States Seek to Nullify ObamaCare

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Our Founding Fathers set out to create the freest nation known to man. These brave men rejected the tyrannical rule of King George III by signing the Declaration of Independence. Since these founding days, America has had a tradition of anti-government skepticism. The Founders later wrote the Bill of Rights which lists our natural rights in order to set limitations on the power of the United States federal government. They ultimately envisioned a limited constitutional republic that respects individual rights.

America was founded on the principle of federalism. The so-called anti-federalists who pushed for a Bill of Rights strongly believed in a decentralized government where power was divided between federal and state governments. The tenth amendment clearly reads, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This simply means that any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution should be left up to individual states to decide. Truth is that the federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution.

Nearly 250 years later, the United States has gone grossly astray from the Founding Father’s vision. The federal government is involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on television. We have elected officials in Washington such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) who claims that “the federal government can do most anything in this country.” Even though former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took an oath to defend the Constitution, she asked a reporter if he was serious when he asked where specifically the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.

The reality is Congress violates the Constitution virtually every day while in session. Both parties are to blame. Many states are fed up and are fighting back against unconstitutional federal laws such as ObamaCare. With a Democratic-controlled Senate and President Obama still in the White House, it will prove an arduous task to get ObamaCare repealed through congressional action in Washington, D.C. anytime soon. As it currently stands, a total of 27 states have filed suit against ObamaCare. Thus far, two federal judges have upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance while two others have ruled it unconstitutional. The individual health mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Just as the anti-federalists feared, many people have misinterpreted the commerce clause in the Constitution to justify expansion of federal power at the expense of the states. The original intent of the commerce clause was to promote trade and exchange between states. It was surely never meant to force individuals to buy health insurance simply because they exist.

It’s promising that the number of state lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare is increasing. The Supreme Court recently rejected Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli request for an expedited review of his challenge to ObamaCare. It’s difficult to predict what the federal justices would ultimately rule if ObamaCare eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Historian and author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, Dr. Tom Woods writes that the “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” There is a conflict of interest with the federal court arbitrating disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s action.  Just like Jefferson feared, the Supreme Court has a history of siding with the federal government instead of the states. The unfortunate truth is that the Supreme Court has upheld many unconstitutional federal laws. As Andrew Nappi of the Florida Tenth Amendment Center says “this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement.”

Various states are taking another approach to defeat ObamaCare. These states are considering the idea of nullification. Idaho Governor Otter recently said “we are actively exploring all our options – including nullification.” State nullification is the idea that states can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both spoke of the favor of nullification. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Likewise, James Madison said that states were “duty bound to resist” every time the federal government violated the Constitution.

Some states aren’t waiting for the outcomes of federal lawsuits in federal courts. They’re simultaneously attempting to make ObamaCare void in their state legislatures. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “nullification is a tool in the bag of those who want to dam the river of government expansion. It has been used before, and to good ends.” Thus far, 12 states have introduced similar versions to the Federal Health Care Nullification Act drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center this year. These bills either fully nullify or refuse compliance with ObamaCare. The Federal Health Care Nullification Act introduced in Texas (HB297), Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (HB498) and Maine (LD558) all state that ObamaCare is  “hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.” Idaho recently passed HB 298 which is nicknamed the “grandson of nullification.”

The 10th amendment is making a roaring comeback. Nullification has recently been used to stop federal gun laws, the Real ID and federal drug laws. Five states have introduced bills to nullify any legislation from the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) regulating greenhouse gases and the “Food Safety and Modernization Act.” In his book, Tom Woods explains that nullification has been used throughout history to support free speech, free trade and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin used nullification to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional.

The federal government has overstepped its constitutional limits. We can put an end to the federal government takeover of our healthcare system and other unconstitutional federal initiatives. With so many states fighting back against ObamaCare, it should send a clear message to the Obama administration. We the people do not want ObamaCare forced upon us.

U.S. Taxpayers to Bailout Portugal Through International Monetary Fund

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

It is often said that Benjamin Franklin once wrote “in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” The dreaded Tax Day has finally arrived. Due to the District of Columbia observing Emancipation Day on Friday, Tax Day official lands on April 18th this year. This means that we are all forced to surrender our hard-earned money to the federal government by the end of the day today. Anyone who owes taxes has to pay up to Uncle Sam or ultimately end up behind prison bars.

Our tax dollars go to fund many senseless programs. According to a report released by Sen. Coburn (R-Okla.), taxpayers paid for poetry in zoos, studies on the video game World of Warcraft and Super Bowl commercials last year. No one should be forced to pay for any of these projects. Advocates of these projects should pay for them privately instead of looting taxpayers. As wasteful as these projects may be, they did go through our legislative process at the very least.

The dirty secret is that our tax dollars go to fund many things not even approved by our elected representatives. The International Monetary Fund comes to mind. Last year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) sent $145 billion to Greece and $122 billion to Ireland. Neither of these bailouts was subject to congressional appropriations. This has opened up the floodgates to massive bailouts of European welfare states. Many people do not realize that U.S. taxpayers are the largest contributors to the IMF. We pay roughly 17 percent of the IMF’s total funding.

Recently, Portugal officially requested a $116 billion bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The IMF has agreed to provide the country a bailout but the international bureaucracy is still hammering out the details of the loan. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) states that “while the IMF refuses to provide a reliable number, we estimate that America’s contribution to a Portuguese bailout is equal to writing a check worth $600 for every man and woman in Portugal.”

Just like Greece and Ireland, Portugal is a country that spent well beyond its means for many years. Socialist José Sócrates has been the Prime Minster of Portugal since 2005. Portugal’s debt as a percentage of GDP will rise to 87.9 percent in 2011 and 88.1 percent in 2012. It’s no wonder that Portugal’s economic growth has averaged less than one percent a year in the past decade.

Why should U.S. taxpayers be on the hook for the mistakes of Portugal’s socialist government? U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met with José Sócrates over the weekend. With the highest voting share in the Fund, the U.S. is the only nation with the power to veto all major IMF decisions. Timothy Geithner is the one man who has the authority to put an end to the international bailout madness. We need to put pressure on him to veto these reckless IMF bailouts, which only encourage reckless behavior.

Government and banks are more willing to take risks if they know the IMF will grant them a bailout if they fail, something economists call “moral hazard.” The international bureaucracy has institutionalized too big to fail on a global scale. We ought to allow socialist countries to fail in order for them to correct their mistakes. The IMF would hurt Portugal in the long run by subsidizing their poor economic policies. It has been reported that Spain, Italy and Belgium may be next in line to seek funding. On Tax Day, it’s an unfortunate reminder that our tax dollars go to fund unconstitutional international bailout funds.

Budget Compromise Cuts a Minute $38.5 Billion

Originally posted at Young Americans for Liberty website.

This post does not reflect the views of any organization. It is strictly my own opinion.

Near the stroke of midnight on Friday, House Republican leaders and the Obama administration agreed to a budget compromise to avert a government shutdown. Even though Democrats had full control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, they refused to pass a budget last year. We’re now six months into the fiscal year without a long-term budget. The new budget compromise will keep the federal government operating until final details of the budget deal are hammered out by next week. The compromise leaves much to be desired.

The deal only cuts $38.5 billion in spending. That may sound like a huge amount but let’s put that into perspective. Our national debt increased by $54.1 billion in the past eight days while Congress was fighting over whether to cut $38.5 billion. Uncle Sam will spend $3.8 trillion this year. The U.S. deficit will run $1.65 trillion. The federal government spends way more than it actually takes in. The reality is that the budget deal cuts barely one percent of our budget and two percent of our deficit. The budget deal still leaves us with a record deficit. These measly cuts barely scratch the surface of our fiscal problems.

These billions of dollars in cuts are preferable to simply freezing spending. However, the American people did not elect Republicans to nimble around the edges of the budget. Our financial problems are so dire that we need dramatic slashes to the budget. For the past three weeks, Republican leaders  demanded that the budget include $61 billion in cuts. Democrats were refusing to cut anymore than $30 billion. Both amounts are tiny compared to our massive deficit. If those are the only option however, cutting $61 billion is the best plan.

Both sides were unable to agree over a minute $30 billion in cuts. On Friday night, the House Republican leadership caved in to the pressure. Many were hopeful that the Republican leadership would stand their ground no matter what it took. However, they feared sticking to their guns would create political blowback if it shut down the government. They eventually accepted a compromise from President Obama to cut only $38.5 billion. That’s 63 percent of what they had originally pledged. We need brave leaders who are willing to put principles over politics.

The budget compromise does however include quite a few positive aspects. The agreement reached guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would completely repeal ObamaCare. The House already passed such historic legislation in January by a vote of 245 to 189. Without such a budget compromise, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would likely never bring this repeal legislation to a vote. The deal also denies increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to hire additional agents to enforce ObamaCare and numerous issues on the Obama administration’s agenda. It will also require mandatory annual audits of the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was set up by the Dodd-Frank law or the “Federal Reserve Empowerment Law.” All of these steps are important to roll back the government takeover of our health and financial industries.

It took us many years to get into our current fiscal mess and we aren’t going to solve it overnight. Congress is finally discussing fiscal policies on our terms by discussing how much they should cut from the budget. We may not be fully satisfied by the actual amount. But we should acknowledge that they’re actually cutting rather than adding to the budget like they usually do. The debate in Washington has certainly started to shift due to the growing voice of limited government activists. We should now focus on larger fights such as the upcoming 2012 budget and the debt ceiling. It’s up to us to let them know that we expect even greater cuts from our elected officials in the future.

We are facing a $14.2 trillion national debt. This is not the time to simply trim around the budget’s edges. Washington cannot get its fiscal house in order by cutting less than one percent of the budget. Last November, voters sent a clear message that we want substantial cuts to government spending. That means axing entire departments and programs. It even means putting defense spending on the cutting board. Some lawmakers have serious proposals on the table to rein in government spending including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who has a plan to balance the budget in just five years. The debate in Washington should be focused on these real spending cut proposals rather than cutting a measly $38.5 billion from the budget.

Federal Reserve Documents Reveal Massive Foreign Bank Bailouts

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Last week, the American people were finally informed on what the Federal Reserve has done with some of their money behind closed doors. It was revealed that one of the largest recipients of the Fed’s money was foreign banks during the 2008 economic downturn. We can’t say that we’re surprised. The Fed fought tooth and nail to keep these documents secret for a reason.

The Federal Reserve was court ordered to release more than 28,000 pages of documents. Back in 2008, late Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman requested documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding banks that received loans from the Federal Reserve in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The FOIA requires all government agencies to disclose their records to any person who requests them in writing. The Fed, however, refused to disclose the names of banks and other companies that they bailed out. They claimed that releasing this information would stigmatize and hurt borrowing banks by causing “severe and irreparable competitive injury.” It’s clear that the Fed is desperately trying to keep their books hidden for their own sake.

In November 2008, Mark Pittman wrote “Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.” Taxpayers deserve to know who America’s central bank bailed out. Bloomberg decided to sue the Federal Reserve in order to receive this secret information. It has been a long and costly process. The Fed continuously appealed court decisions that ruled in favor of Bloomberg. The central bank repeatedly requested for delays in releasing the court-ordered documents. The Federal Reserve took their fight for secrecy all the way to the Supreme Court. The Fed fortunately lost.

What was the Fed hiding? Bloomberg News reports that “The biggest borrowers from the 97-year-old discount window as the program reached its crisis-era peak were foreign banks, accounting for at least 70 percent of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record.” Campaign for Liberty lists some of the foreign banks that received bailouts:

• Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA received 33 billion dollars
• Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc received 24.5 billion dollars.
• The Bank of China borrowed 198 million dolllars.
• Arab Banking Corp, 29% owned by the Libyan central bank at the time, received 73 different loans.

Possibly the most surprising disclosure was that the Fed lent money to a corporation partly owned by Libya’s central bank. This even occurred while America had strict economic sanctions against Libya. It is indeed strange that we are waging war on the nation that the Fed recently loaned at least $5 billion.

More shocking information may come to light in the near future. Concerned citizens are still examining the 28,000-plus pages. Some have already claimed that the numbers in the reports do not add up. Billions of dollars may be missing from their public records.

These released Federal Reserve documents are further evidence that we need a true and comprehensive audit of the Fed. This was just a one-time and limited release of their records. While these documents are disturbing enough, just imagine what kind of mischief we would find out through a real audit. The Federal Reserve loaning billions to foreign banks may just be the tip of the iceberg. One thing is for certain. The Federal Reserve will do almost anything to protect their privileged secrecy.

How I Got Involved in the Liberty Movement

This post does not reflect the views of any organization. It is strictly my own opinion.

I’ll admit it. I’m a recovered neoconservative. It took years of education but I grew out of it. I’m just thankful that I saw my flawed logic at the young age of fifteen.

I was born at the tail end of the Reagan administration. Since birth I have been destined to be Nancy Pelosi’s worst nightmare. I was a meat-eating, flag-waving and gun-loving little girl. While the other kids in school were giving speeches about puppies and Disney movies, I was giving overly passionate speeches about the insanity of gun control legislation. My parents were Republicans and I thought that party affiliation must have been passed on through the bloodstream.

The first presidential election that I remember was in 1996. At the age of eight years old, I had made a “Bob Dole for President” sign and marched through the house with it. I naturally had done no research on his policy positions but he had an “R” after his name. That was good enough for me. My third grade class had a presidential poll and Bob Dole slightly won. I thought that the rest of the class must have been a bunch of tree hugging wusses. It never occurred to me back then that there were more views than just Republicans and Democrats. It wasn’t like you either loved Bob Dole or Bill Clinton.

The night of November 2, 1996, my mother woke me up to tell me that Bill Clinton had won the election. I remember having difficulty sleeping that night. How could this have happened? In my eight year old brain, Republican Bob Dole was some of a savior. I listened to my father’s talk radio shows and simply repeated what they said. I constantly complained about liberals and called them names like sissies and hippies. I believed in every word of the Republican platform without any independent thought.

I was thrilled with George W. Bush became president in 2000. Finally a Republican president! Things were going to change, right? I was 12 years old on September 11, 2001. I was sitting in my eighth grade science class when another teacher ran into the classroom and told us to turn on the television. I saw the burning Pentagon and the teacher immediately turned around the television. I lived 30 miles from Washington, D.C. so there were quite a few kids who had parents who worked in the Pentagon. After he watched it for a couple minutes, he finally told us “we have been attacked. For the rest of your lives, you will always remember where you were at this exact moment.” He was right.

I remember sitting at lunch that day with a bunch of 12 and 13-year-old girls trying to figure who attacked us. I had never heard of Osama bin Laden. Our school had never taught us anything about America’s intervention in the Middle East. I never thought that maybe, just maybe our foreign policy which has killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East over the past few years had something do with it. I had no idea that America had hundreds and hundreds of military bases around the world in countries that were no threat to us and didn’t want us there.

The next few years were confusing. I wrongly believed that the 9/11 attacks were somehow connected to Iraq. I listened to the pundits on the television without doing any of my own research. I thought President George W. Bush was being courageous for starting a bunch of new wars. It showed that we weren’t weak. The terrorists hated us for our “freedoms.” George W. Bush was one of us. I wasn’t supposed to criticize a Republican president ever.

The “Patriot” Act was passed in October 2001. Some say that it wasn’t even written when Congress voted on it. It gave the federal government the power to spy on citizens through their phones, e-mails, medical records, financial records and more without a warrant. Weren’t Republicans supposed to be about limited government and freedom? This was clearly a violation of the fourth amendment. The Founding Fathers would been ashamed. As a devoted Republican, I tried my best to ignore it.

As I saw all these horrible deaths on my television, I slowly began to question our mission in the Middle East.  The wars had gone on for a few years. What exactly had been accomplished? Was it worth the deaths of thousands of our men and women and innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians? I saw young men in my town come back from war with severe mental problems.

As Joesphn Sobran said “War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results.”

Wait a minute. Weren’t Republicans supposed to be pro-life which means cherishing all life? On the Internet, I saw pictures of little children who were killed or disfigured because of American bombs. Just imagine if that was your child. How could this not have any unintended consequences? Isn’t torture immoral? Weren’t Republicans supposed to be for fiscal responsibility? These wars have cost us trillions of dollars. Doesn’t Christianity teach peace and not war? War seemed inconsistent with conservative principles. I should have known that Republicans used to be the anti-war party. See: Robert Taft. Back then I never dared said any of my concerns out loud.

The 2004 election opened my eyes. On visits to my grandparents’ house, my parents and my grandparents would always discuss politics for many hours. I overheard my grandfather criticize George W. Bush. My grandfather has always been a straight shooter who has never minced words. He didn’t hesitate to call Bush a liar and a fraud. I always assumed my grandfather was a Republican too. He spent nearly the last decade mad as hell at Bill Clinton. I then learned my grandfather was this funny sounding “L” word. Working many years in the federal government made him a libertarian. He learned that government only makes things worse.

At the age of 15, I spent many hours researching “libertarian” on the Internet. I loved everything I read. These were the people who truly believed in limited government and freedom. I became disillusioned with both parties and politics in general. I never dreamed at this point that I would make any sort of career out of anything political.

It was early 2007 when I first heard of Ron Paul. I was in an anti-Patriot Act Facebook group and someone left a comment that said “Google Ron Paul.” The Google search changed my life. He was a modern-day Founding Father who spoke the truth. He was anti-war and pro-freedom. He wanted the government out of our personal lives. I remember saying to a friend “I’m voting for this Congressman Ron Paul for President. I doubt he’s going to go very far though.” Boy was I wrong.

The support that Ron Paul got was amazing. I wasn’t the only one who was unhappy with our nation’s direction. It was refreshing to see such an honest and principle man running for the highest office. I organized groups on my campus to chalk “Ron Paul for President” on our sidewalks at night. I became known as the “Ron Paul girl” at my college. I remember my first time meeting Ron Paul in the summer of 2007 when we organized a rally in DC in less than 12 hours. We got about 50 people to show up with homemade signs.

I was on the Ron Paul messages boards nearly every day. I learned about the Austrian school of economics and the Federal Reserve. Things I would have probably never learned about if it wasn’t for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. I attended many Ron Paul rallies in 2007 and 2008 in which we called Tea Party rallies. It was an amazing feeling to be surrounded by so many like-minded people. The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 2007 was one of the many highlights from the campaign.

I’ve learned a lot over the past seven years. The most important lesson is “it’s not the left vs. the right. It’s the state vs. you.” Party labels only make us fight. It’s unfortunate that so many people still have my eight-year old mentality that the enemy is liberals (or conservatives). It only distracts us from the real enemy. The left-right paradigm is false.

As Edmund Burke said “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” I pledge to always speak up against evil no matter who is to blame. I will educate myself before expressing an opinion on an issue. I do my best to be polite and not use ad-hominem attacks. These days I stick to facts and logic. My main goal is outreach and education. I changed my ideas once I opened my mind and challenged my beliefs. I hope that you will not be duped by either political party. If you believe in freedom and peace, I hope you’ll join us someday.