Friday, April 17, 2009

Rick Perry – An Honest Grasp of The Constitution and Secession

First Flag of the Republic of Texas -

Several Media Outlets have questioned Gov. Rick Perry’s recent secession statement at one of the Tax Day Tea Party’s he attended on Tuesday. A columnist for the Fort Worth Star Telegram decided to check on the Governor’s grasp of History, so he went to Texas A&M’s history department (Perry’s alma mater) to get the “scoop” from a Texas Historian. Apparently, this Texas Professor believes that Texas has no right, nor any other state to leave the Union. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy, the columnist should have done further research.

An excellent treatment of the history of Texas, from their role as an Independent Republic, to a Confederate State to their readmission to the Congress of the United States can be found here at the Texas State Library Association. An excerpt follows:

When the war ended in April 1865, Texas was still considered to be in revolt (the last battle of the Civil War was fought on Texas soil after the surrender at Appomattox). Although a state of peace was declared as existing between the United States and the other Southern States on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson did not issue a similar proclamation of peace between the U.S. and Texas until August 20, 1866, even though the Constitutional Convention of 1866 had approved on March 15, 1866 an ordinance to nullify the actions of the Secession Convention
Southern States remained under military government until their legislatures adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution. Their readmission to full national status varied from state to state (Georgia was readmitted twice).
In April 1869, the U.S. Congress passed an Act authorizing voters of Virginia, Mississippi and Texas to vote on their new state constitutions and to elect state officers and Members of Congress. Three months later, President U.S. Grant signed a proclamation submitting the Texas Constitution to the voters of the state.
Texans voted on a revised state constitution in November 1869 and elected a state government. Once convened, the legislature voted to ratify the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution (the 13th amendment having already been fully ratified) and elected two U.S. Senators, thereby completing the requirements for reinstatement. President Grant signed the act to readmit Texas to Congressional representation on March 30, 1870, and this federal act was promulgated throughout Texas by a general order issued by General Reynolds on April 16, 1870.
No requirement exists -- either in the Reconstruction Acts governing the rebel states or in the document readmitting Texas to full statehood -- for the governor of Texas to sign a document reaffirming Texas' position as a state within the United States republic. The only ongoing requirement of Texas government was that no constitutional revision should deny the vote or school rights to any citizen of the United States.
A thorough check of the volumes of federal statutes for the entire period of Reconstruction (1865-1870) and through 1872 revealed no other legislation requiring further proof of submission to the U.S. government on the part of Texas or any other of the "rebel states."

Additionally, one would refer to the Constitution of the United States, which does not deny a States option to secede (Findlaw – on Democrats in “Blue States” that wanted to secede after the 2004 election)
Historically speaking and in line with the Constitution Rick Perry has more than a leg to stand upon. The arguments against secession are not based in the Constitution –in fact, both Jefferson and Madison believed the Constitution to be an agreement between sovereign States. The Civil War, and Lincoln, brought the concept of “Succession as Unpatriotic” to the forefront - however, Lincoln in doing so, also played “fast and loose" with the Constitution - there simply was no legal basis, from one document that governs all states, to argue against secession.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

White House Spokesman Gibbs – Dismisses Tea Party Protests - Estimates 800 Held Nationwide Equals a Massive Demonstration

From - Tax Day Tea Party Locations

Boston Tax Day Tea Party - NECN Photo

Yesterday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, dismissed the Tea Party Participants nothing the either had already received a tax cut from Obama (that $8.00 to $13.00 extra in one’s paycheck that will be wiped out by the upcoming Federal gas tax increase), or that the participants were smokers (referring to the new tax on tobacco products). The majority of the headlines from major daily papers read: ”Republicans Stage ‘tea party’ protests against Obama”, in an effort to marginalize the scope of the protests that we’re held on the 15th of April in an estimated 800 cities nationwide. That figure is somewhat difficult to pin down, as the group Tax Day Tea Party alone had 800 planned, and there were many nationwide which were not affiliated with the group.

Tea Party San Francisco - image CBS

Should one take the time to query Google News, they will be faced with a daunting 2,223 articles regarding Tea Party’s held across the nation; larger venues such as Atlanta drew a conservative 10,000 protesters, and should one estimate only 1,000 attendees per tea party, that would mean 800,000 citizens protested yesterday on a variety of issues that are based on taxation. From Obama’s budget to the IRS, signs were held high from Lansing Michigan to San Francisco; where the local news, in most cases reported a mix of attendees; Republican’s, Independents and yes, Democrats who are sick and tired of bloated budget and out-of-touch politician’s, including Obama. Although the concept was brought about by a Conservative Group (not Republican), the attendees were a mixed bag of political ideology with a common complaint.

What ABC, NBC and CBS (CNN, MSNBC), fail to understand is that; although they do have a certain viewership, they will further lose credibility simply because people also watch their local news, which, reports contradict the national media. This will also apply to the White House – should the President (or Gibbs) downplay the events or tag them as “Republican”, they too will be in the same league as the other “talking heads”. What is it that the people want? The citizens of this country want an end to limitless returns to Congress, which enables these legislators to continue to plug pork and ridiculous spending measures into each budget and bill they lay their hands on. Additionally, the current budget is unacceptable to many who know that the tax burden being placed on future generations is untenable. The reason for tagging Republican to the events is simple; and transparent – the White House and the Media understand that the people are angry across the board, and will tag the Democrat Party, with Obama at its helm, as the culprits. This will lead to a strong showing to the GOP in 2010 - however, should they tag this nationally as a GOP idea, then they are doing a disservice to those who attended the protests (who were bi-partisan) and a service to the Republican Party. The Party will benefit, and be branded anti-tax, anti-budget, which, in an ever deepening economic mess, will be remembered by those heading to the polls in 2010 and 2012.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

From Patrick’s Crackpot Taxes to Obama’s Budget - Massachusetts Tea Party – Springfield – “Go Tax Yourself”

From WWLP Springfield, MA : The grassroots Tea Party movement drew several hundred people in the Bluest Corner of the Bluest State today. Tea Party’s protesting the Governments abuse of the Constitution (excessive taxes) are being held around the country today. It is, perhaps, most relevant in the State of Massachusetts, where the first Tea Party was held in Boston in 1773, a rallying cry for Patriots who longed for a representative government by and for the people. Today, Massachusetts, under the administration of Governor Duval Patrick (D), is one of the most excessively taxed States in the Country. Massachusetts Taxpayers fees and taxes are notorious. From owning the 4th highest corporate tax globally, to increases in fees for auto registration and high fees assessed and paid to the Department of Revenue for not participating in the State Run Universal Health Insurance Program – what is left of the middle class in Massachusetts may soon be unable to carry the burden any longer for the excesses of the Governor and Beacon Hill. New taxes proposed by David Axelrod’s Boy Wonder (the .19 Cent per Gallon Gas Tax aside) include: (Boston Globe):

    Meals tax
    Increase the statewide meals tax by 1 percentage point, to 6 percent, which would raise $125 million for next fiscal year. Also give municipalities the option to raise the tax by an additional 1 percentage point, to 7 percent.

    Hotel tax
    Increase the statewide hotel tax by 1 percentage point, to 6.75 percent, which would raise $24 million next fiscal year. Also give municipalities the option to raise the tax by an additional 1 percentage point, to 7.75 percent.

    Alcohol, soda, and candy tax
    Eliminate a tax exemption on sales of alcohol, soda, and candy. Currently food sold outside of restaurants is exempt from the state's 5 percent sales tax; the governor wants to eliminate that exemption for certain items. For next fiscal year, the move would raise $150 million, $121.5 million of which would go to state coffers and $28.5 million to a fund used to build public schools. The proposal would have raised $24 million this year if the Legislature had implemented it by April 1.

    RMV fees
    Increase a variety of fees that residents pay when they go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. All told, $74.5 million would be raised for during the next fiscal year. It would have raised $18 million this year, if the Legislature had implemented it by April 1.

    Telecommunication tax
    Eliminate a tax exemption for telecommunications companies, which would raise about $52 million.

    Bottle deposit fees
    The state's 5-cents -per-container charge on carbonated sodas, beer, and malt beverages would be expanded to also include noncarbonated beverages like sports drinks, water, and juices. It would raise $20 million in state revenue for next fiscal year.

Now that’s a stimulus that would motivate the middle class to move to say – Texas!

Most of the taxpayers, nationwide, are not in the same league as say, Obama’s Treasury Secretary Geithner (one of many), a fact known to anyone not living under a rock – and the resentment is growing. The Tax Day Tea Party Protests will, undoubtedly be given little heed by those who feel above and beyond the common people, until November 2010.

Homeland Security – Investigating “Right-Wing” American Citizens – Paranoia Reaches New Heights

Dept. of Homeland Security Terrorists - photo: Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary

The recent “Threat Assessment” issued to local law enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security, focuses on several factors that are, at the very least, a bit ridiculous. To be fair, it is one thing for law enforcement to look at groups such as so called “White-Supremacists”, and keep an eye on say, actual known individuals who may or may not blow up a local government office, (in the report) but their list includes some “criteria” that is insulting to the average citizen, to say the least. Several of those deemed as “possible recruits” (threat to national security) in this report, would be more inclined to form a “revolution at the polling booth” than attack the government. The list includes extremist positions such as those who are pro-life, those who own guns, those who have lost jobs, and might blame the President and icing on the cake, those returning from active duty in the military (they may be in danger of being recruited by one of these “radical groups”). Full Report Here

One would think that a coordinated effort between ACORN and the Department of Homeland Security would be more in order, in the event any of these radicals attempt to vote a particularly left of center government out of office in the 2010.

This report is akin to telling the American populous, “If you hold a belief contrary to the current administrations, you’re being watched.” This is shades of J. Edgar Hoover – in spades, or more to the point, paranoid.

From what this report reads, most of the nation should be under scrutiny – Catholics who are pro-choice, and hunt for example, may be on the list (especially if one blogs or is otherwise vocal in the community), add a recent job loss, or be a returning military, and one might find a green sedan parked outside one’s home from time to time.

Terrorist on US Soil - photo: Militant Islam

Would it not be better, for example, for those in a position to protect American’s from threats, to take a harder look at those groups that are actually terrorists and are actively working in the United States – say Hammas. There are several reports that training camps have been set-up in Virginia, however, due to the fact that these individuals may be of a certain Religious affiliation; to monitor their activity or to release reports to local police regarding their profiles, would be: profiling!

In all seriousness, what the administration has done is give radio talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, another boost in ratings. In addition, those millions that are being reached each day by the aforementioned will be voting to ensure that the focus of the Department of Homeland Security is on credible threats, not on citizens who may disagree with policy.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Perry (R-TX) backs Texas Sovereignty

Governor Rick Perry held a news conference affirming Texas Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment. A press release is available here at the Governor's Website.

Video Here:

Perhaps with the ever encroaching Federal Government, States Rights, as defined by the Constitution, will cause other States, so inclined, to do the same.

Text of the Resolution: Here:

81R5789 MMS-F

By: Creighton H.C.R. No. 50

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States reads as follows: "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";
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of
federal power as being that specifically granted by the
Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment
means that the federal government was created by the states
specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated
as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of
the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union
of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal
government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government," and the Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people";
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New
York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations
and some now pending from the present administration and from
congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and, be it
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official
copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to
the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the
senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the
Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this
resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a
memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.

A Matter of Trust – Poll: Republican’s Tied on Surprising Key Issue with Democrats – Social Security

A recent Rasmussen Pollshows Republican’s leading or within points of Democrats on most key issues, including a surprising tie on Social Security, previously a Democrat strong point. Additionally, Democrats lead Republican’s on the Economy and Government Ethics by a mere 3 point margin; Republican’s lead in expected categories of National Security, Taxes, Abortion and Immigration. Democrats lead in Healthcare and Education. Social Security has been a key issue for Democrats on the campaign stump, using Social Security benefits (or the end thereof), as a talking point in mailers to constituents, much the same way as Republican mailers cite National Security (or the lack thereof) in the same manner.

The narrow margin on these key issues can be viewed in two ways – 1) Republican’s have gained in public trust in a very short period of time among independents, leaving the country more ideologically divided ideologically than in previous months. This would indicate that the 2010 general election may tip the balance of power in the Capital should the trend continue and Republican candidates pick up seats. (This scenario would match historical trends.)

Alternately, the gap might also indicate a general distrust of both parties. In this scenario, alternative parties, such as the Libertarian Party, may benefit in an increase in both membership as well as seats in both Congress and the Senate.

Of interest: the distrust of political parties was most evidenced in Madison’s treatise on the subject in the Federalist Papers #10

The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Barney Frank will be up for re-election in 2010 – a Public Service Message


Sean Beilat (R-MA) Former Democrat Set to Savage Barney Frank (D-MA) in November General

Sean Bielat pulled off a rather large GOP primary victory last night, and has set his sites on one of Massachusetts more interesting and reviled politician, Congressman Barney Frank. Frank, who won the Democrat Party Primary, besting political newcomer Rachael Brown, will now, for the first time in decades (this is a resounding them in regards to Massachusetts Congressional Races) face one Sean Bielat – The man who will retire Barney Frank this November 2010.

Understanding the aforementioned reads like a tired political slogan, one must understand that the reality of the district, (high unemployment key), and the quality of the opposition candidate (One Mr. Shawn Bielat), makes the slogan more of a reality based statement. From an early age, Mr. Bielat was invested in a family of military background, and politically the family leaned Democrat. The key here is that they were a family of New York Democrats, or what is otherwise known in Massachusetts as Republicans. In addition, Mr. Bielat is already familiar with Congress, as he was a page for, you guessed it, Democrats. Mr. Bielat has a stellar business record, an education to match which makes this bright young, active duty Marine, the perfect match for the current curmudgeon who holds sway over the district and the nation’s finances.

Admittedly, at first, when hearing Mr. Bielat switched to the Republican Party in 2007, the reaction from this blog was one of pure anger and frustration. Both emotions driven by a political motivation to remove Barney Frank from office, no matter how small a contribution one may make towards that endeavor, and here, Mr. Bielat had the most perfect background in order to do achieve that goal, only he neglected to use it to his best advantage, in this humble opinion. Had Mr. Bielat announced his former affiliation and his desire to be a change agent, by not only leaving the Democrat Party, but in addition running against one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress (which, needless to say – is not particularly well liked by conservatives, or those who lean conservative) – he would have been miles ahead of Frank in his quest, pre-primary.

That said, never say never and apparently too little too late does not apply. That is not to say it will be a “walk in the park” for Mr. Bielat, but it will be easier for Mr. Bielat to take back the 4th Congressional District seat for the people, than any other district race in the Commonwealth. To learn more about Sean Bielat, and specifically to donate, donate, donate go to: Sean Send a message to the Beltway (and the media) – the 4th District is far from “Safe Democrat”.

Polls: Mr. Bielat is within 10 points of Barney Frank as of September 14, 2010. Visit and donate, volunteer, donate

Addendum: Barney Frank will be challenged by Earl Sholley, who announced his candidacy today. (Article Here) Sholley is a fiscal conservative, and although one might think that the district (and all of Massachusetts for that matter) is primarily Democrat - it is not. The majority of registered voters are "Unenrolled", and Sholley did run in 2008, but entered the race late - the result was that Mr. Sholley received all of the Republican votes (approximately 12%), he also received votes from either unenrolleds or Democrats who were disenfranchised from Mr. Frank for supporting Obama over Clinton, which amounted to approximately 30% of the districts votes. 2010 will be different for several reasons - Mr. Sholley has already filed with the FEC, he has a campaign manager with grassroots experience (Huckabee Campaign), and the primary reason that most Republicans do not win in the Bay State is simply branding - or name recognition. Polling in past elections (in Massachusetts) proved that the challenger's numbers went up with name recognition, (see Jeff Beatty's Senate Run Against John Kerry) - the approval rating was equal to the number of individuals who "knew of" the candidate. This particular race is, of course, of import to the 4th District of Massachusetts, but more importantly, of import to the nation, given Mr. Frank's position and his ties to the nation's finances (among other issues). To those interested in learning more about Earl Sholley, visit his website or

As there have been almost as many search request for “When is Barney Frank Up for Reelection” as the search for Tax Penalties for Health Insurance)on this blog, the following information is being provided as a public service: Barney Frank (D-MA) 4th District will be up for re-election in 2010. The 4th district includes Bristol County (New Bedford and Fall River), Middlesex County (Newton), Norfolk County (Foxboro), and Plymouth County (Halifax, Lakeville, Marion, Mattapoisett, Middleborough, Rochester, Wareham).

Should one be interested in finding an alternative to Mr. Frank, there is, to date, one (Republican) candidate that has announced an intention to run: Earl Henry Sholley(Website).
According to South Coast Today Mr. Frank’s paper of choice, he has quadrupled the amount of donations to his election since 2002, the majority of the funds coming from
the financial services sector, instead of individual donations from the district itself.

To find out who else may be running against Mr. Frank in 2010, contact the State GOP here.
Other State Political Party that might run a candidate against Barney Frank:
the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts There is a list of minor Party’s with contacts here at the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s website. Should you want to keep an eye on Mr. Frank, ACORN’s offices in Massachusetts are listed here.
Just a note: That Acorn office was “broken into” in October of 2008, computers were stolen. Mr. Frank handily won re-election. Granted this is merely a coincidence. "Republican Operatives" were blammed for the break-in - seriously.

Massachusetts Tax Penalty Non-Compliance with Mandatory Health Insurance Program

As a public service: As the number one search lately for this blog is “Tax for Massachusetts Health Insurance Program”, the entire schedule is listed at Massachusetts Department of Revenue. To break it down in simple terms:
The State has determined what individuals and families must pay in taxes for not carrying the States Mandatory Health Insurance program, based upon 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. There is a graduated scale in taxes (fees) based upon ones annual salary as well as the total number of dependents for this tax year. Additionally, the State insists that these fees only apply to adults who are “deemed” able to afford the States Plan (Health Connector). There is an appeals process available for those who wish to file based upon the inability to purchase health insurance from the state for reasons not stated on the D.O.R. website. There is no penalty assessed for a lapse in coverage of 63 days in the 2008 calendar year, however, there is no mention of what might happens should the State’s Commonwealth Connector arbitrarily (by mistake) cancel one’s health insurance, and fail to notify you in a timely manner (this happens).

Married couples without children are taxed as follows: the fee will be equal the sum of the individual penalty for each spouse. Therefore, if two people earn $42,012 per year, and have no children, they will be paying $1,842 in additional taxes to the State. (Another boon to the wedding industry.)

A Family of 4 Earning $$42,408 Will Pay Only Half or $420 Tax Penalty to State of Massachusetts, and so on. The State’s D.O.R. is rather user friendly, again located here at Massachusetts D.O.R. There are no loopholes, one must comply or pay the fee.

To avoid paying this additional tax to the state of Massachusetts for the following tax year (2009), go to Commonwealth Care, or consider moving to a State where Mandatory Health Insurance is not in force. (Residents of the North Shore have taken a liking to New Hampshire, turning that formerly Red State, rather Blue).

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address