Florida Primary, with 95% of the vote in, is as follows:
Romney 46%
Gingrich 32%
Santorum 13%
Paul 7%
Looking at the map, one will notice that, as in the other states, Romney won the population centers (which tend to lean liberal), and Gingrich won the more rural counties (which tend to be more conservative). This suggests that Newt will do well in rural America. . . but first Romney will pick up most of the next few states (like Nevada and Michigan).
Before folks start counting anyone out, including Santorum, remember, there are a lot of delegates still up for grabs. This is only four states.
Also, because Romney is so moderate, if he wins the nomination, he will probably lose the conservative vote in the general election, which would put Obama into position to win in November. That is very dangerous, because Obama would be a lame duck president, and you can't imagine how radical he'll be in his second term should he be re-elected.
Gingrich's lack of money compared to Romney, and not even being on the ballot in Missouri, will make it an uphill battle for Newt, but it is not over.
Santorum may still have an opportunity as well.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Florida Primary 2012 - Fox News
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Benjamin Franklin - Uniformity
"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy... These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitutional Revival and the Real Concerns of Conservative Americans
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was talking to a friend of mine named Gryph last night who lives in South Dakota, and he was asking me about my radio program. I told him how it is growing, and how it is now on three stations across the country. The owner of the mother station has told me I am one of his best hosts, and there are a lot of people pushing to try to get me on during the week to compete against the big boys. I'm a capitalist, so I won't mind that at all.
In the conversation, I told my buddy about how I am tightening the show up, trying to make it more in line with industry standards, and how I am trying to infuse more Constitution talk on the program, using the model I use for my Constitution classes.
My friend responded, revealing great concerns for this country, "I am not holding out much hope for a constitutional revival anymore."
I said, "I am an optimist. Problem is, people usually don't wake up until their face bounces off the bottom of the gutter."
He replied, "So what constitutes that sort of gutter bouncing of which you speak? Nobody gives a greasy brown turd as long as it's not their ox being gored. And when I try to point that out in more polite terms, I'm almost always treated like a lunatic. It's frustrating."
I thought a moment about what he said, then added, "Obama was one of the gutter bounces, hence the reason for the rise of the TEA Party. However, it may need to get worse before it gets better."
My friend is not the same kind of optimist I am, I suppose, but I understand what he is trying to say, and turning this ship around may take a long while.
He said, "Exactly my fear. If Obama was one of the gutter bounces, why are so many self-proclaimed 'conservatives' so afraid of him? Cowardice, I tell you. We're a nation of cowards."
I don't think this is a nation of cowards, but I do think people are swayed way too easily by the media, and the establishment. I told my friend, "They believe the establishment, without understanding that the establishment is damn near as progressive as the Democrats. What is funny is that as liberal as Obama is, there are actually some democrats out there that think he's too conservative. I even had one liberal tell me he thought Obama is more conservative than Bush. It boggles the mind."
He said, "Bush didn't understand the constitution any better than most of the rest of them do, but at least his heart was in the right place."
Not wanting to necessarily defend George W. Bush, I said, "Bush was pretty bad domestically. I disagreed with his pharmaceutical deal, his No Child Left Behind big government intrusion into education, and he was dead wrong buying into TARP. But, on 911, I can think of no other person in politics at that time I would have wanted in the White House."
He replied, "Yeah. He was bad domestically. But I will always believe he was a fundamentally decent person who wanted to do what he believed was good for America (even on those numerous occasions when he was horrendously wrong)."
I reminded him, "That is the big difference between Obama and Bush. Bush made the bad decisions he made based on good intentions, but a bad premise. . . not that I am defending Bush by saying he had good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But in Obama's case, he hates this country as it was founded, and is purposely working to transform this nation into something different, even if it hurts. He is an ideologue. The people be damned, he will do what he wants despite the damage it causes, because he hates capitalism, American style liberty, etc."
He said, "Well here's hoping we can get this Charlie Foxtrat FUBAR figured out soon enough that there will be something left of America worth saving."
I added, "We better, because an Obama win would put a lame duck liberal in the White House, and without anything holding him back, there is no telling what Obama would do to destroy this nation during his second term."
"Please don't misunderstand me, Doug. In asserting my belief that George W. Bush is a fundamentally decent human being, I am in no way attempting to remotely excuse the way he had grossly fumbled on constitutional understanding."
"I agree. But, being a decent human being didn't trump the training he had received from his 'new world order' father, Bush 41."
He responded, "Indeed."
I said, "Reagan chose Bush as a running mate in that second election because Bush was popular in the Northeast, where Reagan was not doing as well in the polls. He picked Bush to pick up those states. Remember, moderate to liberal Republicans tend to be more popular in the Northeast, which should tell you much about Bush 41."
And which should tell you much about Romney as this Florida Primary kicks into high gear.
A little reminder about Florida. First, they lost half their delegates for moving their primary up. Second, there is still 46 States left, so the race is far from over. Don't believe the media and talking heads if they start saying it is done. Third, remember that if no candidate has a majority of delegates by the end, we could very well see a brokered convention. The convention in 1976 was brokered, and this one may very well wind up being one too.
We'll see.
By the way, a brokered convention is not necessarily a bad thing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I was talking to a friend of mine named Gryph last night who lives in South Dakota, and he was asking me about my radio program. I told him how it is growing, and how it is now on three stations across the country. The owner of the mother station has told me I am one of his best hosts, and there are a lot of people pushing to try to get me on during the week to compete against the big boys. I'm a capitalist, so I won't mind that at all.
In the conversation, I told my buddy about how I am tightening the show up, trying to make it more in line with industry standards, and how I am trying to infuse more Constitution talk on the program, using the model I use for my Constitution classes.
My friend responded, revealing great concerns for this country, "I am not holding out much hope for a constitutional revival anymore."
I said, "I am an optimist. Problem is, people usually don't wake up until their face bounces off the bottom of the gutter."
He replied, "So what constitutes that sort of gutter bouncing of which you speak? Nobody gives a greasy brown turd as long as it's not their ox being gored. And when I try to point that out in more polite terms, I'm almost always treated like a lunatic. It's frustrating."
I thought a moment about what he said, then added, "Obama was one of the gutter bounces, hence the reason for the rise of the TEA Party. However, it may need to get worse before it gets better."
My friend is not the same kind of optimist I am, I suppose, but I understand what he is trying to say, and turning this ship around may take a long while.
He said, "Exactly my fear. If Obama was one of the gutter bounces, why are so many self-proclaimed 'conservatives' so afraid of him? Cowardice, I tell you. We're a nation of cowards."
I don't think this is a nation of cowards, but I do think people are swayed way too easily by the media, and the establishment. I told my friend, "They believe the establishment, without understanding that the establishment is damn near as progressive as the Democrats. What is funny is that as liberal as Obama is, there are actually some democrats out there that think he's too conservative. I even had one liberal tell me he thought Obama is more conservative than Bush. It boggles the mind."
He said, "Bush didn't understand the constitution any better than most of the rest of them do, but at least his heart was in the right place."
Not wanting to necessarily defend George W. Bush, I said, "Bush was pretty bad domestically. I disagreed with his pharmaceutical deal, his No Child Left Behind big government intrusion into education, and he was dead wrong buying into TARP. But, on 911, I can think of no other person in politics at that time I would have wanted in the White House."
He replied, "Yeah. He was bad domestically. But I will always believe he was a fundamentally decent person who wanted to do what he believed was good for America (even on those numerous occasions when he was horrendously wrong)."
I reminded him, "That is the big difference between Obama and Bush. Bush made the bad decisions he made based on good intentions, but a bad premise. . . not that I am defending Bush by saying he had good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. But in Obama's case, he hates this country as it was founded, and is purposely working to transform this nation into something different, even if it hurts. He is an ideologue. The people be damned, he will do what he wants despite the damage it causes, because he hates capitalism, American style liberty, etc."
He said, "Well here's hoping we can get this Charlie Foxtrat FUBAR figured out soon enough that there will be something left of America worth saving."
I added, "We better, because an Obama win would put a lame duck liberal in the White House, and without anything holding him back, there is no telling what Obama would do to destroy this nation during his second term."
"Please don't misunderstand me, Doug. In asserting my belief that George W. Bush is a fundamentally decent human being, I am in no way attempting to remotely excuse the way he had grossly fumbled on constitutional understanding."
"I agree. But, being a decent human being didn't trump the training he had received from his 'new world order' father, Bush 41."
He responded, "Indeed."
I said, "Reagan chose Bush as a running mate in that second election because Bush was popular in the Northeast, where Reagan was not doing as well in the polls. He picked Bush to pick up those states. Remember, moderate to liberal Republicans tend to be more popular in the Northeast, which should tell you much about Bush 41."
And which should tell you much about Romney as this Florida Primary kicks into high gear.
A little reminder about Florida. First, they lost half their delegates for moving their primary up. Second, there is still 46 States left, so the race is far from over. Don't believe the media and talking heads if they start saying it is done. Third, remember that if no candidate has a majority of delegates by the end, we could very well see a brokered convention. The convention in 1976 was brokered, and this one may very well wind up being one too.
We'll see.
By the way, a brokered convention is not necessarily a bad thing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Jefferson's Opinion of Obama's Class Warfare
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stronger Voter ID Laws are not Enough
By Kevin Price
The media has been up in arms recently over the move by many concerned Americans to try and require improved voter ID requirements in order to fulfill one of the most sacred aspects of government. It is simply unfair to have elections stolen by ghosts (AKA “dead people) and gangsters (AKA “community organizers). The United States government has, for years, put a premium on the act of voting. The idea has become, the more people voting, the better. Are you getting your license renewed? Apply for a voters registration! Are you applying for Food Stamps? Go ahead and register to vote! This idea, however, goes completely against the grain of trying to maintain a responsible government. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of "quality of vote" versus "quantity of vote," which is the mantra we seem to live under today. If the left is incensed over voter ID, imagine how they would react to voter integrity? If we fought for voter integrity, ID might be an easy “given.”
We all know that in the early days of our republic, an entire gender (females) and ethnic group (Blacks) were not allowed to vote. What most of us are not taught, however is that the vast majority of the population (regardless of race) was not allowed to vote in those early years. Voting was largely determined by states and virtually all of them had property ownership requirements that excluded, by many estimates, as much as 90 percent of the population. The discrimination practiced by the early leaders was not nearly as inclined toward race, as it was making sure that those who participate had a vested interest in the process. Those with property had to pay taxes directly, giving them (in the eyes of the early leaders) a right to participate in the process.
The classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that, if any person was receiving money from the government, they should be prohibited from voting until they were financially free from any assistance. This idea would not be merely welfare recipients, but corporate "fat cats" getting subsidies from Uncle Sam. Mill argued that there was no way to maintain a small and reasonable government if people could vote benefits for themselves. It was similar to serving on the board of an organization and being allowed to vote on something that directly benefits you. That would be bad form and everyone would expect you to "abstain." "Abstain" we all should do if we are eating at the trough.
Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now. Such a proposal would not be politically palpable. What if there was a third way beyond the "anyone with a pulse can vote" mentality pervasive today and the elitist position found earlier in our nation's history? It is against the law for candidates to campaign for office within a certain distance of voting locations. That is why, when you walk up, you are bombarded with people offering you flyers up to an invisible line. Yet, the single most important information -- party affiliation -- is actually seen on your ballots. Worse still, we allow people to vote "straight ticket," requiring absolutely no thought at all.
To restore integrity in the ballot box, we should remove party affiliation from every ballot entirely and from voting locations. This will require every person who goes in to vote to know exactly for whom they are voting and why. They should not be provided a "cheat sheet" in the form of the ballot for the most important test they take for liberty each election cycle. Those who cry "foul" will be implying their followers cannot read or lack the faculties to make such decisions. What an insult to their constituents. Without party identification, our elections will become a sober task in maintaining our liberty and not a celebration of ignorance. Will we have fewer voters? Most definitely, but we will have a higher percentage of more thoughtful voters.
--
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
The media has been up in arms recently over the move by many concerned Americans to try and require improved voter ID requirements in order to fulfill one of the most sacred aspects of government. It is simply unfair to have elections stolen by ghosts (AKA “dead people) and gangsters (AKA “community organizers). The United States government has, for years, put a premium on the act of voting. The idea has become, the more people voting, the better. Are you getting your license renewed? Apply for a voters registration! Are you applying for Food Stamps? Go ahead and register to vote! This idea, however, goes completely against the grain of trying to maintain a responsible government. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of "quality of vote" versus "quantity of vote," which is the mantra we seem to live under today. If the left is incensed over voter ID, imagine how they would react to voter integrity? If we fought for voter integrity, ID might be an easy “given.”
We all know that in the early days of our republic, an entire gender (females) and ethnic group (Blacks) were not allowed to vote. What most of us are not taught, however is that the vast majority of the population (regardless of race) was not allowed to vote in those early years. Voting was largely determined by states and virtually all of them had property ownership requirements that excluded, by many estimates, as much as 90 percent of the population. The discrimination practiced by the early leaders was not nearly as inclined toward race, as it was making sure that those who participate had a vested interest in the process. Those with property had to pay taxes directly, giving them (in the eyes of the early leaders) a right to participate in the process.
The classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that, if any person was receiving money from the government, they should be prohibited from voting until they were financially free from any assistance. This idea would not be merely welfare recipients, but corporate "fat cats" getting subsidies from Uncle Sam. Mill argued that there was no way to maintain a small and reasonable government if people could vote benefits for themselves. It was similar to serving on the board of an organization and being allowed to vote on something that directly benefits you. That would be bad form and everyone would expect you to "abstain." "Abstain" we all should do if we are eating at the trough.
Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now. Such a proposal would not be politically palpable. What if there was a third way beyond the "anyone with a pulse can vote" mentality pervasive today and the elitist position found earlier in our nation's history? It is against the law for candidates to campaign for office within a certain distance of voting locations. That is why, when you walk up, you are bombarded with people offering you flyers up to an invisible line. Yet, the single most important information -- party affiliation -- is actually seen on your ballots. Worse still, we allow people to vote "straight ticket," requiring absolutely no thought at all.
To restore integrity in the ballot box, we should remove party affiliation from every ballot entirely and from voting locations. This will require every person who goes in to vote to know exactly for whom they are voting and why. They should not be provided a "cheat sheet" in the form of the ballot for the most important test they take for liberty each election cycle. Those who cry "foul" will be implying their followers cannot read or lack the faculties to make such decisions. What an insult to their constituents. Without party identification, our elections will become a sober task in maintaining our liberty and not a celebration of ignorance. Will we have fewer voters? Most definitely, but we will have a higher percentage of more thoughtful voters.
--
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KNTH 1070, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Monday, January 30, 2012
Understanding the Eligibility Issue, Regarding Obama, Rubio. . .
I received an e-mail from one of the students of my Constitution Class in Temecula, California asking about eligibility. She is still having trouble grasping the definition, largely because the education system and media has been sending us mixed messages on the issue. The following is my reply:
Your first premise is wrong. You said to be a natural born citizen both parents have to be born here. That is not correct. To be a natural born citizen both parents need to have been citizens at the time of birth of the child. Citizenship is not only just being born here. If my wife had naturalized as a citizen before our kids were born, they would be natural born citizens, but she didn't naturalize until after they were born, making them only native born citizens.
In some circles it was just the father that needed to be a citizen, but reading Vatell's Law of Nations, it needs to be both parents, in order for someone to be a Natural Born Citizen.
If a child is born here of non-citizen parents their citizenship depends on the jurisdiction of the parents. For example, my wife's sisters were born here in the United States, but their parents were not citizens. However, they were here legally on resident alien cards (green cards) which means the parents fell under the full jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, despite my wife's sisters being born to non-citizen parents, they are citizens because the parents were here as legal residents. Note that they are not natural born citizens, because their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth.
Yes, Marco Rubio's parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Like Virginia's sisters, he is a citizen because Rubio's parents were legal residents of the United States. However, because they were not citizens at the time of his birth, he is not a natural born citizen, making him ineligible for Vice President (Vice President must also meet eligibility requirements of President).
Blessings,
Douglas V. Gibbs
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
Constitution Radio, KCAA, KCXL, WHTH
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I Guess I Will Be The One To Say It. Newt, You Are A Liar!
By J.J. Jackson
Just like when I hear fingernails on a chalkboard, I cringe every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth to spout off about how he helped balance the budget during the 1990s. It is even more annoying when he claims to have done so not just once, but four times. Do I get annoyed because Newt had nothing to do with the balanced budgets of the 1990’s? Nope. It is because there never was a ‘balanced budget’ at all going back to the Republican Revolution of 1994.
It is not only Newt who loves to tell this Big Lie of a balanced budget. Former President Clinton likes to bloviate about the phantom ‘balanced budget’ as well since it supposedly happened under his tenure. Many other politicians who were in Washington at the time also try desperately to hitch their horses to this myth as they try to bolster their bona fides as being fiscally conservative.
I know that it is taken as a matter of faith that there was a balanced budget under Newt and the Republican Congresses that existed during Bill Clinton’s presidency. But the facts, as they say, are stubborn things. Back in 2005, the last time the myth of not only a balanced budget but actually a phantom budget surplus gained life, I wrote “The Surplus Fallacy”[1]. Boy, did I get a lot hate mail on that article. Liberals accused me of making up the numbers because they were desperate to defend Bill Clinton’s legacy, have him remembered for something other than using an intern as a humidor and being Newt Gingrich’s whipping boy. So-called conservatives accused me of being a closet liberal trying to discredit the greatest achievement of the Republican Party in recent times. No one ever actually provided any evidence to dispute the numbers however. How could they? The numbers are what the numbers are. And now with Newt and his annoyingly shrill PAC bringing renewed attention to the myth of the budget being supposedly balanced at one time in recent memory, I think it is time to revisit the facts. I will not let them be slaughtered for political expedience upon some partisan altar.
Those who claim that at some point after 1994 the United States was actually running a budget surplus use a lot of not so cute tricks to accomplish this. Sometimes what they do is look at only portions of the whole budget. Sometimes they ignore non-discretionary spending. Other times they ignore interest on the debt completely. They spin themselves sick trying to justify how they can exclude all too real expenditures from the budget in order to make it appear to have been balanced on paper. But ask yourself this, in the real world where you and I live, can you really get away with not counting all debits and expenses when determining how much money you have left over? Can you ignore $30,000 on your credit card and just pretend it does not exist? Of course you cannot.
Another sly trick these people use is that they look at some select data points within an actual fiscal year. They see that on February 2, 2001 the debt owed by the United States was $5.692 trillion and that back on February 2, 2000 it was $5.702 trillion. Thus they wondrously proclaim that they had “balanced the budget”. Not only that, but they also claim to have “run a surplus”. Even sites like PolitiFact.com [2] lie and claim that the there were not only balanced budgets but mythical "surpluses", although not as many as Newt claims. God only knows where they are getting their numbers from.
The BIG problem with that methodology though is that the fiscal year of the United States runs from October 1st of one year through September 30th of the next. When you look at the entire fiscal year you see that the debt owed by the federal government actually increased despite these not very covert accounting gimmicks. When I point this out, the first response is shock. Where did these numbers come from? Well, they come right from the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt [3]. Yep, these are not my numbers. These are the government’s own numbers.
Here are the deficits by year which the United States racked up from 1994 through 2006[4]. To calculate these numbers you just simply subtract the later year’s debt from the previous year’s debt.
From 10/1/1993 through 9/30/1994: $286,410,336,579.85
From 10/1/1994 through 9/30/1995: $281,232,990,696.07
From 10/1/1995 through 9/30/1996: $250,828,038,426.34
From 10/1/1996 through 9/30/1997: $188,335,072,261.61
From 10/1/1997 through 9/30/1998: $113,046,997,500.28
From 10/1/1998 through 9/30/1999: $130,077,892,735.81
From 10/1/1999 through 9/30/2000: $17,907,308,253.43
From 10/1/2000 through 9/30/2001: $133,285,202,313.20
From 10/1/2001 through 9/30/2002: $420,772,553,397.10
From 10/1/2002 through 9/30/2003: $554,995,097,146.46
From 10/1/2003 through 9/30/2004: $595,821,633,586.70
From 10/1/2004 through 9/30/2005: $553,656,965,393.18
From 10/1/2005 through 9/30/2006: $574,264,237,491.73
Now, who wants to show me where in there, anywhere, is a “balanced budget” or a “budget surplus”? How is red ink a balanced anything or a surplus something else? I know the myth of the balanced budget plays well. I know Newt and Clinton love to tell it. But it is still a myth. And when you tell this lie you are a liar plain and simple. You might as well be trying to court the Big Foot vote with something this transparently untrue.
[1] http://www.libertyreborn.com/2005/05/22/the-surplus-fallacy/
[2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/28/winning-our-future/ad-credits-newt-gingrich-balancing-budget/
[3] http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
[4] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
======================================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
Just like when I hear fingernails on a chalkboard, I cringe every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth to spout off about how he helped balance the budget during the 1990s. It is even more annoying when he claims to have done so not just once, but four times. Do I get annoyed because Newt had nothing to do with the balanced budgets of the 1990’s? Nope. It is because there never was a ‘balanced budget’ at all going back to the Republican Revolution of 1994.
It is not only Newt who loves to tell this Big Lie of a balanced budget. Former President Clinton likes to bloviate about the phantom ‘balanced budget’ as well since it supposedly happened under his tenure. Many other politicians who were in Washington at the time also try desperately to hitch their horses to this myth as they try to bolster their bona fides as being fiscally conservative.
I know that it is taken as a matter of faith that there was a balanced budget under Newt and the Republican Congresses that existed during Bill Clinton’s presidency. But the facts, as they say, are stubborn things. Back in 2005, the last time the myth of not only a balanced budget but actually a phantom budget surplus gained life, I wrote “The Surplus Fallacy”[1]. Boy, did I get a lot hate mail on that article. Liberals accused me of making up the numbers because they were desperate to defend Bill Clinton’s legacy, have him remembered for something other than using an intern as a humidor and being Newt Gingrich’s whipping boy. So-called conservatives accused me of being a closet liberal trying to discredit the greatest achievement of the Republican Party in recent times. No one ever actually provided any evidence to dispute the numbers however. How could they? The numbers are what the numbers are. And now with Newt and his annoyingly shrill PAC bringing renewed attention to the myth of the budget being supposedly balanced at one time in recent memory, I think it is time to revisit the facts. I will not let them be slaughtered for political expedience upon some partisan altar.
Those who claim that at some point after 1994 the United States was actually running a budget surplus use a lot of not so cute tricks to accomplish this. Sometimes what they do is look at only portions of the whole budget. Sometimes they ignore non-discretionary spending. Other times they ignore interest on the debt completely. They spin themselves sick trying to justify how they can exclude all too real expenditures from the budget in order to make it appear to have been balanced on paper. But ask yourself this, in the real world where you and I live, can you really get away with not counting all debits and expenses when determining how much money you have left over? Can you ignore $30,000 on your credit card and just pretend it does not exist? Of course you cannot.
Another sly trick these people use is that they look at some select data points within an actual fiscal year. They see that on February 2, 2001 the debt owed by the United States was $5.692 trillion and that back on February 2, 2000 it was $5.702 trillion. Thus they wondrously proclaim that they had “balanced the budget”. Not only that, but they also claim to have “run a surplus”. Even sites like PolitiFact.com [2] lie and claim that the there were not only balanced budgets but mythical "surpluses", although not as many as Newt claims. God only knows where they are getting their numbers from.
The BIG problem with that methodology though is that the fiscal year of the United States runs from October 1st of one year through September 30th of the next. When you look at the entire fiscal year you see that the debt owed by the federal government actually increased despite these not very covert accounting gimmicks. When I point this out, the first response is shock. Where did these numbers come from? Well, they come right from the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt [3]. Yep, these are not my numbers. These are the government’s own numbers.
Here are the deficits by year which the United States racked up from 1994 through 2006[4]. To calculate these numbers you just simply subtract the later year’s debt from the previous year’s debt.
From 10/1/1993 through 9/30/1994: $286,410,336,579.85
From 10/1/1994 through 9/30/1995: $281,232,990,696.07
From 10/1/1995 through 9/30/1996: $250,828,038,426.34
From 10/1/1996 through 9/30/1997: $188,335,072,261.61
From 10/1/1997 through 9/30/1998: $113,046,997,500.28
From 10/1/1998 through 9/30/1999: $130,077,892,735.81
From 10/1/1999 through 9/30/2000: $17,907,308,253.43
From 10/1/2000 through 9/30/2001: $133,285,202,313.20
From 10/1/2001 through 9/30/2002: $420,772,553,397.10
From 10/1/2002 through 9/30/2003: $554,995,097,146.46
From 10/1/2003 through 9/30/2004: $595,821,633,586.70
From 10/1/2004 through 9/30/2005: $553,656,965,393.18
From 10/1/2005 through 9/30/2006: $574,264,237,491.73
Now, who wants to show me where in there, anywhere, is a “balanced budget” or a “budget surplus”? How is red ink a balanced anything or a surplus something else? I know the myth of the balanced budget plays well. I know Newt and Clinton love to tell it. But it is still a myth. And when you tell this lie you are a liar plain and simple. You might as well be trying to court the Big Foot vote with something this transparently untrue.
[1] http://www.libertyreborn.com/2005/05/22/the-surplus-fallacy/
[2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/28/winning-our-future/ad-credits-newt-gingrich-balancing-budget/
[3] http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
[4] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
======================================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.
Honor Killing Participants in Canada Convicted
Family Convicted in Canada "Honor Murders"
A Canadian jury Sunday convicted three members of a family of Afghan immigrants of the "honor" murders of four female relatives whose bodies were found in an Ontario canal.
Mohammed Shafia, 58; his wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 42; and their son, Hamed, 21, were found guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of Shafia's three teenage daughters and his first wife in his polygamous marriage. Sunday's verdicts followed a three-month trial, in which jurors heard wiretaps of Shafia referring to his daughters as "whores" and ranting about their behavior.
All three were sentenced to life in prison immediately after their convictions, with no chance of parole for 25 years.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A Canadian jury Sunday convicted three members of a family of Afghan immigrants of the "honor" murders of four female relatives whose bodies were found in an Ontario canal.
Mohammed Shafia, 58; his wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 42; and their son, Hamed, 21, were found guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of Shafia's three teenage daughters and his first wife in his polygamous marriage. Sunday's verdicts followed a three-month trial, in which jurors heard wiretaps of Shafia referring to his daughters as "whores" and ranting about their behavior.
All three were sentenced to life in prison immediately after their convictions, with no chance of parole for 25 years.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Muslim Football Players Beat Christian Quarterback
High school football players arrested for on-field assault
Police arrested four Star International Academy seniors Wednesday on aggravated assault charges stemming from an altercation in the team’s last game of the season.
The players — Mohamed Ahmed, Fanar Al-Alsady, Hadee Attia and Ali Bajjey, all age 17 — are accused of gang-beating Lutheran Westland’s quarterback as time expired in Lutheran’s 47-6 drubbing of Star on Oct. 21.
According to numerous witness statements gathered by police, Lutheran’s quarterback was set to take a knee to run out the clock. Before the snap, referees told both teams to refrain from contact, police said.
After the snap, however, the four arrested Star players burst through the line and allegedly manhandled Lutheran’s quarterback. Police said they ripped off his helmet, threw him to the ground and punched and kicked him repeatedly. The incident came to an end after coaches, players and refs stepped in and broke it up.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Police arrested four Star International Academy seniors Wednesday on aggravated assault charges stemming from an altercation in the team’s last game of the season.
The players — Mohamed Ahmed, Fanar Al-Alsady, Hadee Attia and Ali Bajjey, all age 17 — are accused of gang-beating Lutheran Westland’s quarterback as time expired in Lutheran’s 47-6 drubbing of Star on Oct. 21.
According to numerous witness statements gathered by police, Lutheran’s quarterback was set to take a knee to run out the clock. Before the snap, referees told both teams to refrain from contact, police said.
After the snap, however, the four arrested Star players burst through the line and allegedly manhandled Lutheran’s quarterback. Police said they ripped off his helmet, threw him to the ground and punched and kicked him repeatedly. The incident came to an end after coaches, players and refs stepped in and broke it up.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hercules, California: Sexual Assault by Six Year Old on Playground
Hercules Family Battles Sex Assault Claim Against 6-Year-Old
An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.
The parent, who asked only to be identified as Oswin, said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago.
Oswin said his child was kept in the principal’s office for two hours until he confessed. He was suspended, and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record. . .
It wasn't until the parents got a lawyer that the school backed off.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.
The parent, who asked only to be identified as Oswin, said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago.
Oswin said his child was kept in the principal’s office for two hours until he confessed. He was suspended, and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record. . .
It wasn't until the parents got a lawyer that the school backed off.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Twitter Censorship Plan Draws Worldwide Outrage
Twitter's new censorship plan rouses global furor
Twitter, a tool of choice for dissidents and activists around the world, found itself the target of global outrage Friday after unveiling plans to allow country-specific censorship of tweets that might break local laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Twitter, a tool of choice for dissidents and activists around the world, found itself the target of global outrage Friday after unveiling plans to allow country-specific censorship of tweets that might break local laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Santorum's Three-year-old Daughter Hospitalized Saturday
Once in a while politics take a break, and that was the case Sunday as rivals and partisans set down their talking points and instead offered prayers and well wishes to Rick Santorum's 3-year-old daughter, Bella, who was hospitalized Saturday.
Read more at Fox News
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Read more at Fox News
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Deadly Pileup on Florida Highway
10 Killed in Florida Highway Pileup
At least 10 people are killed and at least 18 injured, according to Florida Highway Patrol, after a series of crashes along Florida's Interstate 75, leaving behind piles of twisted metal, smoking vehicles.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
At least 10 people are killed and at least 18 injured, according to Florida Highway Patrol, after a series of crashes along Florida's Interstate 75, leaving behind piles of twisted metal, smoking vehicles.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Green Technology Failure: Chevy Dealers Refuse Volts
President Obama disagrees with the market forces, so to make sure his precious green technology moves forward, he has been trying to find ways to force the market to move in a green direction. His policies call for the auto industry to make cars with zero emissions. In his State of the Union speech he even said the auto industry is back in America. . . with cars even the dealers won't accept?
The internal combustion engine has advanced in many ways, and still remains the most efficient engine we have. Electric cars are a bust. They are inconvenient, expensive, and the technology is not refined enough, yet. Will we someday have vehicles that don't run on gasoline? If the market allows, yes. It is not up to government, it is up to the consumers.
This is nothing new. In the 1970s the liberal left demanded by law lower emissions and better gas mileage, but the only way the auto companies could comply was by downsizing cars. So instead of the big ol' boats on the roadways, we wound up with little shoeboxes that crumbled upon impact, and we wound up with more deaths in auto accidents because the lighter materials, and lighter vehicles, were no match for the force of a collision.
Did they realize their mistake and reverse the devastating laws? Of course not. They simply tried to fix the problem with more government control. . . a lower speed limit and a eventually mandatory seat belt laws.
Ahh, but now they want our older cars off the road again, and the ridiculous smog laws are not enough, so Obama and his gang of liberal idiots have decided it's time for government to take control again. . . whether you like it or not.
Damn the market, they figure they can force the system to move in their direction. After all, once they convince everybody that the man-made global warming lie is true, despite the evidence of manipulated data, and even as the temperatures drop, they think everyone will look back and be glad they were forced into inefficient, inconvenient cars by those benevolent dictators in Washington.
You know, like the Chevy Volt.
The problem is, nobody wants cars like the Chevy Volt. They are expensive, and are not selling. Market forces have refused the electric car to the point that even a number of Chevrolet dealers are turning them down because they can't sell them. GM is trying to get the dealers to take the cars, but the cars just aren't selling.
On top of the fact that the market is not interested, the investigations regarding the risk of fires in the car's battery pack have not been resolved yet either.
Does that mean we will never have electric cars, plug-in hybrids, or other cars like them? Not necessarily. As long as the government stays out of the market, the private sector may move in that direction if the consumers lead it in that direction. Innovation happens that way, not when ordered to by the government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Some Chevy Dealers Spurn Volt Allocation - Auto News
Religion of Evolution versus The Facts
THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION VS. THE FACTS
It’s absolutely ridiculous that I would even have to take the time to expose the theory/religion of evolution (and theory it is), but when it affects the outcome of future generations, it must take precedence. Take a look with me at the absurdities of people who blindly follow its teaching.
It has been said, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will the be philosophy of government in the next.” When people fall in line with the theory of evolution, and with those like Adolf Hitler who kill millions and millions of people because they weren’t quite as evolved, it’s not only terrible, but also very dangerous.
As a matter of fact, until 1962, there were only 2,000 to 3,000 words mentioning the theory/religion of evolution in school textbooks. Conveniently, in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled to take prayer out of schools, thus removing God (the Giver of law and Foundation of our constitutional republic) and ignoring the 97 percent of Americans who wanted to leave America’s Christian heritage alone. The outcome? America’s public schools exploded the discussion of evolution in textbooks from 3,000 words to 33,000-plus words.
The theory/religion of evolution teaches our kids a mindset that God does not exist (idolatry – the oldest sin in the Bible); that there are no moral absolutes; that some men are better than others; and that we evolved from monkeys. Then we wonder why, after teaching evolution in schools, America has an epidemic of school shootings, suicides, violence, rape and crime.
If you can convince the people that God does not exist, then the government becomes god. Now what you are seeing today is the modern American government falling in line with the same theory/religion: Away with God and onward with tyranny. How contradictory to our founders!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Constitution Study Radio - Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens
Constitution Study Radio - Myth #13: Anchor Babies
- by Douglas V Gibbs
- in Politics Conservative
- Sun, Jan 29, 2012 06:00AM Pacific
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Santorum Challenges Romney on Obamacare
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During last Thursday's CNN Debate, the last debate before Tuesday's Florida Primary, Santorum challenged Romney on Obamacare, not only because of the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare, but because Santorum recognizes how much of a defining issue government run health care truly is. If the government is entangled in our health care system, it will give them the authority (they think) to dictate to us everything that has to do with our health. It will allow them to tell us what we can and can't do in relation to health because after all, they are flipping the bill. What that does is make Obamacare the most important issue in this race, when it comes to our Constitutional freedoms.
Mitt Romney, since his Massachusetts health care law has many similarities with the federal health care law, has responded by saying that all of this talk about health care is not worth getting angry about. Santorum, in the debate, begged to disagree, saying that it is worth getting angry about, and it is worth staying angry about. Santorum was right in the debate when he said, "We can't afford to give away this issue. We can't afford for the issue of Obamacare to be subordinated to anything else that's being discussed up there."
While Newt and Mitt hammer each other over how much money they make, what immoral things they've done, and who is or is not conservative, Santorum has remained unscathed. Sure, there have been attempts by the media to try to drum up things, but nobody believes them, or nobody cares.
In the debate, one thing is for sure. . . Santorum did the best job of nailing Mitt Romney on Romneycare in any of the debates. The Newt and Mitt back-and-forth personal-attack criticism is nothing when the issues are being talked about. That is what many of the voters are interested in. With a Marxist in the White House, the personal flaws of the candidates is the last thing the voters are worrying about. The people of this country are willing to overlook a few personal flaws to stop the destruction of this country.
Obamacare is the final straw in terms of regulations. Obamacare will allow the government into your home, giving them control over every decision you make. Once Obamacare is fully implemented, and the liberal left gets the courts to back it, the liberals will be done shredding the Constitution. They will have completed their task to fundamentally transform this nation into a place where there is neither freedom or liberty. This issue is that crucial. Santorum was right. We cannot afford to give away this issue.
That said, considering that Romney is defending Romneycare, and Newt Gingrich has supported in the past an insurance mandate as stated in Obamacare, Santorum may be the only candidate who is truly convincing when he says he will get rid of Obamacare. He is not like the establishment Republicans who say things like, "Well, there are some things we might want to keep," or "Yeah, it may be big government, but we can do it better." Santorum says no, it must be repealed.
Obamacare also teaches dependency, instead of individualism and self-reliance. Seriously. Think about it, one of the provisions allows you to keep your kids on your insurance policy until they are 26. My son is 26, is married, and has two kids. If he had an excuse to stay, like for health insurance, he would have never left. He'd be still depending on his parents instead of getting out there and getting his own place, and raising two beautiful children. The best way to get kids out of the house is to say, "Hey, you can't be on my policy anymore, I guess you need a job so that you can have your own policy."
Boom, they are making money, and then they are out of the house taking care of themselves.
That is the kind of thing that makes this nation exceptional, not giving kids an excuse not to move out, or handing to people government handouts.
In the end, Santorum had it right. He laid it out perfect. In the debate he said, "Governor Romney was the author of Romneycare, which is a top-down, government-run health care system, which, I read an article today, has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare. Everything from the increase in the Medicaid program, not just that government is gonna mandate you buy something as a condition of breathing, mandate that you buy an insurance policy. Something that Governor Romney agreed to at the state level. Something that Congressman Gingrich for 20 years advocated that the federal government can force each and every person to enter into a private contract. Something that everyone now, at least up on this stage, says is radically unconstitutional, Congressman Gingrich supported for 20 years. This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they're now against, but they've been for, and this does not provide the contrast we need with Barack Obama if we're gonna take on that most important issue. We cannot give the issue of health care away in this election. It is too foundational for us to win this election."
We cannot give away this issue in this election. We cannot give the issue of health care away. Santorum is so right.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
During last Thursday's CNN Debate, the last debate before Tuesday's Florida Primary, Santorum challenged Romney on Obamacare, not only because of the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare, but because Santorum recognizes how much of a defining issue government run health care truly is. If the government is entangled in our health care system, it will give them the authority (they think) to dictate to us everything that has to do with our health. It will allow them to tell us what we can and can't do in relation to health because after all, they are flipping the bill. What that does is make Obamacare the most important issue in this race, when it comes to our Constitutional freedoms.
Mitt Romney, since his Massachusetts health care law has many similarities with the federal health care law, has responded by saying that all of this talk about health care is not worth getting angry about. Santorum, in the debate, begged to disagree, saying that it is worth getting angry about, and it is worth staying angry about. Santorum was right in the debate when he said, "We can't afford to give away this issue. We can't afford for the issue of Obamacare to be subordinated to anything else that's being discussed up there."
While Newt and Mitt hammer each other over how much money they make, what immoral things they've done, and who is or is not conservative, Santorum has remained unscathed. Sure, there have been attempts by the media to try to drum up things, but nobody believes them, or nobody cares.
In the debate, one thing is for sure. . . Santorum did the best job of nailing Mitt Romney on Romneycare in any of the debates. The Newt and Mitt back-and-forth personal-attack criticism is nothing when the issues are being talked about. That is what many of the voters are interested in. With a Marxist in the White House, the personal flaws of the candidates is the last thing the voters are worrying about. The people of this country are willing to overlook a few personal flaws to stop the destruction of this country.
Obamacare is the final straw in terms of regulations. Obamacare will allow the government into your home, giving them control over every decision you make. Once Obamacare is fully implemented, and the liberal left gets the courts to back it, the liberals will be done shredding the Constitution. They will have completed their task to fundamentally transform this nation into a place where there is neither freedom or liberty. This issue is that crucial. Santorum was right. We cannot afford to give away this issue.
That said, considering that Romney is defending Romneycare, and Newt Gingrich has supported in the past an insurance mandate as stated in Obamacare, Santorum may be the only candidate who is truly convincing when he says he will get rid of Obamacare. He is not like the establishment Republicans who say things like, "Well, there are some things we might want to keep," or "Yeah, it may be big government, but we can do it better." Santorum says no, it must be repealed.
Obamacare also teaches dependency, instead of individualism and self-reliance. Seriously. Think about it, one of the provisions allows you to keep your kids on your insurance policy until they are 26. My son is 26, is married, and has two kids. If he had an excuse to stay, like for health insurance, he would have never left. He'd be still depending on his parents instead of getting out there and getting his own place, and raising two beautiful children. The best way to get kids out of the house is to say, "Hey, you can't be on my policy anymore, I guess you need a job so that you can have your own policy."
Boom, they are making money, and then they are out of the house taking care of themselves.
That is the kind of thing that makes this nation exceptional, not giving kids an excuse not to move out, or handing to people government handouts.
In the end, Santorum had it right. He laid it out perfect. In the debate he said, "Governor Romney was the author of Romneycare, which is a top-down, government-run health care system, which, I read an article today, has 15 different items directly in common with Obamacare. Everything from the increase in the Medicaid program, not just that government is gonna mandate you buy something as a condition of breathing, mandate that you buy an insurance policy. Something that Governor Romney agreed to at the state level. Something that Congressman Gingrich for 20 years advocated that the federal government can force each and every person to enter into a private contract. Something that everyone now, at least up on this stage, says is radically unconstitutional, Congressman Gingrich supported for 20 years. This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they're now against, but they've been for, and this does not provide the contrast we need with Barack Obama if we're gonna take on that most important issue. We cannot give the issue of health care away in this election. It is too foundational for us to win this election."
We cannot give away this issue in this election. We cannot give the issue of health care away. Santorum is so right.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Understanding the States' Right of Nullification: Thomas Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolution
From Princeton Website:
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 30: 1 January 1798 to 31 January 1799
I. Jefferson’s Draft
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 30: 1 January 1798 to 31 January 1799
(Princeton University Press, 2003), 536-43
Return to Editorial Note
[before 4 Oct. 1798]
1. Resolved that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force.
that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.[1]
that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress.[2]
2. Resolved that, the Constitution of the US. having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfieting the securities & current coin of the US. piracies & felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, & no other crimes whatsoever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,’ therefore, the act of Congress passed on the 14th day of July 1798. and intituled ‘an Act in addition to the act intituled an Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the US.’ as also the act passed by them on the day of June 1798. intituled ‘an Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the US.’ [and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution][3] are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, & punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appurtains solely and exclusively to the respective states, each within it’s own territory.[4]
3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: And that in addition to this general principle & express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence & under the same words the freedom of religion, of speech & of the press. insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that[5] libels, falsehood and defamation equally with heresy & false religion are witheld from the cognisance of federal tribunals; that therefore the act of the Congress of the US. passed on the 14th. day of July 1798. intituled ‘an act in addition to the act intituled an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the US.’ which does abridge the freedom of the press is not law but is altogether void and of no force.[6]
4. Resolved that ALIEN-friends are under the jurisdiction and protection[7] of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the US. nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens: and it being true as a general principle, and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,’ the act of the Congress of the US. passed on the day of July 1798. intituled ‘an Act concerning Aliens’ which assumes powers over Alien-friends not delegated by the constitution is not law, but is altogether void & of no force.[8]
5. Resolved that in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the constitution from abundant caution, has declared that ‘the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808,’ that this commonwealth does admit the migration of Alien-friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens; that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is therefore contrary to the said provision of the constitution, and void.[9]
6. Resolved that the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the US. as is undertaken by the said act intituled ‘an act concerning Aliens’ is contrary to the constitution, one Amendment to which has provided that ‘no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.’ and that another having provided that ‘in all criminal[10]prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial, by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature & cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, & to have the assistance of counsel for his defence’ the same act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the US. who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without hearing witnesses in his favor, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void & of no force.
that transferring the power of judging any person who is under the protection of the law, from the courts to the President of the US. as is undertaken by the same act concerning Aliens, is against the article of the constitution which provides that ‘the judicial power of the US. shall be vested in courts the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior,’ & that the sd act is void for that reason also. and it is further to be noted that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all the Legislative powers.[11]
7. Resolved that the construction applied by the general government, (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the constitution of the US. which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay & collect taxes, duties, imposts, & excises, to pay the debts & provide for the common defence & general welfare of the US.’ and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary & proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the constitution in the government of the US. or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by the constitution; that words meant by that instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the general government under colour of these articles, will be a fit & necessary subject of revisal & correction at a time of greater tranquility[12]while those specified in the preceding resolutions, call for immediate redress.
8. Resolved that a committee of conference & correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem for their friendship & union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly for those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the states: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent & meaning in which it was understood & acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for it’s preservation: that it does also believe that to take from the states all the powers of self-government, & transfer them to a general & consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations & reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these states: and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not it’s co-states are, to submit to undelegated & consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse[13] of the delegated powers, the members of the[14] general government being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every state has a natural right, in cases not within the compact [casus non foederis][15] to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless this commonwealth, from motives of regard & respect for it’s co-states has wished to communicate with them on the subject; that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, & solely authorised to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it; Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, & subject, as to it’s assumptions of power, to the final judgment of those by whom & for whose use itself[16] and it’s powers were all created and modified: that if those acts before specified should stand,[17] these conclusions would flow from them; that the General government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves, whether enumerated, or not enumerated by the constitution as cognisable by them; that they may transfer it’s cognisance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge & jury, whosesuspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, & his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous & valuable description of the inhabitants of these states being, by this precedent reduced as Outlaws[18] to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the constitution thus swept away for us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power[19] of a majority in Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other more grievous punishment, the Minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors, & counsellors[20] of the states, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the states and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their elections or other interests public or personal: that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for already has a Sedition act marked him as it’s prey: that these & successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy & not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our constitution has accordingly[21] fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go: and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien & Sedition acts, and say if the constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly strangers to whom the mild spirit of our country & it’s laws had pledged hospitality & protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President, than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification,[22] the sacred force of truth, and the forms & substance of law & justice: in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution:[23] that this commonwealth does therefore call on it’s co-states for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes, herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are, or are not, authorised by the federal compact? and it doubts not that their sense will be so enounced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government whether general or particular; & that the rights & liberties of their co-states will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own:[24] that they will concur with this comm. in[25] considering the said acts as so palpably against the constn as to amount to an undisguised declarn that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the genl. govm’t, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers whatsoever, that they will view this as seizing the rights of the states & consolidating them in the hands of the genl govm’t with a power assumed[26] to bind the states (not merely in the cases made federal, but) in all cases whatsoever, by laws made not with their consent, but by others against their consent; that this would be to surrender[27] the form of govmt we have chosen, & to live under one deriving it’s powers from it’s own will & not from our authority, and that the costates, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void & of no force & will each take measures of it’s own for providing that neither these acts nor any others of the genl. government not plainly & intentionally authorised[28] by the constn shall be exercised within their respective territories.
9. That the said committee be authorised to communicate, by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more of the co-states to correspond or confer with them; & that they lay their proceedings before the next session of assembly:[29] that the members of the said committee, while acting within the state, have the same allowance as the members of the General assembly, and while acting without the commonwealth, the same as members of Congress: and that the Treasurer be authorised, on warrants from the Governor, to advance them monies on account for the said services.
Dft (DLC: TJ Papers, 93:16003, 16003-a, 16004); undated, but antecedent to Document II; entirely in TJ’s hand, the first, second, and fourth through seventh resolutions written on both sides of one narrow sheet, the eighth resolution (as originally composed) and the ninth on a similar sheet; those two sheets were a single leaf when TJ composed the sixth resolution; three additional smaller pieces (two of which have been attached to the primary sheets) hold what became the third resolution and substantial alterations to the eighth (see notes 6, 16, and 24below); one word in TJ’s hand printing shown in small capitals; TJ’s square brackets in text identified in notes 3,15, and 24 below; TJ placed all the digits numbering the resolutions either in the margins or within paragraph indentations, which implies that he originally wrote the resolutions before deciding to number them; the number of one resolution may have been changed (see note 4 below); in TJ’s original sequence the sixth resolution followed the seventh and he subsequently transposed them, numbering them after making that decision (notes 9 and 11).
[1]In the margin, keyed for insertion between this and the next clause, TJ wrote and canceled: “That the constitutional form of action for this commonwealth as a party with respect to any other party is by it’s organised powers & not by it’s citizens in a body.”
[2]Following this paragraph TJ wrote and subsequently struck through: “2. Resolved that, one of the Amendments to the Constitution having declared that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ the Act of the Congress of the US. passed on the 14th. day of July 1798. intituled ‘An act in addition to the act intituled an Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the US.’ which does abridge the freedom of speech & of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.” Vertically in the margin alongside this resolution he wrote “Sedition law,” changing the second word to “Act.”
[3]TJ’s brackets.
[4]The number of this resolution was likely a “3” originally, reworked to “2.” Vertically in the margin alongside this resolution TJ wrote “Sedition law, & Counterfeits of the bank,” again changing “law” to “Act.”
[5]Word interlined. Here TJ first wrote “placing” and then substituted “witholding,” which he also canceled.
[6]TJ wrote this resolution on a separate piece that has been affixed at one end to the sheet with the preceding resolutions.
[7]Preceding two words interlined.
[8]TJ wrote “Alien<-law> act” vertically in the margin alongside this resolution.
[9]TJ wrote “Alien act” vertically in the margin alongside this resolution. He inserted an arrow and the numeral “6.” between this resolution and the seventh, which follows next on the page, to indicate the placement of the sixth resolution.
[10]Here TJ canceled “[cases].”
[11]Although TJ finally made this the sixth resolution it follows the one he labeled number 7. He numbered the sixth and seventh resolutions after determining their final sequence.
[12]TJ originally wrote the preceding six words following “under colour of these articles” earlier in the sentence, then transposed the phrase to this location.
[13]TJ originally wrote “that in abuses.” Preceding this phrase he canceled “that it ought not.”
[14]Three words interlined.
[15]TJ’s brackets.
[16]The long passage that begins after this word and runs through “bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution” (see note 23 below) is an insertion that TJ wrote on both sides of a separate sheet. He originally wrote here “& it’s powers were all created & modified: that this commonwealth does therefore call,” probably continuing to the conclusion of the eighth resolution as he first composed it. In his original text he interlined “that if the acts should stand &c” following the word “modified” to key the location of the long insertion.
[17]TJ first wrote “those acts should stand” before altering the clause to read as above.
[18]Two words interlined.
[19]TJ first wrote “the will and the passions” before altering the phrase to read as above.
[20]Word and ampersand interlined.
[21]TJ here canceled “set.”
[22]Above this word TJ interlined but canceled “exculpation.”
[23]The long insertion ends here, TJ placing a line of flourishes and then the words “that this” to confirm the resumption of his original text.
[24]Remainder of resolution written on a small sheet that has been attached to the main page and begins with a canceled repetition of the phrase, “in a common bottom with their own.” This insertion is in substitution for the following paragraph, which TJ originally wrote as part of the eighth resolution but then canceled:
“But that however confident at other times this commonwealth would have been in the deliberate judgment of the co-states, and that but one opinion would be entertained on the unjustifiable character of the acts herein specified, yet it cannot be insensible that circumstances do exist, & that passions are at this time afloat which may give a biass to the judgment to be pronounced on this subject, that times of passion are peculiarly those when precedents of wrong are yielded to with the least caution, when encroachments of power are most usually made & principles are least watched. that whether the coincidence of the occasion & the encroachment in the present case, has been from accident or design, the right of the commonwealth to the government of itself in cases not parted with, is too vitally important to be yielded from temporary or secondary considerations: that a fixed determination therefore to retain it requires us in candor & without reserve to declare, & to warn our co-states that considering the said acts to be so palpably against the constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the general government, but that it is to proceed in the exercise over these states of any & all powers whatever, considering this as seizing the rights of the states & consolidating them in hands of the general government, with power to bind the states (not merely in the cases made federal [casus federis] but) in all cases whatsoever, by laws not made with their consent, but by other states against their consent; considering all other consequences as nothing in comparison with that of yielding the form of government we have chosen, & of living under one deriving it’s powers from it’s own will and not from our authority, this commonwealth, as an integral party, does in that case protest against such opinions & exercises of undelegated & unauthorised power, and does declare that, recurring to it’s natural right of judging & acting for itself, it will be constrained to take care of itself, & to provide by measures of it’s own, that no power not plainly & intentionally delegated by the constitution to the general government, shall be exercised within the territory of this commonwealth.” Immediately following this passage, which TJ ended with a colon, is the ninth resolution. The brackets around “casus federis” are TJ’s, the word “vitally” in the phrase “too vitally important” is an interlineation, and he considered using “measuring” instead of “deriving” in the phrase, “under one deriving it’s powers.”
[25]Preceding four words and abbreviation interlined.
[26]Word interlined.
[27]Word interlined in place of “yield.”
[28]Word interlined in place of “delegated.”
[29]TJ drew an incomplete box around the remainder of the resolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)