Thursday, February 26, 2009

Update On Indiana Federalism Resolution SCR 37 - Sen. Mike Delph Added As Second Author

The on-line information for Indiana's 10th Amendment (aka: Federalism) Resolution has been updated to represent that State Senator Mike Delph (district 29) was indeed one of the co-authors (now listed as "second author") and initiators of this legislation along with Senators Greg Walker and Dennis Kruse. Not only that, but the list of Senators now listed along with them on this bill has grown to FOURTEEN (14).

In addition to the previously mentioned Walker, Delph, Kruse and Stutzman the following have all been added: Boots, Buck, Holdman, Leising, Nugent, Paul, Steele, Waltz, Waterman, Young.

This sort of measure would always be difficult to support and pass and that is even more so in an environment where massive government (anti)stimulus billions are being offered to the states. It will prove difficult to pass a resolution that tells the out-of-control Federal Government to 'back off' while at the same time having your Governor accept billions of federal dollars.

To step up and put their name on this kind of legislation shows their commitment to the form of government (a Democratic Republic) and the limitations that were placed upon the Federal representation of that in our founding documents. As for this author (using the term loosely), I appreciate their bold commitment to make a statement.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Indiana Federalism Resolution Filed As Senate Concurrent Resolution 37

Although it was made public late last week, the text of SCR 37 which would propose, if passed, to reassert Indiana's rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was posted on-line today.

Despite early suspicions that Senator Mike Delph (29th District) might join Senator Greg Walker (41st) and Senator Dennis Kruse (14th) on introducing the resolution, it appears that Senator Marlin Stutzman (13th) completed the trio.

It has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

This resolution is very similar to ones introduced in somewhere around twenty different states including Arizona, Oklahoma and New Hampshire. Oklahoma's resolution was introduced last year and passed their state house 98-2 before getting stalled out in their senate. This year, the resolution passed 83 to 13. New Hampshire's HCR 6 has thus far been considered to have the strongest language, many suggesting it was close to a threat to secede if the Federal Government encroached any further. HCR 6 was defeated in a committee 11 to 7 but still goes to a full vote.

Text of the Indiana Resolution follows:

Introduced Version



A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.


, read first time and referred to Committee on


First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)


A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”;

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

Whereas , Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America 's most valuable contributions to political science;

Whereas , James Madison, “the father of the Constitution, ” said, “The powers delegated to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people ”;

Whereas , Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate ” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government ”;

Whereas , Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. ” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them ”;

Whereas , The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;

Whereas , Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;

Whereas , Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas , The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas , A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly

of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal g overnment to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

Don't forget to check daily at The Liberty File for regularly updated news and information related to the economy and your freedom.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Response To Foreign Money Scam E-Mail

Below, I am posting the full text of the message I received from one of those "help me get a gazillion dollars out of my country" messages.  It follows my response.  

Mr. Han,

Your message finds me at the most opportune time as I think I can help you.

As you are aware, our country recently elected the Communist Barack Obama to be President.  President Obama is quickly moving upon an agenda which would have significant negative implications to the holding or creation of any wealth in America.  Just this week he has suggested drastic increases in taxes on anyone who might be economically prosperous, through their hard work, intelligence and effort, to actually provide capital to business and investment or hire people and create jobs.

I fear that should we, as you have so generously offered, try to move any significant assets to America, their value would quickly be eroded by the new Communist leader and the massive, out of control inflation we are expecting to appear as our bankrupt government tries to give money no one in our country has to bankrupt private companies and their bumbling, anti free market, hat-in-hand wealthy principals.

I suggest instead that you work towards getting your assets into some country that is far less socialist, like perhaps Russia.  I hear Lichtenstein and the Bahamas can also make fine places to put financial assets to help protect them although the oppressive, interventionist regime here is actively engaged in 'foreign blackmail' upon the Swiss to pry open such private dealings and destroy the honored business practices of another country.  I will not blame them if they now hate us like much of the rest of the world has learned to do over the past few decades.  Our country was once so great, but now it is in decline and has lost its beloved status in the world as we arrogantly spent our treasure dictating our way of life and our business interests to them.

Soon they will be coming for the weapons to which we cling and force government service onto us.   I must go now, I hear knocking at my door, they no doubt are still using the George Bush surveillance systems and know of the grave warning I am preparing to send you. They will demand to see my Real ID card (aka: my 'papers'). 

I urge you, for your own protection, to find a safer country to transfer your funds to so that they are not stolen by out of control politicians.

Sincere regards and may God bless you sir,

Sean Shepard
United States of America

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Mr. Paul Han  wrote:
Mr.Paul Han,

Compliments of the Day,

I want to make a proposal of business transaction which value sum is £52,559,000 GBP(Fifty Two Million, Five Hundred And Fifty Nine Thousand British Pounds Sterling) to you, of which I believe will be of much interest to you and also a mutual benefit for both of us.
I need your co-operation to transfer the above mentioned sum out of England to any part of the world. And I am confident that you will give your consideration to this proposal and response positively within a short period of time. I am available to discuss this proposal with you and to answer any questions you may have in regard to this fund.
As soon as you give your positive response to this proposal, I will not hesitate in sending you the details and procedures of the transaction. 
Look forward to discussing this opportunity further with you in more detail shortly. 

Mr.Paul Han,
Chartered Accountant
Lloyds Banking Group Plc

Don't forget to get your economic and pro-liberty news at The Liberty File!

Friday, February 13, 2009

The "UnFairness" Doctrine

There is considerable chatter right now suggesting that the Democrats plan to reintroduce what is tragically referred to as "The Fairness Doctrine". The idea is that they can use the force of government to restrict, mold, guide or punish media outlets that do not offer programming that espouses opinions counter to those of, what the market has determined represents, mainstream America.

Think of the following example.

You decide to open a store. You incorporate, file for a retail sales certificate, rent retail space and start hiring people, buying products and stocking your shelves. Things are going really well and you continue to put products on the shelf that people like to buy. Then, one day, a government representative shows up and tells you that you have hired too many people who 'think the wrong way'. They make you throw away half of the stuff on your shelves and replace it with products that don't sell well, some of them you may have even tried to sell in the past but lost money on. They tell you that if you put the wrong products back on your shelves they will fine you a lot of money or even use the massive power of government to put you out of business.

This is what the Democrats want to do to media outlets because those outlets, and their listeners, have determined that they really want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham and others.

Famously, the more socialist / fascist elements of the media attempted to start their own talk radio empire called "Air America" and it failed almost immediately despite having minor celebrity Al Franken (because he's good enough, smart enough and doggone it... people like him - NOT) involved. These people supposedly got some big money backing but couldn't make a go of it. Nobody wanted to listen!

In an attempt to intervene in the free market and the freedom of people to choose what to listen to, or perhaps more nefariously, to try and manipulate public opinion and thought the Democrats are seeking to destroy talk radio by forcing stations to carry products that far fewer people would listen to, making it hard to sell advertising and destroying the business model. We are a nation that has as its most important founding principal the freedom of speech. To have a whole political movement aligned with the idea of using the power of government to shut people up if there is disagreement is anathema to our way of thinking.

Here is a topic that I think is worthy of discussion. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the people who actually pay attention to their government, want to know what is really going on, have an appreciation for staying informed or even involved just happen to be more conservative, or even libertarian, people who will turn off the latest pop music channel; self-promoting, mind numbing and juvenile 'shock jocks'; sports radio or morning shows in exchange for something intelligent to listen to? A lot of these same people are avid readers too as near as I can tell.

I just don't know that I believe nearly as many on what is traditionally, but not necessarily accurately, described as "the left" are really following logic and paying attention to the nuance in our policy. I believe they are indeed far more likely to want to shut someone up at gunpoint or shout them down instead of having to make reasoned arguments and find their own audience. This is always the case with "the left". They don't want to earn it on the merits, they want to use the guns of government to FORCE IT upon people. Doesn't matter if it's charity programs, retirement savings, restricting educational choices, having your newborns DNA stolen and filed in a national database, taking care of your own health care decisions - they know what is best for you and will decide for you.

Well, if they are so damn smart why can't they figure out to assemble, market and advertise successful radio programs instead of having to use government force to coerce us into listening to what THEY want us to? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they really don't know everything after all. Good luck convincing them of that.

Note: Don't forget to keep up to date on news that impacts the economy and your freedoms at The Liberty File.

Friday, February 6, 2009


I was sitting here taking a few moments to privately celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday when my daughter, Elizabeth, joined me and watched some of it.  She is not unfamilar with Ronald Reagan (or Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul for that matter).  

She laughed at the letter he got, after being shot, from a young boy warning him to get well before he might have to give a speech in his pajamas.  She watched a snippet of his Challenger and "tear down this wall" speeches.  And when we got to the end of one of the clips and it showed parts of President Reagan's funeral, she got very quiet and I realized she was crying.

Sometimes there are little things that give you hope for the next generation.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Helio Castroneves Got 'em, How About Handcuffs For Daschle, Geithner, Killefer, Solis and Rangel?

Whatever you're opinions of the tax code, it's thousands of pages of complexity and massive sucking sound it places on our economy, everyone should be able to agree that the law should apply equally.

So why is it that one of the nicest guys in motor sports racing, two-time Indy 500 champion and "Dancing with the Stars Winner" Helio Castroneves gets arrested, handcuffed, put in an orange jumpsuit and dragged through the court system under penalty of jail, a ruined career and destroyed reputation?  Helio is accused of, if I understand correctly, an effort by his staff to, not escape, but defer taxes by using a system whereby large lump sum payments get doled out over time as royalties.

New York Congressman Charlie Rangel gets caught with tax problems, former Congressman Tom Daschle caught having just flat not paid $120,000 in taxes.  Treasury nominee Tim Geithner was way behind on his taxes, and Obama's Chief Performance Officer nominee, Nancy Killefer, had a lien on a house over $300 or so in unpaid taxes.  These aren't the first or only elected officials that have, intentionally or otherwise, run afoul of the tax code.

Today, Rep. Hilda Solis, nominated to be labor secretary is being looked at more closely because her husband had to pay off $6,400 in tax liens, some of them 16 years old?

I understand maybe better than most.  There is nothing more frustrating than spending more money one year getting tax work prepared and filed for a business than you actually were able to take home from it.  The system needs to be simplified.  Even the Washington Post put the call out for tax simplification a month or so ago.  When a Washington newspaper is saying, "you need to simplify the tax code", well, "YOU NEED TO SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE."

Think about every individual or businessperson who, at minimum is spending $30 or $40 on Turbotax or, for a large company, spending millions of dollars on tax and legal work.  Let's save the discussion for ditching the system completely for The FairTax (HR 25) or, even better, replacing it with nothing.   How about we either let Helio Castroneves off the hook if he agrees to fix whatever problem the IRS says is there?  The other option is to have federal agents go and arrest Tom, Charlie and Tim and put them in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits, parade them in front of cameras, demonize them in the media, destroy their reputations and make them spend a few hours in the pokey?

I vote for letting Helio fix whatever it is just like these other high profile folks are apparently being allowed to do.  Anything else is unequal application of the law for benefit of the political class and for purposes of making examples out of others so that the rest of us can see what they'll do to us if we act like the elected officials who make the rules.  Apparently, they make them for us, not themselves.

crossposted to circlecitypundit