How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost

How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost.


obamascareWe are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“obamacare”) unconstitutional; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will not repeal obamacare, we must find another way.

There is another way. Here it is, and it comes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.

Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures

1. Resolved, That The States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only. That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as The Parties to the Constitution.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers. That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

3. Resolved, That in the Constitution of the United States, THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery and road building. That the 10th Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “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.”

That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting the medical care of THE PEOPLE; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over this matter prohibited to The States.

4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.

That administrative rules being promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the executive Departments of the federal government, to be set forth in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and which pretend to regulate the medical care of THE PEOPLE throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force, as in violation of Art. I, Sec.1, of the federal Constitution.

That as matters pertaining to the “medical care”, “health”, and “human services” of THE PEOPLE are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to The States or THE PEOPLE; the federal Department of Health and Human Services is itself an unlawful Department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.

That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States, THE PEOPLE, the medical profession, and The Churches their own ideas of what others must and must not do in the area of medical care; and may force upon them their own ideas of what medical treatments each person shall be provided or denied.

That this spurious federal Department will further send out swarms of officers to trespass upon hospitals, doctors’ offices, other places of provision of medical care, and premises of religious institutions, to harass providers of medical services, dictate to them as to what specific medical treatments they must provide and are forbidden to provide to their patients.

To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

That the Departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred and impose punishment. Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.

5. Resolved, That all aspects of the medical care of THE PEOPLE, not being anywhere delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by The Constitution to The States, are reserved to The States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE. Therefore, power over this matter is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.

6. Resolved, That to take from The States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.

Therefore This State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.

That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.

Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State. That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.

The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.

7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing”, “general welfare”, “interstate commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:

a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).

The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7th para).

b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:

“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th &10th paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56 (5th & 6th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.

c) The “necessary and proper” clause: This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para). Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).

The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution. No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

8. Resolved, That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para).

That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. 2 The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, as they did with their lawless opinion upholding Obamacare, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

9. Resolved, That those within the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain against their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for The States.

That if The States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President. Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and No. 77, last para). That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over The States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in its duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound by sacred Oath to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and THE PEOPLE.

That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this. Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5th para from end).

That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,

“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4th para from end)

Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.” (3rd para from end)

The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks

“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

10. Resolved, That because men are corrupt and may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go. Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?

That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.

That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those Sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.

THEREFORE, This State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares Obamacare void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither that act, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised in any manner whatsoever within This State.


1. The above is patterned on Thomas Jefferson’s various writings on nullification, including The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by him in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.

2. These Resolutions focus on an Act of Congress and administrative rules being made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding Obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and destroy the residuary sovereignty of The States.

3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that The States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; that the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., Obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “orders” or “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; The States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.

4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of States acting in concert may do so.

They overlook (among other things) the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by repealing its usurpatious law and by impeaching & removing a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).

But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES or THE PEOPLE and THE CHURCHES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.

These Model Resolutions set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators and Citizens may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH


1 We can get rid of him earlier if we send enough people to Congress in 2014 with the spine to impeach & convict him and Biden. The Federalist Papers (cited above) are clear that Presidents should be impeached & removed for usurpations of power.

2 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School:

“Resolved that it is the opinion of this board that as to … the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799. on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the US. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. and that in the branch of the school of Law, which is to treat on the subject of Civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.” [pages 82-83, boldface added]. PH


Now is the time to say “No!” – Tea Party Nation

Now is the time to say “No!” – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Federal spending is out of control.

 That is no secret.  In fact, anyone who thinks federal spending is not out of control has serious delusion issues. 

 We need to cut spending so where is one of the first places we could make a pretty big cut?

 Let’s eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.

 Last year Planned Parenthood received $542 million dollars from the government.  That’s right, they received over half a billion dollars from you and me. 

 Why does Planned Parenthood get this money?

 It is simple, they have a racket.  Planned Parenthood supports Democrat candidates who turn around and vote to give Planned Parenthood even more money. 

 Why does Planned Parenthood need this money, other than to help get Democrats elected?  Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the nation.    Planned Parenthood claims that it offers other services, yet 92% of its pregnancy services were abortions.  In the last three years, Planned Parenthood has performed almost one million abortions. 

 Even if you think abortion should be legal, does anyone really think that a million abortions is a good thing?

 The moment anyone talks about cutting Planned Parenthood’s funding, the usual liberal suspects start screaming.  They claim that women will die without mammograms.   The fact is, all Planned Parenthood does with Mammograms is refer them to other medical providers.   Liberals scream that women will not get contraception and other cancer screenings.  Yet in the last three years, Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive offerings have dropped by 12% and their cancer screenings have dropped by 29%.

 The simple truth is Planned Parenthood has two core businesses.  The first is abortion and the second is electing liberal Democrats who will keep the gravy train rolling for Planned Parenthood.

 There is no good reason why the American people should keep this business in business.

 Congressman Marsha Blackburn has introduced a bill, H.R. 61 to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding until they stop performing elective abortions and stop referring women for elective abortions.

 We need your help.  Contact your Congressman and ask them to support H.R.61 and demand an end to the funding of Planned Parenthood by the American taxpayer.

 Today a letter was released signed by the leaders of 29 conservative organizations supporting H.R.61 and Congressman Blackburn.  I was pleased to be one of the signers of this letter.

 This is an obvious cut that we can make to spending.  We have to start someplace so why not here?

 Call your Congressman today and ask them to support and to co-sponsor H.R. 61 and let’s eliminate the Federal Government funding of just another liberal special interest group.


Dead state walking – Tea Party Nation


Dead state walking – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

The economic collapse is coming.  It is coming soon.  Whoever wins this election this fall will be the President who has to deal with it.


Where is the great collapse coming and what will happen?


In America, we have a dead state walking.  It is the lead domino.  It will fall and it will fall soon.  When it does, it will set off a chain reaction.  The government will have to act, whether it wants to or not.


The dead state walking?




California died some time ago.  It just hasn’t had the good manners to fall down yet.  California is a poster child for the failure of liberal economics.  The last dying gasp of conservatism in California was Prop 13 in 1978 to limit property taxes.  That one worked.  Since then every tax in California has gone through the roof.  So has government spending.


Every lunatic liberal idea that can be invented is being used in California.  The result is predictable.  Everyone who has a business that can move is moving.  Everyone who has a job that can move is moving.  The only people who are not moving are government employees and those on public assistance.


Over a twenty-five year period, California added a net sum of over 10 million people.  Unfortunately for California, only 150,000 of those new residents were taxpayers


California’s situation has been called a Greek Tragedy.  Comparing California to Greece is not a bad analogy.  They have both made the same mistakes. 


Both California and Greece expanded every sector of the public that is dependent on the government.  From government employees receiving lavish salaries and benefits, to state government retirees receiving lavish retirement benefits to the overly generous public assistance benefits. 


California has the highest tax rates in the nation and in November, there will be a referendum to raise those taxes even higher.  Assuming that happens, the middle class in California will continue to shrink. 


Businesses are fleeing California in record numbers.  Not only do they face high taxes, they face insane regulations.   When the Great Obama Depression kicked into full force, one recommendation was that California waive its version of “Cap and Trade” which has been driving up energy prices in California.  The proposal was to suspend cap and trade until unemployment dropped below 6%.  That modest proposal died.


So where does California go from here?


California is unwilling to cut its spending.    It cannot tax enough to keep up with its spending.  The end result is going to be an economic implosion.


California will go bankrupt. Many of it’s cities have already gone bankrupt.


Unfortunately for California, the United States Constitution prohibits individual states from declaring bankruptcy.


So what happens when California goes insolvent?


It will not be pretty.


We will see a societal collapse like we have never seen in the United States.   When California collapses there will be huge pressure on the Federal Government to bail it out. 


If Obama is still in the White House, he will want to.  After all, it gives him a chance to spend more money and he must try to maintain the illusion that socialism is not a failure. 


For those of us who live in real American states, the question we all have to ask is why should we bail California out?  If the Federal Government bails California out, it will change nothing, as California will need more bailouts down the road.    We have seen this in Europe as one bailout follows another.   If California gets a bailout, Illinois will want one, as will New York and New Jersey


If we do not bail out California, we will see massive riots by those who are dependent on government largess.  California will descend into anarchy.


What does America do?


Simply throwing money at the problem will not work. California needs to be changed. 


If California cannot manage its problems then perhaps it is time for California to cease to exist as a state.  If California has to go into receivership, the price for decades of stupidity should be that California goes from becoming a state to becoming an American territory.   If after a few years, California can get its act back together, then it can petition to become a state again. 


California is a disaster.  The leaders of California are like the Captain of the Titanic, except the leaders of California, backed the Titanic up and hit the iceberg five more times. 


There are areas where conservatives still live in California.  Unfortunately California’s government is monopolized by liberals, and this shows no sign of changing. 


If Obama is reelected, California will be but the first domino to fall in the chain reaction that will rip America apart.  If Romney is elected, we at least have a chance.


Meanwhile California remains America’s dead state walking.


The third evil – Tea Party Nation

The Gadsden flag

The Gadsden flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The third evil – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Evil comes in groups of threes.  We are seeing three evils hit America right now.   These evils have but one purpose:  To destroy American sovereignty.

 What are these three great evils and what now must we do?

 The first of these evils is the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST.  LOST appears to be dead as enough Republican Senators have come out against it to kill it.   The Second is the UN Small Arms Treaty

 The UN Small Arms Treaty is a great evil due to the fact it is a threat to our Second Amendment rights.  While there is always cause for concern anytime our rights are threatened, the NRA has this one pretty much under control and it is very doubtful the Senate will have the votes to ratify this treaty, assuming Obama signs it.

 The third evil is flying under the radar.  Few people know about it.  That is by design.

 It is called the Trans Pacific Partnership.  It might as well be called the American Suicide Agreement.

 It is an agreement that is so bad, at least the parts that we know about it, that America is committing suicide by signing it.

 The operative part here is, what we know about it.  The negotiations, working papers and almost all details other than a few public sessions have been classified.  Congressman Darryl Issa has requested to be allowed to attend the upcoming round of negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership.

 He’s gotten about as much cooperation on that as he has on Fast and Furious. 

 Traditionally, members of Congress of both parties have been allowed to observe trade negotiations.  Why the secrecy for the Trans Pacific Partnership?

 Fortunately a few details have leaked out and what we know is very bad.

 First, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will set up foreign tribunals to which the United States MUST submit to.  The Supreme Court will no longer be the top court in the United States.  The Supreme Court will be subject to the rulings of these foreign tribunals. 

 The TPP sets up special foreign investor privileges.  They would not be subject to the laws that American businesses are subject to and if they did not like it they could sue the American government directly in tribunals set up by the World Bank and thee United Nations.

 Oh yes, the US would have a fair trial with judges from China, Iran, Russia and North Korea.

 The TPP would gut food safety standards for imported food.  Anyone remember the stories about people dying in China because of contaminated food?  That kind of contamination does not get into our food supply because we have food safety standards and we stop contaminated food. 

 Think this is an overreaction?  The World Trade Organization just ordered the US to change its consumer labels to tell us where food comes from because Canada and Mexico complained.  This is what happened under current law.

 Imagine what would happen under TPP?

 Do you want to buy meat that came from China?  I don’t and I want to know if the meat or other foods I am buying come from any place other than Iowa or Texas!

 Under the proposed TPP, our government could no longer buy American!  Such programs would be considered illegal under the TPP.  In other words, Americans would be forced to spend their tax dollars to keep Chinese workers or Vietnamese workers or Mexican workers working but not American workers.

 In 1992, the Great Republican Failure, I mean George H.W. Bush favored the NAFTA agreement.  So did Bill Clinton.  Ross Perot famously warned that we were hearing a giant sucking sound that was NAFTA taking our jobs.

 Do you know what?

Perot was right.  NAFTA was the first of a series of free trade agreements we signed.  All of them have been disasters.  Our trade deficits have shot up, our manufacturing base has been destroyed and the American blue-collar middle class is disappearing.

 TPP is NAFTA on steroids.   The only difference between steroids and NAFTA is that steroids do some good. 

 In March, the Korean Free Trade Agreement went into effect.  Guess what?  Our trade deficit with Korea has exploded since then.  In May, our trade deficit with Korea had jumped to $2 billion, which is a 53.5% increase over what it was a year earlier.  Meanwhile, thanks to this great deal, American exports to Korea are tanking. 

 How many times to do these idiots have to get it wrong before they figure out they are wrong!

 Most people learn from their mistakes.  Unfortunately the people who are running our nation are living proof of the adage that our nation was designed by geniuses and is now run by idiots. 

 This is an issue that crosses ideological lines.   Conservative groups oppose this idiocy.  Liberal groups oppose this idiocy. 

 I believe in a concept I call 90% leadership.  While there are many issues we can disagree on, there are a lot of issues out there that 90% of Americans will agree on.  So why aren’t we acting on those?

 This is a 90% issue. 

 90% of Americans agree that we need to protect American jobs.  We need to protect American products and businesses.  We need to keep our food supply safe. 

 These are our American priorities.

 We need to act now.

 TPP is being negotiated behind close doors.   We need to create resistance to TPP.  Many people, even Congressmen and Senators are not aware of the details of the TPP. 

 What should you do?

 Call your Senators and Congressman.  Tell them you want them to demand that the Trans Pacific Partnership be stopped.    August is the Congressional recess.  Many Congressmen and Senators will be holding town halls or campaign events where constituents can speak to them.  Go and tell them you want TPP stopped. 

 Either we act now or the giant sucking sound we will hear is the end of our economy, our sovereignty and our nation.

The death of the states. – Tea Party Nation

The death of the states. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

The United States started out as an unusual experiment.  When America was a young nation, people referred to it as, “These United States,” not the United States.

 Now we are seeing a radical change in the United States.  This is certainly not a change for the better.   What is this change and why is it so bad?

 The change we are seeing is the death of the individual state.

 Our founding fathers envisioned a union of states with a weak national government and stronger state governments.   There were certain things that a national government would be required to do, such as regulate trade (the Constitution is very explicit about this) and provide for the common defense.

 One of the greatest quotes about the individual states came from then Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who called the states, “The laboratories of democracy.”

 Brandeis’ idea was simple.  The states were sovereign and could compete with each other for the best ideas. 

 Today, the laboratory of democracy is closed.  Today, the sovereignty of individual states is dying.  The only question is when will the actual death occur.

 State sovereignty has been on the wane for decades.  As the power of the Federal Government grew, the power of state governments diminished.  At first this was slow and gradual.  Much of it was done voluntarily, as states gave up their rights in exchange for federal tax dollars. 

 On Monday, the Supreme Court decided the case of Arizona v. the United States and five unelected people in little black dresses gave the deathblow to state sovereignty.

 Antonin Scalia writing his dissent said that.  He wrote that the majority’s decision, “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.”

 Today, state lines are becoming little more than antiquated lines on a map.  Pretty soon, the only power a state will have is the ability to make license plates. 

 Lawyers often say bad cases make bad law.  Arizona was a bad case.   Arizona had no choice but to bring its lawsuit.   We can lay the blame for this one right at the feet of Barack Obama and the Party of Treason.

 However, when we talk about assaults on state sovereignty, the Party of Treason is not alone in this.  Many of the big government expansions that have eroded state sovereignty have occurred under Republican Presidents. 

 If the Republicans are successful in taking the White House and the Senate (they will keep the House), then we will see the next incarnation of attacks on state sovereignty. 

 That will come in the form of Federal Tort Reform.   Some Republicans want to impose Federal Tort Reform on all of the states. 

 Many people have a knee jerk reaction to tort reform.  Oh, we don’t like the trial lawyers.  We don’t like lawyers, period.  Let’s hurt the lawyers.

 Since 1787, states have regulated state courts.  Since 1787, states have regulated licensed professionals in those states including doctors, lawyers and others.  In Federal Court, unless there is a lawsuit governed by a specific federal statute, state law controls the federal courts.  Lawyers cannot be admitted to practice before federal courts until they are admitted before the highest court of one of the states.

 To allow the Federal Government to impose tort reform on the states wipes out some of the last vestiges of state sovereignty, namely the ability to make its own laws.

 State sovereignty has always been the bulwark against they tyranny of a massive federal government.  Our founding fathers knew that.   That is why they purposefully made the Federal Government weak. 

 In the last century, citizens have stood by and watched as the Federal Government grew at the expense of the state government.  As the power of the Federal Government grew, the freedom of the citizen diminished. 

 As of Monday, state sovereignty is pretty much dead.  The only question now is when do we start calling our nation The United State of America?

It’s Time To Get Unions Out Of The Government! – Tea Party Nation

It’s Time To Get Unions Out Of The Government! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Jane Galt

The unions got their backsides handed to them in the Wisconsin recall elections Tuesday. They royally screwed up. They misused recall elections, which were intended to remove people from office for corruption or illegal misdeeds, to try to thwart a political agenda that the voters had voted for, and which was needed to save the state from the corrupt influences and policies that resulted from the very act of allowing unions into government in the first place!

 Those policies, brought in by the Walker administration, were literally “the will of the people” and had worked to turn that state’s economy around in the positive direction again, stimulating job growth and reversing government deficits and debt!

 But they also resulted in a de facto change of Wisconsin’s government into a “right to work” one, in which the state would no longer force collection of union dues from its workers, via their paychecks. That change alone allowed over 50% of former union members to quit, driving the unions berserk and threatening a death blow to the entire establishment of unions in government.

 The unionists ranted and raved that it was an end to “freedom to organize”, even “freedom of speech” and they even falsely compared their plight to that of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement ( I GAGGED at that falsehood! ), but in effect it was an end to their power to use thug tactics to force people to be a part of something they didn’t wish to be a part of, in effect, forced-collectivism, and over half the state workers fled the unions, the moment they were allowed to!

 What a concept! That such relationships should be consensual and that workers should have freedom of choice!

 FDR, yes the guy who said; “Some of my best friends are Communists.”, said this about allowing unions into government:

 “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Unions in government are a monopoly provider. If GM workers go on strike, you can buy Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, etc. But government workers have monopoly power over the government. The unions negotiate with the politicians they give campaign money to, a conflict of interest. This has created a completely unsustainable fiscal nightmare, which is threatening to the very structure of our system of government, puts unsustainable fiscal burdens on it, and indeed threatens to collapse the nation if it is allowed to continue!

 It was purely a survival policy that Wisconsin voters chose, when they elected Walker and his crew to change things. It was either those changes or collapse. Yet the changes were so threatening to the Marxist ( forced-collectivist ) union thugs that they poured tens of millions of dollars into the attempted recall, from union coffers all over the country, possibly from all over the world!

Yes, even Progressive-socialist FDR said that unions should NOT be allowed in the government. Unions inside the government are now threatening the very financial collapse of our nation, as well as others around the world. They do not belong in government and they should be removed from all government branches immediately.

 And government workers should be given the same pay scales as people with the same jobs in the private sector, and they should have to contribute 100% of any pension money they put aside for retirement!

 It’s time to end this elite government class system and its attending and sustaining unionized thuggery!


NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times.

Use of military surveillance drones overhead would be un-American

By Andrew P. Napolitano – Washington Times

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel, where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if – had they existed at the time – King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as someone who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel insidetheUnitedStates and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. Any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” Note the primacy of intelligence-gathering over protection of freedom, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence-gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence, the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones – some as small as golf balls – to watch us, listen to us and record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Mitt Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth! – Tea Party Nation

Congress Seeks To Establish Ministry of Truth! – Tea Party Nation.

This all sounds very 1984 to me!

Posted by KrisAnne Hall

Once again, the National Defense Authorization Act is used as a Trojan horse to unload on its people a dangerous threat.  This time it is offered up in an amendment sponsored by Representative Thornberry from Texas and its called Dissemination of Information Abroad.  This bill has also been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as a separate bill titled HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This bill will overturn a prohibition that has been in place since 1948 and make it possible for the US Government to fund the dissemination of propaganda to influence American citizens.

Immediately, the question comes up, why should we care?  Isn’t domestic propaganda something that this administration has been engaging since 2008?  Would any of us disagree that the mainstream media is a tool of this administration?  Read on and see just why there should be national outrage over this bill.

Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information through an executive order with the purpose of influencing American public opinion toward supporting the US involvement in World War I.  The man appointed to be the chairman over this committee was George Creel, a well renowned investigative journalist and editor of the Rocky Mountain News.

In 1942, FDR established the United States Office of War Information by executive order to “truthfully inform” the American people about the government’s efforts in World War II.  FDR appointed Elmer Davis, a well-known CBS News analyst, as director of OWI.  Davis’ job was to coordinate information from the military and mobilize public support of the war.  OWI was to create an avenue for the government to develop and disseminate the information that they believed people needed to know about the war.

“Our job at home is to give the American people the fullest possible understanding of what this war is about …not only to tell the American people how the war is going, but where it is going and where it came from.” Elmer Davis. AP/Wide World

In 1946 Rep. Sol Bloom (D-NY) introduced a bill that would grant the Secretary of State the power to give monetary, service, or property grants to nonprofit public and private corporations to prepare and disseminate informational materials.  Although this act was intended to disseminate information abroad, there were no limitations to keep it from being used upon the American people and opposition began to form.  After having lived through two regimes of government propaganda and having seen the effects of such government propaganda machines as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Congress decided this was not something they wanted to engage in. 

An AP Press Release stated “government cannot engage in news casting without creating the fear of propaganda which necessarily would reflect the objectivity of the news services from which such news casts are prepared.” 

The Bloom Bill passed the house, but failed in the Senate.  In 1948, the Smith-Mundt Act was passed with three key limitations on the government.  The first and most well-known restriction was originally a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department.   This restriction has been supported by the courts even in the face of freedom of information act challenges.  In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the material under the Smith-Mundt Act is not to be available, applying the Freedom of Information Act‘s Exemption 3 to block access. 

The Smith-Mundt Act is now found in 22 USC 1461-1a titled, Ban on domestic activities by United States Information AgencyThe Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is set to change all of that.  This act does several very destructive things.  First, it puts the President’s Board of Broadcasting Governors on the same level of authority as the Secretary of State.  The Board of Broadcasting Governors is an independent government agency whose members are appointed by the President and whose sole function is to create American propaganda and disseminate this propaganda abroad.

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 created a limitation for propaganda to be released in the United States.  If such propaganda was requested, the information could not be released until 12 years after its publication.  This was an additional protection established so that this government created information could not be used to influence current public opinion.  Thornberry’s HR 5736, The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, would preserve that 12 year limitation for all propaganda created prior to the adoption of this act but would remove the limitation for everything created after.  Therefore, you have to wait 12 years to obtain propaganda created in 2010, but propaganda created in 2013 would be immediately available for dissemination domestically.

Finally, although I am sure supporters of this legislation will attempt to tell you that this act has protections built in to prevent the use of propaganda to influence Americans; make no mistake this act fails to ensure that result.  It is true the Act maintains the original prohibition for domestic use.

(a) In General- No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.

However, this new Act adds new language that completely nullifies that prohibition through a couple rather clever loopholes. 

The original Act does not include “program material” in the list of items that must be provided.  This is how the courts could decide that the propaganda material was covered under the Freedom Information Act’s section 3 limitations.  The addition of “program material” will now require the actual propaganda to be available through a FOIA request.

As if that was not bad enough, the new Act adds a section “b” that will create the most effective loophole to nullify the prohibition in section (a).

(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.

Section (b) tells the Secretary of State and the Board of Broadcasting Governors that they do not have to worry about the limitation of section (a).  They are to go about business as usual in spite of the fact that this information will be immediately available for domestic distribution.  This creates a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon for these agencies to create propaganda that they know will be distributed domestically and will be used to influence Americans.

So, why should we care? We should care, because this crime against the American people is not be perpetrated by a Socialist President through executive order.  It is CONGRESS authorizing this manipulation.  It is coming from alleged CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN.  This act will not only legitimize the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but will allow Congress to FUND IT with TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

Been Tyrannized Enough Already?  CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN NOW.

ABOUT: KrisAnne Hall travels the country teaching groups the truth about the history of our great founding documents and the government that our founders really wanted us to have.  She is a Constitutional attorney and former state prosecutor, when forced to choose decided she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Awarded the Freedom Fighter award by Americans for Prosperity, and the Certificate of Achievement from the Sons of the Revolution for her defense of Constitutional principles, Congressman James Blair Award for Defense of the Constitution. Author of “Not a Living Breathing Document: Reclaiming Our Constitution, and the DVD series The Roots of Liberty: The Historic Foundations of The Bill of Rights.  Because our children are the future of America, KrisAnne has also authored two children’s books, Bedtime Stories For Budding Patriots and Essential Stories for Junior Patriots. 

To Contact KrisAnne to teach the Constitution to your group or order her books or DVDs go to

Let’s start by cutting here – Tea Party Nation

Obama Cell Phone Charm

Obama Cell Phone Charm (Photo credit: BeInspiredDesigns)

Let’s start by cutting here – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Let’s start by cutting here.

When does a program become so wasteful that the government will finally decide to eliminate it?

That is a good question. So far we have not met that threshold yet.

There is one program that could be eliminated and we could save a billion dollars. This is the lifeline phone. The lifeline program started out as a way to provide landlines for poor people. Agree or disagree with the program, at least it had a purpose. If you had an emergency and you were poor, the government would pay your phone bill so you could call 911.

This program has since expanded beyond all recognition now. Instead of land lines they are passing out cell phones. These are not the old clunky flip phones that are programed to call 911. These are modern, new smartphones. And people are not just getting one of these phones. They are going and getting 2,4 10 or even more.

And the government is giving them away to “the poor.”

Arkansas Congressman Tim Griffin wants to eliminate the program completely and take it back to being just a landline program.

What is wrong with this picture?

Of course Griffin is opposed. Not only do you have all of the people who are receiving “Obama Phones” as they are sometimes known, you have the cellphone companies who are making money from the Federal Government because every time one of these phones is given away, they make money.

The real problem is an out of control government. Money is being spent and no one even knows where the money is going.

There is a bill that will deal not only with the Obama Phone issue but a lot of other bad government spending. HR2680, the Federal Realignment and Closure Commission bill is a great idea. Modeled off of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that Bill Clinton used to cut defense spending so he could blow the “peace dividend,” this bill sets up a commission to go through federal spending to find examples of waste, fraud, duplication or programs that have simply failed or outlived their usefulness.

This commission would come up with recommendations for the Congress to vote either up or down on, without amendments.

This is a great idea. You can tell it is a great idea because it is languishing in committee and will probably never see the light of day.

Why the hell not?

This bill should be the centerpiece of the Republican campaign this summer. Why isn’t it. This is something the Republicans could really nail the Democrats on and do something good for the country.

So why isn’t this bill sailing through the House of Representatives?

Maybe someone should be asking John Boehner that question.

Sanity! It exists on Capitol Hill (albeit in small amounts) – Tea Party Nation

Sanity! It exists on Capitol Hill (albeit in small amounts) – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Bill Clinton wanted to shrink the military but he had a problem.  There were a lot of military bases and closing some of them would save a lot of money Clinton could blow on wasteful projects that would reward key Democrat donors and constituents.

 Clinton could not close the military bases out right because the Congressmen and Senators in the states worked very hard to protect their turf. 

 So the answer became BRAC.  The Base Realignment and Closure Commission.  It was a simple idea.  The “experts” would review all the bases and recommend those for either closure or realignment.  Once their report was prepared, it was submitted to Congress for either an up or down vote.  No amendments, which meant no powerful members of Congress could act to protect bases.

 I have lamented why we did not do this with the rest of the Government. 

 Guess what?

 Under the heading of great minds think alike, Louisiana Congressman John Fleming came up with the same idea. 

 He introduced a bill last year called H.R. 2680.  It is called the Federal Realignment and Closure Committee (FRACC). 

 The idea is just like the BRAC.  The experts will go through the Federal Government and look for programs that do not work, are duplicative, have failed or are so riddled with abuse as to not be useful. 

 Those programs would be selected and there would be the same kind of up and down vote.

 This is a great idea, right?

 It is such a great idea that gives this bill a 2% chance of becoming law.  

 The Indianapolis Colts have a better chance of winning the Superbowl without Peyton Manning than this bill does of becoming law.

 The fact that this bill is languishing in the dark abyss of Congress, stuck in a committee where it will most likely die.

 This brings up the obvious question.  If we in the Tea Party brought the GOP into the majority to cut spending, and this is a great tool to get rid of wasteful spending, when the hell is the GOP going to get serious about cutting spending?

 The answer is as long John Boehner’s freshly laundered white flag of surrender flies above the Speaker’s chair, it is not going to happen.

 This is a good bill for Tea Party groups to get behind. 

 On Monday, let’s start calling Congressmen and Senators and tell them to enact this bill.  We need to do something to start shrinking the government and this is as good a way to start cutting it as any.

 Take a moment to forward this blog to the people on your email list.   Let’s tell Congress to start doing something now, before our nation starts looking like Greece.