Will the leader of the Tea Party please step up?

After pondering whether or not I wanted to step into the fire on this issue, here is my response to the NAACP. I AM NOT a leader of ANY tea party organization. Although I do admit to at one time being on the board of a 9/12 Project group and currently on the board of Athens Brigade, a non-partisan poll watching organization.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that the NAACP is requesting Tea Party leaders to repudiate racism. However, they are missing one major point. The "Tea Party" is not a National Organization and has no "Leader." The Tea Party is not a "Federally Funded Non-Profit Organization" that gets to elect leaders to draft divisive resolutions and use the media to spew racially divisive rhetoric.

I have attended many rallies and events, some “tea party” events, some “9/12” events, etc. What little fringe activity I have witnessed were from outsiders who were sent to infiltrate and discredit the event. They were quickly addressed peacefully, without incident. Although I am sure someone conveniently captured the moment on film and made it to be more than it was.

What the NAACP really wants is for someone to step up and claim leadership of the Tea Party Movement so they can brand them and put a bull’s-eye on their back. If you want repudiation of racism by tea partiers, ask any of them. We all think racism is disgusting. Right now we're disgusted that the NAACP is stirring this up just days after the New Black Panther Party was let off the hook for "documented, blatant racism."

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part 3

Last week we looked at some early disputes over state rights and sovereignty that date back as early as the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. Depending on which side of the aisle that your political philosophy is influenced by, this issue has different meaning. There have always been disputes between the parties about the size and scope of the centralized federal government and the responsibilities and powers of the individual states to govern inside their own borders.

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” After the ratification of the Constitution, an amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated was presented, which would have denied “implied powers.” When the Tenth Amendment passed and was ratified, the word "expressly" did not appear in it, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1997, the Court ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment because it required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

There are many laws on the books that require implementation by State Government. However, the difference is states aren’t forced to participate, but are rather “encouraged” to do so through funding directives. Almost all policy regarding education for example requires the states to implement them and the funding for education is based on objectives set forth by the federal government. Other examples are the speed limit law, DUI laws, etc. and those cases the “withholding” of funding for roads and infrastructure for non-compliance is used as an incentive to participate and implement those laws.

In the last couple of years especially, we are seeing quite a bit of legislation and policy that is “unpopular” by the majority of citizens in this country. The recently passed health-care legislation created a major awakening of the people as to the scope of government control. Add other proposals such as cap and trade, immigration reform, financial industry reform, stimulus bills, bailouts, and government takeover of companies and industries and you have widespread unrest and concern in society.

If you look at approval polls, the people’s confidence in Congress is at all-time lows. They simply don’t trust the decision makers in Washington. That is why interest in “nullification”, “state’s rights”, and “state sovereignty” are gaining traction. People sense that the “rejection” of the federal government at the state level may be the best avenue to take. The following are examples of recent activity among the states along these lines:

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Tenth Amendment Center, an organization seeking to promote the concept of state sovereignty, has gathered information on various actions taken by state legislatures in protest to federal actions. The organization is bipartisan. The movement has quietly gained support in a number of states.

§ State Sovereignty Resolutions ("10th Amendment Resolutions") – During 2009, "state sovereignty resolutions" or "10th Amendment Resolutions" were introduced in the legislatures of 38 states; in seven states the resolutions have already passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). As of April 2010, resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 19 states; so far this year the resolution has passed in five states (Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).

§ State Sovereignty Bills ("10th Amendment Bills") – In 2010, (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) Tenth Amendment supporters have introduced "State Sovereignty Bills" (one step beyond the Resolution stage discussed above), which would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation; none have made it past the introductory stage.

§ Firearms Freedom Act Legislation and Federal Gun Laws Nullification – As of April 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would "declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". The legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee in 2009 and in Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming the following year. South Carolina has taken the issue one step further: in 2010 a bill was introduced which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state.

§ National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010, legislators in 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia. Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.

§ State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Acts – As of March 2010, legislators in three states have introduced legislation which would require businesses (and in some cases, individuals) to remit their Federal tax payments to the state Treasurer (or equivalent body) for deposit into an escrow fund. If the state Legislature determined that a portion of the federal budget was not constitutional, or if the federal government imposed penalties or sanctions upon the state for creating the fund, then the money would be withheld.) None have advanced beyond the introductory stage.

§ "Sanctuary city" – another form of protest against enforcement of immigration laws, several United States cities have declared themselves "sanctuary cities", whereby they have ordered the local police department to specifically not work with United States Customs and Border Protection officials to arrest persons illegally residing within the boundaries of the city, and to not inquire as to a person's immigration status, even if the person was arrested.

§ “Immigration Enforcement”—Of course, in the last few months the Arizona Immigration Law has created a national stir on both sides of the issue. Arizona passed a law that basically gives local and state authorities the ability to enforce “federal immigration law” already on the books and to require documentable proof of citizenship be carried by individuals at all times. When the bill goes into effect any person pulled over or interrogated by authorities can be required to provide “their papers.”

We will pick up here next week in the conclusion of this series and also look at “state militias.” Stay tuned.

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part Two

In part one of this series I wrote about the effect slavery had on the Civil War and compared our current issue of illegal immigration and some of the effect it is having on society today. We also looked at the division of the country and how the issue of slavery and states’ rights caused the first Civil War. Now, let’s define states’ rights and their origin and how it applies today.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution collectively are what is known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. There were many disagreements among the early leaders of this nation after the original drafting of the Constitution. Many were dissatisfied with the limited guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution. That led the founding fathers to further expand and highlight personal rights as well as define boundaries and limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments.

For over 200 years the interpretation of the Constitution has been debated. One of the first major debates was between cabinet members under George Washington’s Presidency. Andrew Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, disagreed on the clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect. Hamilton used his interpretation to establish a national bank and his desired financial program. However, in the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson discovered a bar to congressional legislation of that kind: no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. President Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration.

Jefferson and James Madison organized opposition to it and thus created two political parties with differing views on the subject, The Federalist Party and the Republican Party. The Federalist Party was willing to exploit the "implied powers" of the Constitution, while the Republican Party demanded a "strict construction" of the document. This continues today in the Democratic Party’s continued philosophy of the expansion of the federal government and the Republican Party’s philosophy of less federal government and more state’s rights to govern themselves. That is still the core battleground of political debate in Washington today on most issues and legislation.

The Republicans, still convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president. The Republicans felt that was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which stated that Congress “should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.”

There was also disagreement concerning what agency should have the power to decide the question of constitutionality? The Constitution vaguely gives the Supreme Court the power to decide, and the Republicans denied that the Court could rightfully assume that power. They argued that the state legislatures should decide and ably expounded their views in two sets of resolutions, one written (anonymously) by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798--1799) and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government had been formed by a contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky.

State rights and strict construction were usually the arguments of the party out of power (and have been throughout American history). As long as the Republicans were outsiders, they remained strict constructionists, but once Jefferson became President, they used the full powers of the Federal government to further the agrarian interests they represented. Indeed, they used much more than the rightful and constitutional powers, according to the Federalists, who now adopted the state rights point of view. So, political debate over the power of government is as old as government itself. When you have two opposing schools of thought with legitimate points of view you can have effective and productive government as long as the balance of power and checks and balances are in place. Anytime one party gains too much control and power we lose that balance. That is happening today with strong opposition from the majority of Americans right now that believe the federal government is over-reaching its power.

The first threat of state secession from the union came during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalist Party disagreed with the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. The leader of that opposition, Daniel Webster, tried unsuccessfully to get New England to secede. Jefferson, after his retirement from the presidency, joined in opposing the Federalist-minded judges as "sappers and miners" who were undermining the Constitution. Now doesn’t that sound familiar? That is a major part of the argument today between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Former vice-president John Calhoun was another early leader in the philosophical battles over governmental control. While a Congressman from South Carolina he favored the War of 1812 and advocated protective tariffs, internal improvements at Federal expense, and a national bank. Calhoun was the early architect of a system for state resistance to unconstitutional laws. He refined and elaborated the doctrine of sentinelship that Jefferson and Madison had begun. His theory focused on the assumption that the people (not the government) in each state were sovereign and, in their sovereign capacity, had ratified and thus given validity to both the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. They had done so, he argued, through their delegates in specially elected conventions. In this ratification process he discovered the procedure for dealing with questions of constitutionality. A state convention--not the state legislature as in Madison's and Jefferson's proposal-- could nullify a Federal law. That law would remain null and void within the state until three-fourths of all the states had ratified a constitutional amendment specifically giving Congress the power in question. If they should ever do so, the nullifying state would still have a recourse--secession. Just as a state could "accede" to the Union by ratifying the Constitution, it could "secede" by repealing its ordinance of ratification.

In 1832, South Carolina put nullification to the test when a state convention declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state. Calhoun having resigned the vice presidency, presented the case for the nullifiers before the Senate, Daniel Webster, now a senator from Massachusetts, debated the opposing view. Webster contended, "The truth is, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtlety of distinction, can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the United States are one people." According to the new Webster, a state might secede from the Union, but only on the basis of the right of revolution, not on the basis of any constitutional right. While remaining in the Union, however, a state could not nullify congressional acts, for nullification was no right at all, he maintained.

President Andrew Jackson, agreeing with Webster, denounced nullification as treason and asked Congress for authority to use the army and the navy to enforce the laws. Though the nullificationists had sympathizers in other Southern states, not one of those states officially endorsed the South Carolina stand. Calhoun claimed a victory for nullification when Congress passed and Jackson signed a compromise bill for gradually lowering the tariff. Calhoun came to realize that a single state, unaided, was powerless to interpose against Federal authority. So he set about cultivating a spirit of unity among all the slave states. According to Calhoun, slavery occupied a special place in the Constitution, and in his theory of state rights. He insisted that it was the only kind of property that the Constitution specifically recognized (though, in fact, the document did not mention slavery by name; instead referring to "free Persons" and "all other Persons" and to a "Person held to Service or Labor"). Therefore, nullification could be used to defend or strengthen slavery but not to attack or weaken it. We will pick up here in part 3 of this series next week.

Not enough time to think

People have recently accused me of being a conspiracy nut, primarily because I haven’t completely accepted the provided documentation of citizenship by our President. Why can’t we see the original birth certificate? What about his college transcripts and some of his thesis? I’m not even convinced that he wrote his books. I’m an author, and I’ve never had to use a teleprompter. I am capable of writing and speaking my own independent thoughts from my heart. Of course, I’m not so naïve to not know that all Presidents have used speech writers and some are better at delivering other people’s thoughts than others.

As far as being a conspiratist, let me go on the record to deny it and also say that I resent being accused as such. Those who think that are probably a bunch of left-wing progressives with ulterior motives. They say I am a narrow-minded bigot, too set in my ways to change. Well, I'm not narrow-minded, I respect even the wrong opinion of others. I don't claim to always be in my right mind, but I'm always right in my mind. They misunderstand the meaning of change. As Rudy Giuliani said during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Not all change is good.” Some things don’t need to change. What they call progress is really much of what they accuse me of, narrow minded conspiracy theories developed around flawed scientific evidence with enough intellectual dialect to make it sound plausible to the easily deceived non-thinkers in this society. Man that sounded pretty deep, even for this old redneck to come up with.

What’s a real scary thought is there are almost as many of them as there are of us. They are everywhere, having infiltrated all levels of society. They have taken over our education system and have rewritten our history to their liking. With the mainstream media on their side they have unbridled influence across not only this country but across the world. Is anyone allowed to even develop there own thoughts anymore? Most just swallow the propaganda pills and drink the kool-aid.

Like most men I spend some time each day in the thinking room. Some choose to read, while most of us use our “alone” time to think. Maybe that’s why they call it “Stinkin’ Thinkin.” They built a monument to all us thinkers you know. I saw it in a magazine once, a naked man sitting in that same position, head in his hand, looking like he was thinking up a storm. It’s hard to just sit and think without their perversive presence having an effect on you.

I remember a couple years ago, I took my family out to one of those fancy restaurants in the city. You know the kind, they had real silverware wrapped in a hanky big enough to use as a bib. No mason jars for glasses tonight for us. I wasn’t even sure what some of the dishes were on the menu. I saw one waiter delivering a steak to a man and his steak was still on fire. I asked my waiter what it was, it had some French name. Looked like a steak to me. Anyway, after stumbling through the menu and ordering something with an American name I had to , you know, go. Bad. So off I go to the thinkin’ room.

This country boy had never seen such a fancy bathroom. They had an attendant hand you a towel and if you wanted one a newspaper or magazine of your choice. I don’t read much of the mainstream scoop so I passed, found an empty seat and sat down to take care of business. They had music playing, so it was kinda hard to sit there and pontificate on the current events of this world. You know all those conspiracy theories about the New World Order, the Bilderberg Group and the Federal Reserve.

Then I started to get up a little, reaching forward to get some toilet paper. (Some liberal elites would call it "tissue") Now this is the part that startled me. As I lifted up just a tad, I heard the toilet behind me flush. I looked down to see if I had accidentally pushed the lever. But, there was no lever! I looked all round and couldn’t find a flusher. As I was moving around, it flushed again. Every time I started to get up, it flushed.

Well, I’m no dummy, I’ve been to the big city. I realized that there must be a hidden window somewhere, or one of those two-way mirrors like the government always uses. What really gets me is this: Who would be so desperate for a job, that they would be willing to sit all day in some closet with some sort of push button remote control, flushing commodes? I then realized that there are a lot of immigrants around here, probably most of them illegal. Now, I don’t go along with the crowd that complains that the illegals are stealing all of our jobs, at least not this one. I mean, what real American would be willing to sit in a bathroom all day just to flush a commode?

Let them do it. They’re willing to get dirty and do the jobs that we real Americans won’t stoop to.
Another thing I wonder about: Do they only hire men to flush the men’s commodes and visa versa? That seems like a big waste of money. How do they make sure that the homos and perverts don’t sneak in? They’d like it. Besides, what is it about the people of America? Are they getting so uppity (I’d say lazy) that they can’t even flush their own commodes?

Anyway, I have had trouble thinking in public restrooms ever since that night. The poor attendant could probably tell I was shaken. He asked me if I needed to splash water on my face or even better, my choice of men’s fragrances lined up on the sink. I said no thank you; I just shook his extended hand and went back to my fancy meal.

My wife was upset when the bill came, she is pretty frugal you know. I explained to her later why it was so high, that this restaurant hired extra staff to attend to the restrooms. She was disappointed that she didn’t get the opportunity to check out the powder room. I’ll bet it was a sight to see. Of course, women don’t spend as much of their time thinking. They always take a friend to talk to.

I don’t know if I have discovered one of the reasons why so many of our young people don’t think for themselves or not. I know one thing for sure. I have taught my boys to be independent like their old man. They can handle flushing for themselves. I think too many people today need to flush some of the junk they allow to enter their minds by a world full of liars and deceivers. I’ll just keep doing my part to call it like a see it, hope some of you see it that way too.

Civil War II, Will history repeat itself? (Part 1)

We have all heard the phrase that “history repeats itself.” The growing disgruntlement in America begs to ask that question, are we destined to repeat history? Is America divided enough to make another Civil War possible? We all hope not, but the climate in society gives little certainty to appease the question. In the five decades I have lived in this great country, I have never seen such widespread dissension among the people. What concerns me right now is, unlike the Civil War of the 1860’s; there are multiple issues that are causing the people to rise up in anger toward Government.

In the Civil War, the primary issue was the abolishment of slavery and the control of land in territories. That split the country geographically down the middle between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy). The original seven states that seceded the Union and formed the Confederacy were South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. They were later joined by North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.

The victory of the North in the Civil War effectively ended the slavery of Africans in the United States. At the time the war ended, ninety-five percent of the African population in this country lived in the South. After the war many began migrating to the North to establish their newly established freedom. The issue of slavery as a whole has been around since Biblical times. Even the Jews and Israelites have been slaves multiple times in history to Egypt, Rome and other nations and kingdoms. Today, open slavery continues in African nations like the Sudan and others.

Why was slavery so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight for it? The simple answer is: profitability and prosperity. The majority of slaves worked on farms and plantations in the South. This supplied cheap labor and increased productivity. The demand for labor during the expansion of this country and the shortage of available workers created a market for workers in the south. Most immigrants coming from Europe settled in the North. Thus, slave traders began shipping slaves from Africa to fulfill the labor need. The moral problem slavery creates is that no person has the right to “own” another person as property or a possession. This created not only racial segregation but class separation.

Many have argued over the years that even in slavery most of the Africans were in a better situation than if they had stayed in Africa and that many of them would not have survived in their home country. While that may be true, limiting their freedom and opportunity and their treatment as a “lesser class” of humanity is wrong. That racial tension still exists in this country almost 150 years later as a result. That issue alone is what makes the recent election of Barrack Obama as President of the United States of America a historic moment. It is also causing friction along racial lines as the disgruntled citizens who disagree with the recent and current direction of this country are being labeled as racists. That is totally unfair and unwarranted if you take a look at the issues from a logical and realistic perspective.

The election of Barrack Obama as the first African-American President was a historic event and should have been an opportunity to improve race relations in this country. Although I personally don’t care for hyphenated nationality classifications, Obama has as much right as anyone to wear that label since his father was Kenyan and his mother a white American. The media latched on to the fact that with Obama being bi-racial his Presidency could be a positive move in righting the wrongs of the previous generations and a form of reparation to the injustices of slavery. That divide has not been bridged as many expected, but it has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with policy, ideology, and fiscal philosophy.

The first major issue that stirred up opposition to the current Administration was the Health Care Debate. That has been a volatile issue of debate for decades in Washington that has always failed because of the wide gap between the parties ideals of the role and scope of Government. I am not going to get back into that debate in this series, feel free to read my previous series “Government should take a chill pill,” for my take on that issue.

https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/EntryController.cfm?data=R0I5QmtTc0VIeTRxZ2dzbW82Ry9DQkQzOThsNUdwdUpxdWVGNEppMHRXZz0%3D

More recently, the passage of the recent Immigration Law in Arizona that will basically give local and state authorities in that state the right to enforce Federal law that is already on the books has stirred up more racial tension toward illegal immigrants. This is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with because it has as much impact on this country as slavery did during the Civil War era. The issue in this case again is not about race or being against immigration. To many, it is about national security and to others it is about the enslavement of a workforce of non-citizens who are providing “cheap labor” to employers in this country.

Although many might say comparing undocumented workers to slaves is farfetched, it is really not. Why would a company rather hire “immigrant labor?” The answer is cost. If I own a business and hire a citizen not only do I have to pay them at least “minimum wage” but I also have to pay matching social security and Medicaid, unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance, and offer benefits ranging from sick days, vacation days, and in many cases offer health insurance and other fringe benefits. It is simply more profitable and cost efficient to use cheap labor. So do I hire citizens, immigrants, or outsource labor to workers in foreign countries?

When the economy was robust, society overlooked these labor issues and accepted them as a necessity to fill job vacancies. With approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and nearly 30 million unemployed or under-employed citizens, that justification is no longer valid. So the debate over amnesty is no longer warranted from the viewpoint of a shortage of available workforce.

Of course, many will tell you it never was. For Democrats it is about increasing their voter pool, ensuring their grip on power. On the other hand, if you view this issue from a logical, realistic point of view there are identifiable pros and cons. Is it realistic to actually believe that rounding up all those “illegals” and deporting them as possible? Well, it might be if we hired as many INS agents to enforce the law as we are hiring IRS agents to enforce the Health-care reform bill. If it is not possible to round them up and ship them back across the border, why not identify them and document them so we can tax them and have them contribute toward the burden they are creating to our nation? They would no longer just be consumers of resources.

Of course, the first thing that needs to be done is plugging the hole in the border and stopping the continuance of illegal immigration into this country. That issue has been dealt with in the past about as effectively as BP has dealt with the oil spill. It is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal Government and is a matter of National Security. Maybe turning that issue over to the states is the best way to deal with it since it has direct impact on their society and they are more intimately involved in the situation. Giving them the tools and support to deal with the problem should be the first step. Seal the border first, and then we will discuss what to do with those already here.

If we turn that responsibility over to the states do we give them the ability to form their own “border patrol” or “State police?” According to the Constitution, the states already have the right to form their own “militia.” That is where we will pick up in part two of this series, States Rights.

The Right To Remain Silent (Conclusion)

This November election cycle will see all 432 seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats in the US Senate come up for re-election. According to recent polls, 82% of Americans are unhappy about what is going on in Washington. Being an incumbent in this year’s race is a volatile position to be in. It is vital that “We the People” not only vote, but get involved in the political process. The call to “clean house” has been gaining momentum over the last year. The entire power structure of Congress could be dramatically altered based on the outcome of the mid-term elections at both the federal and state levels. There are also many Governor races and state races as well. Typically, a “Non-Presidential” election will have a much smaller turnout. The ability to get out the vote will determine the winners and losers.

In the second part of this series, we laid a foundation of steps necessary in preparing to get involved in the election process. Having set up a secure communication network and mapping out the target areas for canvassing, the next step is deciding how to approach your canvassing efforts. Do you do a Voter Registration Drive or take a survey to gather data about the issues and candidates in your area, or both. Depending on the organization you are operating under there are certain election laws you are subject to. So contact your local election board if you don’t have an informed member and get caught up on the do’s and don’ts. It is important to understand that you have to remain unbiased and non-partisan and make sure you handle the information correctly.

There are organizations out there that can help you. Two of the ones I recommend are based here in Nashville, they are A Line in the Sand and Athen’s Brigade. These two organizations are uniquely different but can provide your group with tools necessary to accomplish your goals. A Line in the Sand has a campaign called “The Corinth Project.” It is a system to help get churches involved in the Voter Registration process as well as putting together “Voter guides.” A Voter guide is a pamphlet or flyer listing the candidates and issues in your area and where each of them stand. This also has to be done as non-partisan and unbiased. Many churches are afraid to get involved in the political process because of fear of losing their non-profit status. The IRS actually encourages churches to get involved the Voter Registration process. They just have to stay within the boundaries. A Line in the Sand provides information to pastors and churches to help them get involved while staying in compliance. For more info visit www.alsministries.com

Athen’s Brigade is a new organization started recently for the specific task of training, equipping, and empowering people to work the polls on Election Day. That requires two main things: availability for one entire day (Election Day) and some training. There will be many in your group that will not be able to commit an entire day. They can still get involved by becoming a precinct watchdog. The mission is simple, to assure that EVERY single voter be allowed to cast their vote without fear or intimidation of any sort. Having a team of trained people communicating and reporting suspicious activity could make a big difference in this election cycle. By volunteering to be a watchdog, people can commit to two or three hour shifts, have some fun and get to know the people in their community. For more info go to: http://www.athensbrigade.com/

Both of these organizations can provide a central contact point for your local group to get involved in the primaries and general elections. The primaries in most states are in August, so the time to get involved is NOW. There are other organizations out there to help you. The main thing is do something. I applaud all of you out there who have worked so hard this past year with the TEA parties, 9/12 projects, etc. Without all the ground work you have laid, the upcoming task would be insurmountable. You made an impact in the mood of the nation and awakened the “silent majority.” However, even with the tide and momentum having turned, it didn’t stop the Healthcare bill from getting passed. That may have been the crown jewel of this administration’s agenda, but they still have additional legislation to cram through before November.

That’s why I say: “Enough of the rallies and enough of the talk. It’s time to get “boots on the ground.” We need to set aside our differences, find common ground, and swallow our pride and egos. Uniting for the cause is a must to build the network. Once established, developing this type of campaign network will prove invaluable in upcoming elections as well. The experience will also empower you to identify, develop, and elect leaders to local school boards, city councils, board of aldermen, etc.

If none of these activities suit you, there are still ways to get involved. Hosting town hall events or luncheons to give the candidates an opportunity to engage in promoting their platform, having organized debates for multiple candidates to attend and interact, etc. or finding volunteers to transport elderly and handicapped citizens to the polls. One final way we should all get involved is to put our money where our mouth is. Find a local candidate or organization that you like and donate money to help them.

If you are out there and you are one of those who are unhappy with the direction of this country, getting involved is the only way to bring about the type of change that more closely resembles the society first envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If you don’t get involved, you have no right to verbally express your discontent, you will only have the “Right to remain silent.”

The Right To Remain Silent (Part 2)

In part 2 of this series I want to begin to lay out a strategic plan of action for all the conservative groups out there that have risen up over the last year. As we talked about in Part 1 of this series, becoming less visible to the media and public eye is one key consideration. That will reduce opportunity for infiltration from the opposition.

Most of the groups out there know about each other. The first thing they should do is to reach out to each other and hold a joint meeting to share ideas and concerns, exchange contact information, and establish a secure communication system with each other. Facebook and other social sites are too visible and too easy to penetrate. This will allow pertinent information to be shared covertly. They should be very protective over who they allow to have access into the inner sanctum.

Secondly, they should map out geographical areas that each group’s members can effectively cover in canvassing operations. Any successful campaign involves some door to door neighborhood interaction. Besides, we all need to get to know our neighbors; this is a good way to do it. The least intrusive way to begin an open dialogue about politics with someone you don’t know is by doing a non-partisan survey or voter registration drive in your neighborhood. It will not only give you the opportunity to share information about local candidates and issues, but will help you gauge the demographic makeup of your neighborhood. This can help in targeting areas that need additional effort to pull in the vote.

Next, do similar activities in the local business community and visit local churches, fraternal organizations and chambers. I will give you more specific information concerning churches in the next segment of this series. One of the primary concerns of the people in this year’s election is, of course, the economy and jobs. Survey the local business leaders about what their concerns are. They are the backbone of every community and provide the majority of jobs in this country. Ask how they are doing. Are they growing, downsizing, or sitting in a holding pattern? Sharing and centralizing all of this gathered data will help the leaders of each group as they develop their game plan for the remainder of this election cycle.

The next topic is to find out about current legislation being proposed at the state and local level that may affect your community. Are there going to be any referendums on this year’s ballot on Election Day? If so, what are they? Gather information about the pros and cons so you can not only inform your community but also find out where your local candidates stand on the issues. This will be important in the vetting process and help differentiate the candidates. It is not enough to just get rid of the bad apples currently in power; you have to also choose the right candidates to replace them with. Otherwise you just replace rotten fruit with more rotten fruit.

Most political analysts are predicting a major shift this year from Democrat to Republican. Trust me, they may act like they aren’t paying attention to what the “movement” is doing, but they are. There may be candidates who have entered the race just to be a spoiler. There will be some who have conveniently switched parties recently to take advantage of the momentum on the right. This is where vetting is critical, especially in the primaries. Make sure that the “Right” candidates emerge from the pack.

The struggle for power is big business and the money influencers will play a major role in determining who becomes the “most visible” candidates. That person may not be the right choice. Again, this is where communication between the groups and the leaders is important. What almost happened in New York with an independent candidate and later did happen in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia in recent elections was largely because of people getting informed about who the candidates were, and who were behind them. “The People” spoke loudly. Although the mainstream media and the Democrats downplayed it or misconstrued it, they got the message loud and clear. You can be sure they are developing their own strategies for the upcoming elections and they have the advantage. Their network is already established from the last election and they have the advantage of media bias.

The momentum and public sentiment is clearly on the side of Republicans this year. However, this election is far from decided and is not an automatic conclusion. It is going to require the same kind of concentrated effort to overcome this current hierarchy of power as it did to create it. Stay tuned for further instruction in Part 3 of this series.

The Right To Remain Silent (Part 1)

Last week was the one year anniversary of the “TEA Party” movement and many gathered at hundreds of locations on Thursday to again rally and voice their opinions on “Tax Day.” The movement, which started out as an anti-tax movement (Taxed Enough Already), has grown into a widespread group of common people, of all races, who are concerned about the direction of the current Government.

All citizens of this country have First Amendment protection to assemble and voice their opinions. However, if you listen to Main Stream Media, who also stand on the First Amendment for their freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you get painted a picture that the “Tea Partiers” are just dissenters who are un-American and racists and are primarily upset because of the first “black” President of the United States. Bob Schieffer said just that yesterday on Face the Nation. The media, like the members of Congress, just aren’t getting it.

This has nothing to do with the color of skin of the man sitting in the White House. This about the “Agenda” of the people in control of this country right now, and that includes many on both sides of the aisle. They are no longer listening to their constituents. Almost two-thirds of Americans were opposed to the Health Care Reform Bill, and they pushed it through anyway. God gave each of us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we speak. The representatives who have lost their ability to listen have disqualified themselves from further representing the people.

Why is it that during the Bush Administration it was okay for those who disagreed with the President to speak out, but now if you disagree with what’s going on in Washington you are racist or un-American? It’s as if we no longer have the “Right to Free Speech”, we only have our Miranda Rights, the “Right to remain Silent.” There seems to be a concentrated effort to “silence” the voices of the dissenters by downplaying and ignoring the substance of their discontent. President Obama publicly ridiculed the people at the rallies by saying that they should be thankful for the tax cuts they received. He doesn’t get it; this is no longer about taxes.

There has been evidence of infiltration from leftist groups at many of the rallies, with suspicious insurgents showing up brandishing inflammatory signs with racist or hate slogans. Others have created disturbances and violence to attempt to portray the movement as violent extremism. Even former President Clinton unjustifiably compared the participants to those involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

There are some in the Tea Party movement trying to form a national organization to unite the groups and form an alliance to further the cause. Some national conservative leaders are calling for the groups to tone it down. I agree with the latter. Continuing to hold events in the public forum keeps the movement not only visible but easy to attack. Why continue to give them ammunition to display in the media to discredit the movement? There is a definite need to unify, and for many reasons. However, because of infiltration, it needs to be done carefully and covertly. The passion and common message has already developed over the past year. It is no longer an anti-tax movement. It is a “We the People want Our Country back” movement.

The current Government has crossed the line and overreached beyond its scope of power and trampled on the Constitution in doing so. Worse yet, they have done so with such arrogance and defiance of the will of the people, who are fed up and determined to do something about it. It’s now time for a “Call to Action.” Enough of the public protests and rallies, at least for now. Enough of the social ranting on Twitter and Facebook. It’s time to develop a game plan to impact the elections in November. That is step one to taking back this country from the current bunch of tyrants and socialists.

This is the first part of series of articles to lay out a game plan to take advantage of the movement created by the Tea Party movement to develop a true, grass roots movement to make a difference in November. Stay tuned for further instruction. If you disagree with this article, please continue to ignore us and tune out.