The text of the legislation sponsored by Jill Holtzman Vogel reads as follows:

No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage.  No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage.

This is a big win for Virginians, the 10th Amendment, and liberty. The fight is not over though. I highlight the word “individual” above because it worries me. Does this mean the federal government can mandate family coverage?

Hopefully this ambiguity will be remedied as the bill moves further along in the legislative process.

Five Democrats voted for the bill. You can find the vote tally on the bill’s tracking page here and more information is available here.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.

Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.

In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.

Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act.  I highly recommend reading the entire article.

First, here is some audio from Guntalk, a weekly radio show hosted by Tom Gresham of Guntalk.tv, a wonderful resource for all gun-owners.

Gresham reveals the details of the previous incorporation-related cases and a new development that could have a bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court takes up the question. Before it was a no-brainer for the high court to hear the case, but now the 9th Circuit Court appears to be trying their hardest to make it a “brainer”. Listen to Gresham lay it all out in the audio below.

Download audio file (gresham-on-incorp-08022009.mp3)

Originally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a set of restraints on the federal government. The states pretty much had free reign on the laws they could enact. The states were governing themselves prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Our Founders (for the most part) tried to avoid trampling on states’ rights to self-govern. The amendments passed following the Civil War, particularly the 14th, set the stage for the trampling to begin.

In the 1890’s a series of Supreme Court decisions (for the first time) held that most of the Bill of Rights was enforceable against state governments. Applying the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation”. The question then becomes should the Bill of Rights be incorporated (or apply) to the states?  (more details on Incorporation).

Upon first learning of the incorporation concept I was confused and had some questions. Didn’t the 10th Amendment make incorporation a non-starter? Then again, if the Bill of Rights was set up to enumerate (and protect) our own natural (or God-given) rights then how could those first 10 amendments not apply to the states? I’ve come to learn that there are at least two parallel universes where these kinds of questions get answered. There is reality where normal people live and work, and there is law where every letter of every word gets analyzed into oblivion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that just about every one of our first 10 amendments applies to the states. The 2nd Amendment is not the only exception but it is in the extreme minority. The Heller decision last year paves the way for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of incorporating the 2nd amendment to the states because of the following wording found in the decision:

“We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ’shall not be infringed.”

Since the court recognizes that the right to bear arms is a pre-existing right, that it existed prior to the Constitution, it appears I found an answer to one of my questions. Yes, the 2nd Amendment does enumerate a natural human right. Of course, we already knew it did. Now it seems the Supreme Court knows it too.

I’m not one to favor letting the federal government stomp all over states’ rights, but given the 10th Amendment, and the plain truth that the Bill of Rights protects rights we already have as human beings, I’m strongly in favor of incorporating the entire Bill of Rights.

The problem is that our federal government ventures outside the scope of the Bill of Rights when wielding power over the states. That list includes conducting raids and arresting non-violent drug offenders in California even when state law says it is legal, coercing the states to abide by the federally mandated 55 MPH speed limit in the mid-1970’s by threatening to hold back federal transportation funds, and many others.

Recently, an amendment to force reciprocity on states to allow concealed carry permit holders to cross state lines legally while carrying failed in the Senate. This is one of those cases that would never even come up had we been following the 2nd Amendment as written. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t distinguish between concealing a gun and carrying it openly. This is why I supported the amendment even though it could be argued that it usurps some states’ rights.

I’m in favor of any law that makes an effort to enforce, in whole or in part, the Constitution of the United States of America. Such efforts give me hope that someday it will be the supreme law of the land once again.

I can’t help but wonder if Norm Coleman had defeated Al Franken and if Arlen Specter didn’t switch parties the required 60 would have been reached. Both Franken and Specter were among the 39 who voted ‘No’.

After some thought I realized there is a valid argument that this amendment could violate states rights. The argument is based on a bit of a “catch-22″ built-in to the amendment. In short, the amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to “violate” the state laws that apply to obtaining a permit. For instance in some states the law is such that in order to get a permit one has to pass a live firing test. The amendment would nullify that rule for someone who enters the state from a state that does not have such a requirement.

That being said, there’s something to be said for thinking of it like one thinks of a driver’s license. The laws governing obtaining a driver’s license differ in each state, yet we don’t seem to have a problem allowing reciprocity for cars crossing state lines as long as the rules of the state are obeyed.

And what about the 2nd Amendment? The entire debate should be rendered moot if we actually followed the 2nd amendment. Isn’t it true that humans have a natural right to defend him/her self from harm? After all the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, it merely affirms our natural human rights. We had the right to defend ourselves from harm pre-Constitution.

Below I’m including the remarks from Virginia Senator Jim Webb delivered yesterday during the debate on this amendment. He was one of several Democrats who voted for the amendment. As one of his constituents I thank him for doing so. I’d like to be thanking him for also cosponsoring S.604 to fully audit the Federal Reserve, but he hasn’t done that yet. I hope in time he does so.

In the meantime, enjoy his strong and thoughtful arguments on the amendment today.

—————————————————————-
Senator Jim Webb’s Floor Remarks on
Thune Amendment, Amdt. 1618 to S. 1390
July 22, 2009

“Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it is reasonable and is not as draconian in its implications as many of my colleagues, whom I greatly respect in terms of their concerns, are anticipating.

“I would also say there has been a lot of misinformation on the Senate floor about this amendment, to the effect that it will allow felons, people who are mentally defective, and other dangerous individuals to carry weapons on the streets of American cities, and also to buy up hordes of guns and to transport them into places, as Senator Schumer mentioned, like New York City.

“My colleague from New York gave as an example, in his terms, a Crip or a Blood moving to Vermont, establishing residency, then bringing a permit down into New York and being able to carry a weapon with impunity. I think the reality of that particular situation is that the gang members already have their guns. They don’t need this bill. In fact, this amendment has protections that would prevent those who engage in criminal activity such as gang members from taking advantage of this legislation. And the people who need this bill are the ones the gang members might be threatening.

“With respect to standards of conduct, aspects of criminality, and issues of mental health, it’s important to note that there is a federal floor underneath this amendment that guarantees that certain standards will be met, regardless of varying state standards.

“If you read the amendment, it states that “a person who is not prohibited from Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who meets other conditions then may be granted reciprocity

“If you go into federal law, and I am going to read from 27 CFR Section 478, this is the current standard in terms of being able to possess a firearm or ammunition.

“Anyone who:

· Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year may not possess a firearm;

· Is a fugitive from justice;

· Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

· Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

· Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

· Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

· Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

· Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;

. or anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm. In addition, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.”

“Those, Mr. President, are the federal guarantees, the floor under which this reciprocity legislation operates.

“Senator Lautenberg has said in his comments that passing this legislation is akin to allowing someone from another state to come into your state and follow their own speed limits. This is not true. The amendment specifically provides that anyone carrying a firearm into another state must follow the laws regarding firearm usage in that state.

“I quote from the amendment:

“In a state that allows residents of the State to obtain licences or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to thesame laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issues a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.”

“I would say, Mr. President, that the better analogy at work here is the driver’s licensing process itself. States decide the conditions under which a license can be granted, but the nature of interstate travel allows licenses issued in another state to be recognized across the country, so long as the holders of those licenses obey the laws of the state in which they are driving.

“I also keep hearing that this amendment will increase the number of purchases of hand guns and other weapons. I’d like to clarify for this body as someone who holds a concealed carry permit. A permit to carry does not automatically allow anyone to purchase a firearm automatically. One still has to go through the entire background check as if you did not have a permit. Illegal firearms sales are a separate matter for this body to address, one that we clearly should be focusing on, but they fall outside the parameters of this amendment.

“Mr. President, the issue of gun usage in America understandably divides people, usually along the lines of those who believe any relaxation of gun laws will benefit criminal and violent activity, versus those who believe that gun laws need to be modified in order to allow law-abiding people to defend themselves. I have a great deal of empathy for those who have been the victims of gun violence, and I have worked with citizens groups as well as our governor in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings to focus our approach.

“We have made significant improvements in our laws since then, including working to modify privacy laws as they relate to mental health matters, which was the primary concern in the Virginia Tech shooting and also to improve the instant background checks. I will continue to work in these areas.

“I also believe very strongly that the violence we see on our streets and in our neighborhoods must be addressed. But very little of that violence has ever been caused by those who seek permits to carry. As I mentioned before, the people who are perpetrating that kind of violence already have their guns. Their access to those guns is a matter we all should focus on. But few criminals are going to go down to the county courthouse and file for a permit. Those who seek permits to carry and who are within the federal guidelines specifically addressed in this bill seek to do so in order to protect themselves from the violence we see on our streets. I would say, when I look at this amendment, a couple of clear examples come to mind.

“One is my father, who in his later years lived in Florida and then Arkansas and would drive alone in his car to visit me and my brother who lived in Minnesota. It was usually at least a two day journey. My father was older, he was by himself in his car. He was a classic target of potential criminal activity. He carried a weapon, a firearm, when he traveled. When he stopped at night, went into a motel, he brought that weapon with him. You check into a motel, you’re 77 years old, you’re by yourself, people are going to start looking at you. I don’t think that people who are in that situation need to wonder if they’re committing a felony by having to defend themselves when they’re in that situation.

“Something else that comes to mind are all of these truck drivers that we see on the roads any time we are on the interstate. These are independent contractors, they are making a living the hard way. They constantly cross state boundaries. They have to worry about whether their truck is going to break down, they have to wonder sometimes where they stop, whether they might be victimized if they sleep in the cabin of their truck. They can legally carry, many of them, in their own state. Do they have to worry if they cross into another state boundary and pull over for the night that if they’re trying to defend themselves, they’re committing a felony? This is the type of situation that I believe this legislation is attempting to address.

“I believe it will have a beneficial effect, I believe strongly that we need to work together in this body to address other situations of gun violence in this country. I am glad to add whatever insights I can have to this body in order to do so.

“I support this legislation and intend to vote for it. I yield the floor.”

—————————————
(Thanks to Kimberly Hunter, Webb’s Press Secretary, for providing his remarks.)

Does the Thune Amendment actually violate states rights?

It does not. It can be thought of as applying the laws of state driver’s licenses to concealed carry permits. The summary of the amendment makes it clear that it requires that the carrier follow the laws of the state in which he/she is carrying:

A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Yet every Senator opposed to the amendment is falsely arguing that it violates states rights?

Incidentally, I applaud my own Senator, Jim Webb, for supporting the amendment against the wishes of his Democratic colleagues.

The vote is supposed to occur about an hour from the time of this writing. I’ll write more following the vote.

by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published on Monday, June 8, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6514.html

This short piece will describe “50 Laboratories” model using the current debate over federal nationalization of our health care as a practical example. However, I want to stress that this argument can be applied to most other topics of national concern, such as energy, the economy, retirement and even hot-button topics like same-sex marriage and abortion.

As the self-styled “Champion of the Constitution,” readers of this column are very familiar with my application of the Constitution to current events and issues. I confess that an affection for the Tenth Amendment from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights runs very strong in my blood. I even believe it should be repeated several more times in the Constitution so that posterity will never neglect it.

“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.”

However, let us assume for the purpose of this article that this argument is null and void. In fact, our federal Legislative, Judicial and Executive have behaved for the past decade as if this is the case, so whatever your personal views are, oath or no oath, this is a fair assumption to make.

Conversely, let us also hypothetically assume the argument that all 50 States do not have Sovereignty over their own States is also null and void, though this is fairly ridiculous. Perhaps when the day arrives where Rhode Island and Connecticut decide to merge into the state of Rhodnecticut, or North Carolina and South Carolina combine into Carolina, we can review this once more.

Let’s use a little common sense in regards to Obamacare, which ambitiously endeavors to provide socialized health care to all citizens in all 50 states, forcing them to pay the same relative rates either directly or by taxation. Many citizens are opposed to such a change, and personally I have been finding very many eloquent opinions against this plan. Let’s place utopian and armageddon viewpoints aside for the moment, and look at the two possible outcomes espoused by each side in the debate.  (symbol)

1. AGAINST – Health care costs will spiral upwards, quality of service will plummet, and the right of the individual to choose their method of care will be infringed.
2. FOR – Everyone will get health care, costs will be contained and reasonable, and the quality of care for the collective whole will be OK, and the rich can opt out with a penalty payment and still choose.

Well, first we certainly need a public debate to debate the finer points and not a party line vote in the House and Senate – who would likely pass it despite, judging on prior votes, whether we have the means to do so or not. It would be interesting to see if the bill mandates that all Members of Congress must enroll in the plan.

However, rather than embark on a possible national health care disaster, how about we try variants of these plans in a couple of willing States for several years? (Of course all the public accounting would need to be transparent – one could imagine Big Brother “stimulating” the plans to success behind closed doors!) Why do we not use our 50 States as “50 Laboratories”? This would provide us with the following:

1. A real-life feasibility study.
2. If there is success, some valuable lessons on optimization would be learned from any mistakes and generate confidence in the plan
3. Disaster proofing – we do not run the risk of failing the whole country on any given idea all at once

If the plans work, the States will be happy and may even have migration problems from all the Americans eager to arrive and work inside the universal health care system!  We could then consider such a plan in other states or on a national level.

If the plans fail, the States should pullback and end them as soon as eventual failure becomes obvious or as they wish. Does this sound like common sense or not?

Well, it appears that in the case of health care, we’ve already tried this in Massachusetts for the past three (3) years, hence the overall tone of the above.  Per this article from the Reason Foundation, nationalizing Massachusett’s health care failed.  Miserably.

A separate study by the Cato Institute found that although Massachusetts politicians promised that the insurance mandate would reduce medical costs. They also estimated that health insurance premiums could drop by 25-40%. Instead…

• Premiums rose by 7.4% in 2007, 8-12% in 2008, and are expected to rise 9% this year
• This compares to an average nationwide increase of only 5.7% over the same period
• Annual health insurance costs for a family in Massachusetts average about $4,000 more than the national rate
• Health care spending has also increased in Massachusetts by 23% since the coverage mandate was enacted

In my view, socialist proponents (or should I instead write “health care lobbyists”? Cui bono?) should go back to their drawing board and try to convince another State to embark on a multi-year experiment. If this idea works so great, this should be an absolute cakewalk, and State after State will come knocking on their doors to volunteer. This will make passing a Constitutional amendment easier (grin). Since success is just extremely unlikely, not impossible, I wish them luck.

However, I would suggest that these proponents forget their complicated plans to enrich the few from plundering the many for just a moment and instead study free market economics, which we have not had in our country for a long, long, time. For a philosophical primer, please the “Health Care and Indigenous Power” section of Common Sense Revisited, available for free download here.

Jake Towne is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties.  Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com and www.CampaignForLiberty.com.  A master campaign presentation for internet viewing is available. [Reach the Author Here!]

PostScript – You can listen me describe the above in Part 2 of this interview with the anonymous author of the pamphlet “Common Sense Revisited” from Wednesday.  Topics covered in the interview include the FED, governomics, and gold.

_______________________________________________________________________

“Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are.” – George Santayana

Nolan Chart Facebook Group Page Created

Summary of Articles and Bibliography for Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution (5/9/2009)

As Scott McPherson of The Future of Freedom Foundation pointed out, similar to the right expressed in our Second Amendment, the English have a right to bear arms as expressed in English Declaration of Rights (1688).  Nonetheless, in 1997, handgun ownership was completely banned.

Given the leftist atmosphere in U.S. politics currently, alongside the wiggle room that Justice Scalia left in the Heller decision (“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”), we could be in trouble.  As McPherson puts it,

Don’t bet your life, or your children’s or grandchildren’s freedom, that 50 or a 100 years from now a sufficiently reconstituted and “progressive” Court won’t consider it a “reasonable restriction” of your “not unlimited” right to make firearms so difficult to obtain that armed self-defense becomes a thing of the past.

Government will become more arbitrary, restrained only by good sense and decency — virtues not commonly found in those holding great power. At that point, the American citizen becomes a subject — one step removed from a serf — then a slave. Whatever verbal calisthenics or contortions legislators or judges may employ to convince you otherwise, that was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers, and the very reason early American statesmen demanded that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — period, end of discussion.

McPherson also explains our natural right to gun ownership in a way I’d not heard it before: we don’t need the 2nd Amendment to deem all federal gun restrictions illegal.

Freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to peacefully assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, to trial by jury, and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and even a statement protecting rights not listed — all are found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Even if there were no Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would fall under the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights, but gun ownership was considered so important that it too was mentioned specifically.

Read all of Scott McPherson’s article here.

Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan united in a one two punch fighting for liberty. They spoke about nullification, secession, and then compared Europe and America on the road to socialism. Another topic that they and the other guests discussed was protectionism. Peter Schiff seems to believe the U.S. need not worry too much about protectionism. Tom Palmer disagrees. Woods and Rockwell delve into the prospects for liberty in our lifetime.

Another excellent show. Watch it below.

Quote of the Day: “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.” — 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

* Government was supposed to be local, close to the people
* Federal government was supposed to be small compared to the combined states
* The 10th Amendment limits the federal government to 20 functions, leaving all other matters to the states and the people. To see the list of these functions, go to DownsizeDC.org’s Enumerated Powers Act campaign
Then, click on the “Talking Points” tab.

It’s bad enough that Congress has exceeded its constitutional limits. It’s potentially worse that they now fund the majority of state spending too. Funding usually means control, so the consequences are huge . . .

* Federal control is usually dictated by bureaucrats, not your elected representatives
* These bureaucrats often use federal aid to “bribe” your local governments to do things they would prefer to NOT do

But it gets worse. Many states require a balanced budget. Federal funding allows states to skirt these limits. Essentially, because the feds are always running huge deficits, the states are getting the federal government to do their borrowing for them.

Worst of all, federal funding centralizes decision making, magnifying the harm caused by bad policies. Bad laws in California don’t impact Arizona, but mistakes made by federal politicians harm everyone. And boy, Congress sure makes a lot of mistakes. For instance . . .

* A poorly written federal law regulating lead content in products has had vast, unintended consequences, removing safe products from the shelves, threatening small businesses with bankruptcy, and raising costs for low income families.
* And just last week, in our Dispatch “Congress could mess up a train wreck,” we told you about a federal law that has led the paper industry to use more fossil fuels, even though the law’s supposed purpose was to use less

These are hardly isolated examples. We could go on for pages listing others. And the more our government centralizes at the federal level, the more numerous and dangerous the examples will become.

Now, we say this mainly for the benefit of our many new members . . .

You aren’t going to change this by electing new politicians. The trend toward centralized government has continued no matter whom you’ve elected. Democrats and Republicans are both responsible, in EQUAL measure. Neither will you change things with isolated efforts, like now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t protests. Instead . . .

We must pressure Congress in a relentless, overwhelming, direct way. Achieving this will require . . .

* The recruitment of a huge army capable of making its voice heard by everyone, everywhere, every day.
* The commitment to pound, pound, pound Congress into submission

We’ll use many tools to achieve these goals, but all it takes today is a few keyboard strokes and mouse clicks. Please use our quick and easy Educate the Powerful System to send your Congressional employees a message telling them to cut federal spending.

Use your personal comments to specifically object to the fact that federal aid now funds the majority of state government spending. Tell them this violates the 10th Amendment.

We want to pound Congress with more than the 31,730 messages we sent in April. This means we need to send at least 1,601 messages today. You can send your message at DownsizeDC.org’s “cut spending” campaign page.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how much we’re growing please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

Jim Babka
President, DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Keeping Score

You can’t change the government by yourself. You’ll need a huge “army” to help you. That means these numbers must grow constantly . . .

The Downsize DC Army now stands at 25,199. It’s grown by 850 net new members so far this year, and 40 net new members since our Friday report. We’ve gone nearly 20% of the way to 26,000 in the last week, whereas previously it took us 176 days to get from 24k to 25k. The Army’s growth is accelerating!

YOU can make the army grow even faster by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

We can also grow faster by mailing recruitment letters to potential DC Downsizers. If you can start a monthly credit card pledge to help make this happen please let us know on the secure contribution form if its okay to publish your name here . . .

NEW MONTHLY PLEDGERS IN MAY: Nancy Kovar, Ryan Ackroyd, WM Michael O’Brien, John C Houghton, James Alan Speedie, ONE unlisted

Or, if you’d prefer to make a one-time donation please let us know if its okay to publish your name here . . .

NEW ONE TIME DONORS IN MAY: Ernest P. Eusea, Chris Reulman, David Anthony, Christopher T Wagner, Thomas Sartwelle, Jr, THREE unlisted

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

In case you missed it, and wish to get Dr. Paul’s take on it, take a look at his weekly column Texas Straight Talk, where spells it all out:

Last week the governor of Texas ignited a media firestorm for his remarks involving the idea of secession. He did not call for Texas to secede from the United States. He merely pointed out that the federal government was treading heavily on the sovereignty of the states and that this can not continue indefinitely without a breaking point.

The reaction to Governor Perry’s statements has been nothing short of hysterical. He has been called treasonous for making this obvious point and opening up a discussion. I am not calling for secession either, however there is nothing wrong with a healthy and open discussion of this issue.

America was born from an act of secession. When King George’s rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights. We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests. [Continue]