Fallen Heroes Saturday, Aug 15 2009 

Fallen Heroes
August 15, 2009

Last year was the first memorial Run for the Fallen. It was a way to honor those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who have died in service to the United States during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. A group of guys got together and ran (literally) across the country, planting a flag every mile along the way for our fallen heroes.

While they were running, they asked for help and on August 24, 2008, “Over 9,000 participants ran over 35,000 miles in remembrance of those fallen in OIF and OEF.”

This year, we are running again. “On the weekend of August 22 & 23, 2009, we are encouraging anyone, wherever they are, to go out and run/walk one mile for a fallen service member killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Similar to our Final Day event in 2008, we will post runs here, in order!, by state and country. Please email contact@runforthefallen.org with information about your run. Our goal is to again have all 50 states participate. Last year, there were over 9,000 participants in nine countries, including the US, running a combined total of almost 36,000 miles. Help us to continue to honor and remember our service members, bringing people and communities together. Together, let us Run for the Fallen. Download a runner’s bib that you can wear when you run for the fallen.

Even if there is no organized group event in your area, please do not let that stop you from running that weekend and logging your miles for our fallen heroes…wherever you may be.

And here in southern Louisiana and Mississippi we have one of our own to run for. On August 2, 2009 SFC Severin West Summers III was killed in action while fighting for our freedom.     

 sev2 copy


Sev was a lot of things to a lot of people (a fact testified to by more than 500 people that attended his visitation this past Thursday), and while it is almost never wise to speak for a crowd that large, I feel quite safe in saying that to everyone there he was brother or friend… son or uncle… husband or father… and down to the last person, he was & is HERO to us all.

So please, print your runners bib, and go run on August 22 & 23 for Sev – and for all of our fallen Heroes. Log your miles send them into contact@runforthefallen.org

Semper Fi!

Sons of Liberty  


Enumerated Powers Act (H.R.450, S.1319) Thursday, Aug 6 2009 

Enumerated Powers Act
August 6, 2009

I have recently been made aware of the proposed legislation that is H.R. 450 as put forth by Congressman John Shadegg (R, AZ). The short title is the “Enumerated Powers Act”, and the official title is, “To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws and for other purposes.

The title of this bill is a very good descriptor of its purpose, but here is a more detailed summary:

  • Requires each Act of Congress to contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. Declares that failure to comply with this requirement shall give rise to a point of order in either chamber of Congress.
  • Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
  • Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
  • Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
  • Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
  • Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
  • Congress cannot waive these requirements.

I cannot think of a single (defensible) position that could possibly oppose this legislation – that is, if the foundation of the conversation is an agreement that the Constitution  is in fact the final authority on the Rule of Law.  

Make no mistake; the Constitution is in fact the thing that makes us uniquely, American. It is what our founders, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters and friends have fought and died for. It empowers you as citizens, and guarantees your rights; all of them.

Sadly, today it is taken for granted – or worse, shunned altogether. Every single day we see more and more proposed legislation. Counting only actual bills that have been proposed (and only counting this Congress) there are 5,090 open bills.  Yes, that is right. There are FIVE THOUSAND and NINETY bills that are currently open in  THIS 111th  Congress (if you wish to count resolutions as well –  which are, after all, more things that must be considered – there are 6,345 open items in this Congress).

It may be a circular statement that follows, though it is very true (think about it); we do not need any new laws that are not legal. Of course we don’t need any existing laws that are not legal for that matter. Nor do we need a lot of redundant legislation. We need solutions to problems. Imposing new laws is by and large not the answer to anything. We have been digging that grave for ourselves for quite a long time now, and we are only succeeding in worsening our collective situation (and that is true under Republicans & Democrats alike). If anything we should be trying to erase past legislation that is impeding us today.

Unless and until we have the foundation right from whence we start, those solutions will never (ever) come, and partisan politics will only continue to worsen until in the end – it will rip us asunder.

The Congressional Oath of Office should take care of this point, and provide the Constitutional framework for all conversations regardless of party affiliation, but the very last thing that our representatives seem to be thinking about is foundational principals…most of them that is.

Democrat. Republican. Does it really matter when considering this point? If we agree on that basic principal that the Constitution is what makes us uniquely American (not party affiliation), and that it is the litmus test which all laws must pass muster before they are…legal (just to note for anyone that may not be aware; when the Supreme Court considers whether or not something is “legal”, they are weighing it against the Constitution…be it a lower court’s decision, or be it questionable legislation), then we must view this proposal as being not only logical – but as absolutely necessary.

A shockingly small number of Representatives and Senators agree. If your Senators and Representatives are not below, I urge you to contact them and let them know that you insist they not only co-sponsor this legislation, but that they champion it.

Sons of Liberty  

Healthcare Reform Tuesday, Aug 4 2009 

Healthcare Reform: Alternatives
August 4, 2009

Those proponents of H.R. 3200 are quite vocal about the “opposition” not having an alternative solution to table. I have several thoughts on that:

  • This is not a new issue. It has been hotly contested for many years.
    • The problems that we have in the system as it stands today did not appear overnight; nor will they be repaired by some magical solution that no one has actually read, much less considered and debated.
  • A great many of the problems in our current system can all be fairly directly tied back to Medicare, and Medicaid (a.k.a., “public options”).
    • We will not repair the broken system with more broken parts.
  • It is openly admitted by the White House the reason they want to push this legislation through with such urgency is that if allowed to be dissected and analyzed, it will be not become law.
    • ANY piece of legislation that cannot stand scrutiny does not need to be even considered.

And while I am certain there are other reasonable proposals, I know of at least one Congressman that does have alternative solutions. Representative Bill Cassidy (R, LA) is actually a practicing medical doctor.

He stands in opposition to the currently proposed legislation primarily because it does not do anything that it claims to.

I implore you to read for yourself however, and don’t take mine, Congressman Cassidy’s, or anyone else’s for it. I assure you that no matter your political affiliation, you will be nauseated (unless you happen to be amenable to the idea of a completely socialistic society well on its way to becoming a full blown fascist state, in which case you will find it quite pleasing).

To my mind, the single most important thing that Congressman Cassidy insists upon (regardless of what level of reform is adopted) is that the “patients” are empowered. Here is a short video clip of his opening remarks regarding H.R. 3200 – July 15, 2009.

Please use the links on this page to read the bills get informed and to CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES – and do not just do it once. Write them. Call them. And do so as often as you can. If our freedoms are taken from us, they will be taken forever.

If you would like to hear more about what Congressman Cassidy has to say about healthcare reform (both his position on H.R. 3200, as well as his propositions), you can find additional videos of him speaking, HERE.


Is the crisis we face healthcare? Or something else? Tuesday, Aug 4 2009 

Our Healthcare Crisis.
August 3, 2009

In early January, we were told that we must pass a “stimulus bill”  that was unprecedented in scope, and truly staggering in scale. The House passed this bill on January 28th. Just 9 days later, a slightly altered version made it through the Senate.  And six days after that on February 13, 2009 the final version was passed again by the House, clearing it for the White House on that same day. H.R. 1 was presented to the President on February 16th and he reviewed it for a day before signing it into Public Law 111-5 on February 17th 2009.  

The final version, its amendments, and related papers sum to 1588 pages. The cost to taxpayers is $850,000,000,000.00. This one piece of legislation effectively quadrupled a debt that it had taken over 8 years, two wars, (and yes – the extreme fiscal irresponsibility of the previous administration) to incur. And we accomplished this monumental task in just over a month.

Rewind to November 22, 2004. Then newly elected Senator Obama interviews with Randi Rhodes:

Just as an interesting side note:

  • In that 2004 interview Senator Obama spoke quite negatively of the 2001legislation H.R. 3162 (a.k.a. the “Patriot Act”).
  • Shortly after that interview on March 1, 2006 Senator Obama voted “YEA” for S. 2271 (a.k.a. the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006”).  

Now, fast forward again to today. The White House is telling us that we have to pass massive pieces of legislation into law before the end of the year. And we are actually told that the reason we must push it though is that given a long enough period of time the proposed bills will “die”.

Personally, I think Congressman John Shadegg (R, AZ), and Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) have the right idea with their proposition that, “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress… H.R. 450, and S. 1319 – the “Enumerated Powers Act”.

As it stands, much of the proposed legislation currently on the table is simply too massive to wrap one’s mind around.

So the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sees no point in even trying to read these bills. I am having a very hard time with that sinking in, so for my own sake I am going to repeat it: the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee……

We hear more daily about what is in these bills though, because even though the lawmakers are not up to the task, there are quite a few people that have accepted the challenge and are going through finding some things that are very disconcerting.

During a recent interview by Fred Thompson, former NY Lt. Governor & patient advocate Betsy McCaughey revealed some things about the healthcare bill (H.R. 3200) that I seriously doubt any American citizen would be on board with.

Ironically enough, at least two (more) of the disturbing facts about H.R. 3200 came to light as the result of a conference call that the President himself had with a group of bloggers traditionally quite supportive of his efforts.

1)   The proposed legislation would make private insurance illegal.

2)   The President has no idea what is in these bills.

The Heritage Foundation partnered with the Lewin Group recently to conduct a Study of H.R. 3200 and, “how many Americans would be forced into the government ‘option’ under the House health plan.”  

  • Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
  • About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
  • Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

For the full text of the article referenced, please go here.

At this point these type facts should not be surprising, but I (nevertheless) remain slack jawed with shock that we actually live in a day when our country is in danger of being systematically dismantled before our very eyes…lest we act. Call your Congressperson. Write your Senators. You can find them right here on this page. Tell them you oppose H.R. 3200 as well as all related bill and measures.

And while you are at it, tell them to READ THE BILLS!

Sons of Liberty

Your Civic Duty? Monday, Aug 3 2009 

In recent months I have become more and more vocal politically, and this activism has led to some interesting conversations. Something that seems to be surfacing as an almost universal constant is an unwillingness to be civically involved at any level.

Almost everyone I speak to says that they vote. And most of them will almost simultaneously espouse the reason they cast their vote is so that they have, “the right to complain”, but those very same people refuse to become engaged, citing that, “it does no good.”

When those same people are asked, many do not really seem to know why they voted for whom they voted for to begin with, beyond party line divisions; and I have only encountered the smallest handful that has any clue how the candidate they helped elect is performing on the job.  

So tell me again…how is it that voting (alone) gives one the right to complain about anything at all in this society?

I read a very good article today that makes a strong case for abstaining from voting altogether. Here is an excerpt: “…if you decide to pull that lever…to participate and be counted, what you’re really doing is empowering a system that has tested the waters of breaking constitutional boundaries…and allowing the process to continue on its current trend of moving further and further away from being a constitutional republic to a gang of corrupt, self aggrandizing globalists who are quite comfortable having their cocktail party lifestyle funded by the shrinking middle class which loves to believe in their government and politics. They’ve gotten away with it. There was no military coup, no revolution. So like serial criminals, their confidence grows as they think, let’s see what else we can get away with.”   Cited from:  Is it Your Civic Duty Not to Vote”, by Peter Ruble: August 13, 2008

While I certainly agree that a politician is (generally speaking) – a politician. I do not agree that the situation is helpless…unless action stops at the voting booth. If it does, then Mr. Ruble is right and we may as well sit at home and not participate at all. Why? Because we live in a country that was created by the People, with a government of the People “…sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic …” and for the People, “…sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens …”

As the “People”, We ARE the government (rather, we are supposed to keep it in check). We live in a country rooted in the notion that personal responsibility is the oil that allows the machine to work properly. Take away the oil, and the machine will break down…eventually. And I would argue the oil has been absent long enough that the machine is beginning to smoke. Soon the gears will seize up altogether unless we do something.  

The President is correct in his statements that we, “…must act now!”, but not to create new laws, or expand government. We have to hold our elected officials (all of them) accountable. We must provide the oversight, and keep the politicians on task. And if they fall down on the job, or if they break their oath of office then We have to remind them they serve at our pleasure, as it is the People that are to be empowered… and the government that is to be limited.

And on those days when you feel like you are trying to dig a foxhole with a plastic spoon in rocky soil, call to mind, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…”  Samuel Adams

Ordering Pizza Obama Style Saturday, Aug 1 2009 


Despite the title, this video was made long before Obama was even a blip on the radar. I’m not sure who put it together, or what it was in response to. As a matter of fact – had I seen this a few years back, I would have scoffed and not given it a second glance…

But a lot has changed in the last few years. The legislation that is routinely coming before the House and the Senate is .. quite literally .. terrifying. There are more than a few line items in bills that are currently on the table that not only set up the possiblity of this “spoof” as something to come, but that actually pave the way for much of this portrayed insanity to be implemented before 2012.

Don’t take my word for it though. Please don’t. Research for yourself. All of the tools that you need are linked right here on this page. And when you have reached an educated conclusion based on critical thought and analysis – contact your reps, and tell them what you think. It is high time We the People take the government back.

Sotomayor Opposition Thursday, Jul 30 2009 

Senator David Vitter (R, LA) (202) 224-4623
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) (202)224-5824
328 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Sonya Sotomayor Senate Confirmation Vote


As I have enumerated in earlier letters to you on the subject, there are multiple reasons that you should choose to vote “NO” on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor. Still another such reason that I have not yet touched on is Judge Sotomayor’s un-constitutional position on Second Ammendment rights.

Sotomayor’s judicial track record on the Second Ammendment, “…together with her unwillingness or inability as an appellate judge to engage in any analysis of this enumerated right when twice given the opportunity to do so including most recently after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year in District of Columbia v. Heller suggest either a lack of understanding of Second Amendment jurisprudence or hostility to the right. Either possibility should be of grave concern to this committee, as it is to me and millions of other gun owners. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32740

Two very specific examples of Sotomayor’s disregard for individual rights are:

And the confirmation hearings did nothing to alter her stance on the subject, nor did they shed further light. The Wall Street Journal said, “…Judge Sotomayor … was clear as mud during the hearings, but her circular tautology on gun rights is notable because of cases in lower courts that could reach the Supreme Court. Heller dealt with a Washington, D.C. statute and thus federal law.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786955918160393.html

Our Constitutional rights are in danger of being extinguished on an ever increasing number of fronts; we cannot allow someone with as little regard for those rights as Sonya Sotomayor, to be confirmed to the position of Supreme Court Justice. Senators, if you take your oath of office seriously on any level, you must cast a “NO” vote on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Media, Address book,
US Congressman Bill Cassidy (R, 6th Dist. LA) 202-225-3901 


Senator Landrieu’s "Position" on Sotomayor Monday, Jul 13 2009 

Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) (202)224-5824
328 Hart Senate BuildingWashington, DC 20510
Senator Landrieu,    
You have not stated anything of substance in your response. You have insinuated that you support the nomination, but not actually come out and stated it flatly. You have written a paragraph about a subject without taking any position on it whatsoever that is readily apparent.The logic behind my stance was laid out fairly clearly in previous correspondence to you (dated July 11, 2009) and unless you can actually dismantle the case that I have made against her (Sotomayor) using the Constitution as the defining document from which to determine job qualification, then I will remain firmly rooted. Please be aware that any positive endorsement that you may give to Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor will in my mind constitute irrevocable grounds for my adamant campaigning against any future office you may seek.
That being said, I am not unreasonable and if I can be shown where I have made a legitimate error in process, I will readily and humbly adjust.
And Senator? I am not fool enough to believe that my viewpoint is the only one out there. Nor should you be. You must realize that you will inevitably lose some votes as a result of your position on issues, as for every outlook there is another that is totally different. So take a side & declare in no uncertain terms what your allegiances are.

As for me….. I will stand with the United States Constitution.

Semper Fidelis,
Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Correspondence from Senator Landrieu

July 13, 2009 Dear Mr. Beall: Thank you for contacting my office regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. As you may know, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor on May 26, 2009. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the Nation. As a Senator, it is my duty to ensure that all members of this high court have a strong legal background, experience in handling a variety of legal issues, and a fairminded approach to judicial review. I take my responsibility for reviewing the qualifications of presidential nominees very seriously. You may be pleased to know that I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s record very carefully, interviewed her personally, and will continue to examine her writings to ensure that she will serve as a fair and impartial Justice. Currently, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the nomination hearings for Judge Sotomayor for July 13, 2009. Please rest assured that I will continue to monitor the progress of this nomination and keep your views in mind when this comes before the full Senate for a vote. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please also feel free to visit my website at http://landrieu.senate.gov for more information on legislative affairs. With warmest regards, I am Sincerely, A Mary L. Landrieu United States Senator MLL:aar

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009


Federal Reserve Monday, Jul 13 2009 

In the coming days we will be reporting on yet another issue that calls for immediate action on the part of the American People. This time, the central focus will be the “Fed” (Federal Reserve). There is no solid statement from the White House as of yet, and no actual legislation that I know of…only rumor. For now, I’ll just share what amounts to a brief history lesson.

Like many of you, I have very little knowledge of what the Fed really is. I mean, I recall what Econ 1000 teaches (vaguely), but beyond that? Not so much. Nor did I really know how it came to be.

Bearing in mind that this is only the barest of outlines, and only hits some of the highlights, a fairly straightforward origin is as follows:


  • 1791 – 1811: Despite staunch opposition from luminaries the likes of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for being against both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, the First (Central) Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress on February 25, 1791. Its purpose was ostensibly to standardize currency, control interest, establish credit both domestically and abroad. Additionally the bank was to administer an excise tax on domestic hard liquor, and an increased duty on imported spirits (leading to the “Whiskey Rebellion” in 1794). The bank’s charter expired as schedule after 20 years in 1811, and Congress opted to not renew.

“[The] Bank of the United States… is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution… An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mtj:2:./temp/~ammem_fHY8::

  • 1816 – 1836: Madison changed his position on the concept of the central bank during his presidency, and in 1816 he pushed legislation through Congress effectively creating the Second Bank of the United States. This was a desperate move on his part to stabilize currency during the massive inflation that followed the War of 1812. This bank was quite corrupt though and had a very questionable relationship with the federal government.

Andrew Jackson (always opposed to the concept of a centralized bank) was particularly vehement about putting this one down, and upon coming into his presidency started a series of “bank wars” in which he was intent upon “killing” this central bank. He believed the Bank was deeply corrupt, and stated, “…beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money.” President Jackson diverted funds to the central bank by ordering his Secretary of Treasury to deposit federal monies into banks of his choosing.

Then in 1836, when a bill to re-charter the central bank made it through Congress, President Jackson quickly vetoed the legislation

 1913 – Present Day: The third national bank known as the Federal Reserve Bank…

It came about, largely in response to a panic that essentially started in 1907. In 1908 Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established a commission to study banking and currency reform.

It is worthy of note to point out that Nelson Aldrich (who personally led half the commission effort) had close personal ties to banker J.P. Morgan, and he actually married the daughter of banking magnate J.D. Rockefeller, Jr.

It is also worth of note that the vast majority of Congress opposed the creation of another centralized bank.

Finally, on a Sunday two days before Christmas (December 23, 1913), after months of hearings, amendments, and debates – the Federal Reserve Act was passed when most of Congress was home celebrating the holiday.

Just a few short years later, the Great Depression hit the nation full force.

On June 10, 1932, Thomas McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives, in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. Following is an excerpt from his speech: “Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.”

The current administration and the Federal Reserve continue to attempt to keep the economy going with massive injections of bailout money. Tragically, this inflationary process could transform our current depression into a hyperinflationary collapse―turning the dollar into “unless paper” and totally destroying our economy. And at the rate we are going with the printing process, and talk of a second “stimulus package” that day will be sooner rather than later.

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, February 3, 2009: “From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.”

Sunday, Jul 12 2009 

Next Page »