing of innocent human beings. If his heart does not change, then we pray that you will obstruct his plans and cause his proposed policies to go down in defeat. We pray for the end of abortion. We ask this for the sake of the voiceless, the helpless, and the weak.

Lord grant us as the people of God a gracious spirit; a spirit that seeks to honor our President and speak of him with respect, even while we may disagree with his policies. Remind us that he is our President by your divine design, and that to disrespect him, is to disrespect You. May we be a people who are known for supporting our leaders in prayer and submitting to them in the fear of the Lord.

Thank you Lord that our hope is in you. That you are on the throne. That your ways are perfect. May we rejoice in the true knowledge of our glorious Lord and Sovereign King, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Cabinet Postings (5)

Friends,
This is the fifth in a series on President Obama’s cabinet picks. Today I am going to look into our own former senator from Colorado, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. When I started researching Secretary Salazar to see what his stances were on different issues, I had both good and bad fortune. First, I have a lot of emails from him in the form of newsletters and replies to concerns about which I have emailed him. The not-so-good part about this is that he said very little of substance in any of them.

In June of 2007, I contacted him concerning the illegal immigration reform act that was being debated in the Senate. This act provided an amnesty path for illegals. I pointed out that the first part of the salutation for these people was “illegal.” If I fail to pay my taxes, where is the bill before Congress to allow me to get off Scott-free? However, Senator Salazar advocated passage of this deeply flawed piece of legislation, masking the amnesty issue with platitudes like “secure the borders, strengthen and enforce our immigration laws” and the best one “provide a realistic solution for the 12 million undocumented workers in our country.” An undocumented worker is a euphemism for illegal aliens. Fortunately, the cry raised from the American public was so loud that they had no choice but to defeat the bill. In an email a couple of days later (5 Jul 2007) he stated that he was “disappointed that the immigration reform legislation failed to pass the U.S. Senate….” This is just one example of how Mr. Salazar is on the wrong side of America.

Moving on, in his newsletter of 27 July 2007, he proudly announced his pleasure at the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) from the Senate Finance Committee. Please do not misunderstand me on this issue. With six grandchildren and one on the way, I want to see every child healthy and have access to health care whenever needed. However, in my extensive look through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I was unable to find anything like “any or all segments of American society shall have government supplied access to health care.” In fact, I was so concerned about this issue I went to the Founders’ writings to see what they said about the issue. The closest I could find was in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The key word here is “pursuit” of happiness, presuming that if you are healthy, you are happy, or at least closer to it than if you are unhealthy. I was able to find no provision in the Constitution for the U.S. Government to pay for social programs. I contend that the more hand-outs are given, the more the recipients will want. We have already begun down this slippery slope and stopping this descent should be a priority if we are going to survive as a nation. However, I digress. The issue at hand is Mr. Salazar.

In another email I received from him, Senator Salazar noted his support for the DREAM Act. This act would have offered a path of legalization for illegal children who had been going to U.S. schools and progressing well in their studies. Once again, Mr. Salazar was on the wrong side of the American public and the Constitution. Fortunately, this bill was defeated under the leadership of Senator Sessions of Alabama. The problem is that this fight should have been led by a dynamic leader from Colorado. My guess is that there are more illegals in Colorado than Alabama.

In his 23 October 2007 newsletter, Senator Salazar notes his support for the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Personally, I support any effort to advance technology in alternative fuels. The more we work and study on technologies such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. the more efficient and inexpensive they will become. (I do not support growing crops for fuel; but that is another discussion.) This is just the natural progression. I also advocate the reduction in the use of dependence on all petroleum products; however it must be done in an intelligent way. Colorado has a huge repository of oil shale and other petroleum products. At a time (2007) when energy prices were skyrocketing, it was time to begin “Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less” as Newt Gingrich would say. In fact it was 10 years past time, but the Democrats refused to allow that to happen. The result was witnessed last year when we were pumping $4.00+ gas.

I have only gone through about one year’s worth of Mr. Salazar’s communications with me and have just barely scratched the surface. Suffice it to say that President Obama has certainly chosen another Cabinet officer who is unfit to serve the American public. Looks like the president’s choices are living down to his track record.

As always, I welcome your discussion and comments.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (4)

Friends,
This is the fourth in a series looking at President Obama’s cabinet picks.
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI)

While this is not a cabinet post, it is arguably of near equal importance. President Obama has tapped Leon Panetta for this crucial job. Having come out of the Intelligence community in my former life, I think I have a fair idea of the requisite qualifications for this position.

Above all, the incumbent should have a solid working knowledge of the Intelligence Community, preferably by having worked in the field for a number of years. The incumbent must be a manager with extreme talent for coalition building, not coalitions of foreign countries, but coalitions within his own agency. Intelligence professionals tend to be very independent with delving minds. Whoever leads this agency will have to be able to have or develop an understanding and appreciation of the Intelligence Process as well as the Intelligence Professional very early into the job. Anyone who moves into the job with the intention of changing the agency right off the bat may as well try to move Mt. Rushmore.

I believe that changing the CIA is possible, but only if the case for the need for change is made strongly enough that all personnel within the agency understand the need and assist in that change. Otherwise, attempting to change such an organization staffed with long-term professionals will be a useless and frustrating venture. Mr. Panetta has been highly critical of the agency for some time. This makes me think that he has a predetermined agenda that he will be taking to his new job if he is confirmed.

Those are my going-in thoughts. Let’s look at the DCI designee and see how he fits the bill. We will start by looking at his biography. He went into the Army in 1964 as a second lieutenant and was discharged as a first lieutenant in 1966. I seem to recall some kind of disturbance in Southeast Asia around that time; however I found no reference to that event in Mr. Panetta’s biography. While he was in the Army he was the chief of operations and planning of intelligence at Fort Ord. He is a Distinguished Scholar in the California State University System, lecturing on public policy at Santa Clara University. He worked as an assistant to Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel and HEW secretary Robert Finch before being elected to the House of Representatives, as a Democrat, where he served from 1977 to 1993. His focus in the House seemed to be budget, social, and environmental issues. He was tapped to serve as President Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1994 until 1997. For the last 10 years he and his wife have served as Directors of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy.

During his time in Congress he held four chairman positions, none of which had anything to do with Intelligence. Except for these chairman positions and the one chief of staff position, I was able to find no managerial or leadership experience. I do not consider two years as a second lieutenant in charge of operations and planning of intelligence at a state-side Army base as appropriate leadership experience to qualify him for DCI; although, he has had more managerial experience than President Obama.

Concerning this appointment I have a couple of questions for the president. If Mr. Panetta is so qualified for the position of DCI, why did you feel it necessary to apologize to Senator Feinstein for making the selection? You are now the presumptive leader of the free world. Why are you not acting like it? There seems to be a severe lack of confidence in your leadership style.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (3)

Friends,
This is the third in a series of discussions about president-elect Obama’s cabinet choices.

Attorney General

President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder. Let’s do a quick review of his career. As the Deputy US Attorney General he was instrumental in an investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department to try to discover if there was a department-wide “pattern or practice” of violation of civil rights stemming from the corruption scandal in the Rampart division. In that situation officers had beaten, shot, extorted, and framed drug dealers. LAPD Chief Parks came down on the situation like a ton of bricks.

Subsequent investigation by the DOJ found that there was no evidence of department-wide corruption. Nevertheless, when Chief Parks and Mayor Riordan called Mr. Holder and asked that DOJ back off after finding no further corruption, Mr. Holder seemed to redouble his efforts. The LAPD agreed to a consent decree to keep out of court. According to the city, it is costs the LAPD $50 million annually to live up to that decree. In this time of shrinking revenues to cities and states across the country, even a city the size of Los Angeles can scarcely afford those kinds of penalties, especially when no further evidence of wrongdoing is found.

In the late 1990’s the DOJ, under the direction of Deputy US Attorney General Holder, held numerous “racial profiling” conferences, primarily the work of the ACLU. If a police department had an arrest rate that did not match racial demographics they faced significant federal litigation, championed by the ACLU. When police departments across the country are more concerned about federal litigation than fighting crime, we are all put in jeopardy.

Let’s take a quick look at Mr. Holder’s judgment. In the waning days of President Clinton’s second administration, one of the Democrat Party’s heavy contributors was Denise Rich, the ex-wife of millionaire fugitive Mark Rich. She gave substantial donations to the party. She also gave substantial donations to President Clinton’s library fund. Mr. Holder played a significant role in obtaining a presidential pardon for Mr. Rich. In all fairness, Mr. Holder has said that he regrets his association with this pardon.

In 1999, 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) received presidential pardons due to Mr. Holder’s direct intervention. These terrorists had, up to that time, been associated with “more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and injury to hundreds of others,” reported the Baltimore Sun. These are bad people who are now allowed to walk among their potential victims. Mr. Holder has stated that does not regret his role in these pardons.

During his confirmation hearing, when questioned about Guantanamo Bay prison, he advocated closing the facility. My question to Mr. Holder would be, where are you going to put the prisoners incarcerated there? If you turn them loose and send them home, statistics show that most terrorists in Guantanamo who are turned loose return to the fight against the US and our alleys. Is he going to release them on bail to await trial? That’s just what we need, terrorists bent on our destruction given a free trip to the US so they can continue their fight on our home ground.

Also during his confirmation hearing, he said that he would respect the Supreme Court decision in the DC vs. Heller case which held that the Washington DC gun ban was unconstitutional. However, during arguments being heard in that case he signed on to Janet Reno’s amicus brief urging that the gun ban be upheld. The amicus brief stated that “the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia..( "Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners". American Bar Association.) “Holder said that overturning the 1976 law ‘opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.’” (Nakamura, David; Barnes, Robert (March 10, 2007). "D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out" (Article), Metro: Special Reports, The Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved on November 19, 2008.)

While Mr. Holder says that he will respect the decision of the Supreme Court, what will be his tact to subvert our 2nd Amendment rights?

While the Democrats and media did not properly vet their candidate, the president-elect is following right along in the same vein. His Attorney General candidate is tainted to the point of being completely impeachable in any case.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (2)

Friends,
This is the second in the series of looking at president-elect Obama’s cabinet choices.

Secretary of State

The president-elect has nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. This is arguably one of the most important cabinet posts to be considered, just above Defense and Attorney General.

Let’s look at Senator Clinton’s qualifications. At the beginning of her husband’s presidency she worked diligently on the failed national health program. As First Lady, she travelled to foreign lands with her husband when he was president. She was elected and reelected to the Senate from a state where she not a resident until she started shopping around for an opportunity. She, most recently served on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Special Committee on Aging and the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has been an advocate for protecting our constitutional rights, such as her support to Roe v. Wade. But wait, how does that protect the constitutional rights of the unborn? (Sorry, I digress)

One major question I would put to both the president-elect and the Secretary of State designate would be, “How do you square Senator Clinton’s husband’s globetrotting fund raising with doing the business of the United States.” We have seen prospective elected officials and appointed bureaucrats get raked over the coals for their family’s activities, where is the righteous indignation about the Clinton money machine?

So far, I have not found any qualifications with respect to foreign affairs (oops, I should have said foreign diplomacy). This nomination for one of the most important and powerful cabinet positions makes no sense. There is no history of foreign diplomacy and very little displayed interest except to criticize existing policy.

I would argue that the president-elect has erred in judgment yet again. Normally, one or two errors in judgment could be excused, but the list is growing. My next posting tomorrow will continue the discussion.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. Below is a comment I received about yesterday’s posting. The writer has legitimate concerns. I invite you to read them.

Dan

Hi Dan:
After reading this weeks posting I was a little saddened! I agree with you that we have to be diligent in our scrutiny of the staff in which Obama surrounds himself, but to be so close-minded as to not give him a pass on anything when he's not even in office is a little arrogant to me. I didn't vote for him but I do pray that God will change his mind and heart about issues that are on the hearts of many Christian Americans. I honestly don't want this man to fail because we're all in this together - failure cannot be an option for either Republican or Democrat - this is the deciding factor! (name withheld)

Obama's Cabinet Postings (1)

Friends,
As I have told you, it is not my intention to give Barrack Hussein Obama a pass on anything. However, I have to admit, having him as the president-elect is a gold mine for a guy like me. There will always be something to write about.

He has not even taken office and he is giving us a great deal about which to be concerned. I am not going to address his massive money give-away which will put succeeding generations of Americans behind the eight ball for many years.

This time I am going to address his gross lack of judgment. One of the more stellar traits that Ronald Reagan had was to be able to surround himself with experts; people who clearly understood all aspects of the job they were given. We are being told how smart our next president is. Let’s look at his display of intelligence in the area of surrounding himself with experts. This will be the first in a series of discussions about the president-elect’s judgment with respect to his appointees. Other discussions about his judgment, in general, will come later.

Treasury Secretary

The current flap concerns his choice for Treasury Secretary. Tim Geithner has served as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund; president and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, this position doubles as the vice chair of the Federal Open Market Committee which sets interest rates; chairman of the G-10’s Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements; and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Group of Thirty. This is an impressive resume.

Looking at events he has directly influenced, he was the architect of the Bear Sterns bailout. I asked this question of my colleagues at the time, why? Where in the US Constitution does it say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to keep failed companies afloat? Of course, one could argue that since it was the federal government’s policies that caused many of the banking failures, they had a responsibility to fix what they broke.

As the head money guy for the federal government he will be responsible for keeping track of all of our finances; this includes being overall in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. That would imply that he has a good understanding of our tax laws and is in compliance with them. But wait; what about the $43,000 in federal self employment taxes he failed to pay? Interestingly enough, he was working with the IMF at the time. It is the policy of the IMF to reimburse their folks for their self employment tax; it sounds, to me, like he was pocketing some extra perk money. Hmmm! Was it just an oversight that he employed an immigrant maid for three months after her work authorization papers had expired (that makes the maid an illegal)?

An individual like Mr. Geithner who recklessly flaunts the law as the Treasury Secretary makes me a bit queasy when I think about how my income taxes are assessed and how this money is managed. Does this appointment reflect sound judgment, or does the president-elect share Mr. Geithner’s ethos?

As usual, I welcome all comments and discussion.

Dan