"If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you."
Michigan is a Midwestern state of the United States of America. It was named after Lake Michigan, whose name is a French adaptation of the Ojibwe term mishigama, meaning "large water" or "large lake".
Michigan is the eighth most populous state in the United States. It has the longest freshwater shoreline of any political subdivision in the world, being bounded by four of the five Great Lakes, plus Lake Saint Clair. In 2005, Michigan ranked third for the number of registered recreational boats, behind California and Florida. Michigan has 64,980 inland lakes. A person in the state is never more than six miles (10 km) from a natural water source, or more than 87.2 miles (140.3 km) from the Great Lakes coastline.
Michigan is the only state to consist entirely of two peninsulas. The Lower Peninsula, to which the name Michigan was originally applied, is sometimes dubbed "the mitten," owing to its shape. When asked where in Michigan one comes from, a resident of the Lower Peninsula may often point to the corresponding part of his or her hand. The Upper Peninsula (often referred to as The U.P.) is separated from the Lower Peninsula by the Straits of Mackinac, a five-mile (8 km)-wide channel that joins Lake Huron to Lake Michigan. The Upper Peninsula is economically important for tourism and natural resources.
Michigan was the 26th state to join the Union on January 26, 1837.
To find which Congressional District you live in, checkHERE (PDF)
2 days and nights, $60 (meals included) The Leadership Institute’s flagship school, nicknamed “the boot camp of politics,” provides you with effective techniques to organize and lead massbased youth efforts for candidates and causes of your choice.
The Youth Leadership School has launched more successful political careers than any other Leadership Institute training program.
Topics covered include:
Building an effective student organization
Getting out the vote
Earned media (favorable publicity)
Developing a public relations strategy
Launching a successful career in politics
This school is held on college campuses across the country and at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia.
Amidst all the chatter about the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty, including Adam's recent C4L blog on the same subject, I did a little research to determine if a treaty does indeed become the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Article VI, cl 2 of the Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) that one must give effect to every word and phrase. The clause does NOTsay, "Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land." Instead it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
Therefore, a Treaty becomes part of the supreme Law of the Land ONLY if it is made "under the Authority of the United States". That authority comes from where?..........the Constitution.
If the Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to act on a subject, the Treaty is not "Law" - it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. (Federalist No. 33, 6th para) Because the Constitution is fundamental law (Federalist No. 78, para 10-11) it is the Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, and all judicial decisions is measured (Federalist No. 78, para 9)
For example, in Federalist No. 44, James Madison said that a "treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State":
"...as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others."
Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect.
Also,
In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise -- Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408
Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. -- Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 The Supreme Court, in Reid v Covert (1957) has declared that neither a treaty approved by the Senate nor an executive agreement made under the President's authority "can create obligations that violate constitutional guarantees" such as found in the Bill of Rights. [He still does not have enough progressive Supremes to overturn this]
Treaties were clearly meant to be used to undo that for which they do have authority, such as Peace Treaties.
It looks like our unalienable rights enumerated in the 9th and 10th Amendments are still precedent. Nowhere in the Constitution did the People grant to Congress, the Senate, or the Executive, the authority to control our atmosphere, our weather, or the very air we breathe. Nor were they granted power to govern over the means of production (energy and/or labor).
I think the bigger problem for Obama is his clear violation of the Constitution (Art 1, Sec 9) which states:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or Foreign State."
Obama is the first sitting President to accept the Office of President, United Nations Security Council, which is comprised of many Foreign States.
The United Nations Charter does not hold sovereign Nations to any agreements and/or treaties that would violate their individual Constitutions.
MIchigan State University's Young Americans for Liberty will be co-hosting an event along with Students for a Free Economy. This event will host Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) who will speak to those in attendance as well as those tuning in through a "Live Webcast".
In a state that has two Senators on board with "Obamacare", Mr. Tanner will enlighten those in a attendance as well as those viewing over the internet to a consistent and logical dialogue regarding healthcare reform.
Michael Tanner from the Cato Institute will be speaking at Dublin Square Irish Pub, 327 Abbot Rd. East Lansing, MI at 7:00 pm on October 28. He will be speaking on “The Obamacare to Come: Health Care Reform, Free Markets, and You!”. There will be time for Q&A and a reception following. Please join us in adding dialogue to the health care debate!
Michael Tanner is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute where he heads research into a variety of domestic policies with a particular emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security. He is the author of 4 books including Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It published in 2007. Tanner's writings have appeared in nearly every major American newspaper, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. A prolific writer and frequent guest lecturer, Tanner appears regularly on network and cable news programs. Before joining Cato in 1993, Tanner served as director of research of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation and as legislative director for the American Legislative Exchange Council.
If you have any questions about the event, please contact me at sfe@mackinac.org.
If you are unable to come to either Northwood University or Dublin Square for the event with Michael Tanner, I would highly encourage you to attend virtually! Tomorrow, Oct. 27 beginning at 6:55 pm, we will be broadcasting the talk LIVE. Just tune intohttp://www.ustream.tv/channel/michigansfe and you can watch the entire presentation from start to finish!
Hope to see you there in person or online!
PS We will be accepting Q&A from online viewers as well as in person viewers. Be sure to watch and have your questions ready!
Our Right to Life endorsed Congressman, Bart Stupak says that while he is “leading the charge” to prevent any health care reform from using tax payer funds for abortion, if health care reform legislation makes it to the floor of the U.S. Congress and includes public funding for abortions, he will support it.
Stupak was asked at a recent 1st district town-hall meeting held in Cheboygan Michigan, that if his attempts to get public funding for abortion removed from the health care bill are unsuccessful, if he would still vote yes for the bill. And his answer to the disappointment of the crowd was: “If I had a chance to vote my conscience I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the health care bill at the end of the day.”
Principles only have value when people stick to them. Why does Stupak feels it necessary to cooperate with a bill that goes against his principles?
Check out the video below:
The video was shot at a Cheboygan town hall meeting Oct. 23, and was presented by the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry.
“If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could.”
-Bart Stupak
How can someone say they support the right to life, and at the same time vote for public funded abortion? Let’s not forget that Bart stated recently in a letter he sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that any health care reform bill that contained provisions to fund abortion would be “unacceptable”.
Not to mention that the “Hyde Amendment” makes allocating tax-payer funds for abortion illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment, there shouldn’t even be a debate about public-funded abortion!
In a way this health care bill is a good thing though, it’s forced Bart and many other so-called “Pro-Life Democrats” to actually take a stand for once. They can no longer play both sides of the table and get away with it. They’ve been all talk up to this point, but now that they’re forced to actually pick a side, we’ll finally be able to see who the true believers are, and those who choose to be pro-life simply because it’s convenient for them.
On the surface, Stupak has some genuine pro-life credentials based on his voting record, the problem is up until this point there has been no real test to prove his devotion to the right to life cause. In the face of real opposition his devotion wavers, he is no longer the champion of Right to Life that he has assured us he is, he is quite plainly, a politician.
“I offered an amendment that says no public funding for abortion that’s been the law of the land for many many decades and we lose that vote. Let’s say we lose that vote– we need 218 to win–let’s say we get 217 and we lose. Would I vote against health care? If I had a chance to vote my conscience I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the health care bill at the end of the day.”
-Bart Stupak
The Michigan Right to Life’s endorsement of Stupak is a disgrace to pro-lifers around the country. Stupak in his 2004 campaign was also endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee. It’s a shame to think that the Michigan Right to Life may be partly culpable in establishing taxpayer funded abortions nationwide, thanks a lot, we trusted you.
If Stupak votes for the public funding of abortion he not only throws out his entire pro-life voting record, he throws out his constituent’s trust as well.
Public-funded abortion is illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, and unacceptable.
We need to replace Stupak as soon as possible with someone who is willing to take a “no compromise” stand against abortion.
Ron Paul delivered several excellent H1N1 panic-dispelling points in his most recent video.
The most damning to health care reform, and socialism in general?
September reports from the government promised the public 120 million H1N1 vaccines by mid October. Here we are approaching November and only about 12 million have been available to administer.
That's just 10% what the government originally promised. But par for the course for the Obama administration.
Of course, there is likely much more to this story than is being let on - but this fact alone inherently begs the question...
Do you want 10% grade health care? Would you be able to handle a delay in your vaccine or medication? Would you survive the waiting list for surgery? Would the underpaid doctor be qualified or concerned enough to not make a permanent mistake, for which you could not sue?
Americans need to realize this will be the reality socialized health care brings. In other words, a serious downgrade in quality of life, liberty, and happiness. All the feel-good propaganda they can create won't make up for the devastation all Americans will feel as government destroys individual autonomy and effectively owns our bodies. When God gave US our bodies!
Let's face it, this health care scheme is 100% evil and God's people are being called to defeat it with love. (See herehereherehere and here for starters)
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
