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.

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.”

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Sunday, Jul 12 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 Hearings


To date I have written you on three separate occasions regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. And to date, I have yet to receive any sort of response as to your position on the matter. Please write today, and confirm your own opposition to this entire proceeding.

There really is no room for discussion on the matter, and to imply otherwise would be quite literally: insanity.

Albert Einstein is attributed with having said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Over and over again, Sonya Sotomayor has proven herself; she has proven herself to be unqualified for this nomination. Her statements are not isolated blurbs in passing, nor are her positions limited to theoretical ramblings. Her actions and judgments are testimonials to all that she says. For a fairly lengthy list of her positions in her own words, please view:http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-in-her-own-words/

I have spoken about your oath in the past Senators. Here is a reminder of your duty, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” This is not only your oath, it has been the oath of your predecessors dating back to 1864 and the Constitution itself says that you, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution”.

“The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. “
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

The Supreme Court goes on to describe its own role in that system of checks and balances by saying, “The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.”
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

  • What does Sotomayor have to say on the matter? “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know.” Source: Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005

“’EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW’These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf  

  • Sotomayor says, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

We are , “A government of laws not men.” (Source: http://www.masshist.org/adams/quotes.cfm Letters of Novanglus, No. 7, [6 March 1775] Papers of John Adams, 2:314 The phrase seems to originate with James Harrington, Politicaster, 1659) In expounding on the Rule of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary explains that, “… sometimes called ‘the supremacy of law’, (it) provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application.”

  • “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” Sonya Sotomayor. Source: Symposium sponsored by Berkley Law Journal, 2001.

Sonya Sotomayor herself removes all need for discussion. Sonya Sotomayor is purely, and simply, not a qualified nominee to the position of Supreme Court Justice. To even allow the confirmation hearings to move forward is irresponsible at best, and is a serious breach of your oath of office.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

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

United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary
Leahy, Patrick J. (D, VT) , http://leahy.senate.gov/ (202) 224-4242
Kohl, Herb (D, WI),
http://kohl.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5653
Feinstein, Dianne (D, CA),
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-3841
Feingold, Russell D. (D, WI),
http://feingold.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5323
Schumer, Charles E. (D, NY),
http://schumer.senate.gov/ (202) 224-6542
Durbin, Richard J. (D, IL),
http://durbin.senate.gov/ (202) 224-2152
Cardin, Benjamin L. (D, MD),
http://cardin.senate.gov (202) 224-4524
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D, RI),
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/ (202) 224-2921
Wyden, Ron (D, OR),
http://wyden.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5244
Klobuchar, Amy (D, MN),
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/ (202) 224-3244
Kaufman, Edward E. (D, DE),
http://kaufman.senate.gov/ (202) 224-5042
Specter, Arlen (D, PA),
http://specter.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-4254
Sessions, Jeff (R, AL),
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-4124
Hatch, Orrin G. (R, UT),
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5251
Grassley, Chuck (R, IA),
http://grassley.senate.gov/ (202) 224-3744
Kyl, Jon (R, AZ),
http://kyl.senate.gov/ (202) 224-4521
Graham, Lindsey (R, SC),
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5972
Cornyn, John (R, TX),
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-2934
Coburn, Tom (R, OK),
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ (202) 224-5754

Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Monday, Jul 6 2009 

The Honorable Bill Cassidy (R, LA. 6th District) 202.225.3901
506 Cannon Hob
Washington DC 20515

Re: June 30, 2009 Town hall Meeting on Health Care
Subject: Thanks & Position

Representative Cassidy:

Thank you for hosting the “town hall” style meeting on June 30, 2009 at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge to discuss the nationalization of health care, and the likely ramifications of such a measure.

I learned of more than a few reasons to oppose any such legislation:

  • In the private model, the United States is the world leader in medical research and technology (backed up with the clout of institutions such as Johns Hopkins, National Jewish, MD Anderson, and the Mayo Clinic to name just a few).
  • That a great many small business owners very well may be forced out of business as an unintended consequence of implementation a national plan.
  • CBO estimates of a deficit increase of over ONE TRILLION dollars in the next 10 years (Senator Kennedy’s website says the CBO has come up with a new number of 600 billion over the course of the 10 year span, though I have yet to confirm that with anything from the CBO directly – and even if I had, in my mind that value is also grossly unacceptable).

In complete honesty though Congressman? The most valid reason that I can think of to stand in opposition to the nationalization of our health care system is that it further serves to erode the founding principles upon which this countries cornerstones were carved from. It further removes choice from the People, and places it firmly in the ever increasing strength and might of our federal government.

Every single sentence our founding fathers wrote; every document they crafted; everything that they did was to insure We the People would have control of our own destiny, and that We could wield government as We saw fit. These founding principles…what so many have given their lives for so freely…these ideals are being eroded before Our very eyes. This is what you are fighting for Congressman. You are, in a very real way, fighting for Our very freedom.

I urge you to stand strong & remain vigilant at all times, and to remember what is that you are truly there for sir; to give the People a voice, and the ability to make choices on their own – not to give the government the authority to decide what is in Our best interest.

Thank you for your service Congressman.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Enclosures: CBO Estimate
(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf ),
Draft Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
(http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf )

Cc: Senator David Vitter (R, LA) 202.224.4623, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) 202.224.5824

Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee
(committee general mailbox: help_comments@help.senate.gov )
Edward Kennedy (MA)
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Michael B. Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John McCain (AZ)
Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Tom Coburn, M.D. (OK)
Pat Roberts (KS)

Healthcare Reform Sunday, Jul 5 2009 

The above hyperlink is to a site that is looking for positive feedback on the President’s plans to nationalize healthcare. And it is a very one sided thing. If you look around that site in general, there is practically no way to voice your opposition – though there are a number of different ways to voice your support. This particular link is the only way that I have found where you can actually utilize the First Amendment & say what you think. I would urge you all to go there and make your voice heard. Additionally, write to your Senators and your Representatives…as well as the Senate Committee on Health, Labor & Pensions – more commonly known as “H.E.L.P.” Their email address is: help_comments@help.senate.gov This is the committee that will consider any legislation on the issue).

Here is what I told them yesterday:

Yes, our country is in dire need of healthcare reform, but not the type of reform that further inserts government into our lives. There has not been a single government solution for broad social dilemmas that has yet to work out (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc…) The answer to our problems today is most assuredly not an increased measure of government control.
If you want to do your jobs on Capitol Hill, and act in support of an empowered People, and a limited government as envisioned by free Americans throughout our history – you can work on Tort reform (a legal problem that is going to take a legal solution – this should be right up your alley). Of its own accord it would serve to substantially lower physicians malpractice costs, and thereby significantly reduce the burden on the end recipients. Additionally – fix the programs already in existence, and stop the rampant fraud…or remove them altogether. This would also go a very long way in solving the problems before Us.  

And stop citing twisted and outright bogus statistics.. 47 million uninsured? That is a very misleading number..

The real number is more likely somewhere in the range of 11 million, depending upon how you interpret the data – Judge for yourself though, I have attached the source data below from the US Census Bureau. And while that is most certainly an issue that has got to be dealt with, it is a far cry from what you regularly espouse as fact.   

Here are two separate interpretations of the data above.

As a veteran of a foreign war, I have seen firsthand what a national system can be (the VA is far from efficient)… as an American, I have watched Canadians and Brits flock to our soil to partake in OUR system. And as an informed citizen, I have read about the countless times the rest of the world has turned to us, the United States of America, for knowledge as we ARE the leaders in all medical fields.
And to those that would cry out that we are the only civilized country that does not have a nationalized health plan…  One final thought.. the oath of office is very simple for both the executive, and the legislative branches…it mostly just talks about the protection and defense of our Constitution (which in turn protects We the People)… and our Constitution is a document meant to limit government and empower the People..

Is this plan in keeping with those principles? No…the “moral imperative” here is to stop the madness, and return the true leaders of this country to power: the People.

Since when do we try to conform to other platforms? From our very inception, we Americans have always broken away from the pack… thought.. and acted.. INDEPENDENTLY.. that is perhaps one of the greatest characteristics of what it means to BE American; perhaps something to bear in mind as we celebrate this INDEPENDENCE DAY. We have always been the trend-SETTERS…that very trait has helped define the greatness of this nation!

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing Record Act of 2009 Friday, Jul 3 2009 

The Honorable Bill Cassidy (R, LA. 6th District) 202.225.3901
506 Cannon Hob
Washington DC 20515
Representative Cassidy:

On January 6, 2009 Congressman Bobby L. Rush (D, IL. 202.225.4372 ) introduced H.R. 45, “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Sale Record Act of 2009” (no cosponsor) for consideration. On February 9, 2009 this proposed legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it resides today.

In brief I am writing to voice my opposition to this bill. It is an unwarranted and blatant attack on not only our individual second amendment rights, but our fourth amendment rights as well. Additionally, this legislation would set incredibly dangerous precedent on what would amount to a total removal of State’s rights in favor of federal regulation as pertaining to individual citizens and residents.

The entire bill is ludicrous and irreparably flawed if one attempts to apply any logic, reason, and fact; but I will give two brief examples:
Page 4, lines 13 – 16 under “Purposes”, the bill states, “to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth…”, and the way the document is crafted, this reads as the main objective.
  • The process for legal transfer already involves federal approval on all transfer of ownership for firearms. As part that transfer, the federal form filled out is utilized to conduct an immediate background check of the applicant. Among those qalready not qualified to complete the transaction include (but are not limited to): criminals and youth.
Page 3, lines 18 – 23 under “Findings”, the bill states, “on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”
  • First of all the death of Blair Holt was tragic and needless, and it was purely criminal in every way imaginable. Blair Holt’s final actions showed him to be a young man of unusual character & valor, and of course that only serves to magnify the already heinous nature of the crime.
  • The killer: Michael Pace, was convicted of 1st degree murder and will be serving between 50 years to life in prison.

Per the US Department of Justice report number NCJ189369, in 80% of crime involving firearms, the firearm is not legally transferred.

The answer to criminal behavior is not to remove the rights of law abiding citizens, and never has been. As a matter of fact, there is a very legitimate position that states that were more law abiding citizens to utilize their second amendment rights responsibly there were be even less criminal behavior. To use a rather dramatic example, when is the last time you have heard of a gun store being robbed during business hours? I tied to “google” that and only came up with “attempted robberies” (example: http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp ).

And finally, as for that very small minority that would participate in criminal behavior with a legally obtained firearm? The laws in place currently are more than sufficient to deal with those individuals, and to hold them liable for their own actions. Further legislation of any kind would at best be redundant, and at worst could be detrimental. We must shift our focus back to one of personal responsibility and hold individuals accountable for their own actions, not expecting the government to regulate every waking move of the citizenry, nor should the law abiding people be stripped of their liberty or freedom as a consequence of criminal behavior present in society.

The automatic reaction that legislation can solve a problem is a seriously flawed trend in our country today that has got to be dealt with. Outside of our founding documents, and major constitutional amendments, you can point to no time in our past to a single instance where additional legislation has gotten our country out of a difficult situation. Please bear that in mind when you consider any legislative action.

In closing Congressman, I know that you are in fact a strong proponent of our second amendment rights, but here you need to make it a point to ensure that this bill not only not make it to the House floor, but that it is retired permanently with no hope of revival or reincarnation.

Chris Beall
Baton Rouge, LA

Cc: Senator David Vitter (R, LA) 202.224.4623, Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) 202.224.5824,

House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Bobby Scott (D, VA). 202.225.8351
Louie Gohmert (R, TX) 202.225.3035
Pedro Pierluisi (D, PR) 202.225.2615
Ted Poe (R, TX) 202.225.6565
Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) 202.225.5635
Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) 202.225.5431
Zoe Lofgren (D, CA) 202.225.3072
Dan Lungren (R, CA) 202.225.5716
Sheila Jackson Lee (D, TX) 202.225.3816
J. Randy Forbes (R, VA) 202.225.6365
Thomas J. Rooney (R, FL) 202.225.5792
Maxine Waters (D, CA) 202.225.2201
Steve Cohen (D, TN) 202.225.3265
Anthony Weiner (D, NY) 202.225.6616
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) 202.225.7931
Mike Quigley (D, IL) 202.225.4061

RE: H.R. 45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Subject: Opposition

Next Page »