States Prepare To Combat Stimulus

Disclaimer: I am not and would not accept a kickback for the marketing and sale of any books, articles, videos and/or any other resources, along with their excerpts, that I will share with you in my comments.  I use them only as a means of attempting to fairly and factually document and support my stated concerns outlined on this or any other comments, which I may be sharing with you in the future and/or under separate cover. 

Although I share numerous resources with you, as a means of supporting my comments and/or concerns, it does not necessarily mean that I support and/or agree with the contents of all of them, word-by-word, but find them thought provoking because, they provide me with other views besides my own and, thereby, help me make my case.

As a retired Marine Corps Veteran I pride myself with loving my God, family, friends and my country and those Military and/or Veteran Comrades, that I am honored to call friends, know that I would never intentionally say or do anything that would hurt or demean anyone, to include my God and Country.

I have always preached to my own family and follow the rule of “filtering everything that comes from my brain through my heart before it comes out of my mouth” and this rule has done me well for almost 62 years of my life and would highly recommend it to anyone that dares to share their own views with others, knowing that they may not have the same views, but are able and willing to accept that and not take it personal. 

I also consider the sharing of these and/or any other verbal or written comments or concerns to be given me under our “FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS”, which I consider as one of the corner stones of our “Constitution’s 1^st Amendment,” and, as an American, I believe that it is my “God Given Duty” to stand up for and defend this or any other rights given me under our Constitution.

And, with that being said, following is a book and articles, along with excerpts, that seem to, in-part or whole, support some of my numerous concerns relating to our country’s future under this new administration and, just as important, our Main Stream Media (MSM). 

I believe that our, supposedly unbiased, MSM continues to knowingly and deliberately sweep these and other extremely important issues, which may inclusively help to covertly erode our “Constitutional Rights”, under the rug and, thereby, using our financial economic crises, wars and terrorist threats here at home and abroad, as a means (foggy mirror) for accomplishing their, along with this administration’s, hidden agenda.

This is another eye-opening article that is a follow-up to this morning’s article titled “Bought & Paid For.” It seems to give us even more proof that our President, his new administration and our Main Stream Media (MSM) do in fact have a hidden agenda, which is to trash our Constitution and, thereby, destroy our country as we know it now, under the disguise of “Change-Yes We Can.”-You Decide:

States Prepare To Combat Stimulus: “Assert sovereignty with 10th Amendment”-Posted on the Washington Times-By David M. Dickson (Contact)-On February 20, 2009:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/20/states-cite-10th-amendment-in-effort-to-cut-stimul/

These are pertinent excerpt from this article:

“Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10^th Amendment.” Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon introduced a resolution that he said would enable his state to “reclaim its 10^th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation of the 10^th Amendment.”

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states’ shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan. However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan “doesn’t preclude taking the money,” said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation’s third-highest.

Mr. Perry sent Mr. Obama a letter Wednesday certifying that Texas also would accept stimulus money.

“I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” Mr. Perry wrote, clearly expressing his opposition to unfunded mandates.

Mr. Obama has promised that his administration will use federal funds to support his administration’s initiatives.

“[Mr. Obama does] not support imposing unfunded mandates on states and localities. They strongly support providing necessary funding for programs such as No Child Left Behind,” his campaign literature said.

The states are resting their efforts on the 10^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “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.”

Mr. Brogdon said prospects for passage of his resolution are “grand,” noting that a similar bill passed the Oklahoma House by a 97-3 vote last year and that Republicans captured a majority of the Oklahoma Senate in the 2008 elections. He predicted that the Legislature would easily override a veto from Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat.

Mr. Obama proposed a slew of expensive programs during his presidential campaign, ranging from health insurance to policies addressing alternative energy and climate change. “The states are worried that these programs would increase the overall regulatory burden without providing the funding,” Mr. Alt said.

Some analysts dispute the financial impact of recent unfunded mandates on state budgets.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute who recently completed a two-year stint in Indiana’s budget office, said he hasn’t “heard states clamoring about unfunded mandates the way they were during the 1990s. What you hear more today are states begging for federal money.”

The reality is that states are being “hypocritical,” he said, noting that about a third of average total state spending comes from the federal government.

The biggest federal grants involve Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor.

“States were adding Medicaid benefits when times were good. Now the federal government must bail the states out through the so-called stimulus bill because the states’ revenues have taken a hit and they must operate under a balanced-budget mandate,” Mr. DeHaven said.

In 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office, states collectively spent $1 billion for unfunded federal mandates from programs enacted since the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

“To a large degree, states are scapegoating their budget problems on Washington,” Mr. Riedl said. “It’s tough to be sympathetic for states and local governments when they got $467 billion in federal grants last year,” he said.

Mr. Riedl also rejected the notion that the No Child Left Behind Act constitutes an unfunded mandate. States are free to opt out of this and many other federal programs by not accepting federal money in exchange for federal regulations. States have effectively decided that the federal dollars are worth the strings attached to them, Mr. Riedl concluded.

Mr. Riedl acknowledged that Medicaid, which was created in 1965, does represent a major unfunded mandate. But he said that “a majority of state Medicaid spending is on populations and benefits that states have voluntarily added and could reduce at any time.”

The other major unfunded federal mandate that predates the 1995 law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, federal funding for IDEA has grown 71 percent faster than inflation since 2001, Mr. Riedl said.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, “through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law.”

Mr. Brogdon of Oklahoma did not take issue with that. “Federal law does not trump the Constitution,” he said.

He suggested that if he becomes governor, the federal courts likely will get a case involving the 10^th Amendment and congressional powers.”

**These are other articles that support my statement above-You Decide:

New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War - Resolution Immediately Voids Several Federal Laws, Threatens Counterstrike Against Federal “Breach Of Peace”: Posted On PatDollard.Com-By Pat Dollard-On February 4, 2009

http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-laws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.

One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.

New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution: “That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:?I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.”

I have reported on this blog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.

The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.

Note: This is the full New Hampshire Resolution:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

The Winds Of Civil War: Illinois-Driven Marxist Attempt To Conquer Union Threatened With Military Challenges: Posted on PatDollard.Com-By Pat Dollard-On February 20, 2009:

http://patdollard.com/2009/02/the-winds-of-civil-war-illinois-driven-marxist-attempt-to-conquer-union-threatened-with-military-challenges/

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“New Hampshire fired the first shot. Although 7 other states have similar pending resolutions and bills, the Oklahoma House is the first to actually pass one. Another 27 states are expected to make similar moves in the coming months. That’ll leave the country split 71-29.

Now, before you get too excited, bear in mind that all of this was likely Obama’s goal. To bait us into rebellion. Boiled down, all of these state measures are threats of secession. Recall, if you will, Obama’s obsession to be the 21st Century Abraham Lincoln, and his ominous calls to recreate and rebuild America.

Who was Lincoln?

Why, he was the man who “preserved” the Union by way of implementing military force against states that had seceded. Lincoln knew full well that he would not be preserving the Union, but that he would be conquering sovereign nations, nations whose cultures and ideologies he would then have to destroy, and then remake, in the image of the North’s, in order to maintain their subjugation.

And that is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Lincoln’s war of aggression. He didn’t preserve the Union, he changed it forever and handed unprecedented powers to the Federal Government.

The Lincoln household was most characterized by a dark spirit, an unyielding pall of gloom. He was plagued by mysterious and absolutely crippling headaches. Three of his sons were struck dead before age 20. His wife slowly went insane, the result of a ceaseless, degenerative depression. Lincoln was assassinated.

Now I’m going to run with a theory.

So, what if Obama, Soros and Emanuel understand fully that our current, sudden, violent lurch into Socialism will not be tolerated by many to most of the American people, and that these people may possess sufficient physical concentration in order to secede in large territorial chunks, including those already defined by current state borders?

They understand that they will be facing a crisis, right?

Well, what is a crisis to the current Marxist regime of Obama other than an opportunity? Based on Emanuel’s stated philosophy, one can conclude that he and Obama seek the greatest crisis that they can possibly create.

And this is it. Civil war born of broad secession is the Mother of All Crises, and therefore it is the nirvana of all crises.

The current regime seeks civil war just as it seeks oxygen and food. And the actions of Abraham Lincoln provide the precise blueprint by which Obama can achieve all of his life ambitions.

They provide the map with which he can navigate to the zenith of personal power, the desired destination of every narcissistic psychopath.

Yes, he is a dedicated Marxist, but only insofar as Marxism is his chosen vessel to reach his ultimate goal of Absolute Power. He will defend Marxism until the day he dies, for Marxism is the only means by which he can be king, and being king is the only reason for which he lives.

In order to possess long-term dictatorial powers, Obama must recreate America as a Marxist culture and Marxist economy protected by both a limitless intelligence agency and a paramilitary police force.

Once these goals are achieved, the traditional military will be preserved to support similar revolutions overseas, and to defend against foreign threats. (Subduing you is his first goal, but not his ultimate one. His brain his already 150 chess moves past the end of the upcoming American civil war. You are but stepping-stones. In his mind, he’s already buried you.)

Audacious? Yes.

The epitome of change?  Yes.

Now, how does Obama achieve and maintain the goals laid out in the paragraph above?

Implementing Marxism by legislation in a pluralistic democracy is not sufficient to maintain the reign of both Marxism and a Marxist leader.

They can both be voted and legislated away. Capitalism can then return as the controlling process of the economy. Any Marxist who let things stand as such would be committing a fatal crime against Marxism.

As such, Obama can not let America stand as a pluralistic democracy. If he is to follow his duty to his Allah, one Karl Marx of Germany, he must terminate pluralistic democracy. In order to achieve this, he must first adopt the assumption that this can only be achieved by force.

This is a highly convenient assumption, given that in order to maintain a Marxist dictatorship, he has to establish a paramilitary police state, along with a plausible rationale for its existence.

There is one swift way to achieve all three goals. Civil war.

All he has to do is create an excuse to wage literal war on those who would oppose him. This allows him to suspend democracy, crush his enemies, and establish a permanent police state, with the excuse to the American people that all of the above were done in order to preserve the Union. (The permanence of the police state will be covered by the slogan “Never Again”.)

An updated version of Lincoln’s playbook, through and through.

For Obama, in order to catalyze a civil war, he must first create a crisis of secession or rebellion. He intends to do so via a mix of irresponsible, crisis-creating government, and legislative implementation of the first stages of absolute Marxism. These two will be sufficient to create a rebellion against his government. The rest will follow naturally.

The simplest remedy for this?

For the employees of the Federal Government to refuse to work for him.  No secession, no rebellion, no bloodshed, just a man who gave a war, but nobody came.

Just don’t count on it.

“Oklahoma 10th Amendment Resolution passes in House 83 to 13″ on Constitutional Emergency

WHEREAS, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that ”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON RULES, dated 02-12-09 - DO PASS, As Coauthored.”

Note: Please refer to these blogs relating to this resolution:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3333

http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2424&posts=3&start=1

Other states pursuing sovereignty resolutions are Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and Washington. Similar measures are likely to be introduced in more than a dozen other states, analysts said.

“The states are sending a message,” said Robert Alt, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus bill also has raised worries.

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations this week about accepting their states’ shares of the stimulus package because they are worried that the federal government will impose conditions on how it can be spent.

As a self-styled staunch conservative, Mr. Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, aggressively opposed the stimulus plan.

However, in a Thursday morning interview on CBS’ “The Early Show,” Mr. Sanford said his state would accept money from the stimulus bill. Opposing the plan “doesn’t preclude taking the money,” said Mr. Sanford. South Carolina’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate is the nation’s third highest.”

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless Our USA”

  Semper Fi!