Grievance 6: Deaf Politicians That Do Not Listen to Their Constituents.

In this information age, it has never been easier to communicate with the Congress, Senate, and the White House.  Communicating with them is the easy part, getting them to listen is difficult.  It seems the more we flood their email inboxes, shut down their phone system, and even drown them in snail mail, the more they continue to turn a deaf ear to the voters that put them in office. 

As we get closer to the implementation of key components of Obamacare, the bill remains unpopular.  Recent Rasmussen polling revealed the following:

1)      62% See Free Market As Better Than More Regulation In Reducing Health Care Costs.  (1)

2)      56% Favor Delaying Individual Health Care Mandate, 26% Opposed.  (2)

3)      61% Expect Health Care in U.S. To Get Worse Over Next Two Years.  (3)

Conservatives hoped that the last Presidential election would result in Republicans retaining the House, taking control of the Senate, and winning the White House.  The plan was a vote on repeal of Obamacare in both houses of Congress and have President Romney sign the bill.  Unfortunately that did not occur.  We then hoped that the Supreme Court would overturn the unconstitutional mandate.  Unfortunately, that did not occur either as Chief Justice Roberts declared the mandate a tax and ruled it constitutional.  (4)  Since then, the Republican controlled House of Representatives has voted 39 times to repeal Obamacare and is planning their 40^th vote.  (5) Unfortunately, once these bills leave the House they are sucked into the black hole of the Senate where they are never heard from again.  However, Utah Senator Mike Lee believes defunding Obamacare in the upcoming spending bill is the best shot to prevent its implementation.  (6)

One would think that with the growing unpopularity of Obamacare, there would be broad support for defunding the legislation but Senator Lee’s plan has run into stiff opposition from both Democrats and Republicans (7).  I can understand partisan Democrats opposing a Republican plan, especially one that cuts spending but we have to wonder if Republicans that ran for office promising to repeal Obamacare have become squeamish when it comes to voting for something that actually might stop the implementation of Obamacare.  

Senator Ted Cruz believes Republican opposition stems from a fear of being accused of shutting down the government because of not including funding for Obamacare in their spending bill.  (8) This is ludicrous for if they fund every other aspect except Obamacare, they would only be shutting down Obamacare and not the entire government.  Any government shutdown would be because of the failure of the Democrat controlled Senate to pass the spending bill or, in the event the Senate does pass the bill, a Presidential veto.  Any government shutdown would be on the President and the Democrats in the Senate. 

This brings us to the topic of border security.  Since the attacks on 9/11 and most recently the tragic bombing at the Boston Marathon, securing our country from terrorist attacks has become a priority for our nation.  In the days after the 9/11 attacks, we even formed a new cabinet office to handle security.  However, our borders remain open resulting in an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in our country.  (9) Even though the majority of these illegals are Hispanic and are seeking to start a better life for themselves in this country, the open borders are also allowing criminals and potential terrorists to come into our country. 

If the attacks on 9/11 and the Boston Marathon taught us anything it is that it does not take many people to conduct a terrorist attack that results in the death of thousands of innocent people.  This is why a majority of people, including Hispanics, favor enhancing border security before any legalization or pathway to citizenship for those illegally in our country.  (9) (10)

In spite of overwhelming opposition to Obamacare, our illustrious leaders show no desire to vote on something what would actually stop Obamacare and instead want to conduct the 40^th show vote to repeal which is dead on arrival at the Senate.  These deaf politicians insist on comprehensive immigration reform, which includes immediate legalization of the 11 million estimated illegals already in the country and a pathway to citizenship without first securing the border, which is what the people want. 

Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform will argue that there is border security in the bill but it is only a promise.  It is the same promise given to Reagan in 1986, which resulted in the 11 million illegals currently living in our country.  (11) The 1986 promise of border security was an empty promise and if we do not have verifiable border security first this time, we will have another wave of illegals entering this country with the potential of some of these illegals committing crimes or worse yet, an act of terrorism. 

Our nation is a representative republic with voters electing representatives to represent their interests in Congress.  These same voters also elect a president to enforce the laws passed by the elected representatives.  Unfortunately, special interests with deep pockets now fund the campaigns of these representatives and the president so once these men and women enter office, they quickly forget the interests of the voters who elect them and instead focus on pleasing special interests that fund their campaigns.  Some believe that this is just the way Washington works and we just have to live with it but I must disagree. 

Our founding fathers never envisioned holding political office would become a career.  They envisioned a rotation of those in office.  Thomas Jefferson’s vision was for there to be citizen legislators that would serve for a few terms and then return to the private sector.  (12) Unfortunately attempts to include term limits in the constitution failed.  This is in large part due to James Madison’s writing in Federalist Paper 53 where he said,

"[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them," wrote Madison.  (13)

However, career politicians that never have to be concerned with entering the private sector soon lose touch with the desires of their constituents and become enamored with campaign contributions from special interests.  Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a citizen legislature was designed to prevent this from happening.  If he were alive today, I believe he would be shaking his head and saying this is what he feared would happen without some form of term limits. 

We must rid ourselves of career politicians that line their pockets with special interest money and forget the interests of the voters placing them in office.  We could rid ourselves of career politicians through the electoral process but unfortunately, many vote for people based on name recognition and popularity.  A Representative or Senator that is continually in the news has automatic name recognition and popularity and are reelected based on this and not how well the listen to voters. 

The 22^nd amendment to the Constitution did invoke term limits for the President so I am proposing a constitutional amendment to add term limits for members of Congress and Senators as well.  Thomas Jefferson’s vision of a citizen legislature was correct in my opinion and through the implementation of term limits, we can bring that vision to fruition.   

1. Rasmussen Reports. www.rasmussenreports.com. 62% See Free Market As Better Than More Regulation In Reducing Health Care Costs. [Online] Rasmussen Reports, July 8, 2013. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2013/62_see_free_market_as_better_than_more_regulation_in_reducing_health_care_costs.

2. —. 56% Favor Delaying Individual Health Care Mandate, 26% Opposed. www.rasmussenreports.com. [Online] Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2013/56_favor_delaying_individual_health_care_mandate_26_opposed.

3. —. 61% Expect Health Care in U.S. To Get Worse Over Next Two Years. www.rasmussenreports.com. [Online] Rasmussen Reports, July 22, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/july_2013/61_expect_health_care_in_u_s_to_get_worse_over_next_two_years.

4. Kenny, Jack. Supreme Court Sidesteps Commerce Clause, Cites Tax Power, Says ObamaCare Is Constitutional. www.thenewamerican.com. [Online] New American, June 28, 2012. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/11897-supreme-court-sidesteps-commerce-clause-cites-tax-power-says-obamacare-is-constitutional.

5. Terkel, Andrea. House GOP To Hold 40th Obamacare Repeal Vote. www.huffingtonpost.com. [Online] The Huffington Post, July 26, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/40th-obamacare-repeal-vote_n_3660999.html.

6. Boyle, Matthew. EXCLUSIVE–MIKE LEE: DEFUNDING OBAMACARE 'OUR LAST BEST SHOT' TO SAVE U.S. HEALTH CARE. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 28, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/28/Exclusive-Mike-Lee-Upcoming-fight-our-last-best-shot-at-stopping-Obamacare.

7. Cowan, David Lawder and Richard. Senate Republicans feud over defunding 'Obamacare'. www.reuters.com. [Online] Reuters News Service, July 30, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-usa-fiscal-obamacare-idUSBRE96T18220130730.

8. Boyle, Matthew. EXCLUSIVE--CRUZ: GOP 'TERRIFIED' OF FIGHTING TO DEFUND OBAMACARE. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 29, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/29/Exclusive-Cruz-GOP-terrified-of-fighting-to-defund-Obamacare.

9. —. POLL: HISPANICS WANT BORDER SECURITY, INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT BEFORE AMNESTY. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 9, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/09/Poll-Hispanics-Enforce-the-law-first-then-deal-with-legalization-in-any-immigration-package.

10. Nolte, Jlhn. POLL: 56% WANT BORDER SECURED BEFORE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 24, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/24/poll-56-percent-want-border-security-before-path-to-citizenship.

11. On the Issues. Ronald Reagan on Immigration. www.ontheissues.org. [Online] On the Issues. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Immigration.htm.

12. Sr., Eyler Robert Coates. The Jeffersonian Perspective. eyler.freeservers.com. [Online] [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco33.htm.

13. Longley, Robert. Why No Term Limits for Congress? The Constitution. usgovinfo.about.com. [Online] about.com, January 30, 2013. [Cited: July 30, 2013.] http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/01/30/why-no-term-limits-for-congress-the-constitution.htm.

Grievance 5: My Harmless Private Conversations are None of Big Brother’s Business

When the terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, most of us knew that things would change in our nation.  Where we once felt secure with oceans on both our east and west coasts separating us from the rest of the world, we now know the oceans no longer shield us from terrorism.  In the months that followed the government changed many things in an attempt to improve the security of the citizens of our nation. 

After witnessing the horrendous attacks of 9/11 most of us were willing to accept certain enhanced security protocols such as increased airport security because the terrorists were able to board the planes due to lax security.  However, as with many programs initiated by the government, it may start with good intentions but power hungry politicians and bureaucrats soon overstep their constitutional bounds.  In this instance, they have begun to intrude into private areas of the lives of citizens in our country in direct violation of the Constitution. 

The National Security Agency (NSA) is responsible for insuring the security of our country.  Their role in our government is constitutional for the Constitution does give the Federal Government the duty of protecting our nation’s borders but that power is limited in the Bill of Rights by the fourth amendment, which protects citizens from warrantless searches or seizures of their property.  To search or seize a citizen’s property, the government is required to acquire a warrant from a court.  (1)

Many believe the NSA’s PRISM program violated citizen’s fourth amendment rights through the warrantless seizure of personal phone calls, texts, and emails of citizens.  The government collects the information off the servers of cell phone and internet providers.  James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence has stated that, “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret, approves the information collection and the providers know about it, Clapper said.  The decisions are based on ‘a written directive’ from Holder and Clapper, the fact sheet said.  Eleven federal judges, appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, sit on the court.”  (2)

This would constitute a legal search or seizure if the providers were the owners of the information but the ownership of emails and email addresses is still unclear.  Granted, the information from emails and cell phone conversations are contained on the servers of providers so one could contend that the provider owns the email or cell phone conversation. 

However, the content of the email or cell phone conversations contain the thoughts of the person sending the email, text, or making the cell phone call.  Therefore, just as the Post Office cannot open and read our mail and the phone company cannot listen in on conversations, one could also contend that the email or phone conversation belongs to the sender.  We can also contend that since PRISM did not ask for permission from the sender or initiator of the call before acquiring private phone records, their acquiring these records constitutes an illegal and warrantless search or seizure. 

As we can see, the legal question of who owns our emails and cell phone conversations is unclear.  Even judges in court cases arguing ownership of emails seem uncertain how to rule as in the case of Oswal v Carson.  (3) This is why some in government feel justified in acquiring these records in the interest of national security while others feel that the conversations constitute speech and are the property of the writer or speaker. 

In the absence of any clear legislation or court ruling on the issue of email, text, or cell phone call ownership, how are we to determine who the government has to get permission from if they have probable cause someone is communicating through email or their cell phone their plans to attack our country.  This is where we turn to the Constitution for guidance. 

The first amendment of the Constitution grants us freedom of speech.  It grants a person initiating a conversation the freedom to express him or herself freely without having some government official present to listen in.  At the time of the Constitutions writing, the only forms of communication or speech were the spoken or written word using a pen and paper.  It was never the intent of the writers of the Constitution that the government would have right to randomly listen into spoken conversations because they got permission from the owner of the airspace through which the words traveled.  Neither did they assume they could look at someone’s conversations because they got permission from the owner of the paper the conversation was written on.  Therefore, we can assume that the intention of the authors of the first amendment was that the owner of written or verbal speech was the person initiating the conversation and thus is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. 

Email, texting, and cell phones are just tools that improve how we are able to communicate with each other.  Since they are just communication tools, they do not change the intent of the authors of the first amendment.  It is therefore my opinion that our cell phone conversations, texts, and emails are the property of the person initiating the conversation but what about emails and phone conversations done while employed by someone else. 

Since the email address and phone number we use while working for someone else are owned by that organization, I believe they are the property of the company we are working for.  This is why I always advise people not to conduct personal business using your employer’s phone or email address. 

This is why I believe the PRISM program is a violation of our fourth amendment protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.  Getting permission from providers that own the servers the data is stored on is not an authorization to look at the emails, texts, and cell phone conversations of private citizens if they do not have reason to believe these conversations are plotting some illegal activity.  These conversations represent speech between two parties and are not only their property and thus protected by the fourth amendment but are also free speech and covered by the first amendment as well. 

PRISM and programs like it are examples of a government overstepping its constitutional boundaries.  Just because Congress has not passed legislation banning listening in on cell phone conversations, texts, or emails does not mean they are free to do whatever they want.  The Constitution, and especially The Bill of Rights, place limitations on what the government can do.  In the case of PRISM, the Constitution protects citizens through the first and fourth amendments. 

This does not mean the government is powerless to act when they have evidence someone is plotting an attack on our country.  It only means they have to go through the proper channels of presenting their evidence and acquiring a warrant to tap into that individual or groups emails, texts, or cell phone conversations.  These channels are in place to allow the government to fulfill its role of protecting the nation from attack while also protecting the security individuals assume when having a private conversation with someone.      

1. Hillsdale College. The Constitution of the United States of America. [book auth.] Hillsdale College. The U.S. Constitution: A Reader. Hillsdale MI : Hillsdale College Press, 2012.

2. Leger, Donna Leinwand. Parts of NSA's PRISM program declassified. www.usatoday.com. [Online] USA Today, June 8, 2013. [Cited: June 18, 2013.] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/08/dni-declassifies-prism-data-collection-nsa-secret-program-obama/2403999/.

3. Shipp, Stephen B. Who owns your emails? Are they property? stephenbshipp.wordpress.com. [Online] April 2011, 2011. [Cited: July 26, 2013.] http://stephenbshipp.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/who-owns-your-emails-are-they-property/.

Grievance 4: The Indoctrination of Our Future Generation

The future of any society is in how well it educates its future generation.  The word educate comes from the Latin word ducere meaning to draw out or lead.  The prefix “e” means out of.  Put together, the words mean to draw out of meaning that the job of an educator is to draw out the God given gifts that dwell in the student.  (1) Indoctrination on the other hand means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them.   (2) Indoctrination is the opposite of education in that it puts beliefs or doctrines into the students head instead of bringing out the gifts the student received at birth.

The question we are going to ask in this posting is has the increased secularization of our education system turned it from an education system bringing out God given gifts within the student into an indoctrination system that instills secular atheistic beliefs into students.  We will also be looking at the new Common Core standards to determine whether they will create more or less indoctrination. 

The mission statement of Common Core states, “The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them.  The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.  With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”  (3) 

The goal of equipping students be more competitive in the global economy is a good goal.  The standards also stress math and English competency, which are basic skills all students will need to succeed in whatever endeavor they choose.  Unfortunately, as we have seen with other programs (i.e. No child left behind) good intentions do not necessarily result in good programs.  This is because people implement programs and when they do, they add their individual bias and agendas to the program.  An education program changes from an education program into an indoctrination program when educators attempt to fill students’ minds with their bias and agendas. 

Proponents of Common Core claim that:

1.       Students will be more competitive in a global economy

2.       Standards were developed by a consortium of education experts and public officials to account for diversity

3.       The standards reflect a modern society

4.       Clearer goals and expectations

5.       Room for flexibility in teaching remains (4)

Once again, these claims reflect the good intentions of the mission statement of the program but we must look at the consortium of education experts and public officials developing the program to determine if there might be any hidden agendas or bias that could cause the program to fail in its implementation. 

Dr. Sandra Stotsky is a Professor Emerita for the University Of Arkansas Department Of Education Reform and served on the Common Core State Standards Initiative.  In a June 27, 2013 article appearing in the Blaze, she expresses concerns about the consortium of education experts developing and implementing the program.  (5)  For example, the English Language group did not contain any English professors or high-school English teachers.  (5) In other words, teachers, the ones that will be directly educating students, have no input in the programs development or implementation. 

Granted, there were English professors and teachers in the larger “feedback group” but their role was only advisory.  Final decisions would be made by the “English-teacher-bereft work group.” (5)  Dr. Stotsky observed that the suggestions made by the larger feedback group were frequently ignored and that the Work Group labored in secret.  (5) 

In addition the English language standards were written by, “David Coleman and Susan Pimentel – neither of whom had experience teaching English in K-12 or college, and only one of whom (Pimentel) had ever helped draft ELA content standards before.  With this revelation, it is only logical to ask what bias or agenda the Work Group, working in secret, injected into the program. 

Opponents of Common Core claim that:

1.       The standards create a lack of diversity

2.       States pay for the cost of implementation

3.       It is establishing national standards

4.       Outlined standards are too long, detailed, and cumbersome

5.       Top-down education reforms are not effective (6)

Common Core creates a one-size-fits-all standard, which has proven ineffective (i.e. no child left behind).  In addition, the establishment of national standards takes control of education out of local school districts, school administrators, and especially teachers who are closer to students and more familiar with their unique needs and talents.  In addition, states that are already running in the red with their budgets have to come up with the additional money to implement these new guidelines. 

Teachers working under Common Core Standards will become no more than mouthpieces for the guidelines set down by the Department of Education.  These teachers, who know best what the students they see every day need will now have their hands tied and be forced to indoctrinate their students with the curriculum given to them.  Parents who want to raise their children with their values will have no choice but to enroll their students in schools where their children are indoctrinated with the government approved secular curriculum (i.e. evolution). 

Parents must begin to resist the implementation of standards like Common Core by attending school board meetings and expressing their concerns.  We must push for school choice allowing parents to enroll their children in the school of their choice that educates their children for success instead of indoctrinating them into some government-approved mindset.  We must also eliminate the Federal Department of Education and return control of education to the states, local school districts, school administrators, and especially teachers. 

Our children truly are our future but our education system has been robbing them by not educating them to utilize their God given gifts and instead has been indoctrinating them into government approved secular thinking that leads to dependence on government instead of how to succeed using their talents.  We need an education system where parents and teachers can work together to help children develop their unique talents and become productive contributors to our society. 

1. Lee, Tao. Where does the word "educate" come from. englishlanguagetutor.wordpress.com. [Online] Word Press, February 18, 2006. [Cited: July 23, 2013.] http://englishlanguagetutor.wordpress.com/2006/02/18/where-does-the-word-educate-come-from/.

2. Vocabulary.com. Indoctrination. www.vocabulary.com. [Online] [Cited: July 23, 2013.] https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/indoctrination.

3. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Implementing the Common Core State Standards. www.corestandards.org. [Online] Common Core State Standards Initiative. [Cited: 23 2013, July.] http://www.corestandards.org/.

4. Higham, Michael. 5 Arguments in Support of Common Core Standards. ivn.us. [Online] IVN Column, June 17, 2013. [Cited: July 23, 2013.] http://ivn.us/progress-report/2013/06/17/5-arguments-in-support-of-common-core-standards/.

5. Robbins, Sandra Stotsky & Jane. PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN ON COMMON CORE. www.theblaze.com. [Online] The Blaze, June 27, 2013. [Cited: July 23, 2013.] http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/pulling-back-the-curtain-on-common-core/.

6. Higham, Michael. 5 Arguments Against Common Core Standards. ivn.us. [Online] IVN Column, June 13, 2013. [Cited: July 24, 2013.] http://ivn.us/progress-report/2013/06/13/5-arguments-against-common-core-standards/.

Grievance 3: The Threat to Liberties From Mandates

The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the Obamacare mandate requiring everyone purchase health insurance or be fined by the government set up a dangerous precedent.  Even though the law does not directly order individuals to purchase insurance, it indirectly does so by forcing those deciding not to purchase insurance to pay a fine on their tax return.  People work hard for their money and other than the taxes withheld from their paychecks, should be free to spend their remaining income as they please.  It is unconstitutional to force Americans to purchase something they do not want.

So exactly how did the Supreme Court justify this unconstitutional mandate?  Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to levy and collect taxes.  (1) Justice Roberts surprisingly went along with the four liberal Justices on the Supreme Court by claiming he saw the mandate as the levying of a tax by Congress since the IRS levies the fine on people’s tax return.  (2) However, the court ruling did leave a backdoor way to avoid the mandate by allowing states to opt out of the setting up insurance exchanges mandated under the law.  (2) However, this does not change the dangerous precedent established that the Congress can now mandate people purchase something they do not want through the backdoor by fining them on their tax return if they do not buy it. 

The entire reason Congress included this unconstitutional mandate is because Obamacare has a funding problem and needs healthy people to contribute in order to pay for medical care for those needing it.  This is because the law mandates that insurance providers cover preexisting conditions. (3)  In other words, someone that is diagnosed with a serious medical condition can purchase a policy the day after being diagnosed and the insurance provider is required to provide him or her coverage.  By fining individuals that choose not to purchase health insurance, lawmakers believe they can close this funding gap.  However, by leaving a backdoor for states to opt out of establishing insurance exchanges, the Federal Government will have to fund these exchanges thus adding to the cost of Obamacare. 

The Obamacare mandate also gives the IRS more power since it will require everyone filing a 1040 to provide proof of coverage in order to avoid paying a fine.  The IRS already makes everyone provide information on their income and the names and Social Security numbers of themselves, their spouses, and all of their dependents.  Now we have opened the door to having to provide the IRS information about our health.  This concerns many in light of the current IRS scandal where the IRS routinely targeted certain groups due to their political and religious beliefs.  (4) (5)

However, Obamacare is not the only mandate citizens need to be concerned about.  In the name of green energy, Congress has mandated the replacement of safe and affordable incandescent light bulbs with potentially hazardous CFL bulbs.  (6) In addition, the government is in our bathrooms regulating the gallons per flush in our flush toilets.   (7) The government even mandates the cars we drive through fuel efficiency standards placed on auto manufacturers that have resulted in them making lighter weight and automobiles that are more dangerous.  (8) (9)

Sometimes it seems that politicians like these mandates because they give them greater control over the lives of citizens.  However, if a politician were to just come out and say that, he would be run out of office.  No these deceptive politicians claim that these mandates are in our best interests.  They are so concerned that we all be able to get health care when we need it and if we just leave it in their hands, we do not have to worry for they have it under control. 

They tell us our light bulbs are harming the environment so we must replace our inefficient incandescent bulbs with more dangerous CFL bulbs to save the planet.  They tell us our flush toilets are wasting precious water and that we need to replace them with toilets that use less water.  Of course they ignore the fact that all people do is flush twice so we must ask, are we really saving water?  They convince us that our big safe cars are harming the environment and that we need to endanger the lives of our families and ourselves by driving around in lighter weight less save vehicles.  Of course we are convinced that we will be safe because we are surrounded with air bags. 

With Obamacare, the fine levied on individual tax returns amounts to a wealth transfer through the tax code.  The employer mandate is also going to result in layoffs and the cutting of hours as employers struggle to stay in business.  (10) (11) In addition, companies with fewer than 50 employees are discouraged from expanding because they may go over the 50-employee minimum and be required to comply with the Obamacare mandates.  (12)

As we can see, eliminating these onerous mandates is crucial.  These mandates endanger the economy and the safety of individuals and their families.  These mandates are the result of legislation as is the case with Obamacare and executive orders as is the case with many EPA regulations.  Since Congress can repeal legislation and the President can rescind executive orders, can we now see the importance of elections?  We must have more conservatives in both houses of Congress and a conservative in the White House and begin unraveling this web of mandates. 

We must also urge our state legislatures and governors to begin resisting mandates placed on them by the leviathan of the Federal Government.  The Supreme Court left the door open for states to fight Obamacare by refusing to set up state exchanges. 

Mandates are a threat to our liberties.  We all work hard for our money and have the right to determine how we spend it.  However, mandates are determining what kind of light bulb we buy, how much water we can use when we flush our toilets, and what kind of car we drive.  Obamacare takes it one-step further by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance even if they do not want it or face a fine on their tax return.  Liberty is not saved by more government but by smaller less intrusive government.  It is time for conservatives to do more than talk, it is time for us to take action these next two elections and elect officials to office that will resist and reverse mandates. 

1. Hillsdale College. The Constitution of the United States of America. [book auth.] Hillsdale College. The U.S. Constitution: A Reader. Hillsdale MI : Hillsdale College Press, 2012.

2. Radnofsky, Jess Bravin and Louise. Court Backs Obama on Health Law. online.wsj.com. [Online] The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2012 . [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480371370927862.html?mod=e2tw.

3. Torrey, Trisha. Pre-Existing Conditions and the Affordable Care Act. patients.about.com. [Online] About.com, March 2013. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://patients.about.com/od/AffordableCareAct/a/Pre-Existing-Conditions-And-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm.

4. Jones, Susan. IG: IRS Targeted 100% With 'Tea Party' in Name; 30% With 'Progress' or 'Progressive' - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-irs-targeted-100-tea-party-name-30-progress-or-progressive#sthash.T2Z7b1RT.dpuf. cnsnews.com. [Online] CNS News, June 27, 2013. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-irs-targeted-100-tea-party-name-30-progress-or-progressive.

5. Heine, Debra. IRS Audited Some Churches For 'Being Political' While Others Were Encouraged To Be So. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart, June 15, 2013. [Cited: June 18, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/15/IRS-Audited-Some-Churches-For-Being-Political-While-Others-Were-Encouraged-To-Be-So.

6. Joseph, Dan. Expert Warns of Health Risks Associated With New Light Bulbs - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/expert-warns-health-risks-associated-new-light-bulbs#sthash.mfJYtsjn.dpuf. cnsnews.com. [Online] CNS News, March 11, 2011. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/expert-warns-health-risks-associated-new-light-bulbs.

7. WaterSense. Water - Efficient Toilets. www.epa.gov. [Online] United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/toilets.html.

8. Eilperin, Juliet. EPA issues new fuel-efficiency standard; Autos must average 54.5 mpg by 2025. articles.washingtonpost.com. [Online] The Washington Post, August 28, 2012. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-28/national/35490347_1_fuel-efficiency-fuel-standards-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-standards.

9. Bell, Larry. New Auto Fuel Economy Standards Will Regulate Us To Death. www.forbes.com. [Online] Forbes, August 16, 2011. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/16/new-auto-fuel-economy-standards-will-regulate-us-to-death/.

10. Book, Robert. Why Obamacare Incentivizes Part-Time Jobs. www.forbes.com. [Online] Forbes, December 3, 2012. [Cited: July 2013, 2013.] http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/12/03/why-obamacare-incentivizes-part-time-jobs/.

11. Tennant, Michael. Small Businesses Cutting Jobs, Hours to Save Themselves From ObamaCare. www.thenewamerican.com. [Online] NewAmerican, June 23, 2013. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/15785-small-businesses-cutting-jobs-hours-to-save-themselves-from-obamacare.

12. Sherk, James. Obamacare No Prescription for Hiring. www.nationalreview.com. [Online] National Review, July 20, 2011. [Cited: July 20, 2013.] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272342/obamacare-no-prescription-hiring-james-sherk.

Grievance 2: The Creation of a Permanent Cycle of Dependency and the Dependency Class.

Each one of us is familiar with dependency.  We come into this world helpless and depend on our parents to meet our basic needs.  As we grow older, we learn to take care of our basic needs and eventually we not only meet our basic needs but also begin our own families and meet the needs of our own children as well.  However, we all encounter times in our lives when we need some help from someone.  Perhaps we lose a job or have an unexpected emergency.  This is why our society has created a safety net and why we have charities, churches, and synagogues to help people out. 

Unfortunately, through the years the safety net created to help a person in need has expanded to where people permanently live in dependency on some form of government handout.  People permanently living on some form of handout are what I call the dependency class and my number 2 grievance with our government leaders is that they have not only allowed the expansion of the safety net, but use it to continue getting elected to office. 

The most shameful thing is that dependency has become generational.  In 1980 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaking about his sister said, “She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check.  That’s how dependent she is.  What’s worse is that now her kids feel entitled to the check too.  They have no motivation for doing better or getting out of that situation.” (1) Children learn from their parents and when the only thing children have seen is their parent’s dependency on some form of hand out, they do not develop the work ethic to move out of their situation and live trapped in a cycle of dependency. 

Elected officials have learned to use this cycle of dependency to continue in office promising to expand the handouts.  70 years ago when Sir William Beveridge argued for the creation of the welfare state, he only wanted to give the poor a hand up from the grim life they faced.  In his report, Sir Beveridge spoke of the five evil giants of society want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness.  We can only wonder what Sir Beveridge would say after seeing how his welfare state has created an idle dependent class.  (2)

Unfortunately, more and more people are becoming dependent on some form of government handout in our struggling economy.  The numbers of people receiving some form of government handout is increasing.  Food stamp use is up 39% under Obama and those on disability is up 13%.  (3) Unless we do something to get these individuals back to work in good paying jobs where they are able to provide for their basic needs, we will be expanding the next generation of children that only know about living on some form of government handout. 

Let me be clear, dependency is not evil for we all are dependent on others to some extent in our lives.  I am not good at working with my hands so when I need my car fixed or something repaired at my house, I usually have to depend on a professional to do the work.  However, this form of dependency differs from dependency on a government handout in that we are being dependent on someone with an area of expertise we lack.  In fact, this interdependence on each other creates opportunities for each of us to earn a living serving others that need our area of expertise. 

Long-term dependency on government handouts creates a selfish sense of dependency with recipients developing a sense of entitlement to other people’s money.  Since these recipients never have to meet those whose money they have become dependent on, they have zero accountability and become ungrateful for what they receive.  People that receive help from a private charity, church, or synagogue usually have accountability to the organization providing the assistance and thus have an incentive to get off the entitlement.  (4)

This separation of recipients from those paying the entitlements has created class warfare with recipients feeling entitled to the wealth of producers in society and producers losing their incentive to produce more because they fear the government will just take it and redistribute it.  Add to this the fact that the biggest victims of the welfare state are minorities, we also have a racial component in addition to class warfare.  (5)

There is a solution to this dilemma but it will not be easy because we have several generations that need to be educated on how to live free of government dependency.  One way is to place a limit on the period of time an individual can continue receiving government benefits from programs to which they did not contribute.  This exempts programs like Social Security and Medicare that individuals contribute to during their working productive years.  During this period of time we must begin the education process that not only assists these individuals in gaining the skills they will need to become productive but also teach them the benefits of not being dependent on the government for their basic needs. 

We can have individuals like Dr. Ben Carson or Justice Clarence Thomas who came out of poverty to excel teach them how to escape the cycle of dependency.  (6) (7) We can also outsource some of our entitlement programs to private charities, churches, and Synagogues where people will have some accountability.  It is my belief that once these individuals have a taste of success and being able to meet their own basic needs, they will not want to go back to dependency on government.  The resulting decrease in entitlement payments coupled with an increase in productive members in our society will begin decreasing deficits and return our nation to the position of greatness and innovation it once had. 

Sir Beveridge had good intentions with his vision of a safety net to give the poor a hand up.  However, politicians have taken his vision and created a permanent cycle of dependency in order to get votes and continue in office.  By placing limits on the length of time individuals can receive benefits, we will do away with individuals like Justice Thomas’s sister, nephews, and nieces who are idle and nonproductive due to receiving government benefits and move them into becoming productive members of society. 

1. Gordon, Nancy Fraser and Linda. A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State. www.clas.ufl.edu. [Online] Jstor, 1994. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/marilynm/Theorizing_Black_America_Syllabus_files/Genealogy%20of%20Dependency.pdf.

2. Humphrys, John. JOHN HUMPHRYS: How our welfare system has created an age of entitlement. www.dailymail.co.uk. [Online] Daily Mail, October 24, 2011. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052749/Our-Shameless-society-How-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html.

3. Hall, Wynton. FOOD STAMPS UP 39% UNDER OBAMA, DISABILITY UP 13%. FOOD STAMPS UP 39% UNDER OBAMA, DISABILITY UP 13%. [Online] Breitbart News, June 6, 2013. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/06/Food-Stamps-Up-39-Under-Obama-Disability-Up-13.

4. Devin, Yuvai. More Than Dependency. www.nationalreview.com. [Online] National Review, April 24, 2013. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/346517/more-dependency.

5. Noble, Sara. The U.S. Welfare State With Minorities the Biggest Victims. www.independentsentinel.com. [Online] The Independent Sentinel, January 27, 2012. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.independentsentinel.com/the-u-s-welfare-state-with-minorities-the-biggest-victims/.

6. Lord, Jeffery. Ben Carson: America's Doctor. Spectator.org. [Online] The American Spectator, February 15, 2013. [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.independentsentinel.com/the-u-s-welfare-state-with-minorities-the-biggest-victims/.

7. Biography.com. Clarence Thomas. Biography. www.biography.com. [Online] [Cited: July 16, 2013.] http://www.biography.com/people/clarence-thomas-9505658.

Grievance 1: The Expanding Administrative State

According to a White House advisor, the war is on.  I’m not talking about another war like the war in Iraq or Afghanistan for this war is being fought on our own soil.  What I am talking about is a war on coal.  (1)

President Obama has initiated the first shots in this new war by announcing new regulations on coal-fired power plants and the setting of a new condition for the approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline.  The most alarming thing about these new regulations is that the President is bypassing Congress in their implementation.  (2) These new regulations are a threat to jobs in coal rich states like West Virginia.

On July 9, 2013 witnesses testifying before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and said the following. 

“American coal, mined by American workers, generating revenue for the American treasury can and should be a part of their solution for the future. And yet, it appears to me that every opportunity for a coal miner to work is under attack from the Obama Administration. Coal has played an important role in the economic development and vitality of the United States – driving the industrialization of the western world – providing abundant, reliable and affordable energy. The Powder River Basin is that American story; it has and can continue to have the potential to do so well into the future,” said Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (CO-05).  (3)

“The biggest challenge we face is the attack by the current administration on the life blood of our community, our state and every family in this country that will have to make the difficult decision of feeding their family or paying exorbitant electricity charges because coal is no longer part of our national energy policy. Mining coal is part of the custom and culture of Wyoming, with the first mines opening in 1876 and having continuous production since that time. Multiple generations of Wyoming citizens have worked in the mines, paid for a college education or purchased a home with their wages from mining jobs. Coal miners are part of our state’s identity, and under the current administration, this way of life remains under attack, not only in Wyoming, but also in other states.” – Dan Coolidge, Chairman of the Campbell County Commissioners in Wyoming.  (3)

This testimony stresses the importance of coal in the generation of affordable energy that environmentalists for many years have hindered.  These environmentalists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have no interest in the generation of affordable energy.  The EPA through regulation has been controlling the energy policies of our nation for many years.  This is just one example of how agencies comprising the administrative alphabet soup within the bureaucracy of the government, and not elected officials, control government policy.  This constitutes an unelected and unconstitutional fourth branch of the United States Government that has major control over the lives of the people in our country. 

EPA regulations alone affect the price we pay for electricity and gas at the pump.  They also determine the kind of light bulb we can buy, (4) how many gallons of water we can use when we flush the toilet, (5) and the gas mileage in our automobiles.  Higher gas mileage requirements force auto manufacturers to make cars with lighter weight materials, resulting in smaller less safe automobiles.  (6)

This fourth branch of government is the creation of progressives and started under the Wilson administration 100 years ago.  It has continued to expand under Roosevelt’s New Deal, Johnsons Great Society, and now Obama’s hope and change.  However, other administrations have contributed to its expansion.  (7) In fact, Republican President Nixon formed the EPA, probably the most onerous of agencies in the administrative alphabet soup.  (8)

These administrative agencies receive funding through the Federal Budget determined by Congress and signed by the President.  They also receive additional funding through appropriations bills voted on by Congress.  The EPA also receives funds through fines it assesses on companies and individuals.  In other words, the EPA shakes down taxpayers, corporations, and individuals to fund regulations that harm taxpayers, corporations, and individuals. 

This is why I have made my first grievance shrinking and in some places eliminating the massive, expanding, unconstitutional, administrative state, which controls much of the daily activities of citizens in our country.  The fact that this administrative state has been in existence for 100 years means shrinking and dismantling it will be difficult but not impossible. 

According to Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., rolling back the administrative state involves:

• Restore transparent, formal rulemaking and end secretive regulation. By applying the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, Congress can restore the formal rulemaking process that was the norm until the 1970s. That requires formal and public evidence gathering, with an oral hearing presided over by an administrative law judge. It prohibits ex parte communications with the judge or other federal officials designated to preside over the hearing, making it much harder for special interests or politics to influence final rules. Contending parties would have the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and the record of the proceedings would have to be the basis of the regulatory decision.
  
  To trigger formal rulemaking, Congress would have to include the requirement in a statute creating a program. But by including it in an amendment to, say, last year’s health reform legislation, it could require formal rulemaking for all pending regulations for the entire act.
• Beef up congressional control of existing regulations. To reform the process, Representative Geoff Davis (R–KY) and Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) are sponsoring the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The REINS Act (H.R. 3765/S. 3826) would reverse the existing burden of action. Today Congress has to stop a rule; otherwise, it goes into effect. Under their bill, the House and Senate would have to affirmatively enact a bill embodying a major rule before it could be enforced.[4]
• Strengthen congressional oversight of informal rulemaking. For the bulk of federal rules, currently made through the informal process of notice and comment before final publication, tough congressional oversight into each agency’s rulemaking process would be a major constraint on bureaucratic power.
• Establish a Congressional Office of Regulatory Review. Congress could create a Congressional Office of Regulatory Review (CORR) modeled after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Like the CBO, the CORR would report on the estimated costs and impact of the federal regulatory authority embodied in bills that come before Congress. House and Senate rules could require a Regulatory Review score similar to the CBO score.
• The Administrative State and a Free Republic: Mutually Exclusive (9)

The administrative state needs money to function and since this it receives funding through Congress, elected officials can defund these programs.  Without money, these agencies will not be able to function and will die on the vine or curtailed. 

Elected officials need to create greater oversight of these administrative agencies and defund or eliminate those that are no longer necessary.  If the current group of elected leaders will not comply with our demands, be warned, we will replace you with those that will in the next election. 

1. Hall, Wynton. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: 'WAR ON COAL IS EXACTLY WHAT'S NEEDED'. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, June 25, 2013. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/25/White-House-Adviser-A-War-On-Coal-Is-Exactly-What-s-Needed.

2. Press, Associated. Obama orders new rules on coal-fired plants, sets condition for Keystone pipeline. www.foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News, June 25, 2013. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/obama-to-unveil-new-climate-regulations-as-adviser-pushes-war-on-coal/.

3. Committee on Natural Resources. Witnesses Highlight the Economic and Energy Benefits of Coal Mining in America . naturalresources.house.gov. [Online] Committee on Natural Resources, July 9, 2013. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=341835.

4. Baier, Bret. New Light Bulb Regulations. www.foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News, March 22, 2011. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/new-light-bulb-regulations.

5. Agency, Environmental Protection. WaterSense Specifications for Tank-Type Toilets. www.epa.gov. [Online] EPA. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/toilets.html.

6. Lieberman, Ben. New Vehicle Standards Mean High Priced and Unsafe Cars Americans Don’t Want. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, September 15, 2009. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/15/new-vehicle-standards-mean-high-priced-and-unsafe-cars-americans-don%E2%80%99t-want/.

7. Ph.D., Ronald J. Pestritto. The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government. www.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, November 20, 2007. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-birth-of-the-administrative-state-where-it-came-from-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government.

8. Wisman, Phil. EPA History (1970-1985). www.epa.gov. [Online] Environmental Protection Agency, November 1985. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15b.html.

9. Ph.D., Robert E. Moffit. How to Roll Back the Administrative State. www.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, February 17, 2011. [Cited: July 12, 2013.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/how-to-roll-back-the-administrative-state.

Speak Loudly and be Heard

One of the most frustrating things today is that no matter how much we email, call, or write our representatives, senators, or the White House, they seem to be hard of hearing.  On the other hand, maybe our government officials have selective hearing.  Whatever the case, it seems the principles of freedom and liberty are out of style at least where our government officials are concerned.   In fact, it seems we may be the only ones that still hold to the values of our founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence they authored. 

 However, according to a Rasmussen poll, 61 percent of Americans still consider Independence Day to be one of our nation’s most important holidays (1)  so we are not alone.  However, many of us may be afraid to speak up out of fear we may offend someone.  We also may believe speaking up is useless so why bother.  Many of us are also extremely busy in this sluggish economy just trying to make ends meet and may not believe we have the time to speak up or make a difference.  However, this is not the time to sit back and be a spectator.  If our founders were alive today I believe they would be using every tool at their disposal to get the message of freedom and liberty out to the masses. 

Hillsdale College encouraged us to read the Declaration of Independence this Fourth of July and I know many did.  As we read the declaration past the well-known preamble, we discover that the Colonists had many grievances with the British Crown and like us today, their grievances seemed to be falling in deaf ears.  The decision to go to war with the British Army was not one the Colonists came arrived at quickly.  They had exhausted every possibility and felt there was no other choice left but to go to war. 

Are we reliving history and in a pre-revolutionary state in our nation today?  Have we exhausted every possibility to save our country and keep us from going over the cliff as a nation?  Is it possible that the United States will have a coup similar to what we just witnessed in Egypt?  (2) It is impossible to accurately predict what could happen in the future but if our leaders continue to ignore the grievances of the citizens, anything is possible. 

However, we have something that the Colonists in 1776 did not have.  We are not living in a monarchy as the Colonists were and can elect new leaders that will listen to the people.  Liberal Progressive statists understand this, which is why they object to requirements to show ID when voting.  They know that the majority opinion in our nation goes against their progressive liberal ideas and want to insure they can rig elections in their favor. 

However, the Tea Party proved in 2010 that no matter how much liberal progressives attempt to rig the electoral process, we can achieve victory when we show up in massive numbers.  This is why the next two elections in 2014 and 2016 are critical.  This is not the time to be silent.

When we encounter someone hard of hearing, we have to speak loudly in order to be heard.  This is what we did in 2010 and the result was demoting Nancy Pelosi to minority leader in the House and taking away the super majority of Democrats in the Senate.  In 2014 we must increase the Republican majority in the House by not just electing more Republicans but electing more staunch conservatives to the House.  We also need to elect a true conservative speaker and demote Boehner to just one vote in the House.  We also need to elect staunch conservatives to the Senate and demote Harry Reid to minority leader.

We then need to take that momentum and elect a staunch conservative to the White House in 2016 by deciding on one candidate and rallying the conservatives to make sure that man or woman is nominated.  Let us call this our form of a peaceful coup that does not require the taking up of arms. 

For those who still believe this is a waste of time, I encourage you to look at an article in the Politico conceding that they believe immigration reform will die in the House.  (3) This was not the case until we the people began speaking loudly.  In fact, in a poll conducted by John McLaughlin’s group, 60 percent of Hispanics favor border security over amnesty.  (4) Maybe Hispanics know that there are more than just people from Mexico, who are looking for work, coming across our open border. 

In addition, we are also making progress in transforming the majority thinking on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life according to a recent Gallup poll.  (5) Of course the current mainstream media ignores polls like this one because it does not promote the pro-choice agenda they want to promote.  However, we are all part of the alternative media and can make our voices heard on social media and through our blogs.  We can also call into talk radio shows and let our voices be heard. 

To help this process along, I will be using the next few posts to list our grievances.  Please feel free to use what is in these posts plus the links I will provide when you communicate with representatives, senators, the White House, and friends and neighbors.  Do not be afraid if you offend someone for you are only interested in preserving his or her liberties as well as your own. 

It is true that these are trying times for our nation but we have been down this road before and came out victorious.  Let us make our Founding Fathers proud and preserve the freedoms and liberties they risked their lives for. 

1. Rasmussen, Scott. Americans Still Embrace the Spirit of '76 . m.rasmussenreports.com. [Online] Rasmussen Reports, 2013. [Cited: July 9, 2013.] http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/americans_still_embrace_the_spirit_of_76.

2. Simon, Roger L. Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th? nation.foxnews.com. [Online] Fox News. [Cited: July 2, 2013.] http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/02/america-pre-revolutionary-state-july-4th.

3. Lee, Tony. RIP: POLITICO CONCEDES IMMIGRATION REFORM WILL DIE IN HOUSE. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 9, 2013. [Cited: July 10, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/09/RIP-Politico-Concedes-Immigration-Reform-Will-Die-Slowly-in-House.

4. Boyle, Matthew. POLL: HISPANICS WANT BORDER SECURITY, INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT BEFORE AMNESTY. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Breitbart News, July 9, 2013. [Cited: July 10, 2013.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/09/Poll-Hispanics-Enforce-the-law-first-then-deal-with-legalization-in-any-immigration-package.

5. Anderson, Jeffery H. Gallup: More Americans Are Pro-Life than Pro-Choice. www.weeklystandard.com. [Online] the Weekly Standard, July 2, 2013. [Cited: July 10, 2013.] http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-more-americans-are-pro-life-pro-choice_738558.html.