The Solution to the Problem of a Federal Government Run Amok

The solution to the problem of a federal government run amok is provided for us in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States to keep the federal government, created by the acts of each sovereign state as they ratified the Constitution, in check, to prevent it from assuming unfettered powers. In the words of Jefferson, "...to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go....In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

The first two paragraphs of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights provide a template by which A) the federal government may obtain additional authority, or B) such authority may be restrained, but to do so in such a way as to "...bind [it] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution":

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution...

This bit of parliamentary procedure has been left out of most studies of American government, but they are critical to our understanding of the relationship that is supposed to exist between the states and the federal government.

First, a need for additional authority, or the need to restrain authority, is recognized ("THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."). While the needs addressed in the Preamble were identified by the states, they could just as easily identified by Congress.

In response to the identified need, legislation appropriate to address it is formulated, debated, and vote upon by the Congress. Since it applies directly to resulting federal authority, a two-thirds majority in both houses is required for passage ("...in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring...").

Once the legislation has been formulated, debated, and passed by congress, it is then sent to the States for their ratification ("...the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States..."). Note that the States have the right to approve or reject any or all of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation ("...all or any of which Articles..."). Since the proposed legislation would have the effect of expanding or restraining federal authority, a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures must approve the legislation for it to be passed ("...when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures...")!!!

This is the template that was utilized to create and empower the federal government in the first place, and this is the template that must once again be employed if we are to bring our federal government back into accountability to the states, and more importantly, the citizens.

Second Amendment Trumps the Commerce Clause....

Letter 2 sent to my legislators regarding the need to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act.

To My Legislators:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

According to the Preamble, the Bill of Rights exists to do one thing - restrict the power of the federal government to over-regulate the citizens of this country.  Any power enumerated in the Constitution must be utilized in accordance with the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights.

With that in mind, the Second Amendment restricts Congress’ ability to restrict access to and carrying of firearms under the Commerce Clause - not the other way around!  You cannot use the Commerce Clause to violate the clearly defined protections accorded citizens in the Bill of Rights.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Letter to my Legislators to Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act

October 12, 2011

Rep. Justin Amash, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Carl Levin

Washington, DC

To My Legislators:

HR 2613 was sent to the Judiciary Committee in July of 2011.  This bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is critical for the safety of our citizens across the nation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the GFSZA has done nothing to DISCOURAGE illegal weapons in school zones across the nation.  In the 21 years that have passed since the initial passage of the GFSZA, the percentage of students carrying guns to school has dropped only two percentage points, from 7.9% to 5.9%, and there are no objective data to prove that this drop is anything other than a societal shift completely unrelated to the GFSZA.  During the same time period, however, there have been 217 gun-related events in areas covered by the GFSZA resulting in 627 casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  The objective data clearly demonstrate the failure of this legislation.

Not only does the GFSZA not prevent weapons from being carried on school property, it also insures that anyone faced with a weapons-related situation while on school property is completely defenseless.  The average person is forbidden to carry a firearm on school property.  Those who are licensed by their state to carry must, under the terms of the GFSZA, do so openly but may not actually fire the weapon in self-defense within 1,000 feet of a school property without facing criminal charges themselves.  So not only are persons on school property forbidden to defend themselves, anyone living in the surrounding neighborhood is also forbidden to use a legally-owned firearm to even protect their own property - a blatant violation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  According to the research, waiting for police to respond as one’s only legal recourse under the GFSZA does nothing but insure that the body count will be significant.  For every minute it takes police to respond to a weapons-related situation, another three casualties can result.  In a city like Detroit, where the average response time to a 911 call is 24 minutes just to arrive on-scene, the results of the GFSZA would be nothing short of disastrous.

Finally, as was already alluded to, while the GFSZA is in-line with current interpretations of the Commerce Clause, which has been turned into Congress’ license to grab unlimited power, something that was never intended by the framers of the Constitution, it is a blatant violation of the protections that were demanded by the legislatures of the States that ratified the Constitution and were enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states this concern:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and blithely overriding its clearly-defined protections is something that should NEVER happen.  In elevating the commerce clause as it has to give itself power to regulate anything merely by asserting that something was provided by way of interstate commerce at some point in its history, Congress has shown the fears of those delegates to be very well-founded; Congress has turned misconstruction and abuse of its power into a highley-developed art form.  Congress is using the Constitution to violate the Constitution.  The Second Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear (carry) firearms.  It does not define the nature or origin of that firearm, nor does it relegate the carry of that firearm to defined spaces.  And in that respect, under the clearest declaration of protection accorded by the Second Amendment, the GFSZA is a gross violation of the  protections that were demanded by the Conventions of the States.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Sincerely,

HR 2613: Time to Repeal the Gun-Free Zones Act of 2009

From Congressional Record S7920-7921

THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds....Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30- day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?......

With these words, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, a revision of the original 1990 bill, was voted upon and eventually signed into law.


This bill constitutes yet another power grab based upon the perceived authorities granted congress under the now-infamous Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Since nearly everything has an effect on interstate commerce, congress has seized upon this clause as a nearly infinite source of ever-expanding federal power.   But one must ask whether this Act, implemented with the stated goal of reducing gun-related violence in schools, has actually achieved its goal in the twenty-plus years that have passed.  One must further ask whether the Act is truly in-line with the expressed intent of the Constitution.


First, let's address the Act's efficacy.


The earliest numbers this author was able to obtain relating to the prevalence of firearms on school property were published by the CDC in 1993.  According to the statement quoted above, 1993 was a much worse year for guns on school property than 1990, the year the Act was originally signed into law.  The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report issued by the CDC reflecting a reporting period from February through May of 1993 indicated that "...22.1% of students nationwide had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) during the 30 days preceding the survey."  Of the 22.1% of students, the report indicates that 7.9% (one-third) had carried a firearm.  Skip ahead now to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report published June 4, 2010.  The data for this report indicated that, "Nationwide, 17.5% of students had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey....Nationwide, 5.9% (roughly one-third, added) of students had carried a gun on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey."   Intellectual integrity dictates that we acknowledge that there was a small  decrease (5%) in the number of weapons in general, and firearms in particular (even smaller percentage, 2%) in the twenty-plus years that passed since the signing of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in 1990.  The number of weapons overall has decreased slightly while the ratio of weapons in general to guns in particular has remained constant.  But the question that must be addressed is this:  how much of this increase is actually attributable to the GFSZA, and how much of this is simply a naturally-occurring societal shift?  Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has been so gung ho to prove their case that no one seems to have actually addressed this question.  When a similar downward trend was observed in Michigan relating to an increase in the number of citizens holding concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) and a decrease in violent crime (a 14% decrease in 10 years, versus only a 2% decrease in firearms carried on school grounds since the GFSZA was initially signed into law 20 years ago!), opponents were quick to assert that this trend could not conclusively be linked to the increase in CPL holders.  Given the lack of any objective data to the contrary, this author must make the same assertion regarding the coincidental link between signing the Act in 1990 and the decrease in guns on campuses.


Given the considerable resources that have been made available to establish the GFSZA, one would expect to see a much more substantial decline in both the number of weapons making it to school grounds and the numbers of shootings that have resulted; a 2% firearms reduction over twenty years is hardly something about which to exalt, and as has been noted in other posts, the GFSZA has hardly prevented the mass shootings it was designed to forestall.  Since the Act was initially signed into law in 1990, there have been at least 217 gun-related incidents on the premises of educational institutions, resulting in 627 total casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  This means that, if we add the 2% reduction back in (the reduction from 7.9% to 5.9%), the GFSZA MAY have prevented a total of 4 additional events and 12.5 casualties in twenty years.  You be the judge: just how effective has this Act been?


Efficacy, however, is only one consideration.  Constitutionality is the other consideration.


As has already been observed, the US Congress has transformed the Commerce Clause of the Constitution into its own personal power bank.  But at what cost to other provisions of the Constitution?


When the Constitution was first ratified by the legislatures of the States, great concern was expressed because of the lack of protections it provided to the individual citizen.  Having just seceded from an all-powerful monarchy, there was justifiable fear that, in time, the US could become a mirror image of Britain, with total power resting in the hands of an unaccountable centralized power structure.  As it has turned out, their fears, which led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, were justified.  The Commerce Clause has been used to subjugate all other provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, and chiefly, the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  While the Commerce Clause can be interpreted in such a way as to provide congress with nearly inexhaustible authority, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of citizens to provide for their own protection by carrying firearms - no interpretation is necessary.  Take a good look at the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Bill of Rights does not limit the nature or origin of the firearm, nor does it place any restrictions on the location in which a firearm may be carried.  History tells us that legislators used to carry firearms into the chambers of Congress - something that has been explicitly outlawed in the interceding years.  This basic right, accorded by both God and Constitution (see author's post, A Theology of Church and Personal Protection), has played an integral role in the development of our country, providing protection from totalitarian rule not available to other countries.  While Congress may be able to argue that the GFSZA is in line with their own understanding of the Commerce Clause, it is most certainly a violation of the explicit protections provided in the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment restricts the Commerce Clause - not the other way around.


Whether in science or sociology, there is always a point at which an experiment must come to an end.  The objective data tell us that we have reached that point with the GFSZA.  It is time for the Judiciary committee to bring HR 2613, which would repeal the GFSZA, to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up or down vote.  If our Representatives truly wish to do right by their constituents, they will see that the GFSZA experiment comes to an end.


   

Why I Oppose the National Popular Vote Initiative

I sent the following to the legislators from my district:

Gentlemen,

I am asking you to OPPOSE the current national popular vote initiative.

In the past I have considered a form of national popular vote.  But the system being considered now has two critical flaws.

First, it requires each signatory state to cast its electoral college votes not for the candidate who garnered a plurality of popular votes in that state, but rather for the candidate who won the most popular votes nationally.  Those who back this approach will argue that, in this way, the plan would ensure that every voter—regardless of the state in which they live—would have their vote count equally to that of every other voter in the country.  This is fundamentally UNTRUE.  Committing all electoral votes to the person winning nationally means that the votes of those who voted against that individual are thrown away.  Worse, it means that their dissenting votes are essentially CHANGED - without the consent of those who cast them.  

Let me demonstrate this another way.  

Suppose the state of Michigan decided that all legislation would be enacted using the system being proposed for the NPV.  Legislation would be voted on in each house, and all votes would be committed to the side receiving the popular vote in both houses.  Regardless of how you, personally, felt about and voted on a given bill, your vote would ultimately be committed to the side garnering the most votes.  If the Yays took it, your vote would be thrown in with theirs - even if you voted Nay, or vice versa.  In effect, your vote would be changed - without your consent - to support the popular consensus.  That is exactly what is being proposed with the current NPV scheme.  Not only does it NOT count each vote equally, it marginalizes those who vote against a given candidate; it tells them that their vote, ultimately, doesn't matter.  While this illustration doesn't perfectly reflect the NPV proposal, I daresay that if someone were to propose such a system for the state legislature, you would oppose it forcefully - to the point of resigning because of what it would essentially do to your individual vote.  

Second, the current initiative is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires congressional approval before any state can enter a compact with another state.  While this has been watered down through successive Supreme Court decisions, even that body has continued to hold that any compact that has the effect of changing the balance of political power in DC must have congressional approval before any state can enter it.  The compact being ramrodded through the legislatures of the states today never received the congressional approval required by the Constitution.  As to dividing the vote, the Constitution gives states the right to appropriate the votes of the electoral college as they see fit.  If the state elects to give all of the votes to the winner of the state popular vote, it may; if the state elects to divide the votes, it may do that as well.  It is entirely up to the state, and does not require an illegal, unconstitutional compact to accomplish this.

I am very concerned about the NPV proposal as it is now stands, and I hope that you will oppose it.

A Theology of Church and Personal Security.....

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing concealed carry in churches.  For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia.  After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe.  For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.


And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek,  there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.


Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils.  These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities.  They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day.  They guarded the finances and foodstuffs.  So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection.  This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it."  A literal translation of the term, "hides",  indicates covering one's self,  taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.


OK, but that was the Old Testament.  The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek.  Again, this is true.  As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response.  But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also commanded His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.  Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest.  An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:  

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" 

They said, "Nothing." 

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.


Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them.  They were to take nothing with them - no   money, knapsack, sandals.  Not even their staves.  This is significant.  The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense.  The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel.  But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God. With His impending death, however, something changed.  I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us.  I simply acknowledge that something changed.  As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition.  Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection.  This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek, commanded His disciples to sell some of their clothing if necessary to provide it.  His command had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment.  Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.


Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection?  Absolutely.  Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection?  Again, the answer is yes.  Romans 13 teaches this clearly.  And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches.  So when human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides, more of that responsibility falls on the individual.  Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves.  The right granted by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.

CCW Legislation - Show Your Support!

Your griping privileges have been revoked!  It's time to stop TALKING about the problem, and take action.  Three very important bills are in the pipeline, and legislators need to hear from you - NOW.


The first two, SB 58 and HB 4009, from Michigan, concern the elimination of so-called "pistol free zones" for holders of CPLs.  These identical bills were submitted for consideration in January, 2011, and because of Michigan's budget battles earlier this year, have been languishing in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate.  They are supposed to be added to the schedule in the very near future, but phone calls and emails to the Chairs of both of these committees, as well as communication with the legislators from your own district requesting their support for these bills, will add impetus to get them scheduled sooner rather than later.  


Why should we even be concerned?   Gun free zones are, in theory, supposed to provide protection to students, parishioners and physicians, among others, by denying access to people carrying weapons - even those private citizens who have been properly certified by the state.  And yet, with the exception of the shooting in Tucson, every large-scale shooting that has taken place in this country in the last 30+ years has occurred in areas that were designated to be gun-free and, therefore, deemed safer:  Columbine, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, churches.  On this basis, common sense would lead one to the conclusion that so-called "gun free" zones are counter-productive, that the likelihood of becoming a casualty in these areas is actually greater.  Since 1980, there have been 216 firearms-related incidents on the campuses of educational institutions across the nation (all of which were designated gun free zones) and 15 more at churches (of which all but one, New Life Church in Lakewood, CO, were gun free zones), resulting in 702 casualties (deaths/injuries/ hostages).  The shooting that took place at New Life Church in Lakewood, Colorado, the exception to the gun free zone designation, was stopped by an armed security officer who had been authorized by the pastor to carry her weapon there.  Had she not brought the shooter down, there would certainly have been many more dead.  Brendan Keefe, an emmy award-winning anchor and investigative reporter for WCPO in Cincinnati, made this observation in a recent email:  

Our detailed analysis of every major 'mass shooting' over four-plus decades did conclude that the vast majority took place in locations where guns were not otherwise allowed by law -- schools, post offices, college campuses, etc. ...The bottom line is that someone bent on committing mass murder is not going to be deterred by a sign saying guns are not allowed there -- they're already committing the most serious felony of all, murder.....Tactically speaking, any killer, sane or otherwise, would want to select a target based upon the resistance he would expect there -- putting yourself in the mind of the killer, you could be 100% assured that no one would be armed at a school or a place of business that posts signs banning guns.

These numbers demonstrate conclusively the veracity of the old cliche, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."


It makes no sense that those who are certified to carry concealed are denied the privilege of carrying in these places.  After all, those possessing CPLs in Michigan have passed state-mandated training, have undergone background checks (twice - once before purchasing a handgun, and then one performed by the FBI before receiving a CPL), and have demonstrated an ability to safely handle firearms.  Numerous studies have proven that allowing greater access to CPLs has not increased the incidence of gun violence, particularly in Michigan.  On the contrary, as Governor Granholm was forced to admit a year after opposing the 2004 ballot initiative to expand access to CPLs, the incidence of gun violence in Michigan DECREASED. There is ample evidence to suggest, as was graphically demonstrated in the recent Walmart and Walgreen's pharmacy cases, that concealed carrying can provide a level of protection in a dangerous situation that police cannot.  Law enforcement has my full support, but trusting one's safety to them has one major drawback - they are almost never able to respond before something has actually happened.

These two bills would change that by providing those with CPLs to be proactive with regard to their own safety; it would also bring our laws into better conformity with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Click on the following two links to email these gentlemen - ask them to place these bills on their committee schedules as soon as possible:


Senate Chair Senator Rick Jones
House of Representatives Chair Representative John Walsh


You can find contact information for the Michigan legislators from your home district by going to:  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2axmao45czrdql55wylumlzj))/mileg.aspx?page=legislators.


CPLs have come a long way in recent years, but to say that we have arrived is premature.  You can bet that the anti-carry lobby, organizations such as the Brady Campaign (which is working toward complete disarmament), is working overtime to keep these bills from passing; your legislators need to hear from you - NOW!  Take a moment and help restore this foundational right to its proper Constitutional place in our society.

Mitt Romney Misstates FairTax Impact in Televised Republican Debate in Florida

Press Release

Sept 13, 2011, Kalamazoo, MI - Because a politician or candidate says it, does not make it true. In a response to a question in the September 12 Republican presidential debate about the FairTax tax replacement plan (HR 25 & S 13), Mitt Romney stated that "the FairTax will help the rich and poor but hurt the middle class". 

Because the question was asked only of Mitt Romney, no other candidate had the opportunity to respond to Romney's statement and the public was left with only the unsubstantiated statement by Romney. 

Mitt Romney, R-MA, misstates impact of FairTax. Rick Perry, R-TX, looks on. Photo by Scott Audette, Reuters

Some of America's brightest economists have conducted studies on the FairTax that show that Americans of every income level and family status fare better under the FairTax than under the current income tax system. 

There is no study by any reputable economist that shows otherwise.

In hearings held this past August by the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee, testimony was presented by economists Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University) and Dr. David Tuerck (Beacon Hill Institute) that the FairTax will benefit all Americans by rapidly growing the economy and creating jobs in the U.S. for Americans.

Politicians and candidates making unsubstantiated statements do a disservice to the American public by misleading them, thereby leaving the public in the position of having to make decisions with false information. 

In the event that Mr. Romney has some evidence to substantiate his claim, the Michigan FairTax Association would like to know of it so as to determine its validity.

To view the studies and to learn about the FairTax visit the national FairTax web site at www.fairtax.org.

September 11, 2001 - yet another day which will live in infamy....

I have taken the speech delivered by FDR after the attack on Pearl Harbor and revised it for September 11.

Ten years ago, September 11, 2001—yet another date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by aircraft hijacked in the name of Islamic extremism.

The United States was at peace with that religion within our own borders, and, at the solicitation of numerous Islamic governments and organizations throughout the middle east, was still in conversation with these governments and organizations looking toward a peaceful solution in the region. Indeed, in the years that have passed since the events of that fateful day, these governments and organizations continued to request the assistance of the United States.  While public statements of these governments and organizations indicated doubt that such a peaceful solution seemed likely through existing diplomatic negotiations, and tense rhetoric frequently ensued, they contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., from the countries of the middle east makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many months or even years prior to the events of that day. During the time preceding the attacks, the representatives of numerous Islamic organizations and governments continued to express hope for a peaceful solution in their communications with the United States, an outlook obviously not shared by the extremists sheltered in their midst.

The attacks ten years ago on the cities of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., caused severe damage to American security and economy. We regret the need to remember the 3,200 American lives that were lost in the attacks, and the thousands of American lives that have been lost in military actions undertaken since in the effort to eradicate these extremists. In addition, American ships have been attacked in the waters of the middle east.

In the intervening years, Islamic extremists have launched attacks against Britain.

They have hijacked French aircraft.

They have attacked Israel.

They have attacked India.

They have attacked Indonesia.

They have attacked Spain.

This is only a partial list of the countries that have suffered atrocities at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Islamic extremists have, therefore, undertaken an offensive extending throughout the world. The facts of the last decade - and preceding decades - speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

Various commanders in chief of the United States military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

We believe that we interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when we assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

We recognize that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Islamic extremists on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a state of war has existed between the United States and Islamic extremists around the world.

Never again forget, never again let down our guard.

In Remembrance -- Thank You.

On August 15, 1973, under the terms of the Case-Church amendment, US involvement in Vietnam officially ended, although the war would continue until the fall of Saigon in April of 1975.


To all the men and women who saw action in Vietnam during those bewildering years, and the families who supported them, Thank You.