The “Pledge to America” recently unveiled by House Republicans is more Republican gobbledygook. Republican promises to cut waste, fraud, abuse, and earmarks, and institute reform, change, privatization, and accountability are always so vague, misleading, and exception-ridden that they are – without exception – absolutely worthless.

Republicans are such hypocrites that even while they preach smaller and less intrusive government they pass legislation to increase the size and scope of government.

On the very day (September 23) that the House Republicans issued their worthless “Pledge to America,” they also voted in overwhelming numbers along with Democrats to pass four pieces of legislation that violate the very Pledge that Republicans maintain they will adhere to as a majority in the House.

Plan 4 in the Republican Pledge is the promise to “to reform Congress and restore trust.” Under the paragraph titled “Adhere To the Constitution,” there appears this statement:

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

This is absolutely correct. However, what the Republicans forget to mention is that it is Republicans who controlled the U.S. House of Representatives during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency and the first six years of Bush’s presidency. Republicans are the ones who have ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Republicans are the ones who have drafted unclear and muddled laws. Republicans are the ones who have shown a lack of respect for clear Constitutional limits and authorities. Republicans are the ones who have allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

Here are the four pieces of legislation that an overwhelming majority of House Republicans voted to pass on the same day they published their Pledge:

• The Family Health Care Accessibility Act
• The Emergency Medic Transition Act
• The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act
• The Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act

I wonder what clauses would be included with these bills citing the specific constitutional authority upon which they are justified?

The Family Health Care Accessibility Act of 2010 (H.R. 1745) amends the Public Health Service Act “to deem volunteer practitioners at health centers as employees of the Public Health Service for purposes of any civil action that may arise due to providing services to patients at such health centers.” This bill was introduced in the House by a Republican, Timothy Murphy of Pennsylvania. It passed by a vote of 417 to 1. The lone no vote was the heroic Ron Paul (R-TX). One hundred and seventy Republicans voted for the bill. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to have anything to do with health care, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The Emergency Medic Transition Act of 2010 (H.R. 3199) amends the Public Health Service Act “to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to state entities with jurisdiction over emergency medical personnel to provide for the expedited training and licensing, as emergency medical technicians, of veterans who received training as such a technician while serving in the Armed Forces.” Only five Republicans voted against this bill. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to have anything to do with health care, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5710) amends and reauthorizes the controlled substance monitoring program of the Public Health Service Act to “foster the establishment of State-administered controlled substance monitoring systems.” This bill comes with a price tag of $15 million for fiscal year 2011 and $10 million each year for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. It requires the states receiving a federal grant under this Act to submit “aggregate data and other information” to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to “facilitate prescriber use of the State’s controlled substance monitoring system” and “educate prescribers on the benefits of the system both to them and society.” This bill was introduced in the House by a Republican, Ed Whitfield of Kentucky. It passed by a vote of 384–32. The Republican vote was 140–31. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to even designate a controlled substance, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act of 2010 (H.R. 5756), also known as the TRAIN ACT of 2010, has an official title that concisely sums up its purpose:

To amend subtitle D of title I of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to provide grants and technical assistance to University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service to improve services rendered to children and adults on the autism spectrum, and their families, and for other purposes.

In awarding grants under this legislation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must give priority to applicants that are “(1) minority institutions that have demonstrated capacity to meet the requirements of this Act and provide services to individuals with autism and their families; or (2) located in a state with one or more underserved populations.” The vote on this bill was 393–24. The Republican vote was 167–24. But since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to do anything about autism or any other medical condition, this bill lacks specific constitutional authority and would have to be rejected under the Republican Pledge.

The only reason Republicans ever look good is when they are out of power and oppose the Democrats on major pieces of legislation like Obamacare, extending unemployment benefits, increasing HUD appropriations, etc. When all of their actions – not their just plans, promises, and pledges – are compared to even an imperfect standard like the Constitution it is apparent that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

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

The sound of thundering elephant feet first began to resonate right here in the Bluegrass State.

Republican Rand Paul easily beat Democrat Jack Conway by an 11 point margin in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. The early 7 p.m. call for Paul was merely the beginning of a pachyderm stampede.

Republicans picked up 61 seats in the U.S. House, and they could end up with as many as a 66 seats by the time its all said and done. Democrats will still control the Senate, but the GOP made gains there too, snapping up at least six seats. It was the biggest single election power shift in 70 years.

Here in Kentucky, Republicans rode the wave, gaining seats in both the Kentucky State House and Senate. The GOP took control of seven new House seats and strengthened its Senate majority with a two, perhaps three seat pickup.

While Republicans trumpet their victory, they would do well to ground themselves in an important reality. This election was not a ringing endorsement of the GOP. It was instead a repudiation of progressive ideology. It was a backlash against bailouts, deficits and federal health care mandates. It was a protest against rapidly expanding government power. The newest Kentucky Senator seems to understand the message sent by American voters on Tuesday.

“It’s a message that I will carry with me on day one. It’s a message of fiscal sanity. It’s a message of limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets,” Paul said.

The hue in our nation’s capitol shifted from dark blue to purple on Tuesday. This Republican tsunami, as some have called it, will certainly change the political landscape in Washington D.C. But if Republicans don’t bring about some fundamental changes, this new crop of representatives will likely enjoy short careers. Senator elect Marco Rubio from Florida articulated the reality for Republicans perfectly.

“And we make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

The question remains. Will the GOP squander this second chance? Will GOP leaders do any better adhering to constitutional principles than their Democratic brethren? Are the American people suddenly safe from government overreach now that Republicans will have some say in Washington?

I fear not.

Many Republicans talk a good game when it comes to limiting government, and protecting defending the Constitution. But their track record doesn’t quite live up to their rhetoric. If history teaches us anything, it reveals that federal power tends to expand unabated regardless of the party in charge in D.C.

We the people simply can’t rely on Washington to solve our problems. Asking the federal government to reign in its own power is akin to asking a lion to quit hunting, or the fish to quit swimming. It goes against its very nature.

The people must hold the feds accountable. The Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States and their federal government. The mechanism we have to protect our freedom and liberty is through the States. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Liberty loving Americans can certainly celebrate the outcome of these midterm elections. But we will not ultimately win the war to restore the proper balance of power between the State and federal governments in Washington D.C. That battle must be waged in Frankfort and Tallahassee. In Austin and Sacramento. In every state capitol across the fruited plain.

photo credit: swamysk

On February 19 of this year, Utah’s Senate President and House Speaker co-authored an op-ed for the Washington Post in which they kindly requested that the federal government hand over some of its assumed powers to Utah as an “experiment” to help “relieve some of their burden”. This “modest proposal” suggested that the feds allow Utah to manage its own education, transportation, and Medicaid, while retaining all tax money that is currently being sent to the feds and back down to Utah for these programs.

The stated concern was not one of state sovereignty or individual rights—the authors sought instead to reassure skeptics that “this experiment in the interest of balanced federalism would have little impact on the federal budget, on other programs or on other states.” No, far from being an insistence of strict federalism under the U.S. Constitution, it was a proposal to implement “balanced” federalism with Utah’s top legislators asking for the federal government’s permission.

Commenting on the op-ed on the same day it was published, U.S. Congressman Rob Bishop, from Utah, wrote:

Having spent the past seven years in Washington, I am convinced now more than ever that federalism must be the core principle for all decision making here in Washington. We will never be able to offer true reform until we recognize that Washington cannot solve every problem in this country and that states are better suited to deal with many of the problems federal bureaucrats can’t solve.

It’s important to pay attention to what’s being said, and what’s not being said. These politicians are arguing for a “federalism lite”—one in which the federal government allows the states to do certain things not because the federal government has no authority to do them, but because it logistically cannot do them well.

Despite their words demonstrating a lack of understanding, and despite their reasons being in complete conflict with the Tenth Amendment (again, they’re not arguing that Utah and other states retain powers not delegated, but rather be given powers the federal government can’t effectively employ), these individuals are still arguing that the states should enjoy greater power in balance with the federal government. This is something worth supporting. But any good Tenther—indeed, any good citizen—knows that a politician’s words should not be trusted. This is especially the case with Rep. Bishop, who three months later founded the Tenth Amendment Task Force, whose stated mission is to “Disperse power from Washington and restore the Constitutional balance of power through liberty-enhancing federalism.”

In the press release announcing the creation of the task force, the eleven founding legislators stated:

More than ever, Americans are expressing frustration at having important facets of their lives controlled by a government that is out of reach and out of touch. Among other things, the task force will focus on educating Congress and the public about federalism, elevating federalism as a core Republican focus and monitoring threats to 10th Amendment principles.

Again, this all sounds well and good. However, a closer look at the task force’s members and their voting records casts an important light on its legitimacy in being a group of true defenders of the Tenth Amendment. Anticipating this to a certain degree, Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center stated:

If the Task Force refuses to do anything beyond using the Tenth Amendment as a mouth piece to promote conservative ideas, they’re far more damaging to the future of the Constitution in this country than they’ll ever be help.

Of course, the best way to determine the sincerity of these federalists-come-latelies is to see how they have voted on related legislation in the past. Brevity requires a limited analysis, and so we’ll look only at the record of the Task Force’s founder, Rep. Bishop. The following are a few highlights on Rep. Bishop’s votes on legislation dealing with Tenth Amendment issues.

• On May 15, 2007, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 1700, a bill to provide the annual funds for the Community-Oriented Policing Services at the tune of $1.15 billion per year. This program provides federal funds in the form of grants to local police units in order to hire additional officers. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government delegated the authority to take money from citizens in one state to hire police officers in another.
• On November 14, 2007, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 1429, a bill to reauthorized and fund the Head Start Program—a federal “comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement” program which supplies grants to local and state educational entities. This bill reauthorized the program through 2012, providing between $7-8 billion per year in funding. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government empowered to regulate or spend money on education, health, or parental involvement. Rep. Bishop, a school teacher, himself, has often voted in support of such programs. Two years previous, for example, he again voted to reauthorized and fund (to the tune of $7 billion annually) the Head Start Program.
• On January 29, 2008, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 5140, the stimulus bill which created rebate checks for taxpayers. This bill had no constitutional authority to justify its implementation.
• On May 23, 2006, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 5384, an agricultural appropriations bill providing for $93.6 billion in 2007 alone for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. This funding included $37.9 billion for food stamps, $13.3 billion for the child nutrition program, and $19.7 billion for direct aid to farmers. None of these programs have any basis in the U.S. Constitution; social welfare programs, if they are to exist at all, must operate only at a state level. Rep. Bishop also voted for the same kind of bill in the previous session.
• On July 27, 2003, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 1, the Medicare Part D bill rammed through Congress by the Bush administration. This bill, for which no constitutional authority can be found, created a new $15 trillion unfunded liability.
• On June 24, 2005, Rep. Bishop voted in support of H.R. 3010, a bill to provide a whopping $601.6 billion in 2006 alone to the Labor Department, Education Department, and Health and Human Services Department. This was a 21% increase over the appropriations from the previous year. These departments engage in numerous programs that violate the Tenth Amendment—one can easily argue that the existence of the departments themselves is unconstitutional—and yet Rep. Bishop votes for their support and funding repeatedly.

This list has to stop somewhere, so it might as well be there. Other votes could be mentioned, such as those regarding bills dealing with special education, agricultural subsidies, the REAL ID Act, unemployment benefits, job training, etc. In each case, Rep. Bishop cast a vote which violated the language and principle of the Tenth Amendment, and supported a federal government exceeding its constitutional authority.

If the Tenth Amendment Task Force is to be perceived as legitimate and worthy of our collective support, its members—and especially its founder—must demonstrate that they have changed. Further still, the fact that all of its members are Republican signifies that not until the GOP is in control of Congress and the executive branch will such a demonstration be sincere; it’s easy to be the “party of no” when the other party is calling the shots. Rep. Bishop and his Republican colleagues who have been around for a while have far worse voting records when their own party was in control.

Despite all of the above, Tenthers everywhere should welcome and encourage legislation from this group that makes a positive impact in reducing the size and scope of the federal government. If they are successful to any degree in restraining their colleagues and returning stolen power to the states, then we will applaud them loudly.

Until that time, a word of caution. As the Task Force’s founder has a very questionable voting record in regards to the Tenth Amendment’s clear language, and since his colleagues have voted similarly on many bills, this group of politicians should be kept at arm’s length and made to prove themselves. Actions speak louder than words. So, too, do voting records speak louder than press releases.

Connor Boyack [send him mail] is the state chapter coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He is a web developer, political economist, and budding philanthropist trying to change the world one byte at a time. He lives in Utah with his wife and son. Read his blog.

How hard is it to position yourself to the right of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?

This is all the House Republicans did recently when they released their “Pledge to America” at a Virginia hardware store on September 23.

Mimicking their 1994 “Contract with America,” this new Republican proposal sets forth their legislative agenda should the American people see fit to give the Republican Party a majority in the House of Representatives in the upcoming election.

Promises, promises.

Do Republicans think we’re stupid? Do they think we’ve forgotten the eight-year presidency of Republican George W. Bush? Do they think we’ve forgotten that Republicans had an absolute majority in both houses of Congress for over four years of the Bush administration? Do they think we’ve forgotten that the Republican Party controlled the Congress during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency?

The empty promises, grandiose claims, vain assurances, and blatant lies in the Republican “Pledge to America” mean that it’s not worth the paper and toner it would take to print out a copy. Republicans are clearly trying to capitalize on voter discontent with the Democratic Party, garner the support of the Tea Party movement, and sucker Americans into voting them back into power.

Promises, promises.

Before even examining the text of the “Pledge to America,” I would like to point out two major practical problems. First, like the “Contract with America,” this is a House Republican document. And like what happened with the “Contract with American,” there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will pass legislation proposed by the House – assuming that Republicans even regain control of the Senate. The second problem is, like what happened with the “Contract with America,” we have a Democratic president with veto power. So, even if the Pledge is a good thing (it isn’t), and even if the Republicans are sincere (they aren’t), there is no guarantee that Republicans will accomplish anything even if they do win back control of the House. And as it was pointed back out in 2000: “The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Is there any doubt that things will turn out any different this time?

But what about the text of the Pledge itself? Well, the preface is a lie. The foreword is a lie. All five of the plans introduced are a lie. All six chapters are a lie. All forty-five pages are a lie. Even the cover is a lie.

Surely, Mr. Vance, you are exaggerating. You are being too hard on the Republicans. You are making baseless accusations. You couldn’t possibly have carefully read the Republican’s Pledge.

Is that so? We need to look no further than the cover. It says that the “Pledge to America” is “a new governing agenda built on the priorities or our nation, the principles we stand for and America’s founding values.” Among other things, America’s founding values certainly include liberty and limited government. Is this Pledge or any other Republican agenda built on these things?

Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has described American society when it was based on the “founding values” of liberty and limited government:

Let’s talk about the economic system that existed in the United States from the inception of the nation to the latter part of the 19th century. The principles are simple to enumerate: No income taxation (except during the Civil War), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, economic regulations, licensure laws, drug laws, immigration controls, or coercive transfer programs, such as farm subsidies and education grants.

There was no federal department of labor, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, or homeland security. There was no SEC, DEA, FEMA, OSHA, or EPA.

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Now, I ask you a simple question: Does that way of life resemble even in the remotest way the way of life under which Americans live today? Of course it doesn’t, because the way of life under which we live today is precisely opposite to that under which our American ancestors lived. Today’s Americans do live under all those programs, departments, and agencies, and principles that were absent during the first 125 years or so of American history.

Oh, the “Pledge to America” talks about Republican plans to “advance policies that promote greater liberty” and about how their plan “stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government,” but then the Republicans propose, not to cease funding any of the abovementioned programs, agencies, and policies, but – are you ready – “to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” My, what an ambitious plan to promote liberty and limited government!

In the preface to the Pledge, the Republicans have the audacity to complain about “an unchecked executive” as if the presidency of George W. Bush never occurred. They pledge to “honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers,” and in particular “the Tenth Amendment.” I’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. They know the right words to use to sucker conservative advocates of the government strictly following the Constitution to vote for them. Of course, if Republicans really believed in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, they would introduce legislation to eliminate 95 percent of what the federal government does.

The foreword to the Pledge introduces the five Republican plans:

• A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive
• A plan to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government
• A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care
• A plan to reform Congress and restore trust
• A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad

One thing in particular in the foreword that stands out is the Republicans claim that they want to “protect our entitlement programs for seniors and future generations.” This shows without a doubt that Republicans don’t have the slightest intention of honoring the Constitution, following the Tenth Amendment, stopping “out-of-control spending,” and reducing “the size of government.”

I want to focus in particular on the first and last of the Republican plans in the “Pledge to America.” I will, however, not neglect the lies in plans two, three, and four.

The Republican plan “to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive” sounds good on the surface. It blasts Keynesian economics, Obama’s stimulus, tax increases, federal regulations, job-killing policies, and small business mandates while promising to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive by permanently stopping all job-killing tax hikes, giving small businesses a tax deduction, reining in the red tape factory in Washington, DC, and repealing job-killing small business mandates. Don’t be deceived: Even Republicans sometimes look good when compared with Democrats. However, alongside the standards of liberty, limited government, and strict constitutionalism, Republican economic policies are not much better than those of Democrats. This Republican plan mentions how a Republican Congress enacted the child tax credit in the 1990s. This is a good thing, as are all tax credits. However, why is this tax credit progressive; that is, why does this tax credit begin to phase out above a certain income level and end completely at another? And even worse, if the amount of the tax credit exceeds the tax liability, the unused portion is refundable in the form of an “additional child tax credit.” This means it is an income transfer program, as is the Republican-instituted earned income tax credit.

Another troubling thing about the Republican economic plan is its attitude toward business regulation:

Small businesses must have certainly that the rules won’t change every few months so they can get back on their feet.

Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy.

The Republicans seem to be saying that as long as federal regulations are relatively constant and not excessive then they are okay. In fact, they give their threshold as $100 million: “To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.” But if Republicans really wanted to “honor the Constitution,” then they would require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 or more not $100 million or more.

The last section of this economic plan mentions a “job-killing small business mandate.” Since when are Republicans against these? Is there a greater “job-killing small business mandate” thanthe minimum wage? Did not even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell say a few years ago that “raising the minimum wage” was a good idea? Outside of Ron Paul, would a Republican member of Congress ever publicly question the concept of a federal minimum wage? What it all comes down to is this: Democratic mandates are bad; Republican mandates (or Democratic mandates they accept) are good.

The promise in plan 2 “to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government” is laughingly pathetic when you realize that the national debt increased under the Republicans from $5,727,776,738,304.64 at the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the last day of Bush’s second term in 2009. Republicans speak negatively in this plan about “the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior.” Yet, this is the same Republican Party that helped the Democratic Party pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the first bailout bill).

The Republican plan “to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care” is only being proposed because it is a Democratic takeover of health care and not a Republican one, as I have written about here and will write more about in the future. I would like to point out, however, that the proposal to “establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion” is a little overdue. What were all the pro-life Republicans in the House doing when the Republican Party had an absolute majority in the House and Senate for over four years under a Republican president? They were funding Planned Parenthood, that’s what.

Get the New Book Today!

The promise in plan 4 to “reform Congress and restore trust” is more smoke and mirrors. The Republicans lament that “for too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government.” Their solution is to “require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.” The real truth is that Congress has sought to circumvent the Constitution almost since the day it took effect in 1789. Citing specific constitutional authority for a bill is an empty gesture. Just as Nancy Pelosicited the Constitution’s “commerce clause” in defense of the health care bill so Republicans will cite the phrase “to provide for the common defense” in the Constitution’s preamble to justify funding drone attacks in Pakistan.

The Republican plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” is the most objectionable part of the “Pledge to America.” It can be summarized as: xenophobia, war, empire: vote Republican. It consists of one lie after another followed by one bad policy after another. It promises to keep terrorists out of America by keeping foreigners locked up in Guantanamo – as if there were any connection between the two. What this really means, of course, is that Republicans are in favor of the U.S. military picking up anyone anywhere in the world and holding them indefinitely without charge or trial – or until they are killed and their deaths reported as suicides.

This plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” is sure to create more terrorists, further erode civil liberties in the name of national security and fighting the war on drugs, line the pockets of the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes, further blacken the name of the United States throughout the world, provoke a war with Iran, further bankrupt the treasury, senselessly cause more U.S. troops to die in vain, and unjustly kill more foreigners.

What is tragically ironic is that a liberal group earlier this year placed an ad in the New York Review of Books condemning Obama’s actions “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” as in some respects “worse than Bush”:

First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of “terrorism,” merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of “preventive detention.” Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.

Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime have now been consecrated into “standard operating procedure” by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.

The most wretched lie in this fifth Republican plan is the statement that “the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015.” This is political fearmongering at its worse that is designed to sucker Americans into voting Republican and justify funding of provocative boondoggles like missile defense. U.S. foreign policy is already aggressive, reckless, and belligerent enough without the Republican plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” making it even more so.

Promises, promises – that’s all the Republican Party is good for. Promises to cut spending. Promises to cut the deficit. Promises to cut the debt. Promises to reduce federal regulations. Promises to reduce the size of government. Promises to reduce the scope of government. Promises to do better than the Democrats. Promises to follow the Constitution.

But not only does the Republican Party never deliver, it can always be counted on to increase spending, increase the deficit, increase the debt, expand federal regulations, expand the size of government, expand the scope of government, do worse than the Democrats, and make a mockery of the Constitution.

The Republican “Pledge to America” is not, as Bob Barr says, a “good and sound document.” It is political propaganda, pure and simple, from a party desperate to regain power.

Promises, pledges, lies: vote Republican.

Never, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, trust in, rely on, or put any hope in Republican promises. As night follows day, disappointment, vexation, and anger are sure to follow.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

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

You heard it right. It’s bad enough Congress is chock-full of RINO’s. We now have to be on guard against the new Stealth RINO’s

Like many reading this article, I have been through degrees of political stages in my life. While our experiences may vary as to specifics, I’ll lay my cards on the table. I went from straight-ticket Republican in the 1980’s, to a doubter of the GOP (but still mostly faithful) in the 1990’s, to disillusioned about 4-5 years ago, to reluctantly thinking of giving some, but not all, of them a 2nd chance in the 2008 election, to coming to conclude, as of now, “They all suck so bad, I don’t know why I even bother to care about politics and government anymore.”

We voters have been suckers for too long. Federal politicians of today are, for the most part, intelligent, but disingenuous. They are great at dishing out rhetoric and spin, and they are most acutely skilled at avoiding substance as much as possible. It is marketing over substance.

Doesn’t this sound like what RINO’s do? Yep! That’s how the acronym was devised. But beware, you Republicans out there. And for you who try to publicly proclaim your new “Independence” but know damn-well you’ll be voting Republican all the way, beware to you, as well.

There is a new breed of RINO called the “Stealth RINO” (I coined that phrase). These squirrely Republicans who have mutilated the Constitution, wrecked the government, wrecked the middle-class and who have run up deficits are pulling a new marketing trick out of their bags. It’s a little, dark vial just to the “right” of their snake oil. Get a load of this….

These clowns are calling other Republicans “RINO’s” just to garner points. It’s a great gimmick. After all, anyone who is a Republican and calls out another Republican as a traitor has to be the “real McCoy” – or so they want us to believe.

After reviewing a recent article by Gary Wood, I saw this and realized it for the first time. I knew these “real” conservatives were full of hot air, but I finally got my proof.

The article quoted a Wall Street Journal article and was about Senator Jim DeMint and the rift he is supposedly creating in the Republican Party. This is from the article:

Sen. DeMint is not endearing himself to the leadership of the RNC. What is he doing while Cornyn is trying to get more gang members to help with the rumbles planned in 2011? “I’m at the point where it doesn’t matter if we win if we don’t believe in anything,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “There’s no need to nursemaid somebody to the general election if they’re just going to come up here and vote like the Democrats do.”
….

DeMint is apparently attempting to revive an old position of statesmanship, people who believe in something like our Constitution, an Oath of Office, federalism, and people

After reading Gary’s article, I decided I’d test DeMint against this claimed position. What I found is that DeMint fails.

Before I show why, I want to expressly make it clear that this is not intended to be a slam on Gary Wood. He has devoted much effort to our Tenther Movement, and much gratitude is owed for that. What I am suggesting is that, in this case, DeMint was mischaracterized because it is easy to let pass spin and rhetoric. Quite honestly, if I wasn’t piddling around and hadn’t decided to check, the odds would have been 10-1 that this would have gotten past me, too. I really knew very little about DeMint and still do know very little, except what’s below.

In any event, we all know, as Tenthers, that the federal government has no business entangling itself in issues over abortion, drug laws, education, employment, etc. ad nauseum. The TAC slogan I hear so often is that we expect our politicians, state and federal, to vote “in favor of the Constitution of the United States. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

So, let’s test DeMint on his conduct and positions as one of our federal Senators.

On abortion/reproduction:

• Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Source

On education:

• Voted YES on 03/11/1999 Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999
• Voted YES on 07/20/1999 Teacher Empowerment Act
• Voted YES on 10/21/1999 Academic Achievement for All Act
• Voted YES on 12/13/2001 No Child Left Behind Act
• Voted YES on 07/27/2002 Andean Trade Preference Act Extension [yes, there is education money in there.]
• Voted YES on 04/30/2003 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
• and many others.

Source

On drug policies:
His responses to Project VoteSmart’s survey on the issue:

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding drugs.

X a) Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs.
b) Expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs.
c) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
d) Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.
X e) Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
f) Eliminate federal funding for programs associated with the “war on drugs.”
g) Other or expanded principles

Source

• Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
• Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Source

On employment:

• Voted YES on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on end offshore tax havens and promote small business. (Oct 2004)

Source

So, there’s a glimpse into a self-proclaimed, self-promoting “real” conservative. If DeMint is a true conservative, then true conservatives don’t much care to operate the federal government within its Constitutional confines.

Ok. Alright. DeMint’s been exposed. So, now that he’s a man’s man among conservatives, we have to ask ourselves who we are. Are we Tenthers? Or are we Tenthers in Name Only (TINO’s)?

The moral here is that there are hazards everywhere out there. If you want to be a Tenther, you have to start taking it seriously. Don’t get caught up in spin and labels. Do the research. If you want to go by party labels, rhetoric and spin, don’t call yourself a Tenther. Join CPAC, or something else, instead. If you have time to read this blog, you have time to do simple Google searches to look up candidates and find their histories. It’s the only way to win this war. It’s either that, or continue to get suckered again, again and again.

Look. There are lots of us in this Tenther Movement who align with Republicans, whether they like to admit it or not. “Republican” has become a dirty word to some, and so they now tend to say they are “Conservative,” but rest assured, you who call yourselves “Conservative” are not going to be voting Democrat. Right?

What we need to do is watch each other’s backs as members of the Tenther Movement. Realistically, very few will vote Democrat, so, the real gain is not in exposing Democrats, but exposing Republicans who are thought to take the Constitution seriously, but who do not. All of us need to expose these people, rather than be quick to endorse them because they give a good speech and fill it with “tough guy, conservative” rhetoric.

As to DeMint’s big talk and posturing as a true conservative, rhetoric doesn’t cut it. He can talk the talk by calling out some of his comrades as RINO’s, but he doesn’t walk the walk. As we say in Texas, he is all hat and no cattle. People like DeMint are so “all over the place,” the only conclusion which a person can reach about his positions/record is he doesn’t even let the Constitution factor into his agenda.

Nice try, DeMint. But we Tenthers aren’t suckers, and we’ve got each other’s backs. You might spout off a fantastic rhetoric about fiscal conservatism, and you might even be a fair amount more fiscally-conservative than some of the others, but you are FAR, FAR away from our standards.

You might want to learn more about us, because, the way things are going at the national level, it will be our way, or you and your ilk are going to be hitting the highway.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

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

The Republican platform unveiled last week notes in passing that “the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education.” Yet the same document offers opinions on all manner of local educational issues, including the virtues of phonics, the evils of sex education, the wisdom of merit pay for teachers, and the folly of social promotion.

That contradiction illustrates the hollowness of the Republican commitment to “constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions.” The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it’s convenient.

You might say that’s old news. Yet while campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Department of Education. So did Bob Dole in 1996. After two terms of a Republican president who proudly charged in the opposite direction, the most John McCain can muster is a promise to “identify and eliminate ineffective programs”—that is, to make unconstitutional activities more efficient.

Although the Department of Education is still with us, by threatening to eliminate it Reagan and like-minded Republicans signaled that they understood some matters are beyond the purview of the federal government. It’s hard to find evidence of that understanding in the current GOP platform.

In 1887 Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill allocating $10,000 to help drought-stricken farmers in Texas, saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” Nowadays the Republican Party takes for granted the propriety of both “a natural disaster insurance policy” and an “economic safety net for farmers.”

Likewise, the GOP platform does not question the legitimacy of the federal government’s enormous entitlement programs, saying only that they should be “reformed” and “modernized.” Regarding Social Security, McCain does not go even as far as George W. Bush, who proposed letting Americans shift some of their payroll taxes to private accounts. By contrast, the current platform calls for “personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to” the existing system of intergenerational income redistribution.

Far from shrinking the federal government, the Republicans want to enlarge it, providing “aid to those hurt by the housing crisis,” solving “the energy crisis” (undeterred by the Carteresque connotations of that phrase), “expanding access to higher education,” seeking “a major expansion of support” for certain kinds of stem cell research, even “returning Americans to the moon as a step toward a mission to Mars.” The platform does not explain how these initiatives qualify as “legitimate constitutional functions.”

The Republicans are committed to “continuing the fight against illegal drugs,” even though that fight, unlike alcohol prohibition, was never authorized by a constitutional amendment. They want to impose national bans on gay marriage, human cloning, assisted suicide, and online gambling, even while declaring that “Congress must respect the limits imposed by the Tenth Amendment,” which reserves to the states or the people “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Despite their eagerness to trample individual freedom in all these areas, Republicans claim “the other party wants more government control over people’s lives,” but “Republicans do not.”

The Republicans “lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states.” Yet their position that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment implies that the Constitution not only allows but requires a national ban on abortion, which also would override state policy choices.

Defending “the free-speech right to devote one’s resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports,” the Republicans say they “oppose any restrictions or conditions upon those activities that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals.” Yet their presidential nominee is famous for pushing precisely such restrictions and conditions in the name of “campaign finance reform.”

As an indicator of where McCain would take the country after eight years of big-government conservatism, the 2008 Republican platform is not just disappointing. It’s incoherent.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.