by Rob Natelson

In recent months, we have heard voices on the Left cry “foul” at the town-hall tactics of  Americans upset at current political leadership. Leftists profess to be shocked — horrified! — to see Americans defending themselves passionately, unapologetically, and confrontationally.

The confrontational tactics the Left now finds so troubling include such activities as  holding up really big signs and shouting.

Now, I’ve seen a lot of political hypocrisy in my lifetime, but the Left griping about confrontational tactics has got to be some kind of record. Continue Reading

by Becky Akers, LewRockwell.com

During its decline from a republic to a democracy, lying Leviathan prattled about being a “government of, by, and for the people.” But the beast increasingly forsakes that pretence as it continues sliding into tyranny.

One instance of the State’s new and brutal honesty came last fall when Congress bailed out billionaires despite our overwhelming opposition. Another around that same time saw the criminals running New York City overturn a law on term-limits that voters had twice upheld. More than ever, government is of, by and for Our Rulers.

And then there’s the Feds’ dogged quest for a national ID card. Four years ago, these bozos tried to turn your driver’s license into just such a monstrosity with their infamous REAL ID Act. This dictate required licenses to include “defined minimum data elements,” most likely biometric identifiers such as fingerprints or retinal scans and RFID tracking chips. It would also make even more of our business contingent on the State’s whims: before we entered a courthouse or opened a bank account, among other activities, we’d have to produce our REAL ID for a bureaucrat’s approval – or rejection. Continue Reading

by State Rep. Paul Opsommer (MI-93)

Regardless of whether you felt REAL ID represented critical improvements in security standards or a federal government ID system outsourced upon the states, Secretary Napolitano recently affirmed that, at least by name, that Title II of the Act was dead:

“By Dec 31st, no state will have issued a REAL ID compliant identification document.  We cannot have national standards for driver’s licenses when the states themselves refuse to participate.”

But, just how dead is it?  As politicians, we see firsthand how often things are simply retooled, renamed and resubmitted.  And in the case of REAL ID, which has its roots in failed attempts to implement AAMVA’s Driver’s License Agreement (DLA), it would not be the first time the concept behind a “one license, one record” national ID card was being repackaged. Continue Reading

Continue Reading

by Sheldon Richman, Foundation for Economic Education

In the debate over medical reform, everyone can find a public-opinion poll to support his or her position. Robert Reich, who favors deeper government involvement in health care than we already have, wrote recently, “In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 76% of respondents said it was important that Americans have a choice between a public and private health-insurance plan. In last week’s New York Times/CBSNews poll, 85% said they wanted major health-care reforms.”

Yet Catherine Rampell, economics editor for nytimes.com, reports there has been “no sea change in public opinion” about healthcare reform. She cites Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, who shows that public support for a government overhaul of the medical industry was higher in 1993, when the Clinton plan failed, than it is today. Continue Reading

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s (”DOMA’s”) definition of marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, claims that the federal definition violates its authority under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to define marriage as it sees fit.

Click here for the full complaint.

Attorney General Martha Coakley’s suit argues that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves all powers to the states except those expressly given to the federal government, and it points out that until DOMA’s passage in 1996 states had unchallenged authority to regulate marriage.

It claims DOMA violates the Constitution’s principles of federalism, and it also violates constitutional provisions that prevent the federal government from withholding money to states as a means of forcing them to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

The suit asks the court to find DOMA unconstitutional as applied to Massachusetts and to grant an injunction preventing the enforcement of DOMA against Massachusetts.

The suit alleges that not only does the law violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers except those granted to the federal government. It also alleges that the law violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

The suit states that DOMA, termed “overreaching and discriminatory,” interferes with the state’s “sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage.”

“We view all married persons equally,” Coakley said at a press conference today.

The judicial branch sees Congress’ ability to attach strings to funds as quite broad, and if the definition of marriage is linked to that enumerated power and is not seen as commandeering the state legislative or executive branches, it would likely not be seen by them as a violation Tenth Amendment.

Administration Plans to Scale Back Real ID Law
By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post

Yielding to a rebellion by states that refused to pay for it, the Obama administration is moving to scale back a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was designed to tighten security requirements for driver’s licenses, Homeland Security Department and congressional officials said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants to repeal and replace the controversial, $4 billion domestic security initiative known as Real ID, which calls for placing more secure licenses in the hands of 245 million Americans by 2017. The new proposal, called Pass ID, would be cheaper, less rigorous and partly funded by federal grants, according to draft legislation that Napolitano’s Senate allies plan to introduce as early as tomorrow.

The rebranding effort follows months of talks with the National Governors Association and poses political risk for Obama as well as Napolitano, a former NGA chairwoman who wants to soothe strained relations with the states without appearing to retreat on a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission.

Commissioners called for federal standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates, noting, “For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.” Eighteen of 19 terrorist hijackers obtained state IDs, some of them fraudulently, easing their movements inside the country.

But the Bush administration struggled to implement the 2005 law, delaying the program repeatedly as states called it an unfunded mandate and privacy advocates warned it would create a de facto national ID.

As governor of Arizona, Napolitano called Real ID “feel-good” legislation not worth the cost, and she signed a state law last year opting out of the plan. As secretary, she said a substitute would “accomplish some of the same goals.”

Eleven states have refused to participate in Real ID despite a Dec. 31 federal deadline.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Editor’s Note: As can be seen here, Real ID is a great example of how state-level activism to resist unconstitutional federal laws is an effective - and peaceful - method.  A small number of states simply saying no has the power to force the federal government to get rid of a program.  Consdier this as new regulations come into effect for Health, Gun Rights, nationalizing the Guard and more.

Want to help put the final nail in the coffin of Real ID? Take action over at DownsizeDC.org:

The REAL ID Act is a bad law passed under false pretenses. It was rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was added to a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq. The Senate didn’t want it, and the American people don’t want it either. But the Republican majority leadership in Congress imposed it on us, and so now we have to fight to get it repealed.

The REAL ID Act creates a centralized federal database of personal information about all Americans. Decisions about the exact nature and scope of this program will be made by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch. It seems inevitable that biometric information and electronic tracking tags will be included at some point. No one intends a bad use for this system today, but it is inevitable that it will be used in bad ways in the future.

We are promised increased personal security in return for laying this new “foundation stone” for the creation of a future police state. But those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither, and will have neither.

Many good arguments can be made against REAL ID, but they all reduce to one overpowering truth. The more information government has the less it seems to know. The more power government has the less it seems able to accomplish. Big Government doesn’t work. The federal government needs to do less in order to accomplish more. Small government is focused government. We need smaller government, not a massive new federal identification system. Please ask Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act.

Something called the PASS Act is being crafted to revive the Real ID concept, under a new name, and companies like L-1 Identity Solutions, which stands to benefit, are almost certainly lobbying hard to make it happen. We must lobby just as intensely in the other direction.

Please send your Congressional employees a message asking them once again to repeal the REAL ID Act.

Use your personal comments to ALSO ask them to…

* Stop the DHS from promoting enhanced drivers licenses
* Make the State Department lower the cost of passports
* Reject all the new forms of REAL ID, such as the PASS Act

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

by Rep. Ron Paul

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States.

It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry.  It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good.  Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA.  It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment.  It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar.

The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products.  It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco.  As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit.  And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice.  The way to combat poor choices is through education and information.

Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people.  Regulations for children should be at the state level.

Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well.  We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs.  A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana.

Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path.  Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco.  Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders.  How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new.  It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then.  Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all.

Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it.  In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry.   One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

by State Rep. Paul Opsommer (MI-93)

There has been much media attention that the federal Highway Trust Fund is running out of money and going broke. Last year, an $8 billion infusion of money was required to keep funding whole, and this year Congress will have to come up with an additional $5 billion to $7 billion by August. It is projected that an additional $8 billion to $10 billion will be needed in 2010.

How hard should Michigan be crying over this projected shortfall? Michigan has chronically been classified as a “donor state” when it comes to how these federal transportation dollars are allocated. In layman’s terms, what this means is that when Michigan citizens pay federal gas taxes at the pump that that they only see roughly 94 cents of it flow back to their state. The latest rankings put Michigan 46th out of the 50 states in this regard. Continue Reading

By Andrew J. Manuse

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Wednesday became the sixth U.S. state to authorize gay marriage, deepening a New England niche for same-sex weddings and the spending that comes with them.

New Hampshire’s Democratic-controlled House of Representatives endorsed gay marriage in a 198-176 vote, hours after the state Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines, making the state the fourth this year to back gay marriage in the United States.

Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, signed the bill, which goes into effect on January 1.

“Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect, under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said in a statement.

The law also recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and civil unions, which are legal in just a handful of U.S. states including New Hampshire. Same-sex couples who have civil unions in New Hampshire will automatically be married January 1, 2011.

Last month, the New Hampshire House rejected a similar bill. But Senate and House members met last week to approve new language giving clergy and religious institutions opposed to gay marriage greater protections, including the legal right to decline to marry same-sex couples.

Opponents, mostly religious conservatives, see gay marriage as a threat to the “traditional family” that is ordained by God and the foundation of civilization. Supporters often compare it to the path blazed by the civil rights movement.

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

New Hampshire’s bill says religious organizations, associations or societies will have “exclusive control” over their religious “doctrines, teachings and beliefs”.

Organizations affiliated with religious groups that operate for charitable or educational purposes can deny marriage services to gay individuals, it adds.

“The (changes) strike the appropriate balance between two important values we believe New Hampshire residents support: equal rights for all and the rights to religious freedom,” said state Senator Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat.

Senate Republicans said the amendment did little to change a bill they oppose. Republican state Senator Sheila Roberge said Democrats should support Republican calls for a referendum so voters can decide the issue.

Only a few countries, mostly European nations, allow gay marriage. Forty-two U.S. states explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments.

Last week, California’s supreme court backed a ban on gay marriage by upholding a voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In stark contrast, gay-marriage laws are expanding swiftly on the East Coast, especially in New England where Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay people to marry five years ago.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE