Foreign Policy Showdown - Rand Paul Emphatically States: Obama Will Not Get Away With a Syria Strike On My Watch

In 1971, Secretary of State John Kerry famously questioned: “How can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?” I would ask Secretary Kerry how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake? That is what he would be doing if the U.S. intervened in the Syrian civil war. 

While the death and destruction stemming from the Syrian civil war is difficult to watch, I believe the U.S. must exercise maximum restraint and uphold the constitutional requirement that grants Congress, not the president, the right to declare war. The president’s announcement that he will seek congressional approval before unilaterally going to war is a step in the right direction.

From a strategic standpoint, there are three questions that should always be asked and sufficiently answered before going to war: What is the U.S. national interest? What is the military objective? What is the exit strategy?

We should also be skeptical of the Islamic rebels that our nation would be fighting alongside. Our knowledge of the relationship with these rebels is murky at best. What reason do we have to believe that they have America’s best interest? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. On one side, we have Assad; on the other, we have Al-Qaeda. On one side we have Islamic jihadists; on the other, we have Christians. We have priests and civilians kidnapped and killed by Islamic rebels. It seems on all sides we have chaos and it is unclear if any side will, in the end, be a friend to the United States.  (Read Entire Article Here)

OBAMA BYPASSING CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW TAXES

Surprised?


Obama is sidestepping Congress once again. This time, the unconstitutional act is in an effort to raise $6 Billion in new taxes to put WiFi in public schools across America. Rather than waste his time with the Constitution and Congress, Obama is going straight to the FCC to lobby for the new taxes. The new tax will apply to every American who uses a cellphone.

(Read the entire story here)

Workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000 under new fiscal deal

Middle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. 

Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more - or an additional $2,711 - in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent - or up to $1,784 - the D.C.-based think tank reported.

Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.

Read more from the orginal article here

Virginia 7th District Republican Primary Candidate Interviews

Kirby Harris wrote an earlier column about Eric Cantor having a challenger in the Republican Primary (here), so I thought I would follow it up with interviews. 

With the Republican Primary for Virginia's 7th District fast approaching on June 12th, a few days ago I extended an invitation to both candidents, Eric Cantor and Floyd Bayne, giving both candidates the exact same amount of time to respond to my request. As I figured would happen, Eric Cantor stood me up in 2012 like he did in 2010 (read about it here). Floyd Bayne granted me an interview.

Read Part One       Read Part Two

*Stay tuned for Kirby's interview with independent occupy candidate for the 7th District congressional seat Dr. Vivek Jain.

Buy 'The Law' by Frederic Bastiat

 Buy this book here

 “As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.” ~ Frederic Bastiat (from his Book The Law)

Buy 'The Law' by Frederic Bastiat

Real ID might not be as dead in the water as was orginally thought.

History

In 2005, both houses of Congress passed The Real ID Act, then signed by so-called conservative George W. Bush. The Act failed pass as a stand alone bill several times, but only passed when the sponsors had it tacked onto the back of an Iraq Defense spending bill.

In turn, thirty-four (34) states, including Virginia, enacted anit-real ID legislation that outlawed such provisions that were in the Act from becoming law in their state.

Virginia passed Anti-Real ID Act (SB 1431, HB 1587) which prohibits compliance with Real ID provisions. (Enacted 3/31/09)

Current Virginia Attorney General Ken T. Cuccinelli was the chief patron in the Virginia Senate and Delegate Bob G. Marshall was the Chief Patron in the Virginia House.

Other Senate Patrons: Emmett W. Hanger, Jr., Frederick M. Quayle, Jill Holtzman Vogel

Other House Patrons: Charles W. Carrico, Sr., Anne B. Crockett-Stark, Sal R. Iaquinto, Brenda L. Pogge

Which states enacted legislation and what such legislation entailed.

Virginia Anti-Real ID Patrons 


Dangers of Real ID

• Real ID mandates RFID readable chips that can be read by any one who buys a reader.
• Unfunded Mandates on the State governments costing Billions.
• A central database that must be shared with all states, localities and in some cases foreign entities.
• No statutory limitations on “official purpose”
• Creates a federal identity document that every American will need in order to fly on commercial airlines, enter government buildings, open a bank account, and more. 

The language says that those who don't have it can't participate in "Federal Activity", which is rather vague language that could be stretched into anything that comes under Federal Jurisdiction.

Here is a list of a few things that come under Federal Jurisdiction, law or oversight:

Getting a loan to buy a home, opening a bank account, getting any regular loan, getting a student loan, a car loan, refinancing your home, buying a gun, selling products across state lines, flying in a plane, driving your car (if your doesn't offer a state Drivers license alternative to real ID), getting a JOB, possibly crossing state lines (especially if the next state doesn't recognize your non-Real Id state license) and the list goes on and on and on. To see more about the dangers to your liberty and privacy click Here


Real ID Resurfaces

Computerworld.com reports:

"A controversial 2005 bill designed to create a national standard for driver's licenses may not be quite as dead in the water as many might have assumed, according to a report released this week by the Center for Immigration Studies." (Read More Here)

It goes on to say how the Federal government is trying everything they can to re-implement this draconian Nazi style identification system which will limit your freedom of choice and movement . The States rejected it but they keep trying to find new ways to enforce it on us against the wishes of the states and the People.

So tell every one you can to call their Local, State and Federal Officials and urge them to fight a national ID of any kind.

Check out  Kirby Harris' Articles in his Column at the Richmond Examiner.

Gridlock and Regime Uncertainty - They aren't the same.

By Steven Horwitz)

For those of us who want to see the role of the State reduced in the bedroom, the boardroom, and the war room, election day always brings mixed feelings.  However, the one outcome that sometimes cheers us up happened this week: one party in control of the presidency and the other in control the Congress.  What is often called “gridlock” is often good for freedom, at least in relative terms, since it checks the power of any either party to ram through its nearly-always anti-freedom agenda.

In the current environment, anything that halts the forward march of government control over economic decision-making would be a good thing.  This is particularly so because the economy currently seems to be suffering from what economic historian Robert Higgs calls “regime uncertainty.” For Higgs this term refers to the uncertainty generated by government policies that generally trend toward more State control.
Even proposals that have passed, such as health care and financial “reform,” are so complex and confused that no one is sure exactly what they will mean for the business community.  As a result, Higgs argues, the private sector hesitates to invest. (read more)

Eric Cantor, controlled events and Police State tactics? - Part One

Controlled Event with Police State Tactics or Normal Arrest?

Eric Cantor has a special control crowd event, typical in today's party politics, in Louisa County at a local coffee shop, Solid Grounds.

According to eye witnesses, a senior citizen, Jon Taylor, while drinking his coffee, was told by police that he could stay but could not leave his car in front because it had Waugh signs and bumper stickers on it.

(Since when do police have the authority to do that?)

Mr. Taylor showed a meter receipt and the police left.

Then according to these same witnesses, police then returned and told Mr. Taylor that if he didn't leave then they would arrest him for trespassing. He was then taken outside and that's where we can see what happened next on the video.

Read the rest of the article here

Why I'm voting for Floyd Bayne

The argument about 3rd party candidates "spoiling" elections comes up a lot. Especially when Republican candidates have such a poor record of supporting conservative principles. The argument is that the 3rd party candidate can draw off enough votes for the Democrat in the race to win the election, and the Democrat doesn't even claim to support conservative principles.

The fact is, when we want our representatives in Washington to support our interests, we must have a way to "guide" them to do that. And unfortunately, the only real tool we have is our vote. Our calls and letters don't really seem to work - representatives (and Eric Cantor is especially guilty of this) avoid even taking a position if the can, and when they do, it rarely has any relationship to the views their constituents have expressed.

The answer is to use our vote effectively, and the way to do that is to cause pain for representatives that have strayed from voting the right way. There is very little debate that Eric Cantor has failed to be a conservative representative. How may calls, emails, and letters did he receive from us asking him not to support TARP? Yet he not only supported it, he accused members of his own party that voted against in the first round as childishly using their vote to express distaste with Pelosi's speech - as if none of them could have had a problem with the bill itself. And he did that on national television. If you're not aware of all the liberal and statist positions Eric Cantor has taken recently, please do a little research, or ask me and I will give you a run-down.

So how do we cause the required pain to steer our representatives back on course? We vote against him. And we do that even though it risks the possibility of a Democrat taking that seat (because a freshman Democrat in office for 2 years from a Republican district simply can't cause much damage). Our representative must then spend time fundraising (pain), campaigning (will Cantor come out AT ALL in this effort?), and fear for his previously secure seat. He may have to take time away from his book tour and think about promoting his constituents interests instead of his own.

Without the ability to cause our representative some heartache, he will continue to vote the wrong way, and he will do it now with gusto and impunity with the realization that he can ignore his constituents - because they will vote for him even when he is voting against their interests.

-- Harry Holt
Follow me on the Twitter

>

Why should conservatives vote for Rino and a big government republican like Eric Cantor?

Many people would try and convince you to re-elect Eric Cantor. But why would any freedom loving constitutionalist American want to do that?
 


Eric Cantor talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk. We as conservatives can't let people like Eric Cantor steal our money in the guise of working for us just because there is an R by their name, and they talk the talk.


All a good conservative has to do is deeply check into Eric Cantor's voting record (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400060) and they will see he is no conservative, at least not the definition you and I have.


Mr. Cantor voted for both bailouts, he made sure earmarks went to the bank where his wife is an executive, he voted for the big government boon-dongle No Child Left Behind, he voted for a new Medicare entitlement the Medicare Prescription Drug Program when Medicare is already broken and the list goes on and on and on and on.


He has lost touch with the people and has actually never been a real conservative.


If every real conservative would jump off of Captain Eric Cantor and his Republican Big Government Ship, and vote for Floyd Bayne, the Only Conservative in the Virginia 7th District Race, then he will be our next Congressman. So, look into Cantor's Record and look into Floyd Bayne for Congress at:

http://floydbayne.com


Here is Laura Ingram grilling Eric Cantor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNwdDulKZbU

I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This is an excellent article written by Michael Connelly a retired attorney and Constitutional Law Instructor:

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted August 12, 2009

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4^thAmendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3^rdand 4^th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5^th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9^th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10^th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton, Texas

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Taken from: http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills

I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This is an excellent article written by Michael Connelly a retired attorney and Constitutional Law Instructor:

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted August 12, 2009

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4^th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3^rd and 4^th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5^th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9^th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10^th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton, Texas

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Taken from: http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills