Saturday, March 27, 2010


by Mark D. Baker

A dangerous bill has sponsored by 12th District Democrat Representative, Rashida Tlaib. Her Bill, HB 5952, can't be mistaken as anything but another internal attack on Michigan as it, if passed, will effectively de-criminalize two Felony Categories in Michigan law.

If 'We the People' take action, with the help of concerned, dedicated elected representatives, such as Rick Jones here, we can STOP this Bill and other such attacks on our Great State. Call me simple, but the Air Force taught me that when one encounters a dangerous snake, the most efficient thing to do is kill it, not dance with it. Let's get behind Rick to help him Kill this Snake of a Bill.

Again, the Bill in question is Tlaib's HOUSE BILL 5952 which she formally introduced on March 12 this month. 5952 is an example of 'an act against the state,' in that the crux of the proposed measure ultimately calls for a language-change to Michigan's Worker’s Disability Compensation Act of 1969, which for 41 years since it was made law, states:

'Michigan employers are required to pay injured employees roughly 80 percent of their normal wages for a specified period — UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT WORK BECAUSE OF IMPRISONMENT OR COMMISSION OF A CRIME.'

Talib wants to amend the act to specify that “commission of a crime” does not include “alien’s working without employment authorization or an alien’s use of false documents.”

READ CLOSELY the degree to which she slickly attempts to twist and manipulate the common langauge: 1969 Law: '...because of imprisonment or commission of a crime,' into Talib's: "aliens" (people here as illegal tress passers), "working without EMPLOYMENT-AUTHORIZATION (Oops, you lack the necessary Green Card, or Work Visa that LEGAL IMMIGRANTS {who respect and abide-by the LAW} OBTAIN through our standing Immigration Process), or an "aliens" (here again, in actuality a Criminal Trespasser) "use of false documents" (eg. FORGED CRIMINAL PAPERWORK).

So in summation, Ms. Representative Tlaib's Bill seeks to decriminalize two felony crimes -Felony Trespass, and Felony Fraud- AND actually REWARD these felons 80% of their wages should they get injured at work!

Concerned Citizens can track this steaming pile of legislation here:

I also encourage you all to call Representative Tlaib's office (yes, the one WE'RE paying for) at: 313-297-8800 and share your desire for her to withdraw her 'Felony Forgiveness Bill' immediately.

Lastly, if you'd like to learn more about Rashida Tlaib, you can here:

Final Note: Contact your State Representative and Senator and let them know that you want them to alert their fellow constitutents about this odious bill and have them call Tlaib's office to voice their feelings.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

The Doctor is In: and His Scalpel is the US Constitution

by Mark Baker

March 21st, 2010 will go down in history as either the 'Beginning of the End' of America as a Constitutional Republic, or as 'Beginning of the Re-Establishment of America as a Constitutional Republic.' Leading up to this 'Black Sunday,' most every poll taken indicated that an average of 54% of those polled were against HR 3590, known as Obama's 'Healthcare Reform' Bill.

Not the fact that those pushing the 2000+ page monstrosity, didn't know what was in it -or so Nancy Pelosi herself alluded to when she inserted foot-in-mouth by saying, "You can find out what's in the Bill 'after' we pass it-" Not Impeached ex-Judge-turned-Congressman (how'd that happen?), Alcee Hastings boldly stating "...when the deal 'goes down,' ahh, all this talk about, ahh rules; we make 'em up as we go along." ; not unprecedented calls to Democrat Representatives across America by constituents who opposed the Bill, not anything mattered. Why? How could something so vile and prima facie un-Constitutional have any chance of becoming law?

I'll tell you how. When we have a sitting President and those in the majority in the US House and Senate, willing to violate their Oaths of Office (an impeachable office I believe), disregard the majority of their constituents desires, choosing instead to accept outright bribes (another impeachable offense I believe) or simply 'Airplane Rides' on Air Force One, agree to abdicate their elected responsibilities and yield to a the Tyranny of Three (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) and the unseen 'Special Interests' who back them. That's how.

For a couple weeks before Black Sunday, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak appeared to many to be a rare Democrat of 'reason' and 'principle,' or at least as rare as Pro-Life Democrats are to find. I, being rather cynical about all Democrats and RINO's, didn't buy the act and figured Bart was simply posturing (as crass political hacks are SO adapt at) to gain a better leveraging position with the Big Three (O.P.R.). As it turns out, I was correct as good Bart betrayed the unborn and sold his soul to Obama for $726,409 -30 pieces of silver adjusted for inflation- as an amount in grants, that three airports in northern Michigan will receive for maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration on March 21, 2010, just an odd coincidence I'm sure.

Let us not forget either, that the T-3 were prepared to use the 'Slaughter Rule' to slide this hideous Bill through if their arm-twisting and bribes failed to garner enough votes for crunch time.

After Scott Brown embarrassed the Democrat Party by winning Teddy Kennedy's Senate Seat, one would have thought they'd have 'seen the light,' and realized that 'this dog ain't gonna hunt.' MOST crass Democrat operatives, who spend three-quarters of their lives with a wet finger held in the air, WOULD indeed have seen said light, pulled back to lick their wounds, and re-grouped to fight another day.

Fast-Forward to March 21st, 2010, 'Black Sunday.' 'The People,' -that group of FREEDOM-LOVING Individuals our radical Founding Fathers thought so highly of, and sacrificed so much for- US, stood by scratching our collective heads as, rather than seeing Obama and Company respect the will of the people, watched as they cast-aside consensus and common sense and rage forward with reckless abandon, gathering with them an equally un-photogenic Louise 'she wore her dead sister's dentures' Slaughter and her 'Slaughter Rule,' which for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, works like this:

The speaker brings a bill containing a list of changes that the House wants to make to the Senate bill to the floor for a vote. When the House members vote for and pass this list of changes to the Senate bill, the House will 'DEEM' the Senate bill as passed as well, even though the Senate bill itself was never voted on to begin with. As it ended up, they didn't have to resort to it's use as they were able to find enough whores to sell-out their constituents to pass it on an Up & Down vote.

Well Citizen Dismay after T-3's further entrenchment post the Brown win, turned to outrage March 21st when they finally foisted their nasty bill upon us in suppository form. With these events as an introductory backdrop, we turn to a man whose name I believe will soon eclipse that of Scott Brown, that of Dan Benishek, a doctor from Crystal Falls, Michigan who works as a general surgeon and has filed to run for Bart 'Judas' Stupak's Seat.

After watching the news on TV of the bill's passage and subsequent glee on the faces of the tyrants who passed it, I called Dr. Benishek who refreshingly enough, answered his own phone (as most people in Crystal Falls do). I introduced myself and asked if he had a few minutes to talk with me and answer some questions to which he graciously answered yes. Nearly an hour later, having become very comfortable with the knowledge that not only is Doc. Benishek a solid Constitutional Conservative, but also a great, down-to-earth family-man who anyone would be happy to go fishing with.

Dr. Benishek told me that his FaceBook Wall Page had picked-up over 4,000 'Friends' in a little over 24 hours before we spoke, taking it to a bit over 8,000 in number. As I write this article, I see it's approaching 11,000. It's said that 'Nature Abhors a Vacuum,' and Obama's Tyranny is proving just that, as Constitutionalist Americans wake-up and get behind others such as Doc. Benishek.

I find it more than just a little ironic, that the person who's emerging to counter the mis-deeds of Bart Stupak, is a man that has spent years using very sharp tools to repair injuries and cut-out bad things. Now he's bringing those skills and determination to help repair our great country and his scalpel this time, to repair the damage and cut-out the disease is the US Constitution. Following is Doc. Benishek's biography, beliefs and goals in his own words:

Hi, I am Dan Benishek. I am running for U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 1st District and would like your support.

I was born in Iron River, Michigan. My mother was of Polish descent and my father of Bohemian descent. My father worked for the Civilian Conservation Corps and then in the iron mines of Iron County. He died in a mining accident in 1957 and my brother and I were raised by my mother, with the help of family. I graduated from West Iron County High School in 1970. I earned a B.S. in Biology from the University of Michigan in 1974 and graduated from Wayne State Medical School in 1978. I have served as a general surgeon in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since 1983. My wife Judy and I live in Crystal Falls. We share five children and two grandchildren. I am an avid hunter and fisherman and an NRA member.

I have never held political office but I feel compelled to seek a position at this time because of disturbing developments in our nation’s capitol. I have watched with horror and disbelief as congress has voted to spend trillions of dollars on legislation that no one even read. I very much want to serve my country and the citizens of the 1st District and to provide better representation and leadership on important issues such as:

· Job Creation. Our best hope lies within the private, not public, sector. In particular, we need to support small business, which creates the bulk of new jobs. Government should step aside and let the free market work by reducing burdensome regulation and taxation.

· Fiscal Responsibility. Government is out of control and is squandering our children’s future! I say no to more government bail-outs, business takeovers, and growing entitlements. It is time to make drastic cuts in spending, balance our budget, stop printing money and start paying down our ballooning national debt.

· Lower Taxes. I believe that a government which governs least is a government which governs best. We need a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We need to reduce oppressive taxation and allow individual citizens to keep and invest more of their hard-earned money. We need to shrink the size and scope of our government to be in line with that envisioned by our founding fathers.

· Secure Borders. Immigration must be legal and regulated and our borders must be secure. Uncontrolled access to our country increases entitlement expenses, decreases available jobs and renders us vulnerable to terrorists who want to destroy us.

· Health Care. America has the best health care system in the world – a system which needs fine-tuning but definitely not a government take-over! We need to focus on free market reforms which will increase competition and decrease costs. A good place to start would be to allow health care insurance to be tax deductible, portable and sold across state lines. Additionally, we must pass tort reform to rein in skyrocketing costs associated with frivolous medical law suits.

· Energy Independence. Radical environmentalism has rendered energy development next to impossible. While we must be good stewards of the earth, God gave us this earth and all its resources for our needs. America has huge coal, natural gas and oil reserves. We need to responsibly tap into these reserves and stop relying on other nations to supply our energy. In addition, we need to vigorously expand our use of nuclear power as a safe, clean and efficient source of energy.

· National Defense. It is a primary responsibility of our federal government to provide a strong national defense to protect our nation, our liberty and our ideals. We should honor and respect our armed services and veterans, not undermine their strength and dignity. Additionally, we must aggressively pursue the war on terror and we must try prisoners of war in military tribunals, not as citizens in our civilian courts.

· Second Amendment. I believe in the individual’s right to self defense. The right to bear arms secures other rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom to practice religion. If we allow disarmament of our citizens, we render our nation vulnerable to tyranny.

· Right to Life. I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Paramount is life. From conception to death, all human life must be considered sacred and must be protected.

If you believe in personal responsibility and limited government, please support me in my effort to change the status quo in Washington and return responsible representation to the 1st District of Michigan. If you feel powerless as you watch our government take your hard earned money and spend it foolishly, choose me. If you want an honest, hard working congressman who will answer your letters and phone calls, choose me.

As a surgeon, I have 30 years experience dealing with and solving serious problems. I don't have all the answers to our nation’s problems but I will enthusiastically apply my skills and work with you to find them! Let us start here and work together to return our government to the people. Join my campaign and stand as a citizen of our great republic with your vote for me.

Dan Benishek

NOTES: To contribute to Dan's campaign on-line, please visit his website at:

Or, you may mail a campaign-support check to the following address:

Benishek for Congress
802 Pentoga Trail
Crystal Falls, MI 49920

FEC rules state that any contribution of $200.00 or more must be accompanied with your occupation and employer information. Please no corporate checks. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Thank you everyone for your support!

Monday, March 15, 2010

How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office

by Congressman Ron Paul
Col. USAF (ret).

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process.

A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:
Reduce overall federal spending
Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.
As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money – in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.

NOTES: Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician and Republican Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas. Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government,[2] and serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy. He has gained notoriety for his right-libertarian positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republican and Democratic Party leaders. Paul has run for President of the United States twice, first in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again in 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination.

He is the founder of the advocacy group Campaign for Liberty and his ideas have been expressed in numerous published articles and books, including End The Fed (2009), and The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008).

This essay originally appeared in Young American Revolution, the magazine of Young Americans for Liberty.

From here............where?

by Rene Simpson

Over the past few months of Barack Hussein Obama's reign I have not been blogging about it.I have been mostly fuming and yelling at the TV, playing mafia wars to keep my mind occupied, and then fuming some more. I wanted him to be better. I wanted be proud of him. I wanted him to truly represent this country in an honorable way. Against all of my doubts and fears, I truly wanted to believe he would govern as an American should. I could not possibly have voted for him but if he had did well I would have stood with him.

All of my fears are being realized and I pray for the republic.The congress has gone absolutely wild and wish to subjugate us and shut us up.George Bush is responsible for all that is wrong in the world and snow in winter too. They cannot stand up like men and women and take responsibility for the messes they make.However one good thing has occurred. Conservatives of all colors and moderates have now woken up from our daydreams and realized that we are threatened from every side. Our liberty,standard of living,freedom of religion,values and our national security is at risk.

Today as I hear him speak to journalists he appears to soften his hard line.
And why shouldn't he ? He appears to be losing. But friends I tell you now that what is being done behind closed doors, in the shadows, may be far worse then what they are letting us see.

We have to keep fighting, praying, blogging, protesting, networking, calling representatives and voting them out........and then praying some more.
Stay strong soldiers, stay strong.

ALERT: H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009

by Dudley Brown

Dear NAGR supporter,

Please forgive my bluntness, but the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist.

And now they’re trying to pass a bill allowing gun-grabbing Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke all your Second Amendment rights at will if he has “a reasonable belief” you could pose a “threat.”

I know this sounds unbelievable, but read on.

As you know, in a recently released report, the goons at Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security classified gun owners, honorably discharged veterans and little old church ladies as threats to the security and stability of the United States of America.

Even a gesture as simple as placing a pro-gun bumper sticker on your car, or supporting a pro-gun candidate makes you a potential “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of the thugs running our government.

Obviously, your First Amendment rights of free speech mean as much to Obama’s Department of Homeland Security as your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama’s Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano sees no difference between law-abiding gun owners like you and violent racists who murder and vandalize.

But if that’s not shocking and outrageous enough, it gets worse . . .

Republican quislings Peter King of New York, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Castle of Delaware have just introduced a new gun control bill that comes right out of this so-called “Rightwing Extremist” report.

I’m talking about H.R. 2159, the shockingly misnamed “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.”

I call it the “Disarming American Citizens Act of 2009.”

These anti-gun Republicans-in-Name-Only want to disarm you because they fear your pro-liberty views.

In fact, your love of freedom frightens them so much that they’re now going to great lengths to label you a domestic terrorist.

It’s the perfect way to silence “troublemakers” like you and me, and to marginalize our influence.

And make no mistake: If Congress passes H.R. 2159, Eric Holder would have the authority to deny thousands of innocent Americans their constitutionally protected rights.

But this bill isn’t just about Eric Holder taking away your Second Amendment rights if you’re “appropriately suspected” of “terrorism.”

H.R. 2159 also allows Holder and his team of gun-grabbing henchmen to “withhold” any and all evidence from you or a court if Holder & co. “determine” that it might “compromise national security.”

These are the same people who labeled small government advocates potential “domestic terrorists!” Who cares what they “determine”?

Even more ridiculous, H.R. 2159 says that the courts “must” rely on Eric Holder’s personally “redacted versions” or “summaries” of the “evidence” he supposedly has against you . . .

. . . and he never has to release the evidence he claims to have!

They could annul your Second Amendment rights and convict you in a court of “law” without a shred of actual evidence . . . legally!

NAGR needs your help today to stop H.R. 2159 from progressing any farther. Click here to contribute.

You already know Attorney General Eric Holder is Barack Obama’s most ruthless anti-gun henchman.

And we all know what Barack Obama himself thinks of gun owners.

As a candidate, he claimed you and I were “bitter” uneducated folks “clinging” to guns out of hatred and frustration.

And now as President, he and Surveillance Czar Janet Napolitano have gone a step further in declaring gun rights activists and pro-gun voters domestic terrorist threats.

To make matters worse, Republican scalawags Mike Castle and Mark Kirk -- both notorious anti-gunners -- are working with Obama and Carolyn McCarthy to strip you of your most fundamental freedoms.

If H.R. 2159 becomes law, Eric Holder -- or any other Attorney General for that matter -- will be allowed to disarm you based on your political views without having to provide any evidence for his claims.

The National Association for Gun Rights is ready to stop H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act.

I’m committed to this fight. Are you?

I hope you realize how dangerous this bill is. And I hope I can count on you to help fund our new program.

Without your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will be unable to notify and mobilize gun owners across the country to combat this newest infringement on our constitutional rights.

That is why it is imperative that you send in your most generous donation possible.

Let me give you an idea of what gun owners are up against.

With anti-gun Barack Obama in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi ruling the House of Representatives with an iron fist, our only hope to stop the Disarming American Citizens Act is in the Senate.

As I’ve told you before, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself between a rock and a hard place.

Even as his re-election to the Senate from pro-gun Nevada is very much in doubt, anti-gunners like Sarah Brady and are pressuring him to do their bidding in Washington.

To break a politician like Harry Reid, NAGR needs to stir up a hornet’s nest of discontent among gun owners across the country and especially in targeted states like Nevada.

The good news is we have the ability to contact hundreds of thousands of gun owners by phone, fax, email and traditional mail.

Unfortunately, reaching gun owners in a timely manner takes resources we simply don’t have.

Fighting for our right to keep and bear arms isn’t cheap.

For example, with the recent postage increases, it now costs the National Association for Gun Rights well over $1000 to produce and mail a letter to 1000 gun owners.

But no matter what, we simply cannot let H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, become law.

That’s why it’s imperative you take a moment to send in your most generous donation possible.

$50, $100, $150 or $200 will make a huge difference in our fight to stop H.R. 2159.

Click here to contribute.

I wouldn’t ask if I didn’t know it was vitally important.

I know that times are tough in this economy, but your generous donation of $50, $100, $150 or even $200 could mean the difference between success and failure for this program.

Click here to contribute.

I thank you in advance for your generous contribution.

For Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. Your gun rights are in peril again. If H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act, passes, anti-gun zealot Eric Holder could strip you of your right to keep and bear arms for something as simple as a pro-gun bumper sticker.

Worse, the bill allows Holder to withhold evidence in the event of a court case, and demands that the courts rely on Holder’s personally “redacted” versions of whatever evidence he claims to have.

Your generous contribution of $50, $100, $150 or $200 will help the National Association for Gun Rights mobilize gun owners to fight this outrageous gun control measure.

I must have your help if I’m going to defeat this. Please donate today!

Monday, March 8, 2010

Russell Kirk: The Father of the American Conservative Movement

by Mark Baker

While Edmund Burke is widely considered as the Father of Conservative Philosophy, the one man who more than any other responsible for turning it into a movement was fellow Michigander Russell Kirk. Countless individuals credit Kirk's 1953 book, 'The Conservative Mind' as being the initial spark of the modern conservative movement in the United States. Kirk condensed he beliefs in his 1957 follow-up work, 'The Essence of Conservatism,' in which he stated, "The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time, our American War of Independence, especially in the works of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, we find a sober and tested conservatism founded upon an understanding of history and human nature. The Constitution which the leaders of that generation drew up has proved to be the most successful conservative device in all history."

Kirk's pronunciation reiterated the vital importance the U.S. Constitution plays as an instrument that protects people from abuse by government. And because of this, the Constitution must be strictly interpreted to guarantee that protection. While most Americans would perhaps think that all presidents would naturally make decisions from a Constitutional perspective -as their very oath of office states that- nothing could be further from the truth.

These Conservative concepts flew in the face of classic Liberalism, which is by its very nature distrustful of 'the people,' and always gravitates towards stateism, progressive taxation and ever-expanding governmental controls.

Barry Goldwater had been strongly influenced by Kirk's writing and was the first politician to actively promote Constitutional Conservatism. Goldwater's book, 'The Conscience of a Conservative' was required reading at Harvard for a short time. During his 1964 Presidential Campaign, Goldwater promised to enforce the U.S. Constitution if elected. An ad designed by a little-known political strategist named Bill Moyers, would end up doing-in Goldwater. It came to be known as 'The Daisy' Ad, and although it was only aired one time, it's effect was devastating in that it masterfully played upon the deep fear Americans had of nuclear warfare and the ad choreographs a little girl counting as she pulls the peddles off a daisy. They a claxon-type voice joins her slight one doing another count down, this one to a nuke-launch which ends in a scene of nuclear detonation and no more little girl. Goldwater was done-in by hysterics.

Fast-Forward to 1980. Ronald Reagan, a former democrat and unionist leader of the 'Screen Actors Guild, had been profoundly moved by Kirk's works in the 1950's, and finally reached a point where he could no longer call himself a democrat and joined the GOP. He ran boldly with, and legitimized the conservative political philosophy as President. His 'Government-Cutting' platform resonated well with the general public, and he had proof of its success as Governor in California, where he successfully reformed a runaway welfare state that had been heading towards financial ruin. Using his 'Trickle-Down' Economics gamebook (which he learned from Milton Friedman), Reagan cut taxes in his first year and the U.S. economy began an unprecedented economic boom in 1982 that lasted unabated until 2001.

Larger than his economic success though, President Reagan's uncompromising stand against Communism and tyranny has already established his place in history. His opening salvo in 1982: "The March of Freedom and Democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people." The fall of the Berlin wall came in 1989, followed by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Considering the administrations of all modern Republican Presidents, it becomes quite clear that Reagan was far more an exception then the rule; a Statesman rather than a politician and a true Constitutionalist Conservative. By comparison, neither Bush evidenced any true allegiance to Constitutional guidelines, or even basic fiscal responsibility. Today, Obama's showing signs that he's most comfortable as dictatorial change-agent whose more than happy to use anyone or any means to accomplish his agenda. Where Clinton and the two Bushes ignored portions of the Constitution that got in their way, Obama is more then willing to completely trample the document in full.

Good Conservative Americans have indeed been stirred from their slumber. We woke up, rubbed our eyes, looked at our children and decided we won't let this tyrant destroy our nation and thus spoil the blood of all those who gave their lives to protect, defend and preserve this great Constitutional Republic.

Months before he died, Russell Kirk re-wrote his 'Six Tenants of Conservatism' into Ten as follows:

1. The Conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. The Conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. The Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. The Conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

For those 'newly-awakened' Constitutional Conservatives who are standing up and being counted in the fight to save our country and rid the GOP of false followers (RINO's, etc.), it might be a good time to spend some coin on one of Mr. Kirk's books. They form the basis of good armor.

Note: I had the distinct honor of meeting Russell Kirk in the early 90's shortly after returning home from the New Hampshire Primary where I'd helped arrainge a Campaign Visit to Lansing by Pat Buchannon at LCC's Dart Auditorium.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Gene Taliercio Isn't Afraid To Make Real Change: The Gig's Up Lansing!


In recent weeks, Michigan legislators have proposed a variety of budget cuts for the fiscal year 2011.

However, the benefit packages with which legislators continue to provide themselves remain detrimental to our state budget.

Recently, a Detroit area newspaper reported, “Lawmakers agree they should eliminate generous state health insurance for legislators who have served as few as six years, but they disagree whether the ban should apply to them or only future lawmakers.” Simply put, they don’t mind cutting future legislators’ benefits, as long as the cuts don’t affect their own pocketbooks.

During the short period in which I have been campaigning to be your next State Senator, I have discovered a number of shocking, yet little known, facts about our public servants. For example:

Did you know: State legislators receive compensation of $80,000 per year in addition to a $1,000 monthly expense allowance. Michigan legislators are amongst the highest paid in the nation.

Did you know: State legislators work merely three days a week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).

Did you know: After serving only six years in the state legislature, legislators are entitled to receive a lifetime health care and pension plan.

Fellow Michiganders, I will put it bluntly: Lansing is financially broke. If our state government was a business, it would be in receivership. The Capitol Building’s furniture would be on the front lawn waiting to be auctioned off.

As a candidate for the Michigan State Senate, I pledge to voluntarily give up my lifetime pension and health care benefits. I also support a 10 percent pay reduction for all Michigan legislators.

Leadership starts with one’s own actions. Lucrative life time legislator entitlements need to go!

Article from the Oakland Press, Monday, March 1, 2010 Titled: 'State should stop overpaying legislators,' By GENE TALIERCIO
In recent weeks, Michigan legislators have proposed a variety of budget cuts for the fiscal year 2011. Gene Taliercio cuts to the chase by exposing the truth.

Mark's Comments: As I've previously indicated, I endorse Gene because he has the integrity and guts to expose the simple truth and is willing to act on it. Press On Gene!