I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in NewsWithViews.com that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.

See the story here

The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to PolyMontana.com to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:

http://polymontana.com/legislators/freedom-bills/

Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First” bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:

http://tinyurl.com/4aclefs

Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear” in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)

For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.

I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!

This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.

And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.

I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!

*******

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in December, 2002. A previous version of it was published on December 25, 1966, dedicated to Harry’s then 9-year-old daughter.)

It’s Christmas, and I have the usual problem of deciding what to give you. I know you might enjoy many things – books, games, clothes.

But I’m very selfish. I want to give you something that will stay with you for more than a few months or years. I want to give you a gift that might remind you of me every Christmas.

If I could give you just one thing, I’d want it to be a simple truth that took me many years to learn. If you learn it now, it may enrich your life in hundreds of ways. And it may save your having to face many problems that have hurt people who’ve never learned it.

The truth is simply this:

No one owes you anything.

Significance

How could such a simple statement be important? It may not seem so, but understanding it can bless your entire life.

No one owes you anything.

It means that no one else is living for you, my child. Because no one is you. Each person is living for himself; his own happiness is all he can ever personally feel.

When you realize that no one owes you happiness or anything else, you’ll be freed from expecting what isn’t likely to be.

It means no one has to love you. If someone loves you, it’s because there’s something special about you that gives him happiness. Find out what that something special is and try to make it stronger in you, so that you’ll be loved even more.

When people do things for you, it’s because they want to – because you, in some way, give them something meaningful that makes them want to please you, not because anyone owes you anything.

No one has to like you. If your friends want to be with you, it’s not out of duty. Find out what makes others happy so they’ll want to be near you.

No one has to respect you. Some people may even be unkind to you. But once you realize that people don’t have to be good to you, and may not be good to you, you’ll learn to avoid those who would harm you. For you don’t owe them anything either.

Living your Life

No one owes you anything.

You owe it to yourself to be the best person possible. Because if you are, others will want to be with you, want to provide you with the things you want in exchange for what you’re giving to them.

Some people will choose not to be with you for reasons that have nothing to do with you. When that happens, look elsewhere for the relationships you want. Don’t make someone else’s problem your problem.

Once you learn that you must earn the love and respect of others, you’ll never expect the impossible and you won’t be disappointed. Others don’t have to share their property with you, nor their feelings or thoughts.

If they do, it’s because you’ve earned these things. And you have every reason to be proud of the love you receive, your friends’ respect, the property you’ve earned. But don’t ever take them for granted. If you do, you could lose them. They’re not yours by right; you must always earn them.

My experience

A great burden was lifted from my shoulders the day I realized that no one owes me anything. For so long as I’d thought there were things I was entitled to, I’d been wearing myself out – physically and emotionally – trying to collect them.

No one owes me moral conduct, respect, friendship, love, courtesy, or intelligence. And once I recognized that, all my relationships became far more satisfying. I’ve focused on being with people who want to do the things I want them to do.

That understanding has served me well with friends, business associates, lovers, sales prospects, and strangers. It constantly reminds me that I can get what I want only if I can enter the other person’s world. I must try to understand how he thinks, what he believes to be important, what he wants. Only then can I appeal to someone in ways that will bring me what I want.

And only then can I tell whether I really want to be involved with someone. And I can save the important relationships for those with whom I have the most in common.

It’s not easy to sum up in a few words what has taken me years to learn. But maybe if you re-read this gift each Christmas, the meaning will become a little clearer every year.

I hope so, for I want more than anything else for you to understand this simple truth that can set you free.

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website.

On the night of April 18, 1775, the lantern’s alarm sent Revere, William Dawes and other riders on the road to spread the news. The messengers cried out the alarm, awakening every house, warning of the British column making its way towards Lexington. In the rider’s wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots – all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.

After that first successful skirmish, our founders endured unimaginable hardships, lost battles, emotional despair, and a debilitating winter at Valley Forge, until Washington’s final victory at Yorktown. The battles of Lexington and Concord were just the beginning of America’s struggle for freedom.

November 2, 2010, was our Battle of Lexington Green, our “shot heard ‘round the world.” Will we have the courage and determination to fight on to win total victory?

The forces of Progressive Socialism will not spend much time licking their wounds. I have no doubt, nor should any of you, that they will double their efforts to take control our government and continue their assault on our Constitution. Armed with massive funding from their puppet masters, they will use misdirection and prevarication to convince the American people that the administration’s spending spree was only in response to the crisis they inherited from their perennial scapegoat, George Bush. The President’s response to his party’s electoral drubbing was to lament not having done a better job explaining his program to the people. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of a socialist takeover of General Motors, the home mortgage industry, the banking industry, the student loan program, the healthcare industry, and our nation’s energy resources by the Federal Government? Haven’t they been willing to compromise and work across the aisle for the past two years even though they held a majority in both houses of congress? If we all weren’t so dumb, we could stop clinging to our guns and our religion long enough to trust the self-anointed smartest people on earth to tell us all how to eat and live.

It’s not the message, Mr. President. It’s the agenda.

As grassroots patriots, however, we must also realize that our inside allies, the Republican members of Congress, are not all as dedicated to constitutional principles as we. Without our constant observation, many will be tempted by the party establishment to stray from the promises made to get elected. They will be co-opted by the trappings of power, threats of ostracism, and the obscene amount of lobbyist and PAC money needed for re-election.

Let me be clear to those newly elected and those re-elected members of Congress.

I will accept no compromise with the principles of limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, and free market economy.

I will accept no compromise with those who deny the supremacy of the individual states and the people, as specified by Article I, Section 8 (the enumerated powers) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that limit the size and scope of the Federal Government.

I will accept no compromise with those who would abuse any portion of the Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, to expand the size and power of the Federal Government beyond what was envisioned by our founders and that which is constitutionally permitted.

I will accept no compromise with those who deny that our Rights are Natural Law Rights, derived from our creator, ours by dint of our humanity and that it is the duty and obligation of all governments to protect and secure those rights, not to abridge, amend, or restrict them.

I will accept no attempt to compromise in repealing legislation, rules, and regulations that serve to enlarge the size and power of the Federal Government at the cost of fiscal responsibility, free market economic principles, and personal freedom.

I will accept no attempt to compromise in the elimination of earmarks and special exemptions from taxes and laws used to reward political contributions, to favor one group over another, and to buy votes.

I will accept no compromise in efforts to decrease the size and cost of government, to balance the budget, and to prevent the use taxpayer dollars as a bail out for corporations and states that are deemed “too big to fail”.

Congress, we are watching you.

The election of 2010 is the first battle in our revolutionary war to regain the freedoms stolen from us by oppressively intrusive federal and state governments and to restore in our nation the constitutional republic that is our heritage.

That is the lesson of Lexington, 1775. The future of our nation and our children’s freedom can only be assured by our vigilance.

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum is a practicing ophthalmologist in Murphy, North Carolina, and a founder of the Cherokee County 9-12 Project. Visit his website at http://drdansfreedomforum.com/

Copyright 2010 Dan Eichenbaum

There is a line from a pop song that goes, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…”, but is that Freedom? Is it the ability to do whatever you want to do? “If it feels good, do it?” Is that Freedom? I think before we agree to fight for it, we should agree what it is we are fighting for so we can decide if it is worth it. In other words, what are you willing to sacrifice to secure it, not only for yourself, but for future generations?

The leaders of the movement that led to our founding were made up of successful financially secure people who risked everything for liberty. The World War II generation sacrificed personal ambition for the idea of freedom. I think that same sentiment is in us today. For example, while doing some precinct walking I talked to a woman whose husband works for the city. While talking about the different candidates she lowered her voice and pointed to her neighbors “Vote no on 60, 61, and 101” yard sign and said in a hushed tone, we are voting yes on those, even though it may mean my husband would lose his job. On that same measure, I have a friend who works for the government who said the same thing. These people equate tax relief to freedom, and are willing to risk their livelihood for it.

Would any of the above have sacrificed anything for “if it feels good, do it?” I don’t think so. I believe that what all of those people wanted was the ability to self-govern. Reading the words of the founders and you will find references such as:

“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint… Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites.”
Edmund Burk

*******

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” John Adams

But today, any time morals are brought up; people immediately jump to their views on the “social” issues of the day as if these issues defined morality. How about greed, unchecked ambitions, integrity, aren’t these the moral issues that have had such a profound effect on our society? Take the on-going housing crises, when you really look at it, its roots are found in ambitious politicians passing laws to force banks to make loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, greedy banks using government guarantees on those loans to bundle bad loans into securities and selling them as derivatives, none of which would have mattered if people would have had a little integrity and not taken out a loan they could not pay back because they thought they would be able to resell the home in a year or two for a quick buck.

So today, while all three of these groups who brought this mess on us point fingers of blame at each other, the average American is waking up to the fact that there is a problem, and something is very wrong. We know instinctively that something has been lost, and that we have to accept not only our own culpability in this crisis, but the burden of getting it back. Freedom will not be won by quibbling over whatever wedge issues are put before us to divide us; it will only be regained when “we the people” restore the true meaning of the words “freedom” and “liberty”. For only then will we be willing to sacrifice our material comforts to win it back for ourselves and our posterity. Freedom is not “nothing left to lose”, it is not self-indulgence and it is not “free”.

I joined the Tenth Amendment Center last year because I believe there is no hope to be found in Washington DC, even if the Tea Party candidates get elected, the reform will be slow if at all, as each one will have to choose between being a “gadfly” or going native and trying to sell the art of “compromise” to their soon to be bewildered base as they explain “this is how it’s done” while defending a bad bill they voted for. How many of these new activist will stay determined to work the system after the certain betrayal of at least of few of the new politicians who sell out for power. I may be cynical, but it’s only because I remember the “Contract with America” in 1994, and how the Demacrats wailed and gnashed their teeth over the Patriot Act in 2005 only to vote to continue it in 2009, or maybe it was after I listened to a surprisingly honest Tom Tancredo as he talked about the tactics GOP party leaders used on Republican law makers to tow the party line with the Medicaid D vote.

The Tenth Amendment Center takes the fight to a more local level, our State House District and Senators, and although there is pressure from above put on these politicians as well, our opportunity to engage these people is much higher. While passing out fliers at the Health Freedom Rally, I talked to State Senator Greg Brophy who told me thank you for being active, and asked that we continue to put the pressure on if the Republicans took the Assembly in the upcoming election. He understands these problems are not a partisan issue. And while I believe there are some real leaders in the State Senate,I agree with Joseph Farah who wrote in. “The Tea Party Manifesto”

“What conservative activists need to understand – because they are good people who need to be involved in the constructive process of moving the Country forward – is that politicians follow; they do not lead.”

You see it is “we the people”, who have been more concerned with getting our piece of the pie then fulfilling our moral obligation of passing true freedom to the next generation, who will need to carry the load of getting us back on track. We cannot wait for a Political Hero to swoop in and save us from ourselves. In Colorado, that means supporting the minority of State legislators who share our vision of America and give them the courage to use the principles of 98 to interpose the Sovereign State of Colorado between an out of control Federal Government and its freedom loving citizens. We need to understand how difficult it will be and that things may get worse before they get better, but have the courage of our convictions that we should bear the burdens of our own inequities instead of passing them to the next generation.

History will tell future generations if we were up to the task at hand, if were willing to pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Look yourself in the mirror and instead of asking what you “can” do, ask what you “will” do. What sacrifices are you willing to make to secure freedom not only for yourself, but for your posterity?

Geoff Broughton [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Last week, President Obama addressed the nation on the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.  In addition to the immediate problem, the president also discussed long term energy policy, saying,

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered.  For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.  And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.  Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

There is some truth in those statements, but there is also plenty to disagree with.  I am old enough to remember a time when my parents were only allowed to buy gas for their cars on certain days of the week — A time with gas lines so long that people ran out of gas while waiting in line to get to the pump.  During those years, we were assured that the end of oil was just around the corner.  Having lived through those experiences, I don’t need to be convinced that running out of oil would be unimaginably painful.

Here is one place where I disagree with that excerpt, though.  The truth is that the federal government has not “failed to act”, as President Obama says.  The reality is that the federal government, captured by the fossil fuel industry, has acted aggressively on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.  Subsidy policies are designed to encourage fossil fuel production and consumption, not to discourage it.  Blogger and science policy expert, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., provides this chart.

At the same time Uncle Sam is demanding more money from us in order to create subsidies to, “break our addiction to fossil fuels”, he is spending more than twice as much more for fossil fuel subsidies than for ”traditional renewables”, carbon capture and corn ethanol combined.  We don’t need to increase taxes and subsidize alternative energy.  All we need to do is stop subsidizing fossil fuels.  Imagine the boost that the alternative energy industry would get from being able to compete on a level playing field against “big oil”!  Yes, our fuel costs might go up, but the increase would be more than offset by the corresponding decrease in taxes or national debt (remember, any time the federal government taxes us to subsidize something, it skims a little for itself.)

We have already talked about the so-called “interstate commerce clause“; Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.  Judge Andrew Napalitano, in various writings informs us that in the meaning of language at the time, the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce meant to “make regular”.  Tipping the balance in favor of the fossil fuel industry is exactly the opposite of making commerce regular.  It makes commerce irregular, favoring states with fossil fuel reserves and limiting states with favorable conditions for alternative sources of energy.  The commerce clause was intended to prevent tariffs and trade policies that basically amounted to economic warfare between the states.  When we consider that some states have abundant fossil fuels and others don’t, these federal subsidy policies create the exact problem that the commerce clause was intended to prevent (as with agriculture subsidies, a topic for a different day).

So we just stop the subsidies, right?  Unfortunately, it’s not quite that easy.  As noted above, we are up against the problem of capture.

“Capture Theory” refers the fact that most citizens are too busy with survival and life to worry about every permit and hearing taking place before a government agency. A vested interest, however – such as BP before the MMS, or a pharmaceutical company before the Food & Drug Administration – has evry reason in the world to know exactly what is on the agency’s agenda, and who is making the decision on their application, and what the secretary’s name is and how the agency decision-makers like their steak cooked. Because the potential benefits of favorable treatment are so lucrative, it makes sense for corporations to hire lobbyists who wine and dine the agency officials. In the end, (to quote myself), “A vested interest will always capture the agency designed to regulate it, and then use that agency for its own advantage.“

The cost of these subsidies to any individual is small enough to be unnoticed, but the total amount of subsidies is big enough to incentivize the beneficiary.  With the system we have today, the special interest is destined to win the legislative contest.  There simply isn’t sufficient return on investment for a large number of individuals to dedicate the time it would take to eliminate any particular subsidy.

To repeat,

“A vested interest will always capture the agency designed to regulate it, then use that agency for its own advantage”.

What if we turn it around?  Instead of talking about fossil fuel subsidies or tobacco subsidies or agriculture subsidies or any of a hundred other Tenth Amendment violations, we stay focused on the Tenth Amendment.  The cost to an individual of any particular Tenth Amendment violation is small.  However, the combined cost of all Tenth Amendment violations is enormous!  We the People are a vested interest.  We can take advantage of capture theory just like any other special interest.  Our interest is not in any of those particular issues, but in enforcement of the Tenth Amendment — across the board — without exception.  If we reframe the problems this way, suddenly the incentives change.  I don’t know if a study has been done, but I have to believe that if the combined cost to the individual of all Tenth Amendment violations were known and communicated, it would be big enough to motivate a large number of people and organizations to action.

Thomas DiLorenzo said,

“The purpose of government is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.”

Federal subsidies for fossil fuels and other types of energy confirm this principle.   Our founders would not have been surprised by DiLorenzo’s observation.  To guard against federal plunder, they gave us the Tenth Amendment.  It is time that we dust it off and make regular use of it.

Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Let me ask readers a question. What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? A word of caution: be careful how you answer that question, because the way you answer marks your understanding (or lack thereof) of both freedom and the purpose of government.

Thomas Jefferson–and the rest of America’s founders–believed that freedom was the principal possession, because liberty is a divine–not human–gift. Listen to Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” (Declaration of Independence)

Jefferson could not be clearer: America’s founders desired a land in which men might live in liberty. By declaring independence from the government of Great Britain (and instituting new government), Jefferson, et al., did not intend to erect an idol (government) that men would worship. They created a mechanism designed to protect that which they considered to be their most precious possession: liberty. In other words, the government they created by the Constitution of 1787 was not the object; freedom’s protection was the object.

Again, listen to Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, government is not the end; it is the means. Government is not the goal; it is the vehicle used to reach the goal. Nowhere did Jefferson (and the rest of America’s founders) express the sentiment that government, itself, was the objective. Listen to Jefferson once more:

“That whenever ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration) (Emphasis added.)

Jefferson is clear: people have a right to alter or abolish ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT that becomes destructive to liberty. To America’s founders, there was no such thing as a sacred cow when it came to government. Government had but one purpose: “to secure these rights.” When ANY FORM of government stops protecting sacred, God-given liberties, it is the right and duty of people to do whatever they deem appropriate to secure their liberties–even to abolishing the government.

To America’s founders, patriotism had everything to do with the love of liberty, not the love of government!

Today’s brand of patriotism (at least as expressed by many) is totally foreign to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which America was built. I’m talking about the idea that government is an end and aim in itself; the idea that government must be protected from the people; the idea that bigger government equals better government; the idea that criticism of the government makes one unpatriotic; the idea that government is a panacea for all our ills; and the idea that loyalty to the nation equals loyalty to the government. All of this is a bunch of bull manure!

When government–ANY GOVERNMENT–stops protecting the liberties of its citizens, and especially when it begins trampling those liberties, it has become a “destructive” power, and needs to be altered or abolished. Period.

Can any honest, objective citizen not readily recognize that the current central government in Washington, D.C., long ago stopped protecting the God-given rights of free men, and has become a usurper of those rights? Is there the slightest doubt in the heart of any lover of liberty that the biggest threat to our liberties is not to be found in any foreign capital, but in that putrid province by the Potomac?

Therefore, we must cast off this phony idea that we owe some kind of devotion to the “system.” Away with the notion that vowing to protect and prolong the “powers that be” makes us “good” Americans. The truth is, there is very little in Washington, D.C., that is worthy of protecting or prolonging. The “system” is a ravenous BEAST that is gorging itself on our liberties!

Patriotism has nothing to do with supporting a President, or being loyal to a political party, or anything of the sort.

Is it patriotic to support our country (which almost always means our government), “right or wrong”? This is one of the most misquoted clichés in American history, by the way. Big Government zealots (on both the right and the left) use this phrase often to try to stifle opposition by making people who would fight for smaller government appear “unpatriotic.”

The cliché, “My country, right or wrong,” comes from a short address delivered on the floor of the US Senate by Missouri Senator Carl Schurz. Taking a strong anti-imperialist position and having his patriotism questioned because of it (what’s new, right?), Schurz, on February 29, 1872, said, “The senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country–and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)

Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in original.)

Amen! In a free society, genuine patriotism demands that our country be RIGHT, as our nation’s policies and practices reflect the values and principles of its citizens. To feign some kind of robotic devotion to a nation without regard to sacred principle or constitutional fidelity is to become a mindless creature: at best, to be manipulated by any and every Machiavellian that comes along, or, at worst, to be a willing participant in tyranny.

As to loyalty to a President merely because he is President, Theodore Roosevelt may have said it best:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth–whether about the President or anyone else.”

Hence, freedom-loving Americans cannot afford to become infatuated with Washington, D.C. We cannot allow these propagandists on network television to distort the meaning of true patriotism in our hearts.

Patriotism means we love freedom. It means we understand that freedom is a gift of God. It means we understand that government has only one legitimate function: to protect freedom. It means that our love of liberty demands that we oppose, alter, or even abolish ANY FORM of government that becomes destructive to these ends. And it means that we will never allow government to steal liberty from our hearts.

As I asked at the beginning of this column, What’s more important: freedom and its undergirding principles, or the entity meant to protect it? The right answer is, freedom and its undergirding principles. If you understand that, then you rightly understand that the current government we find ourselves under is in desperate need of replacement. And whatever, however, and whenever that replacement reveals itself is not nearly as important as that liberty is preserved.

On the other hand, if you mistakenly believe that government (the entity meant to protect liberty) is more important than liberty, you are both tragically deceived and pathetically impotent to preserving freedom. You may also have identified yourself as an enemy of freedom.

As for me and my house, we will stand with Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence–in whatever form it may present itself in a modern world bent on dismantling our liberties. In other words, I pledge no loyalty to any government that seeks to destroy our freedom–including the current one!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have been married for 37 years and have 3 children and 7 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6

Someday, I hope, April 15th will no longer be Tax Day (the day your income tax return must be filed) but instead will be known as Freedom Day — a day to remember the huge, expensive, intrusive, and meddling government that was once was and that we should be on guard against forever.

That can come only after we repeal the income tax and reduce the federal government to a size that can subsist on just the tariffs and excise taxes already being collected. No flat tax, no “fair” tax, no replacement tax of any kind — because government has been made so small an income tax is no longer needed to finance it.

Impossible?

Not at all.

A Little History

Many people aren’t aware that America — conceived in liberty in 1776 — didn’t have a permanent income tax until 1913. In fact, the Constitution of the United States prohibited an income tax.

For over a century, the U.S. government survived quite well without an income tax. It operated a small, constitutional government on the revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.

Tariffs are taxes imposed upon imported products, and excise taxes are imposed at the manufacturing level on domestic products. Because those taxes affect the prices of products, they were self-limiting. That is, the taxes couldn’t produce unlimited revenue to the government.

If a tax was raised too far, the product would be priced out of the reach of the consumer, sales would fall, and the tax revenues would fall.

Thus, relying on tariffs and excise taxes, the U.S. government was able to raise only so much money and no more. The same was true of state and local governments: there were built-in limits to how much they could tax.

As a result, in 1913 federal, state, and local governments combined took in taxes only 8% of the national income.

But that changed quickly with the passage of the 16th Amendment, authorizing an income tax. In contrast to tariffs and excise taxes, income-tax rates can be raised upward and upward and upward, since most people can’t choose to stop working in order to avoid the tax.

That meant the federal government now had virtually unlimited resources to do whatever the politicians wanted. Respect for the Constitution disappeared almost overnight. The U.S. government plunged the nation into World War I, a strictly European war, something it couldn’t have done without the income tax to finance the war effort. (The top rate quickly zoomed upward to 77% from 7% where it had been set in 1913.)

Today governments at all levels take 47% of the national income. That means you work nearly half your life to support the welfare state. And now there’s no topic on which the politicians refuse to consider legislation. Your entire life is fair game for them to enact rules.

Benefits

Imagine what would happen if we repealed all forms of federal income tax — including the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, Social Security, the estate tax, and the gift tax. A world of benefits would quickly come in the wake of repealing these taxes.

The first benefit is the most obvious: all the money you’re paying in income taxes will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit, not as the politicians think is best for you, best for the nation, and — most of all — best for them.

You are the one who gets up every day to go to work. You’re the one who puts in long hours. You’re the one who makes your job what it is.

What have the politicians done to earn that money?

Absolutely nothing.

What claim should they have on your earnings?

Absolutely none.

When we repeal the income tax, all that you pay now in income and Social Security taxes will be yours at last — to do with as you see fit.

If yours is the average American family, that means over 10,000 dollars a year that’s been going to the politicians that will stay in your hands.

Every dollar you earn will be yours — to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit — not as the politicians think best for you, for the nation, or for themselves.

They won’t have a claim on a single dollar you earn.

So what will you do with that money when they no longer take it away from you?

• Will you put your children in private schools — where you could get exactly the kind of education you believe best for them? No more wondering why more time is spent learning to be a good citizen than learning about history, geography, reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic. No more fighting the Board of Education to try to get the curriculum changed. You pick the school that fits your idea of what a school should be.
• Will you start that business you’ve always dreamed of?
• Will you move into a better neighborhood, take your family on a better vacation, arrange a much more comfortable and much more secure retirement?
• Will you help your church or your favorite cause or charity in a way you’ve never been able to do before?

What will you do with that money?

At last, it will all be yours — and the government will no longer have a claim on it.

Other Benefits

That in itself is reason enough to want to end the income tax. But here are three additional benefits:

• There will be a similar increase in take-home pay for everyone you do business with — your customers or your employer — meaning that people will have more money to spend on what you have to offer.
• A similar increase in take-home pay will occur throughout America, unleashing the biggest boost in prosperity that America has ever seen. There will be a job for everyone who can work and charity for everyone who can’t.
• Your life will be your own again: an end to government snooping into your finances, an end to keeping books for the IRS, an end to fear of an audit, an end to rearranging your financial life to minimize your tax burden.

And there’s a fifth benefit that’s probably the greatest of all: No longer will the federal government have the resources to run our lives. It will be unable to continue ruining what was once the best health-care system the world has ever known, destroying American education, making millions of people dependent on welfare, subsidizing foreign dictators and meddling in explosive foreign affairs.

Our Chance

Repealing the income tax is the issue on which we can rally Americans to cut government truly to the bone — the bone being the functions authorized in the Constitution. Without the resources to meddle in our lives, the government will have to withdraw to the limits of the Constitution.

There isn’t space here to cover all the ramifications, objections, and possibilities surrounding this subject. But the rewards it offers provide an opportunity to reach all Americans with a message of a better life — leading perhaps to a better day, when we celebrate Freedom Day instead of Tax Day.

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation.  See his website.

by Steve Palmer

I don’t know if there are any values which are common to most Pennsylvanians, but if we want to look for some, the state motto seems like as good a place to start as any.  “Virtue, Liberty and Independence” was first used on a Coat of Arms designed by Caleb Lownes for Pennsylvania in 1778.  In this article, without delving into specifics, we will look at the idea of federally administered health care in the context of the the values expressed in Pennsylvania’s state motto.

Virtue

“…If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security…” , Samuel Adams

Let us look, first, at health care assistance as a two person transaction.  If I have wealth and my neighbor lacks it through no fault of his own, is it virtuous for me to give some of my wealth to my neighbor in order to assist him with paying for his health care?  Conveniently, we have a way of measuring wealth, so we know exactly how much harm is done and how much help is given.  I am harmed by as many dollars as I choose to gift to my neighbor.  He is helped by exactly the same amount.  Because my harm is accepted of my own free will, in exchange for the benefit of knowing that I have helped my neighbor to improve his station, it seems clear to me that this would be a virtuous transaction.

Now, we extend the transaction.  This time, my neighbor sees a man in need of health care passing by our homes.  My neighbor lacks the means to help, so he comes to my house and takes money from me, without my consent, to help the passer-by. Just as in the previous transaction, the amount of harm to me is exactly equal to the amount of help to the beneficiary, but since my action was compelled, I am deprived of the opportunity to be virtuous.  Further, since my neighbor has taken my property without my permission, his portion of the transaction is also lacking in virtue, no matter what he might claim about the nobility of his intentions.

Now, let us extend the scenario once more, replacing my neighbor with my home-owners’ association.  Additionally, let us assume that the home-owners’ takes a 10% processing fee out of the amount they take from me and give the passer-by only 90% of the total.  The alleged help to the beneficiary is now smaller than the amount of harm done to the donor.

At this point, we have a complete model. We can add local, state and federal governments, more donors and more recipients, without changing the basic outcome. When money is being funneled and skimmed by a central authority, the harm done to the donors necessarily exceeds the help given to the beneficiaries. This is clearly a net harmful transaction, not a virtuous one.

Additionally, for these transactions, there is another, unseen party who we have not considered. For each transaction, there is an opportunity cost. To what virtuous cause could that money have been put if it had not been given to the recipient? The unseen beneficiary is deprived of an outcome, and the donor is deprived of an opportunity to be virtuous.   These days, we talk about seniors being forced to choose between food and prescriptions.  Soon, we will talk, instead, about young parents being forced to forego braces and clothing for their children in order to meet their health care mandate.

Liberty

“It is certain that the most natural and human government is that of consent, for that binds freely, … when men hold their liberty by true obedience to rules of their own making. “, William Penn

We have seen that despite it’s proponents’ claims, a government funded health care program is on balance harmful to virtue, not helpful.  Moving on, is anyone’s liberty enhanced by a federal health care solution?  It is clear that compelling a donor to part with his money does not enhance his liberty in any way.  His action is coerced and resources which he might have used are made unavailable to him.

So if there is to be an improvement in Liberty, it must come on the part of either the beneficiary or of the administrator.

Let us start with the beneficiary.  Malthus wrote, in his famous Essay on the Principle of Population

“It may at first appear strange, but I believe it is true, that I cannot by means of money raise a poor man and enable him to live much better than he did before, without proportionably depressing others in the same class”.

I think an example of the effect he was getting at is this — In a market, if we could manage to find every person who has only ten dollars and give them each a hundred dollars instead, the market would adjust.  Ten dollar items that this group of people compete for would go up in price to one hundred dollars.  In fact, we already see this effect at work in health care and education.  Surely it is not a coincidence that two areas where the government meddles the most are fast out-pacing inflation in almost all other sectors.

Based on Malthus’ observation and our own, the prospect for actually increasing liberty for the recipients of the health funds is unlikely.  It is far more likely that the actual buying power of their available assets will stay roughly the same.

Now, we consider the plan administrators. Do their liberties increase as a result of a government run health care take-over?  Clearly, the answer to this is yes.  Plan administrators are given the power of life or death over the recipients of their funds and the power of the purse strings over the donors.  Perhaps this explains the century-long campaign our government has waged in effort to obtain this power?

Our (ostensibly) limited government, would become much less so as the administrator of all of our health considerations.  With regards to Liberty, then, the only party who benefits from a government run health plan is the only party who is supposed to be constrained.  As with virtue, we find that a government health care plan is harmful on balance.

Independence

“Over one’s mind and over one’s body the individual is sovereign.” , John Stuart Mill

The harmful effect of government health care on our independence is so painfully obvious that it almost doesn’t even merit a discussion.  As with Liberty, it is easy to see that the person being compelled to separate with the money he has earned is not having his independence enhanced.  Perhaps he is not made more dependent by this action, or perhaps he is, but at best his independence is unchanged.

Star Parker has written persuasively about Uncle Sam’s Plantation, saying,

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation.  Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

…

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Clearly, a person who relies on coerced hand-outs from others for his health care is not an in independent person.  Is there any reason to believe that dependence on government health care will be any less harmful then other forms of dependence?

“Our present condition is, Legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect independence contending for dependence.”, Thomas Paine

Conclusion

The main claim of proponents of a government administered health plan is that society will somehow be a better place if we follow the example of Robin Hood and rob from the rich to give to the poor. They forget, though, that Robin Hood was a hero because he rebelled against unjust taxation, not because he was a thief.

By careful thought, we can see through their claim. Society cannot possibly be better by taking from one, skimming a little (or a lot) off the top, then giving to another. Why should we, in Pennsylvania, be sending our money to Washington for skimming, then on to pay for health care in other states? The amount of money that manages to escape from Washington’s clutches is always going to be (far) less than the money that went in, so clearly it could be put to be better, more virtuous use by avoiding Washington in the first place.

Our officials in Pennsylvania are currently working on a variety of Tenth Amendment related initiatives to resist the federal take care of our state’s health care system.  That effort is consistent with the values stated in our state motto.  >Contact your elected officials and let them know that you support these efforts.

Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:

Marijuana.

No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.

ANGEL’S STORY

Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.

Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.

The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana ““ in any situation.

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate”¦commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.

Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification.

There’s been a lot of scholarly research on this clause, especially the word “commerce” itself. Without getting into the long details of it all, it means this: Congress is authorized to make uniform national rules on the trade and exchange of goods (and related activities like their transportation) that cross state borders. On top of it, the word “regulate” meant to “make regular” ““ that is, to specify how these transactions may be conducted. Regulate did not mean ban, prohibit, or mandate. These words have different meanings.

With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption”¦then Congress’ Article I powers”¦have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

RESIST DC

Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.

Today, over half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, and estimates say that millions more use the plant without registration. What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.

And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.

HUH?

You might be asking, “How does this apply to healthcare mandates?” Well, the answer is pretty simple. When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.

This kind of activism ” while it clearly carries personal risk ” should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.

What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket, it also means subverting the system of limited and divided government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal spending has corrupted American education.

Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

The classroom is not the only place the federal government does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also to restoring Americans’ rights.

Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional government and fiscal responsibility would need to address the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area of government activity even more difficult to address than education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when they could do a much better job of preparing for their own retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who are dependent on them “into the streets.” After all, the current recipients of these programs have come to rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves without government assistance. The thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities for them because they were misled into depending on a government safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people being thrown into the street.

Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government’s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.

Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt, eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the entitlement programs.

A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s money – in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now. However, today a president could play an important role in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.

There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy. He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have alternatives to government-produced fiat money.

All of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more than any one person, even the president of the United States, can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have, a constitutionalist president would need the support of an active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office, groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee constitutional government is through an educated and activist public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.

For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we actually will have a president and a Congress debating the best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore the republic.

This essay originally appeared in Young American Revolution, the magazine of Young Americans for Liberty.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

© 2010 Young Americans for Liberty