Located in the Southeastern quadrant of the State, Wayne County is the largest in Michigan. As of the 2000 census, its population was 2,061,162. In July 2007, its population was estimated to have reached 1,985,101, making it the 13th most-populous county in the United States. The county seat is Detroit, the largest city in Michigan.
The county has a total area of 672 square miles,614 square miles of it is land and 58 square miles of it is water (including parts of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair). Wayne County borders on Oakland County and Macomb County to the north, Washtenaw County to the west, and Monroe County to the south.
The eastern (and sometimes southern) boundary is a water boundary in the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair with Essex County, Ontario, Canada. Automotive traffic crosses this boundary at the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge. Due to the change in direction of the river, this portion of Ontario actually lies south of Wayne County. Due to the direction ambiguity, the southern communities of the county are usually referred to as "Downriver". Grosse Ile is the largest island in Wayne County and is connected to the mainland by the Wayne County Bridge and the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge.
As the 112th Congress prepares to enter its 2011-2012 session, it appears that the "repeal", "reform" and "defund" message put forth by many Republican US House and Senate candidates from Michigan - and across the country - is only being applied to Health Care. For a number of years, the same grassroots activists and Tea Party members who joined with the Republican Party in 2010 to get true "conservative", "liberty-minded" candidates elected across the country and return the GOP to its conservative roots, have also advocated for the repeal of the US PATRIOT ACT, and its secret "intelligence gathering operations" perpetrated against unsuspecting US citizens.
One need only think back to the scandals that abounded when citizens learned that their Internet Providers and telephone companies were turning over their private records without benefit of legal warrants for cause. Or, remember when the practice of "secret" National Security Letters (NSLs) written by the FBI and served on citizens without benefit of judicial review was an issue? And will Tea Party members and other Conservative and Constitutional activists continue to be labeled "terrorists" because of their bumper stickers or signs? The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is written to protect against these abuses.
Therefore, based on the newly-found Tea Party and activist support of the GOP, it seems almost an embarassment, and surely a clear violation of conservative principles and individual liberty, that a Republican Congressman from Michigan, Mike Rogers (MI-8) should be the one to introduce the legislation that will extend the provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT, that are set to expire (sunset) shortly. Rogers, an ex-FBI agent, undoubtedly has a undying respect and admiration for the work done by these secret intelligence agencies, but one must wonder if he has taken into account what effect introducing such a bill could have on his future as a congressman? If the Republicans are truly looking for budget savings, defunding the USA PATRIOT ACT, and letting it sunset is a good start.
Because HR67 involves only a one-year extention, it appears the GOP may be setting this up as a campaign issue in 2012, one they are sure to lose among liberty-loving and conservative Republicans everywhere. It was under the Bush Administration that the USA PATRIOT ACT was developed and passed into law. Loyalty to past administrations and ideology has to end, and current and future loyalty to the people has to begin.......NOW!
Let Mike Rogers, and other Representatives and Senators from the Michigan delegation know how you feel about HR67, to extend the USA PATRIOT ACT for another year.
Many of us in the Liberty movement or "tea party" movement have advocated for our inclusion and/or acceptance into the modern Republican party. But how much do you really know about the "roots" of the Republicans?
Did you know that the Michigan GOP currently has no State Platform, and that we are to follow the National Platform adopted in 2008?
Here's a novel idea: Why don't we force the Republican Party (as duly elected delegates) to adopt the Constitution (including the 9th and 10th Amendments) as the official platform of the Republican Party? That way we can hold our elected representatives at both the national and state levels to adhere to their oaths of office.....or else.
This Act requires all persons (not just citizens) between the ages of 18-47 to register and serve a term of 2 years either in military service, or "voluntary" civilian service, male and female alike. It also reinstitutes the "draft", and puts command of all citizenry under the control of the President during a declared "National Emergency". My question: Aren't all "armed" citizens of Michigan already considered voluntary members of the unorganized Militia, under the control of our Governor? The term "militia" as the founders used it meant "armed citizenry".
Do the President and Congress really think they can force citizens to "volunteer" under threat of punishment? I, for one, will serve under my Governor, in defense of my State.
On Wednesday, Congressman Paul discussed the business cycle and government contributions to our economic turmoil at the Joint Economic Committee hearing.
What this proves is that collectivism ( which the 'left" supports) does not work. The founders embraced individualism, and by that means not one of us are the same or could be placed into a fictitious group.
The point should be made that you cannot have a nation that embraces a little liberty and a little tyranny. When you accept liberty, you accept the good as well as to tolerate the bad. Also, racism or any type of discrimination cannot be legislated away, a change in attitude must come from within the individual.
Dr. Paul simply made the point about the privacy of ownership. Does the government own what is in our heats and minds, our bodies, our homes, our businesses? Do we apply laws in one way when it suits us and hypocritically not when it does not suit us. Does an owner have the right to not serve a patron with a gun? Does an individual of dark skin, have the right not to serve a member of the kkk?
Would the simple answer just be to let the free markets decide that if the public does not agree with a private business owners decisions on how he/she runs their business, and to simply not frequent it, thus put them out of business?
One aspect of our imperfect system and laws are in this case while the civil rights act protected one "group", it took the fundamental rights (liberties) from another. This may not appeal to some and may not be the answer that you like, but would you rather deal with flaws in liberty or tyranny?
The implecation that because an individual disagrees with one aspect or application of the law, that somehow means they are against it in total, is cheap.
Dr. Paul showed some testicular fortitude in engaging this topic, but the moderator did not seem to be interested in a philosophical debate, just a "gotcha' interview. Very sad.
Comments made on Yahoo on February 20, 2009:
In the 1980's there was the Texas Savings & Loan Scandal. People paid too much for houses that had inflated appraisals. A lot of us lost thousands. I didn't know at the time that I was supposed to ask the US of A for a handout to make up for my stupidity at buying a house under those conditions.
This country has gone insane using hyper-credit to buy tons of things they can't afford. President Obama and his buddies (and way too many Republicans too) have grown up being taught that credit makes the economy go round. They think the answer to the current cancer of people living way beyond their means is to encourage MORE use of credit. That is not the cure but will worsen the situation. Any economy based on hyper-credit is not sustainable. We have been living on an artificial high and our drug has been credit.
Wake up America! Live within your means. Act your wage. Who really NEEDS that super-sized house? In this so-called recession people are still buying HUGE HD TV's and Halloween costumes for their pets. This isn't a recession. This is a nation of immature children walking around in adult bodies. "I want it NOW!"
What's the solution? Pay off your debt. Save up for what you truly need. Be responsible for the poor decisions that you have made in thinking you needed that large house or that it was an "investment". Give up the greed and grow up!
This country needs to stop borrowing money at both the personal level and as a country. President Obama, your so-called stimulus bill will CAUSE the catastrophe you hyped Congress about.
And by the way, Bernanke, Paulson, Greenspan and the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be jailed for the crimes against America they committed by encouraging the high use of credit and people buying homes they couldn't afford. This whole mess makes Enron look like a bit player.
It looks like the confirmation vote on the Fed Chairman (Bernanke) may be delayed past his term expiration of January 31. Due to the election in Massachusetts, the Senate Democratic Caucus is having a hard time finding the 60 votes necessary (cloture) to override the hold placed on Bernanke's nomination, and bring a confirmation vote to the floor of the Senate. One of the holds (DeMint) is contingent on bringing S 604 to a floor vote, so we may at least get to see Audit the Fed debated in the Senate. I think if the bill passes in the Senate, Barney Frank may be forced to bring HR 1207 out as a stand-alone bill. (This may be why we haven't seen Dr. Paul process a "discharge petition" to bring HR 1207 to the House floor for a vote) The loss of the 60-vote majority in the Senate has far more implications than just the Health Care Proposal.
We need to keep pounding Stabenow and Levin with calls and letters. Their ability to hear the voice of the people may have improved this week........
It occured to me that with over 7,000 members in our state alone, that many of you are professionals in one area or another.
That said, I would like to know who the jounalists, lawers, doctors, teachers ect. out there are. If we need to consult or search out someone of your expertice, then we have that available to us.
Also it might be nice that members use the businesses of other members, "keep it in the family" so to speak.
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.
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. [?]
Regional Coordinator
Local Coordinator
