From The 10th Amendment Center – “Aborting Guns?”

Below is a very good article on State vs. Federal power.  This applies to so many issues that are happening today and speaks to why we have an out-of-control federal government.  This is also due, in part, to the national media.  There is a vested interest by the national news media in having a strong central government.  Not only does this increase the “importance” of their coverage, but also allows for easier coverage.  Most of the media focus only needs to be spent in one place, Washington D.C, instead of the coverage being spread throughout the 50 State Capitals of our nation.

The Framers set up our constitutional republic as a system having the power “decentralized”.  Many of the most contentious issues like abortion, I believe, will never be solved on a national level.  To truly solve these issues the States need to re-assert their sovereignty.

Pro-Life advocates, for example, have a much better chance to stop abortion on a State level.  As the article points out, if a person doesn’t like how their respective State is handling this issue, they can work to change it and/or “vote with their feet” to another State with whose laws they agree with.

Aborting Guns?

by John Lambert

Recently, the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act of 2011 passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives.  One thing that stood out, there were some on the left that cited the 10th Amendment as justification for it being Unconstitutional.

As much as I’m an avid gun-rights advocate, I have to admit that this criticism is valid.

Currently, forty states have some form of concealed permit reciprocity, so is the power for the Federal Government really necessary for the final ten states?

The question becomes, does the expansion of liberty by this law outweigh the growth of power in the Federal Government?  The problem is…  yes, they can pass this bill which on some level I like, but what is stopping the Federal Government using this tactic on something I don’t like?

A Different Take on Abortion-Part 1

I know abortion is a touchy issue with a lot of people.  I just ask you give me some latitude here to make my point, and I will make you a promise.  I will not endorse one side or another or even state my position on abortion.  Since it is such a divisive issue, it allows me to make a particular points.

If we are honest with ourselves, the heart of this issue comes down if you believe or not that the unborn child has natural rights or not.  Obviously, the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds have different views whether life begins at conception or birth.

Personally, I can make compelling arguments for both points of view.  A Pro-Choice individual will naturally argue that a woman has the right to her own body.  Her body is her property and the state can’t claim it.  She can choose what to eat, drink, or even who shares her bed.  This isn’t the function of the state.

A Pro-Life individual will state the unborn child has rights and should be defended.  If a man beats his wife who is pregnant and she loses the child as the result, he should be punished for the loss of the child, right?  If so, we are saying as a society that the unborn child has rights on some level.  So how can an individual have partial rights?

If we are honest, we really can’t refute either argument.  We can intellectually disagree but all we can do is form some conclusion that seems morally right to us.  I do know one thing about the abortion issue.  No matter which side I come down on, there are a significant number of people in this country who will disagree with me.

When this topic comes in conversations, I will state my view, but I will also make a case that I do understand the arguments from the other side.  One time, a Pro-Choice friend of mine made the case that she felt the Fourteenth Amendment justified her position.  However, I pointed out to her that to a Pro-Life individual would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment would also apply to the unborn child and they are defending those same rights.  She never really considered this point of view.

I don’t demonize those who disagree with me on this issue.  My goal when the topic comes up is to share my understanding on this issue in hopes they don’t demonize individuals as well.

Since this is such a divisive issue, I believe I don’t have the authority to force my view on those who disagree with me through the power of Washington DC.

A Different Take on Abortion- Part 2

Let us pretend there are three islands close together.  The first island is settled by Catholics who want to practice their faith in peace.  There are about the same number or settlers living on the second island, but they are atheists.   Both of these islands are roughly the same size and have similar resources.

The last island is larger and is occupied by head hunting cannibals.  (I know this sounds like a Gilligan’s Island plotline, but just bear with me.)  This island has superior resources they often attack the smaller islands.

Representatives of the first two islands discuss working together to fight off the cannibals.  They form a council to discuss their issues with the cannibals. They agreed that they will trade among themselves and defend each other, but will stay out of each other’s internal affairs.

The Catholic island because of their faith have abortion illegal.  The atheists could care less about the issue and thus not illegal.

Do the atheists have the right to force the Catholics to allow abortions?  Do the Catholics have the right to force the atheists to ban abortions?  Isn’t this determination up to the people who live on these islands?

However, what if one of the following happens: a Catholic comes to the conclusion that abortions shouldn’t be banned?  Or one of the atheists starts thinking that abortions are morally wrong?

Each of these individuals have the natural rights to do one of the following:

1) They can just accept their circumstance and do nothing.

2) They can use their natural right of Free Speech and try to persuade those around them to their point of view.

3) They have natural right of traveling to the other community who shares their viewpoint.

Federal versus National

This concept is what our Founders had in mind with the creation of a Federal and not a National system.  The states are themselves sovereign and should control most of their internal issues.

The “conventional wisdom” has been that the Federal Government needs to maintain a check on States who may abuse their power.  Again who will maintain a check on the Federal Government?  The Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court went from 1937 to 1995 without ruling a Congressional Act as Unconstitutional.  Really????   You mean that every law during this time frame was totally Constitutional?  I sincerely doubt it.

There is no debate that States themselves will abuse power.  Well, they are government institutions after all.  However, there is a check on the states.  If a state becomes too oppressive, people and companies will leave the state and move to another one.  The State will then lose tax revenue and the quality of life will decline in the state.

Or if a State creates a bold plan for its citizens something like a state run healthcare system.  If successful, other states will study and copy the program.  If it fails, the impact is only felt by said state.

However if the Federal Government passes a bold program, the failure of the program affects everyone.  A citizen can’t avoid it by just moving to another State.

We have acknowledge the importance of competition in the marketplace for our dollars.  There are several shops or manufactures will sell you a hammer if you need one.  Why not force the states in the position to compete for your citizenship and tax dollars?

This is the check on the States and demonstrates why a lot of what Federal Government does isn’t necessary.  There is also the problem of the Federal Government abusing the states doing things that they believe are right.

Like the Republicans who supported the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act.

John Lambert [send him email] is the Outreach Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center.

Stewart Rhodes On Alex Jones Talking About Senate Bill 1867 – The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

This bill has passed the Senate.   Call your Representative and tell them to vote against this bill until the provisions that will give clear congressional support and authorization for indefinite military detention and military trial of American citizens is removed from the bill.

Senator Lasee – AB210 – Will not advance from his committee – HOORAY!!!

Here is an article from WI Senator Frank Lasee about why he won’t advance AB210 out of his committee.  It is taken from The Daily Caller.  This is what we need from out elected officials…PRINCIPLES!!!

We have also heard that the Governor’s Office is not happy about this decision and will be attacking Senator Lasee as an Obamacare supporter.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Call the Governor’s office and tell them you applaud Senator Lasee’s decision.

Why I refuse to advance AB 210 By Sen. Frank Lasee

Over the past few weeks, Wisconsin’s state legislators have been strongly pressured to pass AB 210. The bill quickly cleared the State Assembly on October 18, after which it was assigned to the Senate Committee on Insurance and Housing, which I chair.

After a public hearing and full evaluation of the bill, I have decided to let AB 210 die in my committee. A great deal of noise will almost certainly be made about this decision. I want to provide Wisconsinites and everyone else watching this issue with the facts so that they can understand my reasons for killing this dangerous bill.

What would AB 210 achieve?

AB 210 would bring Wisconsin into compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called Obamacare, and start the process of formally embedding federal law into our state statutes. Once that door is open, it cannot be closed.

As such, AB 210 would thoroughly undermine Wisconsin’s sovereign rights under the 10th Amendment, leaving the state no authority to safeguard the health care choices and rights of our citizens. We would be subject to federal control, plain and simple. Furthermore, Wisconsin’s voluntary compliance with Obamacare would compromise our credibility in the federal court case we joined in January to contest the federal law’s constitutionality.

Over the past week, my staff and I have been in close contact with a number of nationally respected public policy institutes and health care freedom advocacy groups, including:

  • The Goldwater Institute
  • The Heartland Institute
  • The Cato Institute
  • The Pacific Research Institute
  • The Mackinac Center for Public Policy
  • The Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom

These experts unanimously assert that AB 210, as currently amended, poses a serious threat to Wisconsin citizens, business and industry. They firmly advise that we refuse to assist in any way with implementation of Obamacare.

They additionally agree that no amendment can fix AB 210.

My own analysis leads me to concur with their assessment.

Precisely because I am determined to protect and maintain health care freedoms for the people of Wisconsin, I stand opposed to AB 210 because of the ways in which it would entrench Obamacare in our state statutes.

Who would gain and who wouldn’t with AB 210?

A quick look into who supports AB 210 reveals that big insurance companies have united behind the bill, most notably American Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP.

In part, insurance companies support AB 210 because the bill does attempt to maximize their control over proprietary information. But they are fooling themselves. With federal law entrenched in our state statutes, Wisconsin’s insurance companies will lose any means of staving off the demand for such information. The Obama administration is interested in more control, not less. Moreover, PPACA gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broad powers to change rules and regulations. That HHS wants proprietary information from all private insurance companies goes without saying.

However, AB 210 would sound a death knell for Wisconsin’s small and specialized insurers, almost certainly an attractive prospect to big insurance. As a gateway for the entrenchment of Obamacare, the bill would guarantee that only large companies — those with the resources to withstand the mountains of federal mandates Obamacare will unleash — could survive. That is not even to say that all large insurance companies would emerge unscathed.

Moreover, insurance is a key Wisconsin industry. This bill would ultimately cost many jobs that we can’t afford to lose in a difficult economy.

To take a quick tally, then, if AB 210 were to pass:

Winners:

  • Big insurance
  • Big government

Losers:

  • Wisconsin health care consumers
  • Wisconsin taxpayers
  • Wisconsin’s insurance industry
  • Wisconsin’s job market

Not exactly a good deal for Wisconsin.

Why all the pressure to advance AB 210 quickly?

AHIP’s support of AB 210 provides some clues regarding the speed at which this bill has traveled through the Wisconsin State Legislature. As with the federal mandate, better to pass this mess quickly so you don’t know what’s in it, what it does, who wins and who loses — until it’s too late.

At a public hearing on October 25, representatives of the State Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) indicated that if Wisconsin does not pass AB 210 by December 31, 2011, state residents will lose the ability to have insurance claims independently reviewed instate. They say such reviews will subsequently be assumed by a federal office in Chicago. In fact, this threat has been used very effectively so far to press Republican legislators into voting for AB 210.

But in reality this trade-off — major losses in exchange for a small advantage — does not justify quickly passing AB 210 into law. PPACA is written to establish total control over the states.

Oddly, the December 31, 2011 deadline does not appear in an Obamacare timeline prepared in mid-September by legislative counsel for AB 210’s author. Nor does it appear in any of the documentation provided by OCI to the Senate Committee on Insurance and Housing during AB 210’s public hearing on October 25. If December 31, 2011 is as crucial a date as OCI claims, one would think it would have been noted in key documentation concerning the bill intended to protect us from the consequences of missing that deadline.

What role does Wisconsin’s federal Early Innovator Grant play?

My office is currently investigating whether the mysterious December 31, 2011 deadline lies buried in agreements surrounding $49 million in Early Innovator Grant funds. The federal government awarded these funds to Wisconsin in February for the specific purpose of establishing a state or regional health care exchange. To be clear, such exchanges are yet another way HHS is working to entrench Obamacare within the states.

I have previously asserted that Wisconsin should neither hurry nor innovate to facilitate Obamacare. Yet, where other states with Republican leadership have wisely returned Early Innovator funds, Wisconsin still holds these monies. This circumstance only weakens our state’s position in relationship to the 10th Amendment and health care freedoms. To put it candidly: Accepting federal monies does not generally amount to strong states’ rights. Keeping these monies also undermines the power of SJR 21, the Health Care Freedom Amendment that is currently advancing through our state legislature.

I therefore strongly urge Governor Walker to swiftly return Wisconsin’s Early Innovator Grant funds. There is even stronger incentive to do so if the December 31 deadline that has been so heavily leveraged in pressing for the passage of AB 210 lies somewhere in those grant agreements.

What is the bottom line?

There is simply no threat or pressure strong enough to induce me to sell out the people of Wisconsin by advancing dangerous policy. AB 210 must die. The sovereignty of the State of Wisconsin must be upheld, the health care freedoms of its citizen preserved and true free-market competition in the health care insurance industry fostered.

Frank Lasee is a Wisconsin state senator (R – De Pere) and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Why Ron Paul Scares Rick Perry

From The Hill:

Why Ron Paul scares Rick Perry

By Brent Budowsky – 09/12/11 10:20 AM ET

One of the cardinal rules of politics is “never attack down,” meaning a front-runner should never attack or respond to an opponent who is far behind. Yet that is what Rick Perry is doing. He is intimidated by Ron Paul, and responding to Ron Paul. Why? The answer is that Ron Paul is a true libertarian and a true conservative, while the latest version of Rick Perry, the man who once championed Al Gore, is a phony conservative and can’t even pretend to be a phony libertarian.

As I have written repeatedly, Rick Perry is the ultimate pay-for-play government man, the exact opposite of a true conservative and a true libertarian. Ron Paul, whether one agrees with him or not, is the true libertarian and a genuine conservative in ways that Rick Perry can never be. That is why Rick Perry fears Ron Paul.

I completely disagree with the mainstream media and insider pundit consensus that Republicans now have a two-person race. I again predict that Rick Perry will self-destruct.

Mitt Romney has inherent problems that are very deep and explain why he cannot rise above a certain level of support and level of trust from Republicans or Democrats.

I believe a new Republican candidate will emerge well before the Republican convention and will write who I believe it is, and why, in the not-too-distant future.For now it is fascinating to watch Ron Paul get under Rick Perry’s skin, and into Rick Perry’s head.

Rick Perry is afraid of Ron Paul.

Rick Perry should be afraid of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul’s very presence reveals what a polyester impersonation of a conservative Rick Perry actually is.

The beneficiary of this will not be Mitt Romney, whatever other insiders instruct you to believe.

Ron Paul On FEMA and Ron Paul Can’t Win? Part 2

Is Super Congress Constitutional?

The Federal Reserve Admits: We Have No Gold!

Reid Preempts Paul, Slips Patriot Act in Small Business Bill Attempting To Prevent Patriot Act Debate

From infowars.com:  Harry Reid Moves To Prevent Senate Debate On The Patriot Act

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has circumvented a call by the newly elected senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, to debate the Patriot Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, Reid performed “some procedural gymnastics,” according to Fox News, and slipped Patriot Act language into a House small business bill that is considered filibuster-proof.

In doing so, Reid has skirted objections to the bill led by Paul and has moved closer to extending the Patriot Act without debate. Democrats have applauded this effort to rush the extension into law without debate.


If You Are Against Raising The Debt Ceiling You Are Part Of Al-Qaeda?

We said it would happen…and it has.  While I’m not surprised, it is very concerning that this is coming from someone on the right.

From The American Dream:

Are you against raising the debt ceiling? If so, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill you are actually part of Al-Qaeda. Yes, seriously. During an interview on Bloomberg TV the other day, O’Neill actually made the following statement: “The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of Al-Qaeda terrorists. Really. They’re really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are looney, who would put our credit at risk.”

Andrew Klavan: Behold! Your Public Sector Unions at Work