Tag Archives: Constitution
On August 8, The New American published its Freedom Index. In it, researchers scored the votes of members of both he U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate based on ten bills of Constitutional significance. The ten bills included (1) H.R. 2 “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”, (2) H.R. 4 called “1099 Reporting Requirement Repeal” that was also part of Obamacare, and (3) H.C.R. 35 was a resolution to defund Obamacare.
The House passed all three bills but the Senate only approved because of its direct negative impact on business.
Because the Freedom Index is based on the founding legal view that freedom is protected by the strict limitation of Constitutional precept to all other federal law making, a vote for each of the three bills received a For Freedom score and a vote against each of them were given Against Freedom score.
So, how do Greene County, Ohio representatives measure up to protecting our freedoms?
Steve Austria scored 100% on the three bills and 70% on all ten bills.
Rob Portman also scored 100% on the three pro-Constitutional healthcare bills.
The scores of other notable Ohio politicians include:
Mike Turner (R-Dayton) who voted for all 3 bills (100%).
Dennis Kuninich (D) who received a score of 0 and only 1 out of the ten (Libya Troop Withdrawl bill)
Sherrod Brown (D) did vote for HR 4 “1099 Reporting Requirement Repeal” and the only other bill voted for was the Ethanol Subsides Repeal bill.
It is also worthy of mention that only the above republicans voted for legislation to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.
To read the entire Freedom Index report, go to The New American website www.thenewamerican.com.
By Mary Abdelmassih
The uprising of the Egyptian Youth, both Copts and Muslims, has been dubbed as the “Facebook Uprising” mainly because it was started by modern and educated youth who depended on the social network “Facebook” and “Twitter” to organize themselves. Until now it appears that they are nondenominational, do not belong to any political party and without a leader, demanding the “ousting of the present corrupt regime and the octogenarian President Mubarak, to make way for a democratic and secular Egypt, with social justice and equality for all Egyptians. The uprising which is now called “January 25th Youth Movement” has gained support from Egyptians of all walks of life.
Several Coptic organizations have been taking part in the demonstrations, believing that change in Egypt is coming and they have to be there. They perceive their participation will put weight and balance the scales for a secular state.
Activist Rami Kamel, one of those responsible for the Coptic Youth Movement, said thousands of its members participated in all protests and in all areas, including the “Day of Departure” demonstrations on February 4, which called for the immediate ousting of Mubarak, and confirmed their intention to do so, until all demands of protesters are met. He added they joined the demonstrations the first day. “We have to get rid of the President, and his regime, which was the cause of the decline of Egypt economically, socially, and caused all the sectarian problems suffered by the Copts.”
After President Mubarak bowed to international pressure and the ongoing daily protests asking for his departure, he declared that he would not seek reelection but would finish his current term. Mubarak appointed a vice-president and brought in a new government which called on all parties to join in a dialogue for the future. All parties have been invited to take part in this dialogue except for the Copts.
This has angered Copts world-wide, especially since they believe their January demonstrations all over Egypt after the bombing of the Two Saints Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve (AINA 1-2-2011) was the spark that ignited the present uprising “by breaking down the barrier of fear.” This view is also held by the Coptic Church, whose Bishop Anba Suriel of Melbourne told “The Australian” on February 5 that “he believes the nascent revolution began with the New Year massacre of 23 Copts.”
For his part, Coptic Dr. Naguib Gabriel, head of the Egyptian Federation of Human Rights Organization, addressed Major Omar Suleiman, Vice-President of the Republic, urging him to include the Copts in the dialogue with the national authorities, initiated by the Vice President on Wednesday, on grounds that the Copts are part of the national community, and must participate in decision-making, particularly in the constitutional committee.
Gabriel stressed in his message to the Vice-President, which was aired on some TV channels this morning, that it is not possible under any circumstances to exclude Copts from the national dialog. He pointed out that many Coptic youth were killed and wounded since the beginning of the January 25th Youth Movement, demanding with their compatriots constitutional, legislative and social reforms. He wondered how could the Muslim Brotherhood can be invited for dialogue and not the Copts, who comprise 15-20% of Egypt’s population.
It was reported today that Islamist groups have asked Major Omar Suleiman to be included in the dialogue.
Rami Kamel told the Egyptian daily el Masry elYom the Coptic Youth Movement has legitimate demands consistent with those of the rest of the demonstrators, pointing out the regime has ruled out Coptic activists from the dialogue with the political authorities, which confirms the marginalization of the Copts.
Coptic Pope Shenouda III said on Egyptian state TV two years ago that the number of Copts in Egypt exceed 12 million. “This is based on baptisms and marriages in addition to lists of families in the church registers all over Egypt,” said Father Antonius Isaac of St. Mary’s Church in the Mohandeseen area of Cairo. “This number does not include Copts in small villages and hamlets who have no church and have never seen a priest, due to the government policies of limiting church building.”
The main Coptic demands are a new secular and democratic constitution without the second Article of the present Egyptian Constitution, which states that Islamic Sharia is the source of legislation, and which makes them second class citizens.
“We are at least 15-20% of the Egyptian population and we demand proportionate representation and definitely no restrictions on church building,” said activist Joseph Armanious. “We also demand what all other Egyptian protesters are asking for, but these demands come on top.”
The Coptic Church had called on its followers not to join in the protests, angering many Copts who decided not to follow the soft attitude of their church towards the regime, saying that it only has to limit itself to spiritual matters. Faced with the pressure of the defiant Coptic youth, the church was later forced to relax its stance and allowed Copts to join but only in “peaceful protests, in a civilized manner and within the law.”
Pope Shenouda gave his support for Mubarak at the beginning of the protests, which led many activists to accuse the church of believing Mubarak, “who managed to present himself to the Coptic Church and the Coptic people as the ultimate guardian of Copts in Egypt, despite this regime being responsible, first and foremost, of all sectarian terrorist incidents that took place against the Copts,” says Coptic activist Fawzy Hermina. He added: “The scandal and the straw that broke the camel’s back was what the British Embassy in Egypt said, that the Ministry of Interior is the organ which is responsible for planning and carrying out the bombing of the “Two Saints” Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve, which killed thirty and wounded ninety Copts.”
Many Copts share this view, including Coptic political analyst and activist Magdy Khalil, who said “Mubarak has been involved one way or another in the Alexandria church bombing.”
Reuters/Arabic carried out an interview with Coptic demonstrators in Tahrir Square, published on February 4. It reported that most of them said that they want to see Mubarak toppled and his regime gone “now more than ever.” One Coptic dentist explained that the New Year’s Eve Alexandria church bombing brought to an end the lie that the regime was protecting the Copts, and that was why the Copts went out demonstrating against Mubarak at the time, while another Copt who came from Nag Hammadi, where six Copts were shot by a Muslim on Christmas Eve 2010 (AINA 1-7-2010) said “We came here to show that every Egyptian should be here and want to be here, no difference between Christians and Muslims.”
Speaking about the fear of the Copts at the present moment, Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub said “Things are moving so fast and nobody knows what to expect next, everything is up in the air, however, Copts are desperate that an Islamic outcome should be avoided. We all say yes to change, but no to an Islamic state.”
Asked in a television interview with CNN on January 31, Coptic business Tycoon Naguib Saweiress, who has been appearing recently as a Coptic leader, praised the “Facebook Uprising” as he also called it, but cautioned that “one has to watch the Muslim Brotherhood of not hijacking this uprising.” This view is shared by all Copts and Muslims who do not agree with Egypt becoming an “Islamic Caliphate.”
Permission to reprint this article was granted by the Assyrian International News Agency.
By Steven Ertelt
In a speech at the University of Richmond in Virginia on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed again his view that the Constitution contains no so-called abortion rights.
He told the audience during his speech, that is only now drawing attention, that the founders of the nation never envisioned a right to an abortion when drafting the Constitution that is supposed to guide the federal courts.
Scalia criticized, according to an AP report, those who misinterpret the 14th Amendment’s due process clause to include abortion.
“But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word—liberty—nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted,” Scalia said. “Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”
Scalia repeated his view that the Constitution should be taken literally, as written, rather than interpreting it to include rights not intended to be protected under law.
“The Constitution says what it says and it doesn’t say anything more. For flexibility, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box,” he added, in terms of how abortion advocates should attempt to change the constitution if they want to have legal abortions.
By allowing the Supreme Court to create rights not enumerated by the Constitution – “you’re allowing five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.”
“Unless the words have meaning and unless judges give them their fair meaning, democracy doesn’t work,” Scalia said during an address entitled “Do Words Matter?”
Earlier this year, Scalia spoke at a conference sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and condemned activists who back the use of international law in the U.S. legal system, saying they are selective when they want to use it.
Scalia oppose the use of international law and decisions by foreign courts to interpret the Constitution.
“If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are,” he said, according to the Jackson Free Press newspaper.
“I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better,” the pro-life jurist added.
But Scalia says those who advocate using foreign law do so selectively and ignore how many foreign laws oppose abortion and foreign courts have issued decisions allowing pro-life laws and abortion restrictions.
“I will become a believer in the ingenuousness, though never the propriety, of the Court’s newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases,” Scalia said.
[Thank God for Justice Scalia and his view]
This article was orginially published by LiteNews.com, November 23, 2010
Thanksgiving is a unique national religious holiday. It was the first religious celebration for the settling and founding of the American state. As noted in previous posts, the first Thanksgiving Day proclamation was in 1619 at the Berkeley Plantation state. The plantations were states because they formed civil societies based on natural law. Later in colonial history, the plantations began forming constitutional forms of governance as well as a confederation. In 1776, all plantation states came together to create the United States of America and to form the first national constitution. All of which, conformed to the Law of Nations.
All of the plantation states were formed based on two-part compacts. Like our national compact consisting of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the plantation states (colonies) were founded by a written covenant. The Plymouth Combination is the most famous version.
Although Thanksgiving became a national holiday in the 1960s, there have perpetual proclamations like the Berkeley Plantation Proclamation and many national proclamations like the Continental Thanksgiving Proclamation, for example President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Throughout American history, each and every Thanksgiving Proclamation has been a call for collective gratitude to the biblical God with whom the governed consented to covenant with at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore, it behooves Americans to continue to repent of wrongs done against God and to offer thanks for helping our ancestors to gain the freedom and inherent rights. Like Esau of biblical history, we have in large measure forfeited our birthright for bread and circus. It might be a good time to reflect on how to regain that birthright of independence as defined in the natural law Declaration of Independence and the Bible.
As a starting point, we might consider the Proclamation given by President George Washington:
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted’ for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Washington also was known to preach biblical sermons to the troops when he though necessary during the Revolutionary War.
In a case that made it all of the way to the desk of Rush Limbaugh, the Andover Tea Party in Ashtabula County has prevailed in its efforts to hold a Constitution Day rally on Andover Public Square. Previously, township officials had informed the residents that a rally in support of the Constitution was too political for the public square.
On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge Donald C. Nugent granted the 1851 Center a temporary injunction against Andover Township. The ruling cleared the way for the rally, and upheld the residents’ First Amendment rights. If the judge sided with Andover Township, local governments across the state would be emboldened to trample on First Amendment rights.
The Framers of the Constitution ratified the First Amendment to protect the right to debate the proper role of government without fear of retaliation.
The case in Andover demonstrates how the political class overlooks such basic constitutional rights. But it also demonstrates the need for Ohioans to vigilantly police their local governments, and when necessary, stand up to them. Courage is usually the first step in protecting one’s rights, and our clients in Andover should be applauded for theirs. We encourage other Ohioans to follow suit.
To learn more about the 1851 Center, visit http://www.ohioconstitution.org
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Do you know that the American Declaration of Independence is a theocratic as well as a political document? Do you know, as Lincoln knew, that the Declaration contains the philosophy of the American Constitution?
The signers of that revolutionary document justified their rebellion against the laws of Great Britain by appealing to a Higher Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Judging, however, from the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan, neither of these new Supreme Court justices understands or agrees that only God can endow the American people with the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and make them “inalienable.” Mr. Obama and his appointees do not understand that without this Higher Law doctrine, the Declaration’s long list of grievances against the British Crown would be nothing more than arbitrary expressions of discontent having no moral justification.
In the absence of that Higher Law, however, the Court can rule that “everything is justiciable,” including those inalienable God-given rights. These smug, know-nothing individuals would strip the Constitution of any moral foundation and open the door to unlimited government or tyranny.
Americans needs reminding that the laws and institutions prescribed in their Constitution were designed to preclude the evils enumerated in the Declaration. The Framers of the Constitution effectively translated into political and institutional terms the theological manifesto of that document.[i] Yet, no one deemed the Government established under the Constitution a theocracy—quite apart from the First Amendment’s clause regarding religion. That Amendment, as initially understood, simply prohibited Congress from establishing a State religion. Revolted by the example of England, the American Founding Fathers refused to sacralize the modern nation-state, which they deemed powerful enough without investing it with religious authority. America’s monotheistic culture was opposed to a state religion.
That culture was rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, in which not the State but the People are sovereign under God.[ii] If we think within the context of such a culture and maintain intellectual detachment from our present culture of Triumphant Secularism, it will be obvious that the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from passing laws supportive of the ethical monotheism or universal moral principles of the Declaration.
The ethical monotheism of early America was of paramount significance. Many early American statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second President of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate and signer of the Declaration, had this to say of the Jewish people:
The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.[iii]
The curriculum at Harvard, like those of other early American colleges and universities, was designed by learned and liberal men of “Old Testament” persuasion. Harvard president Increase Mather (1685-1701) was an ardent Hebraist. His writings contain numerous quotations from the Talmud as well as from the works of Sa’adia Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides and other classic Jewish commentators.
Yale University president Ezra Stiles readily discoursed on the Mishna and Talmud with visiting rabbinical authorities. Hebrew and the study of Hebraic laws and institutions were an integral part of Yale’s as well as of Harvard’s curriculum. Much the same may be said of King’s College (later Columbia University), William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown University. Hebrew learning was then deemed a basic element of liberal education.
This attitude was not merely academic. On May 31, 1775, almost on the eve of the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts Bay, declared: “Every nation … has a right to set up over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model.” (Emphasis added.)
Although Jefferson was no admirer of the Hebrew Bible, he framed the Declaration with a view to galvanizing the Bible-reading public in support of the Revolution. When he became President he supported Baptist churches.
During the colonial and constitution-making period, the Americans, especially the Puritans, adapted various Hebraic laws for their own governance. The legislation of New Haven, for example, was based on the premise that “the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses … being neither … ceremonial, nor ha[ving] any reference to Canaan, shall … generally bind all offenders, till they be branched out into particulars hereafter.”
Of course, the Jewish roots of the American Constitution should not obscure the fact that America is first and foremost a Christian nation (Barack Obama to the contrary notwithstanding). This was confirmed in a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as late as 1892! In the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Justice Brewer wrote:
? If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the … states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.
? Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”… [and yet] also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. There is no dissonance in these declarations. … They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation…. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.
? In People v. Ruggles (1811), Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said [in a case involving blasphemous publications]: “The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.
? Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution … either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case [before us] assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.
Chancellor Kent’s denigration of Muhammad and the Grand Lama is of course shocking. But we were speaking of the Judeo-Christian heritage underlying the Declaration and the Constitution.
This heritage of “natural rights” or of “natural law” has been eviscerated by the academic doctrine of moral relativism and its political counterpart the Progressive Movement. Although the institutional structure of the Constitution remains largely intact, the Supreme Court’s amoral and government-expanding interpretation of various constitutional amendments has spawned unfettered freedom of expression and indiscriminate equality, which have vulgarized and secularized America and buried the meritocracy that was to coexist with democracy. America now has a leveling and meaningless or “evolutionary constitution.” The immutable “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” have been replaced by historical relativism. Evolution has produced a leviathan, a “nanny state,” dispensing “entitlements” which not only stifles entrepreneurship. Rewards without effort undermine the sense of shame.
This is the smug, know-nothing agenda of America’s first anti-American president. Can America overcome this degradation and restore its Judeo-Christian heritage?
[i] I do not ignore the influence of Locke and Montesquieu, whose mentality, however, is hardly conceivable apart from the Biblical tradition.
[ii] This paragraph (except for references to the Torah) is indebted to Professor Will Morrisey in an email to the author. I am especially grateful for his reference to the cultural aspect of the First Amendment.
[iii] Cited in Pathways to the Torah (Jerusalem: Aish HaTorah Publications, 1988), p. A6.2. See Paul Eidelberg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (New York: Free Press, 1968; University Press of America, 1988, Appendix 2.
Source: Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 6, 2010.
On Saturday April 24, the first Tea Party began at 4 pm on the steps to the historic Greene County Courthouse. As historic as justice is for all within the walls of that symbolic building was the success of first local Tea Party in Greene County. It was fitting that it took place in Xenia, the seat of Greene County governance.
If memory serves, the first Tea Party held in Boston Massachusetts initiated the successful resistance to corrupt government, its many threats and usurpation to both the inherent and positive rights of our British colonial ancestors, and finally to the independent sovereign statehood as well as our national compact consisting of both social contract and divine covenant.
Xenia Tea Party was a rally for the restoration of principles upon which the sovereignty our state is secured and federal governance is limited. That is, it was a rally for the restoration of the rule of Constitutional law and of making elected representatives and unelected officials accountable to it for the good of all citizens.
Xenia Tea Party also was a platform to those seeking election to local, state, and federal offices. As a platform without due coverage by the media, ordinary citizens with extraordinary abilities and determination presented their qualifications, ideas, and/or positions on issue. Of course, everyone I heard wants to represent the rest of us in the effort to bring about real change: the restoration of strict Constitutional governance, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty. The Tea Party also provided stump for representatives of organizations like Ohio Freedom Alliance, Ohio Open Carry rights organization, and Stop Xenia Tax, all of which are working with state and local officials to the same ends.
The candidates included John Mitchel, who is running for the U.S. House of Representatives against incumbent Steve Austria. Mitchel spoke briefly about the continued corruption of our current federal government and a pending investigation of Steve Austria. His priorities are government reform to control earmarks and spending, tax reform for fair and equitable taxing, and imposing term limits.
Scott Rupert is running for Ohio Senate. He is an independent from Northern Ohio. He represents people who value a commonsense approach to resolving societal and political issues rather than party agendas. In other words, Rupert is not a elitist who is out-of-touch with ordinary hard working people. One good reason to vote for him–he says he won’t seek to impose entitlements on us by means of trillions more in taxes and spending. In return, fewer families will likely face bankruptcy and maybe even retain more of their hard earned income.
One of the speakers not campaigning for office was Mickey Denin. In his speech entitled The United States Has Become The Nation It Rebelled Against, he made the following comments:
The colonists’ vision of limited government, taxation without representation was a problem, but so was representation without taxation—that is, voting by those who were at the mercy of the wealthy and thus easy to bribe. Colonial leaders quoted the English jurist Blackstone’s accepted view that if those “in so mean a situation as to be esteemed to have no will of their own” were given the vote, they would be tools of the powerful. Colonists discussed the right level of property qualification, one that would exclude the dependent while encouraging voting by all those with a “stake in society.
Yet in our society today we have large burdensome government, with career politicians who essentially hand pick their successors through the party system. These career politicians have figured out how to bribe the poor to earn their vote. Now nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes and the only stake they have in society what they receive from society not what they contribute to society.
Maybe that is why many liberals are so intent on taking away our guns.
After his discussion about the progress of the movement in Ohio for the right to openly own and carry guns, Josh Diaz of Ohio Concealed Carry gave a rather lengthy talk on why Americans must elect representatives who will at least reduce, if not end, the tax burden imposed by all levels of government.
John Anderson is a libertarian running for Congress. He had a more detailed plan that is worthy of consideration, which can be read by going to johnandersonforcongress.com
While Anderson was the first speaker, Andy Myers of the Ohio Freedom Alliance was the last. He briefly shared the various bills the Alliance has either been passed or are in the legislative process, all of which can be seen at the Ohio Freedom Alliance website.
Not last and not least was the host of the first successful Tea Party in Xenia, Virgil Vaduva, who is also running against incumbent Alan Anderson for Greene County Commissioner. Vaduva has been proving his dedication to upholding and enforcing our laws. For instance, the election laws Xenia officials were violating. His ability to get things done is another of his abilities. For more information about him and his campaign, go to Virgil Vaduva for Greene County Commissioner.
By Daniel Downs
What do you think of the constitution? What is the purpose of the constitution? Do you know how many there are? Are they based on a particular view or philosophy?
Those are not questions only lawyers, law professors, and politicians should know how to answer. All American citizens are supposed to know the answers, but do we?
A constitution defines a form of government by detailing its authority, powers, functions, and procedures of operation. As such, a constitution limits government to its explicable roles. According to historian Merrill Jensen, a large number of early Americans wanted the first and current national constitution to give broad general powers over most of American governance and life. They wanted to duplicate British Imperial governance over which they would preside and through which they would continue to profit. A greater number of Americans, who remained faithful to the purpose of the Revolution, persistently thwarted every British loyalist strategy. That occurred during the making of the Articles of Confederation. Ten years later, the same federalists achieved a number of their goals with the ratification of our current Constitution.
The imperial aspiration of the federalists was given a severe blow with the establishment of the 10 amendments to the Constitution. The last two amendments ensured that the liberties won during the Revolution were not lost to a federal take-over of the nation. Both the natural law rights of the American people and the sovereignty of their states were guaranteed a lasting existence–at least until the now.
Journals written by James Madison and others during the constitutional conventions prove the illegality of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all other organizations incorporated by the federal government. Members of the constitutional conventions debated the incorporation of a federal banking system for a long time, and the majority decided against it. One result of violating this denial of legal authority has been an indirect tax by means of inflation created by the Federal Reserve on behalf of the federal bureaucrats and national corporations.
At the U.S. Treasury and on Wall Street, this form of unlimited taxation is called growth.
State sovereignty has been under threat by the federal government for a long time. One of the clever tricks employed by followers of the democrat regime of Franklin Roosevelt was the manipulation and prolongation of an economic crisis to achieve their goals. The same is happening during the current depression-like crisis. Because only states has been obligated by law to balance their budgets, the federal government, which is not obligated to do so, uses federal aid (stimulus) to gain consensus for their current policy agendas.
Who do you think will wind up paying for all of that aid? Taxpaying consumers will pay for it and for at least two reasons: (1) Federal aid comes with the strings attached. They will help states if states will support their political agendas, like health care reform. (2) Because the federal government intends to take from the wealthy to help pay for their socialist programs, wealthy business owners will pass the cost on to consumers. That is one way the federal government increases the indirect tax called inflation.
Those are a few reasons why everyone should invest the time to better under the history and meaning of the Constitution and the intended protection of our rights and liberty under a Supreme law of the land.
If interested in learning more, you will find valuable information at the websites of the following organizations: www.ohiofreedom.com, www.campaignforliberty.com, www.tenthamendmentcenter.com, and www.constitution.org.
Southwest Ohio Liberty Conference to Feature Speakers on Sound Money, State’s Rights and Individual Liberty
On November 21, 2009, liberty activists will converge on the Beavercreek Golf Club for a unique speaker’s forum celebrating the true spirit and timeless traditions of individual liberty and Constitutional government.
The Southwest Ohio Liberty Conference, sponsored by the Ohio Freedom Alliance, will feature lectures on sound money, state’s rights and individual liberty. The event is open to the public, with a suggested donation of $10 per person to defray costs. The doors open at 1:00 p.m. on November 21st for networking and light refreshments, and speakers will address the audience from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Beavercreek Golf Club is just minutes from the Mall at Fairfield Commons, at 2800 New Germany-Trebein Road in Beavercreek, Ohio.
Scheduled to appear are Harold D. Thomas, founder of The Ohio Republic Blog; Joe Bozzi, Executive Director and co-founder of the Ohio Freedom Alliance and the Ohio Liberty Council; and Kevin Cullinane, a former head instructor of the 1st Marine Division’s Counterinsurgency School.
“The Southwest Ohio Liberty Conference is the first event of its kind in our area,” said organizer Andy Myers. “We are committed to teaching and instilling the founding principles that made the United States the envy of the world. And everyone is welcome. It’s a non-partisan event, and we think people of every political persuasion will be in attendance. We don’t care if you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian—if you respect the Constitution, the rule of law and economic freedom, we think the speakers will have something for you.”
Harold D. Thomas’ lecture is titled “State Sovereignty: What’s in it for me?” Attendees will learn why passing Ohio’s state sovereignty resolutions (SCR 13, HCR 11) is essential to curb federal encroachment on the rights of the states and of individuals. Mr. Thomas will go into the history of states’ rights in the United States, review the features of Ohio’s two 10th Amendment resolutions, and suggest action steps to persuade the Ohio General Assembly to adopt them.
Joe Bozzi, Executive Director and co-founder of The Ohio Freedom Alliance and co-founder of The Ohio Liberty Council will be speaking about The Ohio Honest Money Act and what it means to the citizens of Ohio in protecting their loved ones, their financial security and quite possibly their livelihood. Mr. Bozzi graduated with a degree in economics from the College of Holy Cross, where he had studied under the Austrian Economist Professor Walter Block.
The featured speaker, Kevin Cullinane, is a foreign policy expert and the former head instructor at the 1st Marine Division’s Counterinsurgency School. He is also the co-founder of the Academy of the Rockies, a small, family-style, coed boarding school in Idaho. The Academy’s pioneering format combined academic study with farm work and mountaineering adventure. In 1999 he and his family relocated to northeast Tennessee and founded the Freedom Mountain Academy, a boarding school identical to their Academy of the Rockies. Cullinane will be sharing his view of what freedom is truly about.
The Ohio Freedom Alliance is a grassroots organization founded to facilitate greater communication and cooperation among liberty-oriented organizations and individuals throughout Ohio. OFA has over 1,500 active members, and over 15,000 supporters.
Although Ohio’s electoral votes went for President Obama, the campaign of Texas representative and strict constitutionalist Ron Paul energized thousands of libertarian and conservative voters in Ohio. Dr. Paul’s campaign inspired the formation of a number of grassroots groups that later became members of the Ohio Freedom Alliance.
Since its founding in the spring of 2008, the Ohio Freedom Alliance has:
* Distributed thousands of educational DVD’s and pieces of literature on state sovereignty, sound money, and free-market economics.
* Hosted national speakers including best-selling author Thomas E. Woods and FOX News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.
* Organized a statewide rally with over 10,000 Ohio citizens on the Statehouse lawn.
* Lobbied for the introduction of several pieces of legislation, including the State Sovereignty Resolution (SCR 13) which successfully passed the Ohio Senate.
In addition to the Ohio Sovereignty Resolution—which reaffirms the rights of the State of Ohio and the People under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the OFA has supported the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-315), an Act that would prohibit the federal government from regulating ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio; and SJR-7, an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would prevent the federal government from forcing Ohioans to participate in a health care system.
The “health care freedom” amendment should be popular among voters, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. The poll, released November 12, shows Ohio voters moving away from liberal policies and Mr. Obama in significant numbers. Ohio voters oppose Obama’s health care plan 55 to 36 percent, with independents against it 57 to 33 percent. “Independent voters in Ohio—whose ballots often decide Ohio elections—disapprove of the overall job Obama is doing and disapprove of his handling of the economy by 54 to 39 percent,” notes event organizer Andy Myers. “Ohio voters disapprove—by a figure of almost two-to-one—of Obama’s handling of health care. These are the kinds of people who are going to Tea Parties and joining organizations like the Ohio Freedom Alliance.”