Patriots, it’s time to go RINO hunting in beautiful North Dakota!

Yesterday twenty-nine RINOs in the North Dakota State House voted to block an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit North Dakotans from having to purchase health care.

The bill, HCR 3014, received support from 39 House Republicans but was blocked when 29 RINOs joined with 25 Democrats to kill the modification language.

The amendment is necessary to both strengthen North Dakota’s legal challenge to Obamacare and to protect residents from whatever comes after the courts rule. So why did 29 Republicans, many of them claiming that they’re opposed to Obamacare, vote down this amendment?

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (pronounced Sten-jum), Republican.

Stenehjem, a likely candidate for higher office in 2012, did help North Dakota join the federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare. But he has also been working behind the scenes to convince state legislators that North Dakota is powerless in the face of federal law. In February, Stenehjem issued an opinion at the request of legislators in which he concluded that federal laws, once vetted by the states, are the supreme law of the land and that it is unconstitutional for the states to resist them.

Stenehjem has been working with State Rep. Bill Devlin to persuade Republican legislators that they are powerless until the court rules. Their campaign saw success in that it convinced Republican legislators to vote with the bloc of Democrats who supported Obamacare.

In response, please contact Wayne Stenehjem (Republican) at (701) 328-2210 today and express your disgust with his efforts to dissuade legislators from voting the will of their constituents. And please contact Bill Devlin (Republican) to express your feelings about his miseducation campaign in the North Dakota House.

Writes North Dakota blogger Rob Port, “This school of thought is based on a misunderstanding of the supremacy clause. Yes, the Constitution and such laws as the Congress may make are the supreme law of the land, but when the laws Congress makes violate the constitution then they cannot, by definition, be the supreme law of the land. That a federal court may endorse an unconstitutional law doesn’t make it any more constitutional.”

Concludes Port, “With Wayne Stenehjem clearly harboring aspirations for higher office, voters in North Dakota might want to remember just how hard he campaigned against the sovereignty of our state, and just how weakened his campaigning leaves our state in our battle to overturn Obamacare.”

The Republicans who voted against the measure include: Dick Anderson, Thomas Beadle, Dennis Johnson, Stacey Dahl, Duane DeKrey, Bill Devlin, Glen Froseth, Kathy Hawken, Joe Heilman, Curt Hofstad, Jon Nelson, George Keiser, Joyce Kingsbury, Matt Klein, Larry Klemin, Bill Kretschmar, Curt Kruen, Andy Maragos, Bob Martinson, Nancy Johnson, Gary Paur, Vonnie Pietsch, Todd Porter, Raeann Kelsch, Mark Sanford, Wayne Trottier, John Wall, Robin Weisz, David Drovdal

The form at this website will allow you to contact them in one fell swoop.

………………………………………

Two Republicans, Bill Devlin and Wayne Stenehjem, persuaded 29 Republican legislators to vote against asserting freedom from Obamacare in North Dakota. TAKE ACTION!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

Grassroots Republican Caucus Calls for Government Shut Down
Americans Are Tired of Paying for Irresponsible Leadership

WASHINGTON, DC — Speaking for thousands of grassroots activists nationwide, Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, advised lawmakers not to compromise on the budget or to expect to be held accountable.

“Republicans who were elected to significantly cut the size of government should listen to the will of the people — or expect to be held accountable in the next election,” said Nalle.  “The proposed cuts are too little and too late and further compromise with Democrat politicians who are not serious about downsizing government will betray the results of last November’s elections.  If standing up for fiscal responsibility means the government must be shut down, then it is on the heads of the big spenders and let them pay the political price for it.  Shut it down!”

Nalle’s statement came in response to the revelation that Republican House Speaker John Boehner is trying to make a back-room deal with moderate Democrats to pass a budget with only $33 billion in cuts for the fiscal year.  Chairman Nalle’s outrage was echoed by grassroots leaders of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who conferred to discuss a response to the failure of party leaders and determined to remind their representatives that the Republican grassroots elected them to end the era of out of control spending and dramatically downsize government.

Florida RLC Chairman Matt Nye observed that “spending at every level of government is out of control, but nothing compares to the fiscal insanity we are witnessing in Washington, D.C. This new batch of Republicans was elected to get America’s financial house in order, but to date they have failed utterly and completely. It is hard to understand how such a simple fact of reality – that you cannot consume more than you produce – is so hard for our elected officials to understand and act on when regular Americans do it every day in their own households.”

At-Large RLC Board member William Westmiller of California asked, “Why shouldn’t Republicans support the shutdown all non-essential government services?  If the Democrats refuse to cut those marginal services, GOP leaders should be promoting creative solutions like privatization. For example, if the government can’t afford to run national parks, they should be sold to the highest bidder and the receipts applied to reduce the national debt.”

David Williams, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina, said, “Last year North Carolina voters made it clear that they want sweeping budget cuts and a government that lives within its means. The new Republican majority Congressional delegation, the state’s first in over 100 years, will earn the respect and continued support of North Carolina voters if they follow through on their pledge to restore fiscal discipline without tax increases.”

And Michael S. Murphy, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, observed that, “The message sent by the American voter was not heard clearly enough by the Republican Congressional leadership. With the exception of a few Liberty Republicans that emerged from the Tea Party Movement, the Republican establishment has proven yet again that they can’t be trusted with responsible budgetary governance. The only way to halt runaway deficit spending is to shut down the government to save our Republic from the irreversible financial abyss it’s about to dive into.”

Concluded Dave Nalle, “Today the National Republican Congressional Committee sent me a fundraising email signed by Speaker Boehner. Why would grassroots GOP donors take a donation request seriously from the ‘leader’ who is about to compromise with the Democrats on a totally unacceptable budget? The House GOP Leadership is making a mockery of the peoples’ call to cut spending.”

“Shut the government down. Come home to your districts for a week or two and hold some town hall meetings.  Give us a chance to remind you face to face why we’re so fed up with the way you’re spending our money and ignoring the debt problem,” said Nalle

–30–

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.RLC.org.

Rivalries in sports are always enjoyable to watch. I vividly remember the Cowboys/Redskins games when I was a kid, and have fond memories OU/Texas games at the Cotton Bowl each Saturday in early October. One aspect that stands out during such rivalry games is the hilarious manner in which each side’s fan base is willing to give their team a pass. What an Ohio State football fan clearly saw as holding was a great block to the Michigan partisan. The third strike the Cubs fan is sure caught the outside corner of the plate was clearly ball four to the Cardinals faithful.

Granting a pass extends to individual sports personalities as well. When Terrell Owens was a 49er and Eagle I was a staunch critic willing to criticize his every move, but became an apologist for his antics for the few years he put on a Cowboys uniform. But the moment he was gone from my beloved Cowboys, I was once again a T.O. disparager, willing to call attention to any eccentric thing he said or did. A professor of the social sciences would refer to this phenomenon as cognitive dissonance, which is the willingness in our nature to dismiss evidence, even that which is right in front of our eyes, if it conflicts with what we already want to believe.

It is routinely on display in the sporting world, and is harmless in this respect (unless there is too much alcohol involved on both sides, then some inebriated fans tend to get a little too brazen in the cognitive dissonance department.) Watching hackery and feckless partisanship in the sporting world is entertaining and makes for several hours worth of mental getaway at the ballpark. But unfortunately this silliness does not stop when we exit the turnstiles at Yankee Stadium; it has for the longest time seeped into our political thinking. With the proliferation of mass media and the personalization it has engendered, it naturally followed that most of us would exclusively follow news sources that reinforced our world view.

Of course some are still willing to view both sides, taking advantage of these various outlets to strengthen arguments and belief systems by having them challenged. But the comfort food present in the form of news sources whose reporting always squares with what we want to hear is an irresistible prospect for millions of Americans, especially those who pay only cursory attention to politics and rely on agenda-driven reporting for brief snippets of news every day after work.

The few broadcast networks and handful of newspapers that formerly set the agenda for dialogue in America rapidly became replaced in the pecking order by countless web sites and scores of satellite television stations. And this is surely a net positive; as a libertarian-leaning conservative, I love being able to watch Judge Napolitano and John Stossel give a unique perspective on ever changing current events. But as great as these sources of information are and the invaluable contribution they provide by giving a voice to once ignored opinions, they also have led to the sort of behavior we display toward sports to infiltrate into our political discourse.

Republicans and Democrats are all too content to view politics as a team sport, content to snipe at the other side for the exact things they do when in power. Customized news sources have made an entire industry out of the Red Team vs. Blue Team game, causing distractions from real issues and magnifying minute details to the point of absurdity.

Instead of laying out the philosophical case of why it is bad for the government to involve itself in the nutrition of local schools, the focus is instead placed on laughable minutia such as whether Michelle Obama ate ribs or her husband ate a cheeseburger. I suppose having to fill hours of air time with something is the culprit behind an environment where more people would rather postulate about the timeline of the former president’s golf rounds and trips back to Texas than discuss the Fed’s monetary policy. Too boring to hold an audience, I suppose.

Ironically, this nonstop, 24/7 partisanship has taken further root at a time in our history when both parties are close to becoming ideological soul mates. Keynesian economic policy and the inauguration of ever more government agencies continues unabated no matter who is in power, yet we are still told by our hyper-partisan media gatekeepers that those “liberals” and “conservatives” are “light years” apart. We are informed that America has never been “more divided” than we are today as a country, although at last check Robert E. Lee and William Sherman might beg to differ.

This insinuates there is some huge ideological gulf in the mind set of our governing elite, but this is not even the case. Because if it were the case, our credentialed punditry would actually take the time to discuss genuine distinctions instead of launching trivial personal attacks. Some of the very talk show hosts who attempt to paint themselves as brash and daring are surprisingly conventional when the bluster fades away. Perhaps the fact that the Blue and Red teams are remarkably similar when the veneer is peeled back has left our ego-llectual commentating class with little choice but to focus on silly partisan food fights.

We were told the differences in the 2008 presidential election were monumental; those of us who were conservatives had it drilled into our heads that John McCain was a stark free market alternative to his doctrinaire Marxist opponent. Well, for all their alleged contrasts, both options were part of the same political class that has all but succeeded in running America into the ground.

Bill Kristol, who is as much a part of the establishment as anyone and, amazingly, is still given air time as a commentator on all things conservative, inadvertently admitted to just how close the two parties have moved on the issues that matter. “They told me if I voted for McCain we’d be going to war in a third Muslim country. I voted for McCain and now we’re doing it.”

But never mind this, says Generic Conservative American Voter X to Red State Republican Y: my big issue for 2012 is, where’s the birth certificate?

AUGUSTA (March 29, 2011) — A bill which would uphold the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing Maine farmers, fishermen, tradesmen and other individuals to ply their trades without interference from unfair federal mandates has been endorsed by the Maine Republican Liberty Caucus.

An Act to Prohibit Enforcement of Federal Laws in Violation of the Constitution of the United States (LD 1172) was introduced in the 125th Legislature by Rep. Melvin Newendyke (R-Litchfield). The bill prohibits federal or state officials or government employees from enforcing any federal act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation that attempts to regulate goods grown, manufactured or made within the state for consumption within Maine.

“The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution is valid for regulation of interstate commerce but nowhere does the federal government have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce,” said Maine RLC Chair Ken Lindell, a former state legislator.

Lindell said the federal government consistently oversteps its authority when Congress or regulatory agencies promulgate rulings which have an impact on commerce within Maine borders.

“Organic dairy farmers, for instance, who produce milk products for local consumption, are handcuffed by federal directives which prevent them from doing business. Fishermen who land fish for local consumers face expensive and unnecessary restrictions on their livelihoods because of draconian federal rules. Small businesspeople throughout Maine suffer because of unconstitutional intrusion by federal agencies,” Lindell explained.

“I even had a tradesman tell me that he would have to charge an extra $3,000 for a kitchen renovation simply to comply with federal regulations because our house was built before 1978. With all of the wonderful old homes and family farms in our state, that is evidence of how these federal actions have had an unfair impact on Maine people.”

The bill, which is before the Judiciary Committee, notes that the power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

LD 1172 reads in part, “A person may not enforce or attempt to enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law that regulates or attempts to regulate goods grown, manufactured or made in this State or services performed in this State when those goods or services are sold, maintained, retained or performed exclusively in this State.”

A federal official who tries to enforce an unconstitutional federal mandate could be charged with a Class C crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. A state official could be charged with a Class D crime, punishable by less than one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.

“It’s sad that it has to come to a bill like this,” Lindell said, “but government has grown so large and overreaching that it is necessary to reinforce the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and state governments. It also protects the many conscientious government employees by giving them legal protection from being forced to follow unconstitutional directives.”

Lindell said the Republican Liberty Caucus is guided by a statement of principles for smaller government and individual liberty. He will testify at the Committee hearing on behalf of the organization.

“We have endorsed LD 1172 because it is consistent with our principles and it protects the hardworking people of Maine who are producers and contributors to society from undue harassment by bureaucrats who flaunt government power over their lives,” he said.

Maine RLC previously endorsed a Resolution sponsored by Rep. Richard Cebra (R-Naples) which reasserts states rights and would nullify unconstitutional federal mandates imposed on Maine.

The Maine RLC is part of the national Republican Liberty Caucus, a grassroots organization of libertarian-leaning Republicans who work within the party for policies which promote smaller government and individual liberty.

Media note: Ken Lindell can be reached at (207) 466-0966.

by David Badash

A new study released by Gallup finds that only 17% of Americans who vote or lean Republican say social issues and moral values are important, and rank them third of four major categories, after government spending and power (38%), and business and the economy (32%), in stark contrast to the focus of over a dozen current Republican presidential candidates and aspirants.

Despite an overwhelming focus by over a dozen possible GOP presidential candidates who claim that social and moral issues are tied together, their own constituents believe they are not. Moreover, other studies show the American people want their political representatives to focus on jobs and the economy, not social issues like marriage equality, abortion, or religion.

That said, the study notes that “Republicans who care the most about social and moral issues are most likely to support Huckabee and Palin. All other candidates gain only single-digit support among these voters. Romney, who is in first or second place among all other groups, does no better than tie Gingrich and Ron Paul among social issues voters.”

“Despite some observers’ claims that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have a special following among social conservatives, these two politicians do not have an unusual appeal among Republicans who care most about social and moral issues.”

The Gallup study found national security and foreign policy were the least important of the four categories, with just 12% of respondents giving it weight.

What is striking is how many GOP presidential aspirants are not only willing to associate with radical religious extremists — but are actively seeking them out — to been seen as rubbing elbows with America’s religious conservatives in hopes of gaining credibility on social issues.

Last week, Republican hopeful Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announced, “Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism.” Bachmann teamed up with Republican presidential aspirants Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Haley Barbour to headline a fundraiser for Tony Perkins, president of the certified hate group the Family Research Council (FRC), and other hate preachers, such as Lou Engle and David Barton to create the fundraiser, which was broadcast to churches Sunday.

Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist Minister, also spoke at Perkins’ fundraiser, titled, “Rediscover God in America,” saying, “I pray that God will raise up spiritual warriors who will say America will not fall – that we will not let this nation fall to the hands of those that will enslave us. This battle is one that pits good against evil. There are things that are right and there are things that are wrong and the great battle that we will live or die by to preserve this nation is one in which we identify and then we fight for until the last breath – that there are some things that are holy and pure and that are just.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee also spoke about what he sees as the need to stand up for traditional marriage, and against same-sex marriage, even at the risk of job loss.

Newt Gingrich, despite two divorces, three marriages, numerous adulterous affairs, and House ethics violations, has also made a career of focusing on social issues, religion, and so-called morality. On Sunday, Gingrich gave a speech at a San Antonio, Texas megachurch, Cornerstone Church, and stated “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America,” he fears America will become “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”

Cornerstone Church is led by Rev. John Hagee, who had close ties to John McCain’s 2008 Republican presidential campaign. Hagee was criticized for comments he had made, like saying Hurricane Katrina was “the judgment of God on the city of New Orleans” for its “level of sin,” relating to a gay pride parade.

Hagee also was criticized for suggesting Hitler was God’s “hunter,” and hastened the Jews’ return to Israel in accordance with what he suggested was God’s will.

The question is, why, in stark contrast to what the American people have said repeatedly they want their political leaders to focus on, namely the economy and jobs, are Republicans politicians focusing on anything but?

__________________________________________________

This article was posted with the permission of its author. The original article appeared at The New Civil Rights Movement website.

If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

In February, Congress (including most Republicans) voted to extend certain provisions of the Patriot Act for 90 days.

Your vigilance kept them from extending it for three more years.

Senator Rand Paul advises us that the Patriot Act is soon to be debated in the U.S. Senate, and urges us to contact our Senators and demand that they vote against any extension of the Patriot Act.

To reach your Senator or Representative:

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121; Ask for your Congressman or Senator
Tips on what to say; and background information on the Patriot Act

                                    
“Rediscovering the Constitution in the 21st Century” is a book that will be part of the sponsorship event held April 5th, 2011 at the Fair tax meeting. The book will be ready to order April 15th, 2011.

The book contains in depth information about the Constitution & the current events that have happened in recent U.S. history.

Rediscovering the Constitution is about restoring the Constitution by following the framework contained in the articles.

The chapters in the book contain information about national sovereignty, the state sovereignty movement through nullification, & abolishing the Federal Reserve / income tax. It also contains information on how to rebulid manufacturing along with providing details on the National Animal Identification system & the genetic engineering of our foods. There are many more chapters in the book that are critical to restoring the U.S. Constitution.

Special thanks goes out to Louis Rose & Sandee Copeland in their efforts.

The website is: www.constitutionliberty.com

Maine RLC Endorses Rep. Cebra’s Nullification Bill

BANGOR (March 16, 2011) – A resolution submitted by state Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, which would reassert states’ rights and nullify unconstitutional federal mandates has been unanimously endorsed by the Maine Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC).

“The Constitution clearly enumerates the legitimate powers of the federal government through the Tenth Amendment,” explained Maine RLC Chair Ken Lindell of Bangor, a former member of the Maine House. “What Representative Cebra’s resolution accomplished is to put the federal government on notice that its powers come from the states and individual citizens and it must stop arbitrarily handing down unconstitutional mandates which conflict with the rights of states and individuals.”

Lindell said the issue is non-partisan because federal-state jurisdiction crosses party lines. He noted several instances of federal actions which impacted individual rights such as the Real I.D. mandate which came from a Republican administration in Washington but which a Democrat gubernatorial administration fought on behalf of Maine individuals.

“Putting partisan considerations aside, as a Republican I think the Bush Administration acted improperly on Real I.D. and Governor Baldacci and then-Secretary of State Matt Dunlap acted properly in standing up for the rights of Maine citizens rather than bow to the constitutionally-questionable federal mandate,” Lindell explained. “The issue isn’t Republican or Democrat but limited government versus bigger government and personal liberty.”

Lindell noted that new federal dictates on selling agricultural products such as raw milk would infringe on the rights of organic farmers, who are an important segment of Maine’s agricultural community. He said the U.S.D.A., F.D.A. and other agencies issue directives without regard for the rights of individual farmers and, often, with dubious constitutional authority.

The federal government’s unwillingness to honor state-enacted medical marijuana laws and its zeal to enforce the 1970 Controlled Substances Act is another example of the constitutional breach, Lindell said. “The people of the State of Maine voted legally under powers granted by the United States Constitution to allow individuals with specified conditions to possess and use limited quantities of medicinal marijuana with a prescription, however the federal government shows no signs of pulling back on rigid enforcement which would make those operating legally within state laws criminals in federal courts,” he said.

Lindell said instances abound ranging from gun rights issues to the Affordable Care Act where federal mandates conflict with the Constitution and expand federal power over individual freedom and states’ rights.
“The Tenth Amendment says clearly in 28 words: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ What Rep. Cebra’s resolution does is puts the federal government on notice that Maine people will not be bullied and will nullify those mandates coming from either Congress or Executive Order or from agency rulings which violate constitutional powers,” Lindell said.

Lindell said the issue goes back to the early days of the country. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which so stepped on constitutional freedoms that Thomas Jefferson admitted that he feared “to write what I think.” Newspaper publishers were convicted under the Sedition Act if their papers even carried columns critical of Congress or the president.

“Jefferson relied on the doctrine of nullification to protect First Amendment rights and to restore powers where they constitutionally belonged. Our Republican Liberty Caucus board is taking a stand on this resolution because we see 21st Century parallels which must be addressed to protect the rights of states and, above all, individual freedom and liberty,” Lindell said. Cebra’s resolution is similar to ones adopted by five other states and under consideration in the legislatures of 16 other states.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a national organization which represents the limited government, individual liberty wing of the Republican Party. The RLC supports individual rights, limited government and free enterprise. The Maine RLC Chapter is independent of the Republican State Committee so it can endorse candidates in primary elections and take positions on legislation.

Maine Legislature Tackles Right to Work, Relaxed Seatbelt Law

A showdown is brewing at the Statehouse between Rrepublican lawmakers and organized labor as two different Right to Work bills have been proposed by the Republican legislature.

LD 788 and LD 309 are both aimed at blocking unions from requiring non-members to pay fees to the union for negotiating their pay and benefits. State government added those fees, called “fair share,” under former Governor John Baldacci (D).

One bill would ban the fair share or similar fees for public sector workers, while a second bill would prohibit similar fees for union workers at private companies. Union members say the bills are really aimed at “busting” unions, and accuse Governor LePage and private corporations of pushing the right to work agenda.

At a press conference in Augusta, union members claimed passage of the bills will hurt Maine workers by eventually forcing down wages and reducing benefits to union and non-union people alike. But RLC-endorsed Rep. Richard Cebra, a co-sponsor of both bills, sees it very differently. Cebra says the top ten states with the strongest economies are all Right to Work states, and that the ten states with the poorest economies are non-Right to Work states. Cebra says he does not know how much support there is for the bills in the Legislature, but that with a Republican legislature and governor, this is the time to bring the issue up.

This bills are expected to come up for public hearing in May.

The Maine Senate passed a bill reducing seatbelt law enforcement to a secondary offense last week. If passed and signed by Governor LePage, the law would mean a violator could not be given a ticket unless stopped for another offense. The bill still faces further House and Senate votes.

Under present law, all motorists in Maine must wear a safety belt and can be fined $50 for the first offense and $125 for the second offense. Republican Governor Paul LePage supports both right to work and the Republican-backed seatbelt proposal.

Let’s hope nullification, Right to Work, and the seatbelt bill each pass the legislature and are signed into law!

The National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus has endorsed Brian Costin for Mayor of Schaumburg, Illinois — a western Chicago suburb.

Mr. Costin serves a board member of Northwest Suburban Taxpayers United and a volunteer with the Citizen Police Academy Alumni Association of Schaumburg. Brian serves as Director of Outreach for the Illinois Policy Institute. Among his duties is heading up the Liberty Leaders project. Previously, he worked for the Heartland Institute as Assistant Director of Government Relations.

In 2008, Brian founded the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition, a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer group advocating lower taxes, personal and economic freedom, and greater government transparency. SFC gained recognition for its work in exposing the Village of Schaumburg’s red light camera program as a failed safety measure and preventing an unjust $15 million tax.

Schaumburg hasn’t seen a fight for mayor since 1995. Brian’s 2011 campaign is focusing on ethics reform, disciplined spending, and lower taxes for village residents. The election will occur on April 5.