A Republican congressman says all bills introduced in Congress should include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which a law is being enacted.

Read the rest.

Most Americans recognize that the United States is currently facing major struggles, and that America is undergoing a fundamental transformation, but of those Americans, many still do not subscribe to the theory that there is an underground movement toward global government. The problem with that denial is the movement has come out from underground and has become so blatant that it can no longer be ignored or refuted.

Those who are familiar with the inner workings of the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations have faced the reality of this movement a long time ago. However, Americans do not have to look beyond the White House and today’s world leaders to see that this movement is beginning to come to fruition, and suddenly, ”world order” and “global government,” or “global governance” as the leftists attempt to call it (as if there is a difference), have become inoffensive and widely accepted terms. It is as if we are growing desensitized to the language at its increasing presence. 

In a 1997 speech given by James Gustav Speth, executive director of the United Nations Development Program, at the World Conference on Rio, he definitively claimed, “Global governance is here to stay and driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.” 

Read the rest.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had long worked together on their campaign for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which emerged last year as H.R. 1207 and S. 604. Dr. Paul’s House version of the Audit the Fed bill had 319 cosponsors; Sanders’ Senate version, 32 cosponsors. Despite these bills’ massive popularity with a public grown increasingly suspicious of central banking, efforts to audit our central bank, the Federal Reserve, have been effectively thwarted for the time being.

Last-minute Senate maneuvering on Thursday May 6 resulted in a compromise measure that would require the Fed to disclose more details about its lending practices during the financial crisis, but would permit just a one-time audit of its loans and a one-time review of Fed governance. The compromise would also shield the Fed’s interest rate decision-making procedures from Goverment Accounting Office (GAO) scrutiny.

Dr. Paul, who has long advocated opening the Fed’s books to scrutiny to reveal its dealings with foreign banks as well as its domestic lending practices, expressed disappointment with the compromise in a sternly worded statement released Thursday evening.

Read the rest.

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:

Read the rest.

No, he is not available for national office: NJ is currently using him. Go get your own.

More of this, please:

NJEA President Barbara Keshishian visited his office this week to apologize for a recent email sent to thousands of teachers by a union official that included a mock prayer for the governor’s death. According to [NJ Governor Chris] Christie, the conversation went something like this: He accepted her apology immediately but asked if the email sender would be fired for “doing something that monumentally stupid.” When the union chief questioned why the man should be fired, Mr. Christie promptly ended the meeting.

That’s from the WSJ’s interview with Christie, which will be refreshing reading for conservatives who may be just a little tired of situations where political rhetoric exceeds actions. In this particular case, the issue of the apology is just a vehicle for the real message: to wit, the Governor of NJ is not afraid of the teachers’ unions, so if the latter wants to win their current dispute with the former they’re going to have to fight for once. Given that support for freezing teacher pay in NJ is two-to-one in Christie’s favor, the governor is in good shape here.

Read the rest.

Gov. Chris Christie is taking $65 million, the entire allocation, from the state’s global warming fund, and $5.9 million, from the toxic waste site cleanup program, to help close the over $10 billion deficit in his $29.3 billion 2010-11 state budget, the state environmental protection commissioner said Monday.

In discussing the Department of Environmental Protection’s proposed $380.6 million budget before the Assembly Budget Committee in Trenton, Commissioner Bob Martin said he hopes the loss of the $65 million, funding for the state’s role in a regional effort to combat global warming, will only be for one year. He told the committee that DEP staff will continue to attempt to work against global warming and so-called greenhouses gasses despite the lack of money.

Martin said while he does not anticipate that DEP employees will be among the 1,300 state workers Christie plans to layoff in January, the commissioner does intend to move to save $1.4 million at that time by reducing the workweek of employees, at least those in management, the state parks, and Highlands Permitting from 40 hours to 35 hours.

Read the rest.

Arizona communities will no longer be permitted to have gun regulations stricter than state laws.

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, LewRockwell.com

After spending a lifetime in politics John C. Calhoun (U.S. Senator, Vice President of the United States, Secretary of War) wrote his brilliant treatise, A Disquisition on Government, which was published posthumously shortly after his death in 1850. In it Calhoun warned that it is an error to believe that a written constitution alone is “sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any organism except such as is necessary to separate its several departments, and render them independent of each other to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and abuse of power” (p. 26). The separation of powers is fine as far as it goes, in other words, but it would never be a sufficient defense against governmental tyranny, said Calhoun.

Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”